Article

2004-01-26 Iraq

Iraq War Not Humanitarian, Human Rights Watch Says

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2004-01-26 12:40:03 PM|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 HRW is an excellent source of data on actual on the ground events wrt human rights violations, etc. Going beyond that to questions of international law and strategy is not their forte.

I suspect they are afraid the next time there is a Rwanda or Kosovo, an ongoing immediate genocide, and they call for intervention, lefties will say "ha, ha, stooges for right wing americans" and so they are trying to distance themselves from the admin using Human rights to justify the invasion.

The best way to show that the admin is NOT just using HR to cover up a missing WMD embarassment, would be to make HR a more central part of admin policy, from China to Uzbekistan to Azerbaijan to Russia to Saudi to Colombia.

Posted by liberalhawk 2004-1-26 1:05:53 PM|| 2004-1-26 1:05:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Yes, all we needed to do was sit back and let HRW's great plan to take effect. Their plan in detail:

Wait for Saddam to die.

Wait for Qusay and Uday to die.

Pray something happens in the meantime.

Very similar to my 8-ball strategy (leave most of my balls on the table to obstruct my opponent and hope he scratches on the 8).

Posted by Dar 2004-1-26 1:07:44 PM|| 2004-1-26 1:07:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Remind me the exact moments when the left decided not to care about genocide any more?

They ever cared?

LH: The administration made human rights part of the argument from day one; the anti-war nuts made a habit of responding to any list of reasons for removing Saddam with whines about the administration "not making up their minds" and "coming up with new excuses".

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-1-26 1:38:14 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-1-26 1:38:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 I guess HRW didn't interview any of the child prisoners.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-1-26 1:39:56 PM|| 2004-1-26 1:39:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 LH: here's Mr. Roth's position in a nutshell: if a genocidal dictator murders a whole lot of people and the world doesn't respond in a "timely" manner, then the dictator is off the hook.

Because we didn't respond to the 1988 massacre of the Kurds right away, Saddam was entitled to be left alone.

I hope everyone sees the fallacy of that, and wonders how an organization dedicated to human rights could say such a thing.

Posted by Steve White 2004-1-26 1:42:14 PM|| 2004-1-26 1:42:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Because they're not. Dedicated to human rights, that is. They're dedicated to fund raising, getting quoted by reporters, and fluffing themselves up to be important.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-1-26 1:55:33 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-1-26 1:55:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 excuse me gentlemen, but HRW has been and continues to be a VERY important source for information with regard to Saddam, and elsewhere as well. They will continue to be important. Simply dissing them is not useful.
That they are wrong about the morality and strategy of war does not alter that.

RC's first comment is correct, I suppose - the difference is more a matter of emphasis - IIRC speakers like Powell and even Bush emphasized the atrocities against the Kurds more to make the point that here was a man who WOULD use WMD, than as a rationale for the war on its own. While Wolfie and others indicated a human rights rationale, that was certainly not the center of the case (for many reasons) In any case I think its not at all unreasonable to expect that HRW wants to distance itself from a controversial action taken based on their info.

Posted by liberalhawk 2004-1-26 2:20:54 PM|| 2004-1-26 2:20:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 LH: Who said it was HRW's info? The US government has many ways of getting information besides a private organization. Spies, satellites, Iraqi refugees, intercepted radio transmissions, and more are all used to draw the overall picture.

Sure, HRW is a good source for information. However, if they continue to move towards left of center, then how long before they start ommiting important details or just plain out lying? How long before they become the NYT of the Humanitarian organizations?

I don't care if they critisize Bush. What I do care about is them belittleing the genocides of Saddam just to take a pot-shot at our current Administration. If they had said " Look, Bush did the may have stopped an evil dictator from killing more people, but it was wrong because," and then explain it. That would have been find. But HRW has in this statement dismissed the lives of over 500,000 people who were murdered as trivial.

That is what most of us are pissed about.

