Human Rights Watch

[SWJED]

You might not always agree with them but their site has a wealth of useful information - Human Rights Watch.

From the who we are page:

We stand with victims and activists to prevent discrimination, to uphold political freedom, to protect people from inhumane conduct in wartime, and to bring offenders to justice.

We investigate and expose human rights violations and hold abusers accountable.

We challenge governments and those who hold power to end abusive practices and respect international human rights law.

We enlist the public and the international community to support the cause of human rights for all.

Human Rights Watch is an independent, nongovernmental organization, supported by contributions from private individuals and foundations worldwide. It accepts no government funds, directly or indirectly.

[Tom Odom]

Agreed on the useful information.

HRW marches to its mandate and that is to be expected and what I encountered in Rwanda.

I place them well above Amnesty International on the accuracy and standards scale.

For example you can read Leave None to Tell the Story online; I touched on this work in my essay in SWJ concerning books on the genocide.

Best

Tom

[marct]

Here's another useful site: Integration-Net. I worked on this site for 5 years, and it's one of the best in the world for refuge / resettlement issues. While it is definitely Canadian centric, the resources section has some very useful links to global issues.

URL: http://www.integration-net.ca/

Marc

[mikemac64]

I used a lot of info from Human Rights Watch on a presentation I did on the Genocide in Rwanda. Leave None To Tell The Story is riveting.

[Smitten Eagle]

As some folks who posted earlier on this thread, I have a somewhat postitive view of HRW, vis-a-vis their other NGO brethren.

In the short term, it seems that the military's and HRWs agendas are divergent in particular and convergent in general. HRW may complain about specific acts of American atrocities, but at the end of the day both groups want a liberal, stable world order.

Thoughts on how to use this to advantage?

[milesce]

HRW did an interesting report following up on the initial phase of Iraq a few years back, focusing on civilian casualties in air-to-ground bombing.

Their conclusion was interesting. They could not find a single case where a pre-planned target caused any civilian casualties, and were very complimentary of both the restraint shown by US forces and the ability to very carefully target leadership targets, building, etc., without causing civlian casualties.

At the same time, they strongly condemned many of the last minute incidents, most of which were targeted at the "55 most wanted", most of which were based on last-minute intelligence, and virtually none of which reached the intended targets, but did cause significant numbers of civilian deaths. On the whole, they are pretty fair -- which means they are going to be critical all around, both of the US and other countries.

[Jedburgh]

HRW did an interesting report following up on the initial phase of Iraq a few years back, focusing on civilian casualties in air-to-ground bombing...

You are referring to their pub Off Target: Conduct of the War and Civilian Casualties in Iraq, published in Dec 03.

......Many of the civilian casualties from the air war occurred during U.S. attacks targeting senior Iraqi leaders. The United States used an unsound targeting methodology that relied on intercepts of satellite phones and inadequate corroborating intelligence. Thuraya satellite phones provide geo-coordinates that are accurate only to within a onehundred-meter (328-foot) radius; therefore, the United States could not determine the origin of a call to a degree of accuracy greater than a 31,400-square-meter area. This flawed targeting strategy was compounded by a lack of effective assessment both prior to the attacks of the potential risks to civilians and after the attacks of their success and utility. All of the fifty acknowledged attacks targeting Iraqi leadership failed. While they did not kill a single targeted individual, the strikes killed and injured dozens of civilians. Iraqis who spoke to Human Rights Watch about the attacks it investigated repeatedly stated that they believed the intended targets were not even present at the time of the strikes.

Coalition air strikes on preplanned fixed targets apparently caused few civilian casualties, and U.S. and U.K. air forces generally avoided civilian infrastructure. Coalition forces did, however, identify certain targets as “dual use,” including electricity and media installations. Human Rights Watch’s investigations found that air strikes on civilian power distribution facilities in al-Nasiriyya caused serious civilian suffering and that the legality of the attacks on media installations was questionable....

HRW also clearly put the blame on the Iraqis for many of the deaths of their own civilians:

...The investigation showed that Iraqi forces committed a number of violations of international humanitarian law, which may have led to significant civilian casualties. These violations included use of human shields, abuse of the red cross and red crescent emblems, use of antipersonnel landmines, location of military objects in protected places (such as mosques, hospitals, and cultural property), and a failure to take adequate precautions to protect civilians from the dangers of military operations. The Iraqi military’s practice of wearing civilian clothes tended to erode the distinction between combatants and civilians, putting the latter at risk, although it did not relieve Coalition forces of their obligation to distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians and to target only combatants....

Overall, it is an interesting read.

I personally feel HRW to be a reliable source of information; their bias - if you want to call it that - is clear and does not distort their reporting, which I have always found to be evenhanded. The one time that I had personal contact with them, when they had a team working in northern Iraq investigating the Anfal, I was very impressed with their professionalism.

[milesce]

I couldn't recall the title of the report, thanks for posting the excerpts!

[saveus]

Well there are many human rights NGO's around the world and no doubt they're doing their part well in protecting, implementing and securing the basic rights of every human. I think these sorta departments are an essential need for most third world countries.