The sad state of 'human rights' organizations


By Gerald Steinberg, The Ottawa Citizen March 14, 2010 Comments (31)



The intense debate on the activities of government-funded groups like Rights & Democracy is an important and healthy development.

For many years, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that use the language of human rights and other universal moral causes have been exempt from independent examination. Their activities and publications were usually accepted at face value, under the assumption that the officials involved are virtuous and unbiased. But, like other powerful political actors, NGOs need independent evaluation and constructive criticism to prevent abuse.

From this perspective, Sima Samar's article ("Why I Resigned from Rights & Democracy," March 8), which rejects the legitimacy of this debate, is very troubling. Recent events have revealed how some of the most influential human rights and humanitarian NGOs have become platforms for radical ideological advocacy that is inconsistent with the moral principles they claim to espouse. Unfortunately, Samar has joined other ideologues in attacking independent research and detailed analysis, including the work done by my organization -- NGO Monitor -- without bothering to examine the facts.

Examples of biased NGOs are not limited to Canadian groups involved with, and providing funds to, pro-Palestinian organisations. Recently, Amnesty International was found to have allied itself with Moazzam Begg, a well known jihadist and Taliban supporter. Gita Saghal, who was in charge of Amnesty's gender division, made her moral objections public but, instead of an independent evaluation, Amnesty suspended Saghal and sought to silence the criticism.

Similar problems have been exposed by NGO Monitor's systematic research into the activities of Human Rights Watch. The bias in HRW's Middle East and North Africa division is reflected in the consistently greater emphasis given to Israel compared to Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, and other chronic rights abusers. (Holding a fundraising dinner in Saudi Arabia to pay for more attacks against Israel was particularly absurd.)

HRW also mounted an intense campaign on behalf of Judge Richard Goldstone's report on the Gaza war, which repeats many of HRW's allegations targeting Israel. Many of these allegations came from "senior military analyst" Marc Garlasco, an obsessive collector of Nazi memorabilia who wrote that wearing an SS jacket is "cool." When this behaviour was exposed in September, HRW announced it was suspending Garlasco "pending an investigation."

But HRW has failed to provide any information regarding the investigation, if any, on the credibility of the "war crimes" claims in Garlasco's reports. And in response to all of this, HRW founder Robert Bernstein has denounced his own organization for its distorted agenda, including efforts "to turn Israel into a pariah state."

Canadian NGOs, including Rights & Democracy, are not immune from the widespread ideological distortion of human rights. In her op-ed, Samar excluded details regarding the two Palestinian organizations, Al Mezan and Al Haq, which received grants during her tenure. Al Haq was an active participant in the notorious NGO Forum of the 2001 Durban conference that adopted the strategy of using human rights and boycotts for political warfare against Israel. Director Shawan Jabarin was described by the Israeli Supreme Court as a "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, a human rights defender by day and a terrorist by night." Jabarin's association with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine has also led the government of Jordan to bar his entry. (HRW, which, as noted, has its own problems with credibility and bias, is one of Jabarin's vocal defenders.)

Similarly, Gaza-based Al Mezan's core political agenda is reflected in its clearly one-sided reports, which consistently erase the context of Palestinian terror while delegitimizing Israeli self-defense. During the Gaza conflict, Al Mezan made numerous false allegations designed for propaganda purposes, such as "Israeli massacres," "slaughtering civilians," "scandalous war crimes," and "despicable disregard to civilian life." But the extensive Hamas use of human shields and rocket attacks against Israeli civilians, each one of which was a war crime, was not condemned.

Given this clear bias, there is no justification for the expenditure of taxpayer funds to support Al Haq, Al Mezan and similar groups. And the problem is not limited to Palestinian groups -- NGOs exhibit biases regarding the conflicts in Sri Lanka, Colombia, and Central Africa.

In many cases, NGOs tend to reinforce the moral failures of the United Nations Human Rights Council, whose meetings are often chaired by Libya, Iran, and other human rights "stalwarts." Such diversion and exploitation of the principles of universal human rights has done immeasurable damage.

Canada has the opportunity to set an important example in restoring the universal foundations of human rights and international justice. This will require the ability to reject the radical ideologies that have targeted democracies rather than serial human rights abusers. By restoring the moral agenda, and ending secretive practices and political biases in government-funded organisations like Rights & Democracy, Canada is taking an important step in the right direction.

Gerald Steinberg, a professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, is president of NGO Monitor.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen