Human Rights Watch and hate
rituals
posted to www.marxmail.org on May 3, 2003
Although I have referred to Joanne Landy's membership in the
Council of Foreign Relations in the course of my critique of Cuba petition #2,
it is worth considering her membership in another organization whose reputation
is far better at least at first blush. I refer to Human Rights Watch, where she
served on the Helsinki committee for most of the 1990s.
Some background on HRW would be useful, especially the
Helsinki connection. Before there was a Human Rights Watch, there was something
called the Helsinki Watch Committee that eventually turned into HRW. The
Helsinki Watch Committee was formed in 1978 to monitor the Helsinki Accords, an
agreement between the major superpowers over some basic human rights
guarantees. It was a product of the Jimmy Carter presidency that sought to
deploy a velvet glove of human rights concealed around the iron fist of US
imperialism.
The Helsinki Watch Committee was the brainchild of Robert L.
Bernstein, the president of Random House. Bernstein was constantly running into
difficulties with the Soviet government over his efforts to build ties with
high-profile dissidents such as Andrei Sakharov and Natan Sharansky and was
denied a visa to take part in the Moscow Book Fair at one point. Now only the
most cynical would conclude that Bernstein had a material interest in
establishing such ties, since they eventually led to lucrative book deals with
these author/dissidents.
Bernstein worked closely with Jeri Laber, the long-time
executive director of Helsinki Watch and author of a recent Washington Post
op-ed urging the smuggling of computers and other resources into Cuba on behalf
of the anti-Communist opposition. Shortly after receiving a MA degree in
Russian Studies from Columbia University, she became interested in human rights
issues after reading an article about torture in 1973. She is the author of
"The Courage of Strangers", a memoir of her involvement with HRW. She
is also the co-author of the Fannie Farmer Cookbook.
For most of the left, especially those coming out of a
Trotskyist background, Human Rights Watch appeared to be on the side of the
angels. When George Shriver, translator of Bukharin's "How it All
Began", and Marilyn Vogt-Downey, translator of Mikhail Baitalsky's
"Notebooks for the Grandchildren: Recollections of a Trotskyist Who
Survived the Stalin Terror", were in the formerly Trotskyist Socialist
Workers Party in the 1970s, they found themselves speaking out for the same
individuals championed by Bernstein and Laber, especially Sakharov. However,
they did not take the next step and actually join HRW, as did Joanne Landy, a
figure connected to New Politics. Unlike the SWP, New Politics did not consider
Soviet society to be progressive vis-à-vis American capitalism. Hence, the
decision to join an openly anti-Communist group like HRW probably came a lot
easier.
On first blush, HRW seems to be cut from the same cloth as
Amnesty International, an NGO that is dedicated to the rights of political
prisoners worldwide. Unlike Amnesty, as Diana Johstone points out in
"Fool's Crusade", HRW can barely be described as
"non-governmental". Prominent HRW members include Morton Abramowitz,
a former undersecretary of state, Warren Zimmerman and Paul Goble, director of
Radio Free Europe.
Once HRW achieved its goal of helping to rid the USSR and
Eastern Europe of totalitarian communism and establish bourgeois democracy, it
was able to focus on other areas where enemies of human freedom held sway. But
there was one holdover from the bad old days of Stalinism that held sway,
namely Yugoslavia. HRW and its Vienna-based International Helsinki Federation
for Human Rights went after the Belgrade government with a vengeance.
On September 18, 1997, HRW issued a long statement
announcing *prior* to the Yugoslav elections that they would be "neither
free nor fair". Anticipating their more recent denunciation of the Cuban
government, HRW claimed that new laws were required to level the media playing
field. To the contrary, Yugoslavia had a far more open media than the USA could
have dreamed of. As of June 1998, there were 2,319 print publications and 101
radio and TV stations in Yugoslavia, over twice the number that existed in
1992. Belgrade alone had 14 daily newspapers. Six of them were state-backed
with a joint circulation of 180,000, compared to 350,000 for the 7 leading
opposition dailies.
As I once pointed out, the liberal campaign to demonize
Yugoslavia had many of the same characteristics as the conservative campaign
against Nicaragua. In either case, stereotypes drawn from the Stalinist era
were superimposed on societies with a mixed economy and much more freedom than
in the imperialist countries that sought to destabilize them.
When HRW claimed that minority rights were not being
respected in Yugoslavia, it did not bother to acknowledge the 1992
constitution, which guaranteed extensive rights to several national minorities,
including the Albanians. In Kosovo, the right to education in one's mother
tongue and the right to use it in judicial and administrative proceedings was
not only upheld but also widely exercised.
