Why Human Right Watch Eagerly waiting for an African Blood in the aftermath of every election?

Abebe H. June 02, 2010

Sweden

“Actual civil societies are complex associational universe… they contain repression as well as democracy conflict as well as cooperation, vice virtue; they are motivated by sensational greed as much as social interest.”

Robinson and white, the role of civic organizations in the provision of social services: towards synergy. Helsinki, world institute for development economic research, 1997 p. 3

Their main point is that civil society or organization is neither good and peaceful nor violent and bad. But as far as the Human Right Watch (HRW) is concerned there is no doubt that this organization is purely violent and bad.

The history of the HRW thought us that this organization has fully discredited the Planning State and Interventionist state or developmental state in favour of the minimalist role of the economy in its lifetime. In recent time, the HRW is married with neo liberalist political economic theory than being a human rights organization. So, it seems that the globalization has changed the world if the HRW from the world human right activist to a politics and economics activist in favour of the rich corporations and against the poor.

The hidden role of the HWR is also related to help reduce the most unacceptable side of the mainly economic driven globalizing logic. There is thus much value of identifying the ideological contamination of this concept from the current go-go globalization and rhetoric of democratization.

The question is the current array of or constellation of the HRW as it is involving and persisting to intervene and exist in African political affairs? Is it to contribute to civility and civilization or to exasperate war, poverty and discord? The answer is clear, as it is not to contribute to civility and civilization and rather to exasperate war, poverty and discord.

For example, in Kenya, the 2007 election itself was relatively peaceful and orderly. Unfortunately, due to heavy involvement from the international organization like the HRW, the post election period was married with violence and killing of civilians. Particularly it is after the allegation of fraud and corruption by HRW that the political turmoil and violence was erupted in the country. So, the Human Rights Watch was part of the sources for the perpetuation of horizontal violence that cost the live of thousand peoples in the aftermath of 2007 election in Kenya. It was the same in the Ethiopia aftermath of the 2005 election, the same in Iran in the aftermath of the 2009 election, in Uganda and other country. Of course the HRW was eagerly waiting for the same African Bloodshed in the aftermath of every election in Africa, including in the recent election in Ethiopia and Sudan. That is why it is so distressed in its report in the aftermath the 2010 election in Ethiopia.

What is more behind the HRW reports?

The HRW is complex organization that has its own functions and interests. Among others, it is an organization that transcend it self from an actor of Human Rights protector to a factor of discord and violence. Currently, it is acting very similar to a military civic organization operating as a transitional network that has alarmed the hyper power of our time to declare the world disposition of political forces into those with the poor resisting capability. Creating violence by injecting catalytic fuel gas of violence is the means selected as a weapon by the HRW.

This kind of activity dose not foster rather oppress the human rights of civil humanity by inciting physical and mental violence that might resort to more conflict and war instead of ethically working for social justice to make every person to enjoy basic wellbeing and security.

Particularly to the poor African countries who have the resources and strong national cohesion, organization like the HRW lack the pre imminent moral foundation that should guide to respect fundamental principle for protecting and promoting human rights. It seems it has different role. Creating permanent violence in poor countries and particularly in poor African countries can be broadly defined as a daily and routine mission of organization like HRW in the name of protecting violation of human rights and the rights of expression.

The HRW is also executing its mission of creating violence through local organizations, civic societies, political parties and even individuals.

New forms of violence are spreading through the form of inciting the mind of weak political parties or individuals or civic societies by funding and creating mental unrest, destructing dignity. Poor African countries are likely the most venerable to the proliferation of such kind of weapon now days.

Particularly, with the proliferation of aid politics, every minor matters and internal problems, specially during the election times, inflate and turn into matters of issue that rule out tolerance and consensus through imposition of ideas in the mind of those weak political parties and their leaders so as to incite and create state of mental unrest in the general public and then chaos in the country.

Human right organizations like that of HRW also have other motives. That is a motive of weakening the relationship or partnership between civic societies and the states, particularly between local civic societies and developmental states in poor countries. The reason stands from their motives to create their own political economy in these poor countries. One mechanism is, of course, through funding. In recent year for instance, there are many scramble to create human right civic societies for the reason of self-employment, of course tempted by donor’s financial aid, rather than promoting a social cause on the basic of local understanding.

So, in countries where there is a strong developmental state like in Ethiopia or strong partnership between developmental state and civic society, HRW and western foundation fund some local civic society with the intention to break the bond of partnership between the developmental sate and the civic society instead of being able to promote social cohesion in the state. This also stands from their fear that a strong partnership between local civic organization and developmental state could lead to the construction of strong social cohesion and coherence in the country that are capable of steering market, economic, social and political forces for national structural transformation by closing the doors and loopholes to the external intervention or involvement.

The organization like the HRW feed finance and consultants to shape these weak local political parties, civic societies or individuals according to their own images and motive. Some times, the HRW for instance, set up its own local human right civic societies in poor countries or study groups with the same duties. These pseudo local civic societies are sometimes threatened or tempted by the funding foundation if they are unable to muster the mission assigned to them.

So, it appears that the description of the human rights organizations, like that of the HRW, as peace-making institutions is a subject of concern. There is thus the value contamination of the HRW, by implication, transcend its description from peace-making into an instrument of or a potential space for political and social interventions by external actors who have the economic or political interest rather that promoting the protection of human rights.