Posted by Charles 2004-1-26 3:03:24 PM|| 2004-1-26 3:03:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 In any case I think its not at all unreasonable to expect that HRW wants to distance itself from a controversial action taken based on their info.

Yeah, gotta admire a "human rights" organization distancing itself from the ending of government-run rape squads.

Sorry, LH, but HRW is simply wrong on this. They're taking this position not to protect any of their field workers (third world dictators regard them all as spies, regardless of the positions taken by their parent organizations), but to protect their funding base.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-1-26 3:07:56 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-1-26 3:07:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 1. HRW as source - in some case HRW does its own independent work IIUC. Secondly, they have credibility around the world that - lets face it - the US govt doesnt have - and thats not a knock on Bush, it was true under Clinton as well.

2. I didnt say they were right. I think they ARE wrong, but there position is still understandable. Prior to Kosovo, it was more or less settled international law that internal matters of a state, even genocide, were not Casus Belli. Some folks, including Michael Walzer, and I think HRW, wanted to push Int Law to allow for intervention to stop imminent genocide. This became urgent after Rwanda. In Kosovo NATO effectively went on record in favor of this change, and did so without the approval of the UNSC. It is thus an emerging principle of international law, and still a shaky one.

Now I, as much as anyone would like to see a MUCH broader view of genocide as Casus Belli. And a much more severe limitation of the rights of ANY non-democracy under international law. And i certainly see nothing wrong with the Bush admin pushing such a broad interpretation, especially given that the HR argument is coupled with the grand strategic need to transform the region, and the still valid WMD concerns (a. JIT WMDs, B. WMD programs in violation of UNSC 1441, etc. C. Whatever else comes out) However HRW is coming from a different place - they see a world where even the Kosovo justification - an ongoing genocide - still has shaky status under international law - and tying themselves to the Bush admin would undermine their influence in any future arguments. Lets face it - there ARE going to be future genocides in the world, and at least some will be in places where the US has NO Strategic interest in getting involved, and is not eager to do so. At that point HRW will be a lonely voice calling for intervention, and they want to maximize their credibility in such a case. Not having supported the US may well make them more credible.

Posted by liberalhawk 2004-1-26 3:56:38 PM|| 2004-1-26 3:56:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 LH - I'm not buying it. It's a fact that GWB has liberated more people than any "human rights" org, but will never be given credit for it. HRW's "world-wide credibility"? Puhlease!

Posted by Frank G 2004-1-26 4:05:48 PM|| 2004-1-26 4:05:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 credibility

Look, i come here cause i dont like the left wing echo chambers - but sometimes this place is an echo chamber of a different kind. You may not like it, and I may not like it, but liberating Iraq is NOT seen as something that gives Bush credibility in most countries in the world - now there are many reasons for that, from geopolitics, to ignorance, to antisemitism and antiamericanism, etc. But its a fact that HRW among others has to live with. Its all very well to sit here and post or blog about how great GWB is - you dont run an organization that needs to be able to influence public opinion in France and Germany and Belgium and Canada as WELL as in the US, Israel, Australia and the UK. I mean thats reality folks. And unlike some other organizations that might invoke the same considerations, HRW has actually done some good in the world - INCLUDING in Iraq, where HRW has provided evidence that I at least, have cited in forums much less friendly to US policy than this one.

Posted by liberalhawk 2004-1-26 4:13:47 PM|| 2004-1-26 4:13:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Yeah, it's so much more important for them to protect their reputation among bigots and thugs than to state the truth.

Sorry, LH, but HRW is doing this to keep in good graces with the anti-American bigots (and some of them hold US citizenship) that fund them. And, honestly, I'm amazed that liberating millions of people from a "government" with official rape squads and torture chambers on every block is considered anything but a good thing. If the rest of the world doesn't like it, well, the rest of the world be damned.