In a March 1998 column, Aaron Rhodes, executive director of
the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights claimed that Albanians
in Kosovo were living under conditions "similar to those suffered by Jews
in Nazi-controlled parts of Europe just before WWII." It was this kind of
hyperbolic incendiary language that paved the way for NATO's war against
Yugoslavia.
The "liberation" of Yugoslavia will certainly
result in the same conditions that obtained elsewhere in the former Soviet
bloc: unemployment, declining health and education indicators, rising drug
addiction and alcoholism, mass emigration and prostitution.
Having seen such transformations, is it any wonder that Cuba
refuses to open itself up to human rights imperialism of the kind that helped
to ravage Eastern Europe? In Cuba as elsewhere, the duty to change society is
up to the people living in that country. An NGO like Human Rights Watch, which
has a budget of $19.5 million per year, can really throw its weight around when
it wants to. If you go to the latest HRW annual report at:
http://www.hrw.org/annual-report/2002.pdf, you get a flavor of how it is
funded. Major contributors include: ABC, Reebok, Coca-Cola, Warner Brothers and
other corporations with a peerless human rights track record.
I want to conclude on what might seem like controversial
note to some, especially those who might have read my posts arguing that Cuba
is democratic as tantamount to the kind of apologetics deployed on behalf of
the Moscow Trials a generation ago. Namely, I would argue that Cuba has a much
more lenient attitude toward political expression than any other country in
Latin America during its 44 year existence. While a country like Mexico might
have the reputation for openness, it proved capable of shooting student
demonstrators in cold blood in 1968--something that Cuba has never done.
The high-profile political prisoner cases that have served
to stigmatize Cuba in liberal circles more often than not are about *action*
rather than thought. In Julian Schnabel's "Before Night Falls," you
would get the impression that Reynaldo Areinas was punished for advocating
democratic rights and tolerance toward gays. In reality as John Hilson points
out in a review of the film (http://www.blythe.org/bnf.html), Areinas ran afoul
of the authorities for basically the same reason as the group that has just
received lengthy prison sentences. He collaborated with foreign governments.
Probably the best-known political prisoner, at least
so-described in the bourgeois media, is Armando Valladares, who wrote
"Against All Hope" and who was usually referred to as "the poet
in the wheelchair". After he was released from prison, Reagan appointed
him to the UN Human Rights Commission. What the liberal press failed to mention
was the circumstances of his imprisonment: he had been tried and convicted of
participating in a counterrevolutionary gang that carried out terrorist
bombings in the early years of the revolution.
Sometimes the truth leaks out. In an October 26, 1994
statement, Human Rights Watch admitted that most "political
prisoners" in Cuba were guilty not of writing leaflets demanding the
reintroduction of private property, but trying to leave the country illegally!
>>Cuba's criminalization of "illegal exit from
the country" violates international law, which recognizes the right of all
people to leave any country, including their own. People attempting to leave Cuba have been shot at sea and beaten,
and Cubans apprehended while fleeing face prison terms of one to three years,
longer if they are found to have aided or abetted the departure of others or
used stolen materials in their escape attempt. Cubans convicted of the crime of
"illegal exit" are believed to constitute the largest class of
political prisoners in Cuba.<<
Full: http://makeashorterlink.com/?L2F222F64
Of course, the easiest way to cut down on the number of
political prisoners in Cuba is not by signing petitions circulated by leftists
who served on the Council of Foreign Relations and HRW, but by pressing the USA
to relax its immigration laws. Right now, Cuba would love nothing better than
to allow anybody who wants to leave the country to do so. But the USA refuses
to allow this. It would much prefer for people to come to Miami in leaky boats,
as Elian Gonzalez and his mother and boyfriend did. The spectacle of such
flights helps to demonize Cuba as a totalitarian dungeon that normal people
would flee.
In general, Cuba will become freer when the USA becomes less
repressive. No amount of petition-signing will change Cuban policy. The people
who sign such petitions are acting out of a kind of moral and political
narcissism. It is their way to demonstrate to polite bourgeois society that
they are not dirty Stalinists like Ramsey Clark and the Workers World Party. It
is a gesture that can only be likened to the "two minutes of hate"
that were ritualized in Orwell's 1984. With Saddam Hussein no longer available
on television screens to unify the American people with their Leader, a new
villain becomes necessary. Whether it is Fidel Castro or North Korean leader
Kim Jung-il, the ritual continues. It is up to people of good conscience not to
participate in such rituals of hate.