HRW Soft on UN, Doesn't Cover Dec 17 Rapes Report, Who Watches the Watchers?
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, January 27 -- Today Human Rights Watch released its 2016 report with much fanfare, purporting to cover full-year 2015. But for example on the issue of UN Peacekeepers involved in sexual abuse, HRW's January 26 report says the UN's “panel was due to release its report on December 17.”
The December report, which HRW did not cover, slams two UN officials who already left as well as UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous. See Jan 26 coverage here. At the UN, Ladsous on camera linked the rapes to “R&R,” video here -- something HRW never said anything at all about.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is mentioned seven times in HRW's 659 page 2016 report, mostly praising him for canned statements issued during a trip to Central Asia. For example:
"During a June visit to Tashkent, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged the Uzbek government... During his June visit to Turkmenistan, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon delivered a forceful speech" -- really?
This is typical of HRW: it wants to show its access to the UN and so goes soft on any criticism of it. When HRW comes to the UN, they often go behind closed doors with those who do not question them, to whom they dole out their own canned quotes and embargoed statements and reports. As set forth below, HRW refuses to even disclose what issues it raises to Ban Ki-moon.
Who watches the Watchers?
Back on March 5, 2013, ten days
after Haiti
cholera claims
were deemed
“not
receivable”
by UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon, Human
Rights Watch
boss Ken Roth
met with Ban.
One
might think
HRW would
issue some
summary or
read-out, at
least of the
issues it
raised to Ban.
But one would
be wrong.
Immediately
after
the scheduled
meeting, Inner
City Press
wrote to Roth,
his
press office
and UN
lobbyist
asking to be
informed of
the topics
raised
to
Ban Ki-moon at
the meeting
listed from
4:40 pm to
5:15 pm,
including but
not limited
to:
did
HRW/Roth raise
the issue
of
Ban's
dismissal of
claims the UN
brought
cholera to
Haiti?
did
HRW/Roth raise
any needed
safeguards for
the UN's
use of drones?
did
HRW/Roth raise
the issue of Ban
Ki-moon
praising
post-war steps
taken
by Sri Lanka?
did
HRW/Roth raise
the UN's
“Human Rights
Due Diligence
Policy”
including how
it relates to
Mali
and/or the 126
FARDC rapes at
Minova
in the DRC?
Awaiting
your
response, on
deadline.
The
last question,
on the
Democratic
Republic of
Congo, is
meant to
assess whether
Roth
and his HRW
only raise the
issue of the
M23
rebels, or
for example
the 126 rapes
committed by
the Congolese
army
which is
supported by
the UN, which
now seeks to
use drones.
On
Sri Lanka, Ban
Ki-moon as exclusively
exposed by
Inner City
Press on February
22 accepted a
whitewash
report
from Japan and
others, then praised
it in Geneva
on March 1.
Did Roth use
his Ban face
time to raise
the issue?
Many would
like to know.
But
there has been
no response
from HRW. The
seemingly
automated
Twitter
feed of Ken
Roth has been
churning out
messages
unrelated to
the
meeting or UN,
one an hour,
on Pakistan
and Azerbaijan
and urging the
EU to press
Burma /
Myanmar.
But
what did HRW
“press” Ban
about? What
about Pressing
HRW to
disclose at
least this?
Previously in
May 2011, its
UN lobbyist
Philippe
Bolopion
replied to
Inner City
Press' request
for a read-out
of Roth's
meeting with
Ban Ki-moon
thusly:
Date:
May 28, 2011
at 10:04 AM
From: Philippe
Bolopion [at]
hrw.org
To:
Matthew
Russell Lee
[at]
InnerCityPress.com
Cc: Ken Roth
[at]
hrw.org
Subject: Re:
Press request
for read-out
of Ken Roth's
meeting with
Ban Ki-moon,
incl re
Myanmar, Sri
Lanka, Sudan /
Haroun,
or explanation
Hi
Matthew: To
preserve our
ability to
have frank
discussions
with UN
officials and
advance our
advocacy
goals, we
don't
typically
communicate on
the content of
discussions we
have with
them.
Very
best
Philippe
Bolopion,
UN Director
Human Rights
Watch
And now?
Is
this
acceptable?
Watch this
site.
Footnote:
Perhaps
just as HRW
tells its big
donors what it
is raising, it
tells
some
journalists
(its UN
lobbyist used
to be a UN
correspondent).
But
the UN
Correspondents
Association, increasingly
known as the
UN's
Censorship
Alliance,
chose on the
day Ban's
Haiti cholera
dismissal
was announced
at the UN noon
briefing to demand
the first
question
--
only to ask
about an
unrelated
letter it had
sent to the UN
Department
of Public
Information
about the
floor plan of
the
renovated
Security
Council. This
is an issue on
which UNCA
fell
asleep in 2012
as it sought
to get the
investigative
Press thrown
out
of the UN.
On
the Minova
rapes, for
example, no
reporting from
the UNCA
“leaders”
- rather,
hallways
“exclusives”
from UN
Peacekeeping
chief Herve
Ladsous,
click here to
view. This
and HRW's
secrecy are
two reasons
the UN has
become what it
is.
, 
