|
| 01 февраля, 2013 | | | Читать на сайте издания |
'Vzgliad' publication
By Ekaterina Ermakova
Human Rights Watch (HRW) has refused the U.S. the moral right to teach democracy to other nations.
January 29'12 Human Rights Watch (HRW) presented a 665 page report on the human rights situation in more than 90 countries by the end of 2012. Surprisingly, the U.S. was sharply criticised in this report. Moscow – not so surprisingly – was censured as well as Washington.
Experts point out that the HRW organisation has been accused of bias in the past but now the defenders of human rights say that the U.S. is guilty of ‘hypocrisy’ in its policies. Political analysts believe it is possible that that the statement by HRW is simply a disguised attack by the Republicans on Obama.
The Russian press agency RIA Novosti reported that Rachel Denber, the Deputy Director of the Department of Europe and Central Asia in HRW, said: ‘All nations need to put their own affairs in order before they start criticising human rights in other countries. The Obama administration refuses to permit the criminal investigation of officials from the Bush Junior administration who were involved in torture and this situation gives rise to accusations of hypocrisy.’
Sergei Markov, political consultant and Member of the Public Chamber of Russia told the newspaper ‘Vzglyad’ that the accusation of hypocrisy is not new. ‘It is an allegation that is constantly levelled at the U.S. from many different political powers and organizations’ he said. As for the HRW although its conclusions are sometimes politically influenced it is, says Markov, in general a good organization.
Markov explained that hypocrisy – or political pragmatism – is always present in politics and said that the U.S. ‘like any great power has its own degree of hypocrisy.’
But the American government stands out from others because it has ‘donned a mantle of infallibility and thus assumes the right to preach to others. However in today’s environment of instant information, these sorts of contradictions are now impossible to hide’ says Markov and this has caused a public outcry.
However Markov believes that the criticism of Obama at this time is not coincidental. ‘Obama has just appointed a new Secretary of State – John Kerry – a moderate who bases his approach on diplomacy and dialogue with other countries rather than force. Barack Obama’s opponents are attempting to disrupt the course of this peaceful policy.’
Markov does not rule out the possibility that criticism by the HRW might in fact be a disguised attack by the Republicans.
Mikhail Remizov, President of the National Strategy Institute, agreed with his colleague that this is not the first time that the U.S. has been the target of sharp criticism from human rights groups.
In an interview with the newspaper Vzglyad, Remizov said: ‘The international left-liberal society - which is most active in human rights issues – has always been quite critical of U.S. policy which is why this statement from the HRW is seen not so much as a criticism of the U.S. as a critique of Obama.’
‘Obama, as a man on the left liberal wing (as he is considered to be in America) criticised the previous administration, and the people had great hopes from him which he was unable to deliver.’ But it was the inertia of the American state machine, said Remizov, that prevented Obama from fulfilling his promises.
In the United States, says Remizov, domestic issues take precedence over international ones. ‘In fact, where necessary, the State can quietly close their eyes on their own federal legal matters’. And therefore the military and security services do not give in to the demands of the international community.
‘There is reason in this logic’ said Markov. ‘If you hand your military over on a plate to the international human rights community at their first request, it undermines the morale of your armed forces.’
Obama was caught in the middle says Remizov. On the one hand, he had to defend the interests of the Army and concern himself with its efficiency. But on the other hand this concession was another disappointment for his supporters.
With customary fervour however, the accusations from HRW turned out to be terse. One of the main critical attacks from the defenders of human rights was aimed at Moscow. The authors of the report argue that 2012 was the hardest year for human rights in Russia in the recent history of the country.
According to HRW in 2012 the Russian parliament adopted a series of ‘restrictive laws’ and the government ‘interfered in the activities of non-governmental organizations’ and ‘harassed activists’. All this, says the human rights organisation ‘shattered the hopes of reform that emerged in late 2011, as evinced by the wave of mass protests.’
Leonid Polyakov, Head of General Political Science in Moscow’s Higher School of Economics and member of the Advisory Board of the Civil Society Fund, told Vzglyad that there is no encroachment on human rights in Russia. ‘I don’t know what blinkers they were wearing when they looked at the laws that were passed in Russia during this period but they clearly blinded them to reality.’ He added that it is important to bear in mind the true meaning of adopted legislation and not the rhetoric around it coming from various political players.
According to experts it is probably the opposition parties in Russia who are the main sources of information for Human Rights Watch. ‘It is from here that information about purges, a toughening stance, draconian measures and so on, come from. In fact, on reading the adopted legislation which addresses human rights, carefully then I would come to the opposite conclusion’ said the political analyst.
He cited the law on meetings as an example. ‘The law does not impose any infringement on the rights of citizens to assemble, organise rallies, demonstrate and air their views. On the contrary, the laws actually protect citizens who gather peacefully at meetings from those who want to turn them into violent clashes and a place for the expression of extreme opinion and actions’ he said.
‘Or let us take the law which demands that NGO’s which are politically motivated and are funded from abroad should be registered as foreign agents. The law itself does not in any way at all hinder their work. However this law which, in essence, is the same as the U.S. law FARA, merely establishes a special procedure for such organizations’ he added.
Moreover says the expert, it is important to bear in mind how the citizens themselves perceive the situation on human rights in this country. ‘At this point there are very convincing polls from the Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM) that study the concerns of Russian society. Concerns about democracy, civil society and human rights come last on the list. In other words these issues are of the least concern to the absolute majority of Russians. It is not because the people do not care what political regime they have or how they can exercise their rights. Ordinary citizens in Russia simply understand that there is no abuse of their political and civil rights on the part of the government’ concluded Polyakov.