That the "human rights" community prefers to damn the US than to tell the truth is a sad comment on what "human rights" means today.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-1-26 4:26:04 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-1-26 4:26:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Re: credibility, I feel by not supporting the invasion HRW--along with France, Germany, and Russia, among others--has LOST credibility. This was an opportunity for the world to tell dictators globally and perennially that we have had enough and we are going to take you down!

I can't count how many times I saw "Nie Wieder!" ("Never again!") scrawled on walls and buildings in Germany when I was there years ago, and yet it has happened again and again and again! They should have scrawled "Immer Wieder!" instead since Germany and the bulk of "Old Europe" can't be bothered to stop it.

GWB may be one of the most controversial and hated political personas of our time, but so was Lincoln in his day. I dare say that GWB will be held right up there with Lincoln among the great presidents someday for what he has done to liberate a people and fight a bitter battle--and, like FDR unfortunately, to have given us taxpayers an even bigger and bloated government.

Does HRW believe its mission is important, but not important enough to make sacrifices to achieve it? Or are they content to point out the cancer yet criticize the surgeon who removes it?

Posted by Dar 2004-1-26 4:39:51 PM|| 2004-1-26 4:39:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Too bad Uday is not still alive to give the HRW folks a personal demonstration of his humane plastics/people shredder. (Another dual use device.) Meanwhile, the well known humanitarian, Qusay, could romance the female members of HRW.
What were these people thinking?

Posted by Gasse Katze 2004-1-26 5:18:38 PM|| 2004-1-26 5:18:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 liberalhawk:

I know where your heart is at--I know that you believe what you say. But I think you've gotten swept away by semantic parsing of the language, and have basically boxed yourself into arguing that the "credibility" of this organization is more important than 1) the lives lost; and 2) the *principle* that brutal dictatorships that destroy and discard lives must be brought down.

Please, rethink how much value you place on this concept of "credibility".

Posted by Flaming Sword 2004-1-26 5:51:43 PM|| 2004-1-26 5:51:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Dar> "This was an opportunity for the world to tell dictators globally and perennially that we have had enough and we are going to take you down!"

Nonsense. The whole "war on terror" was never an opportunity to tell dictators such a thing, given how there still existed brutal dictators that supported US in this war.

You can't have it both ways -- if brutal dictators like that of Uzbekistan support such a war, then this war obviously can't be one that opposes the idea of brutal murdering dictatorships.

Or are you perhaps, Dar, in favour of the invasion of Uzbekistan on the basis of humanitarian reasons?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-1-26 7:10:56 PM|| 2004-1-26 7:10:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Aris:

From one site I visited about Uzbekistan: "Current concerns include terrorism by Islamic militants, a nonconvertible currency, and the curtailment of human rights and democratization."

A short answer: We don't have to overthrow them all (some will topple because of what we've already done), nor do we have to be everywhere all at once--your argument is merely a distraction from the central point of this discussion (Iraq).

Posted by Flaming Sword 2004-1-26 7:56:08 PM|| 2004-1-26 7:56:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Aris and Flaming Sword, it's worth noting that Uzbekistan is on the right side of the WOT and does receive military aid from the US (not a great deal).

With regrads to the massacres conducted by SH, I do not recall a huge international uproar by western governments following the gassing of the Kurds (the left didn't do much either).

With regards to the massacres of the Shia moslems following GW1, didn't the US Administration encourage the population to rise against SH with the implied belief that they will help any such action?

Posted by Igs 2004-1-26 8:33:43 PM|| 2004-1-26 8:33:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 After some more thought about this, I think this isn't just the normal "human rights" industry anti-American throat-clearing, but their attempt to deal with a damaging criticism: Why was Kosovo OK, but Iraq not?

This is their answer: Kosovo was good because genocide was actively happening; Iraq was bad because the death squads were on hold. Never mind that the torturers and government rapists were still active; never mind the political prison filled with kids; no death squads were running at the moment the US invaded, so the timing was all wrong.

