HUMAN RIGHTS, HUMAN WRONGS
Human Rights Watch Watches Out for US Bolivian Friends, Condemns Amnesty
for Political Prisoners
Since its establishment, HRW has consistently been criticized for being an
agent of U.S. foreign policy, employing former U.S. government officials in
key positions and displaying bias against governments unfriendly to the
United States.
by Alan Macleod
March 12th, 2021
By Alan Macleod
NEW YORK Human Rights Watch (HRW) has condemned a general amnesty for over
a thousand Bolivians persecuted under the one-year dictatorship of Jeanine
Añez. Yesterday, the Washington-based human rights organization decried the
plan to drop all charges against people resisting the government as opening
the door to impunity. Its Americas director, Jose Miguel Vivanco, said that
the new law undermines victims access to justice and violates the
fundamental principle of equality before the law. HRW alleges that a
handful of anti-coup demonstrators carried out serious crimes, such as arson
or kidnapping, while opposing the regime, thus making general amnesty
seriously problematic.
New President Luis Arce won an overwhelming electoral victory in October
after a citizens revolt paralyzed the country and forced Añez to hold an
election. Human Rights Watch notes with concern that this new decree
suggests that anyone prosecuted by the Áñez government for actions during
social protests had their rights violated, something that many consider to
be obvious and uncontroversial.
Human Rights Watch is criticizing the Bolivian government for lifting the
charges against leftists who were persecuted by the former coup regime
(seriously). This is why Bolivians are suspicious of these U.S. NGOs,
reacted Bolivian journalist Ollie Vargas.
An odd position for a human rights org
A layperson might expect one of the best known human rights organizations in
the world to celebrate the acquittal of over a thousand innocent people
charged with crimes such as reporting on massacres in a way that
displeased the government, hospital workers treating the regimes victims,
or calling Añez a dictator in WhatsApp conversations. Yet HRW strongly
supported the coup as it was taking place, insisting that President Evo
Morales was actually resigning of his own accord, and merely traveling to
Mexico rather than fleeing at the barrel of a gun.
HRWs executive director, Ken Roth, made a series of public statements on
social media expressing his delight, even as security forces took over La
Paz, massacring civilians and overthrowing a democratically-elected
president. Roth also described the coup approvingly as an uprising and a
transitional moment for Bolivia, while presenting Morales as an
out-of-touch strongman. For Roth, Morales was the casualty of a
counter-revolution aimed at defending democracy
against electoral fraud and
his own illegal candidacy, falsely alleging that Morales had ordered the
army to shoot protesters.
As Roth was making his pronouncements, Añez was signing a new law that gave
security forces complete immunity for killing dissenters. HRW described this
as a problematic decree, as if Añez had merely used insensitive language.
The organization also attempted to hide who were the perpetrators of the
ensuing massacres, telling readers that nine people died and 122 were
wounded during a Cochabamba demonstration, but refusing to fill them in on
who was dying and who was shooting.
Even in yesterdays 2,800-word report, published 16 months after the
incident, the word coup is completely absent. Instead, HRW states
(emphasis added) that Morales was forced to resign on November 10, 2019,
after the commanders of the armed forces and the police asked him to step
down. Morales, however, made it clear at the time that he was leaving only
to avoid a bloodbath.
HRW also continues to describe Añez as the interim president her own,
propagandistic word for her role rather than dictator, and maintains
that Moraless election was controversial because of allegations of
electoral fraud. This is despite the fact that the allegations were
immediately debunked by independent statisticians. Last month, HRW demanded
that Donald Trump be prosecuted because he promoted false theories of a
stolen election in the U.S. Yet, in Bolivia, HRW itself is doing exactly
the same thing and based on just as shaky evidence.
How Human Rights Watch Whitewashed a Right-Wing Massacre in Bolivia
Some may be surprised by its response to the Bolivia crisis, but Human
Rights Watchs support for a U.S.-backed right-wing coup is no aberration.
MintPress News | Alan Macleod | Nov 20, 2019
A brief and brutal fascist interlude
Elected in 2005, Morales was the first leader in the countrys history to
come from its indigenous majority. During his 14 years in office, his
administration reduced poverty by 42% and extreme poverty by 60%, halving
unemployment and increasing real GDP per capita by 50%. Taking the country
down a more socialist path, he fostered links to like-minded neighboring
countries such as Ecuador, Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela, and was sharply
critical of U.S. actions abroad. In October 2019, he won an unprecedented
and controversial fourth term by over 10 points. However, sectors of the
U.S.-backed Bolivian right-wing cried foul, alleging fraud, with the
military and the police using the ensuing chaos to justify overthrowing him.
The military handpicked Moraless successor, Añez, a little known senator
from a far-right party that received 4% of the vote. A hardline Christian
conservative, Añez sparked controversy by declaring the countrys indigenous
majority as satanic and arguing that they should not be allowed to live in
cities. She immediately started crushing dissent, targeting followers of
Morales, media outlets, and human rights observers.
Añez also began privatizing the economy and reoriented the countrys foreign
policy away from an independent path and towards the United States. Despite
calling herself an interim president, she repeatedly canceled elections,
leading many to believe she was attempting to stay in power indefinitely
with help from the military, which ruled the country directly for much of
the 20th century. However, a nationwide general strike in August shut the
country down, forcing her to agree to an October election.
Morales was banned from running. But Luis Arce, his former economy minister,
was elected in a 27-point landslide, gaining almost twice the votes of his
nearest challenger.
Bolivia: New Govt Sets to Work Undoing Damage Left by US-Backed Añez Regime
The MAS is already enacting widespread changes in Bolivia in an attempt to
undo damage left by one year of US-backed military rule.
MintPress News | Alan Macleod | Dec 9, 2020
Highly Reactionary Worldview
Unfortunately, this sort of behavior from Human Rights Watch is far from
unusual. Headquartered in NYC, with a branch on D.C.s Pennsylvania Avenue,
the organization was originally established in 1978 as Helsinki Watch, an
American group dedicated to exposing the crimes of Eastern Bloc countries
and monitoring their compliance with the Helsinki Accords.
Its founder, Aryeh Neier, is a libertarian fundamentalist who equates the
very idea of economic or labor rights with oppression, writing that they are
profoundly undemocratic. Authoritarian power is probably a prerequisite
for giving meaning to economic and social rights, he added. Thus, under
this interpretation of rights, the Morales administrations actions in
reducing poverty, hunger and labor insecurity are not achievements, but
black marks against it.
Since its establishment, HRW has consistently been criticized for being an
agent of U.S. foreign policy, employing former U.S. government officials in
key positions and displaying bias against leftist governments unfriendly to
the United States. Vivanco himself penned a much-derided report on human
rights in Venezuela, which, in an open letter, over 100 Latin American
experts claimed did not meet even the most minimal standards of
scholarship, impartiality, accuracy, or credibility. And while constantly
describing Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro as a dictator, in May, Vivanco
called Bolivia under Añezs rule a democracy.
HRW worked hard to legitimize the U.S.-, British-, and Brazilian-backed
coup. With this new report, it appears as if it is still trying to turn the
clock back, showing that it all too often places Western imperial interests
over liberty for oppressed peoples.