What’s behind the politicization of human rights?

(MoFA 02/20/09):-Human rights are a cause whose value has increasingly been recognized by almost all humanity. They have rightly been made part of international law through the various conventions adopted by the United Nations system. They now constitute an integral part of the founding legal instruments of many regional organizations such as the African Union, and provide a fundamental basis for constitutions like those of Ethiopia. There has indeed been an emerging global trend in which states, individually and collectively, are committing themselves to the cardinal values and principles of human rights.

Human rights also serve as a rallying cry for activists as part of their campaigns for the good of humanity. Unfortunately, however, the behavior of some self-styled human rights campaigners flies full in the face of their declared objectives. Human rights campaigners come in all shapes and sizes and some of these self-appointed guardians unabashedly use the issue as a cover for hidden political objectives. It is a distinctly alarming trend. It’s not unusual for some of these groups to be particularly adventurous, militant and confrontational in their approach. They demonstrate a capacity to produce volume after volume on human rights situations without bothering to visit the places about which they report. Consistency is never their forte; assumptions substitute for facts, innuendo for proof. Quite simply, they cast aspersions with little or no evidence and all the while exerting no efforts whatsoever to try to involve the parties they address. They churn out report after report in the name of concern for human rights. They stop at nothing to peddle their reports by mobilizing well resourced networks around the globe. This might not matter but given the international media’s weakness for sensation, these reports can take on far greater significance than they deserve as they play havoc with efforts of some countries to extricate themselves from old outdated criticisms and images. 

The campaigns these groups wage are particularly vitriolic about Africa in general and about a few specific states in particular. Despite ostentatious claims of global interest and involvement, their interest in human rights in other parts of the world is lukewarm at best. Curiously, an already trenchant diatribe against countries such as Ethiopia has gathered strength just as the political, social and economic prospects there are looking decidedly progressive. The point that needs to be raised here, of course, is why are these groups so reluctant to engage with those in developing countries to help them institutionalize the protection and promotion of human rights rather than continue to bicker and intimidate from a distance? It is impossible to know exactly what the motive is, or why they persist in a cavalier and condescending approach towards developing countries, including those, like Ethiopia, which can by any standards be described as emerging democracies. It is a little over a decade and a half since Ethiopia embarked on the path of democratization. In this short space of time, the country has managed to put itself on the path to sustainable development and the institutionalization of democracy despite a background of centuries of undemocratic culture and of bad governance. It is difficult to believe that any neutral observer could miss this tremendous achievement. It is a feat on which Ethiopia deserves to be congratulated. This is not to say Ethiopia has overcome all the challenges of the transition. Certainly not. Equally, the statistics produced by third parties, including the World Bank and the IMF, make it clear Ethiopia does appear to be on the right trajectory for sustainable development, good governance and democratization.

This certainly raises the question why do groups, such as Human Rights Watch (HRW), for example, continue to concentrate their campaigns against Ethiopia, and usually on the basis of unfounded, second-hand allegations of human rights abuse. Why do they always choose to attack what is clear and promising economic, social and political progress? Inevitably one asks how could HRW, and its sponsors, benefit if Ethiopia is derailed from its current course. Only HRW, of course, can answer these questions accurately, and it won’t. In fact while taking care to guard against the sort of far-out conspiracy theories occasionally forwarded by observers and analysts alike, it is important to try and figure out what the motives might be. One apparently simplistic explanation would be to ascribe this behavior to the lack of interest in serious discussion; another might be a propensity towards excitement, adventure or militancy. Some human rights activists may be motivated by the same rather romantic, and so unrealistic, campaign for utopian ideals. In all such cases one thing is very clear: some human rights activists simply fail to realize that they are dealing with important issues concerning social, political and economic rights meaning a great deal to the peoples of the countries they are reporting on, and they do this in a manner that effectively and even comprehensively hinders progress.

There are also observers who see this question from a rather different angle.  Those observers go so far as to associate some human rights organizations with attacks on governments for the sake of strategic political objectives and encourage people to resort to conspiratorial theories. They even raise the question whether human rights might not be a code word employed as cover to intimidate governments while trying to impose their interests in larger global scheme of things. In fact, it is difficult to ascribe any single explanation to understand the behavior of some human rights organizations. It is equally difficult to exonerate some human rights organizations from falling into the suspect category. For example, despite a number of other worse case scenarios around the world, Ethiopia continues to receive more than its faire share of HRW’s smear campaign. HRW, of course, consistently refuses to acknowledge errors when its unfounded allegations are factually disproved with concrete evidence on the ground as was the case in the Somali Regional State of Ethiopia last year. Given this behavior, it’s more than possible that HRW’s approach may be part of the global scheme of things. Is it possible that the potential discovery of oil in the Ogaden area of the Somali Regional State has become a subject of interest for HRW? Why else would a minor local conflict in the Gambella Regional State of Ethiopia, long since resolved, still continue to be a subject of intense interest for HRW? It should be emphasized that this discussion is certainly not meant in any way to insinuate that human rights groups all behave in this way. Indeed, not; only some organizations cloaked in a guise of human rights operate in this way.

One particularly curious aspect of some human rights advocacy groups is the way they publicize their voluminous reports. These are often authored from a distance even in western capitals. In the case of Ethiopia, they often travel to Nairobi to hold press conferences, in order to try and maximize the propaganda impact, by being closer to Ethiopian territory. They deliberately avoid any meaningful dialogue with the Ethiopian government or other relevant stake holders in the country. This is, to put it mildly, very curious if the real agenda is, indeed, human rights. Protection and promotion of human rights is something that requires nurturing on the ground. It obviously benefits from sincere engagement with partners. It is not something that should or can be achieved through the barrages of propaganda, the attempted arm twisting or the intimidation displayed by some human rights advocacy groups. A good example of this was HRW’s latest statement, criticizing the EU for not being harsh enough in its comments on Ethiopia’s CSO legislation, and demanding the EU call on Ethiopia to rescind the bill. Certainly, as far as Ethiopia goes, efforts like this cannot be allowed to get in the way of the fight against poverty and the effort for the promotion and strengthening of democratic values and good governance. In any poverty-stricken nation such as Ethiopia, these may be choices that cannot be avoided. The Government of Ethiopia believes the promotion of human rights and democracy are not matters of choice, but of survival. Ethiopia supports democracy not because this is what the likes of HRW preach at us; it upholds these fundamental principles because that is the only way it can extricate itself and its people from the trap of poverty and the senseless violence that so often accompanies it. No amount of venomously ill-founded reports to the contrary can add to or detract from this reality.