Tank sits in Hama, Syria_311.
(photo credit: REUTERS)
On May 20, two months after Syrian President Bashar Assad began
slaughtering protesters in his country, Human Rights Watch (HRW) hired a
Jordanian journalist, Hani Hazaimeh, to translate witness and victim
accounts of Assad’s atrocities. At first glance, this would appear to be
an unremarkable example of an NGO doing its job. Even though Hazaimeh
was from outside the organization, HRW believed he was its best option
to record Syrian abuses.
However, this predicament of having no
trained professionals to turn to raises an important question: How is it
that two months after citizen-protesters were being murdered – not to
mention decades of severe repression of the worst kind – “one of the
world’s leading independent organizations” did not have assets in place
for investigations? Despite nearly 50 years of police-state repression
and emergency law, HRW had to resort to a last-minute, inexperienced
outsider to record human rights brutalities.
AND SYRIA is not an
isolated incident. Since the Arab spring began at the end of 2010, HRW
has quickly expanded to cover violations in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere.
lack of preparation, foresight and capacity is obvious. Indeed, the
international media have relied entirely on local activists; as a source
of information, HRW is entirely irrelevant. As HRW’s Fred Abraham
stated: “The west of Libya is a black hole.... we have no idea what’s
In Syria, HRW’s inadequacy is not new. Last July, HRW published a report
titled “A Wasted Decade” covering 10 years of research on human-rights
violations in Syria in just 35 pages. The thinness of the report was
matched by the weak recommendations.
The report, directed exclusively to President Assad: recommended a
limited response: to enact, amend, introduce and remove a variety of
laws, and to set up commissions. To alleviate restrictions on freedom of
expression, HRW urged Assad to “stop blocking websites.” In a
contemporaneous op-ed article, “Syria’s decade of repression” (The
Guardian, 16 July 2010), HRW researcher Nadim Houry concludes with
gentle prodding of Assad: “his legacy will ultimately depend on whether
he will act on the promises” of reform he made upon taking office.
“Otherwise, he will merely be remembered for extending his father’s...
government by repression.”
In other words, HRW was content to be a spectator throughout much of
Assad’s brutal reign. Now, as Syrian citizens are murdered by his
forces, HRW has no infrastructure in place to aid them in leading the
But if HRW did not invest in the closed and repressive society of Syria,
what were its priorities? As dictated by the agenda of the
organization’s Middle East and North Africa (MENA) division, the
priority was Israel. For example, while HRW released 51 documents in
2010 on “Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories,” it released
12 about Syria. Israel also had three “single country reports,” compared
to the very short single one for Syria.
2009 was even worse. By May, HRW had spent its entire Middle East budget
making more false allegations of Israeli “war crimes,” and promoting
the Goldstone façade. In a fundraising trip to that bastion of civil
liberties and human rights – Saudi Arabia – MENA director Sarah Leah
Whitson highlighted HRW’s attacks on Israel in her pitch for funds.
MENA’S WARPED agenda also manifested itself vis-à-vis Libya. In 2009,
Whitson befriended the regime, claiming to have discovered a “Tripoli
spring.” She praised Muammar Qaddafi’s son Seif Islam as a leading
reformer, and for creating an “expanded space for discussion and
This friendship was reflected in HRW’s scarce reporting on Libya in 2010; HRW produced 19 documents on the totalitarian regime.
Now, as Moammar Gaddafi continues to murder Libyan citizens, HRW has no
mechanisms in place to seriously support those fighting for freedom.
These double standards were emphasized by HRW founder Robert Bernstein,
who stated that the plight of the citizens of repressive Arab regimes
“who would most benefit from the kind of attention a large and
well-financed international human-rights organization can provide is
being ignored as Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division prepares
report after report on Israel.”
The ideological component compounds other factors. As an HRW board
member admitted in a magazine interview, “they go after Israel because
it’s like ‘low-hanging fruit.’” Israel’s open society gives free, safe
access, allowing HRW to generate reports on the conflict.
Additionally, until the violence of the Arab spring, the Arab-Israeli
conflict was the number-one regional issue in terms of media attention.
HRW, seeking publicity, tailored its output to increase its media
presence instead of thinking strategically about where its resources
would do the most good.
Just like Assad’s regime, HRW “wasted a decade” in Syria and in other closed societies.
The question is whether HRW will also undergo a necessary revolution,
and restructure its Middle East division to ensure that decades of
brutalities are never again ignored.
The writers are president and managing
editor of NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based research institution dedicated
to promoting universal human rights and to encouraging civil discussion
on the reports and activities of nongovernmental organizations.