Igs -- the left never cared about the Kurds. Back in 1991, during arguments in college about the Gulf War, my friends and I brought up Saddam's gassing of the Kurds. The response then was the same as now: complete indifference or attempts to blame the US. As far as the left is concerned, it's only a crime if it's commited by the US or an ally of the US.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-1-26 9:02:06 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-1-26 9:02:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 RC, I did state that the left didn't care about the Kurds, however, it should be pointed out that the right felt pretty much the same way

Posted by Igs 2004-1-26 9:12:59 PM|| 2004-1-26 9:12:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 So I guess HRW's main argument is "timing is everything"?
So, according to them, any Nazi war criminals still out walking around can quit worrying and start enjoying life? What the hell, it was 60 years ago, right?

Posted by tu3031 2004-1-26 9:13:41 PM|| 2004-1-26 9:13:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Aris--I support ending all brutal dictatorships. Unfortunately we can't end them all at once, so sometimes we need to be two-faced and work with them to get rid of another (like allying with Stalin to get rid of Hitler). But I support getting rid of all of them, one way or another, in good time.

I would expect any citizen who lives in a free country where he can elect his own representatives, choose his path in life, and voice dissent without being brutalized by his government to want the same thing for others.

Unfortunately, I don't make US policy, and US policy can change very wildly every four years, so I don't know how consistent my own country will be in the continuing War on Terror. However, I can hope and will continue to voice support for the remaining regimes like North Korea, Iran, and, yes, Uzbekistan to be pressured one way or another to make reforms or be forcefully dragged into the 21st century.

That's my ideal. Meanwhile, in the practical world, considering how many thousands of people Saddam butchered over a period of 30 years with impunity, considering how little the UN was willing to do about it beyond passing yet another resolution, and considering the uproar domestically and internationally that resulted from actually removing the bastard from power, I would be surprised if anything more of substance happens again in my lifetime. Pleasantly surprised, but surprised nonetheless.

Posted by Dar 2004-1-26 9:26:07 PM|| 2004-1-26 9:26:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Aris, I'm surprised you didn't argue that Saddam Hussein was rightfully elected. In your way of thinking it wouldn't be a stretch.

Posted by Rafael 2004-1-26 10:11:01 PM|| 2004-1-26 10:11:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 America is the parent, the anti-Americans are the rebellious teens. That's the truth; the rest is details.
These groups know that America is one of the few places on earth which will tolerate such tantrums. If these groups (countries, etc...) get into trouble, they know Uncle Sam will probably protect them.

yawn. Second verse, same as the first...

Posted by Les Nessman 2004-1-26 11:23:09 PM|| 2004-1-26 11:23:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Rafael, no offense, but you have no clue about my way of thinking.

That this wasn't a "humanitarian" war, nor was it ever presented as one, (nor *could* it ever be presented as one without people worldwide laughing their heads off), has nothing to do with whether I consider the war morally justified. Frankly I'd think any war morally justified if it helps topple a dictator and install a democracy in its place.

But that doesn't mean I have to delude myself into thinking that the moral justification of *this* war had anything to do with its *reasons*.

I have repeatedly stated that I didn't oppose this war on moral but on practical reasons -- because I didn't see a way the situation could end up with a stable free and democratic secular Iraq, rather than a playground for Iranian Islamofascists or a country riven by continuous civil war...

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-1-26 11:40:44 PM|| 2004-1-26 11:40:44 PM|| Front Page Top

01:38 3dc
00:52 OldSpook
23:41 Mike Sylwester
23:40 Aris Katsaris
23:39 Anonymous
23:28 TS
23:23 Les Nessman
23:19 Bomb-a-rama
23:15 Gasse Katze
22:35 CrazyFool
22:23 JAB
22:11 Rafael
22:09 tu3031
22:07 Dan (not Darling)
22:06 Dan (not Darling)
22:03 Val
21:57 Damn_Proud_American
21:54 Frank G
21:48 Super Hose
21:44 Super Hose
21:39 Super Hose
21:35 Super Hose
21:35 hedgehog
21:26 Super Hose