Highjacking human rights
Part III:
Michael Barker
Critical examinations of groups like the NED and the USIP have
demonstrated that the discourse of democracy and peace serves as a
brilliant rhetorical cover for promoting elite democracy - that is, low
intensity democracy or polyarchy.
Thus although HRW may be promoting some form of human rights, it
appears that like the NED and the USIP, their work may be undermining
the efforts of other more progressive groups struggling to promote a
more egalitarian and participatory world order.[20] Critically, Julie
Mertus (2004) in her important study, Bait and Switch: Human Rights and
US Foreign Policy, illustrates that in spite of all the work of human
rights groups:
“The United States is in fact still leading the world on human
rights, but in the wrong direction, promoting short-term instrumentalism
over long-term ethical principles, double standards instead of fair
dealing, and a fearful view of human nature over a more open one...
Human rights talk has not been accompanied by human rights behaviors.”
Here it is instructive to turn to James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer’s
(2005) incisive analysis regarding the mechanics of social change. In an
attempt to understand why many NGOs may actually be exacerbating the
very problems that they are aiming to fix, Petras and Veltmeyer explain
that:
“In Latin America... the main concern [of the US government] in the
1960s and 1970s was to stave off pressures for revolutionary change - to
prevent another Cuba. To this end, USAID promoted state-led reforms and
the public provision of credit and technical assistance to the mass of
small and peasant producers in the region.
A good part of ODA [Overseas Development Aid] took a bilateral form,
but increasingly USAID turned to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) as
their executing arm, bypassing governments in the region and channelling
funds more directly to the local communities.
The NGOs provided collateral ‘services’ or benefits to the donors,
including strengthening local organizations opting for development and
weakening class-based organizations with an anti-systemic orientation.
In this context, the NGOs were also used, almost incidentally - and
somewhat ‘innocently’ from the perspective of many of their personnel -
not only to promote economic and social development (rather than social
change and revolution) but to promote the values of democratic forms of
organization as well as capitalism (the use of the electoral mechanism
in their politics and the market in their economics).”
Not being ones to mince their words, Petras and Veltmeyer go on to
describe such NGOs as the “executing agents of US imperialism” which
“helped turn local communities away from organizations seeking to
mobilize for direct action against the system and instead promoted a
reformist approach to social change.”[23] Likewise Joan Roelofs (2003)
also suggests that many “[c]ivil society organizations are convenient
instruments for imperialism” which are effectively “controlled by elites
via funding, integration into coalitions, and overlapping
personnel.”[24] As Ian Smillie (1995) observes, the irony of this
situation is that “[d]espite frequently repeated reassurance that NGO
independence is reasonably intact, the fact is that [since the 1960s]
Northern NGOs have stumbled into a contracting era without appearing to
have noticed it.”
Clearly HRW would rank among those NGOs that Petras, Veltmeyer and
Roelofs would describe as a working in the service of imperialism, a
diagnosis which I for one would agree with. But even if one were not
inclined to go this far, it can be argued with certainty that (at the
very least) by working so closely with the ‘democracy promoting’
community HRW is actively legitimizing the promotion of polyarchy, and
thus undermining efforts to promote participatory democracy. Indeed, the
presence of such extensive ‘democratic’ ties among HRW’s Americas
advisory board alone should be irreconcilable for a group which aims to
promote human rights, unless of course HRW sincerely believes that
neoliberal economics coupled with political disengagement will provide
the best protection for global human rights. However, given the evidence
presented in this article, it seems more likely that rather than just
being indirectly linked to the ‘democracy’ elites, HRW is in actual fact
an integral member of the ‘democracy promoting’ community - albeit a
liberally orientated member.
Unfortunately, the hegemonic position that HRW’s work has attained
over the global promotion of human rights has negative consequences for
democratic governance which are not immediately obvious. David Chandler
(2006) observes that:
“While mainstream commentators conflate human rights with
empowerment, self-determination and democracy, there are few critics who
draw attention to the fact that the human rights discourse of moral and
ethical policies is essentially an attack on the public political sphere
and democratic practices.”
Indeed with the end of the Cold War ‘humanitarian’ interventions have
grown to become a central pillar for justifying what should in a more
honest world be called illegal wars of aggression. Problematically, for
anyone interested in challenging such humanitarian doublespeak, Chandler
points out that “it is perhaps even more concerning that many
commentators argue that critical discussion of the human rights
framework itself is unproductive and dangerous.”
This reasoning perhaps helps to explain why few commentators in even
the alternative media have undertaken sustained criticisms of HRW and
its ‘democratic’ affiliates. Talking about the rise of NGOs more
generally, Petras and Voltmeyer (2001) suggest that:
“It is symptomatic of the pervasiveness of the NGOs and their
economic and political power over the so-called ‘progressive world’ that
there have been few systematic Left critiques of their negative impact.
In a large part this failure is due to the success of the NGOs in
displacing and destroying the organized leftist movements and co-opting
their intellectual strategists and organizational leaders.”
To be continued |