Show Hide image

HRW v Chavez II

Tom Porteous responds to an

I have always been an admirer of the journalist Hugh O’Shaughnessy. So I was puzzled by his broadside attack on Human Rights Watch on newstatesman.com last week.

The immediate target was a recent HRW report on Venezuela under President Hugo Chávez, which O’Shaughnessy said was “untrustworthy”, “full of false and misleading information”, and “could well have been cobbled together by an inexperienced State Department recruit”. But O’Shaughnessy also took a swipe at HRW’s recent work on Lebanon and Palestine which he suggests is “bent in favour of the State Department, the Israeli government or just the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbying organisation”.

O'Shaughnessy not only fails to provide any evidence for these allegations against HRW, but more seriously he misrepresents HRW’s positions in his apparent determination to undermine our well earned international reputation for accuracy and impartiality.

For example O’Shaughnessy accuses HRW of whitewashing “the lavish financing of the political opposition in Venezuela by US official bodies who … helped to overthrow Chávez for 48 hours”.

In fact the report explicitly condemns the 2002 coup. In its second paragraph the report states: “The most dramatic setback [to Venezuela’s democracy] came in April 2002 when a coup d’état temporarily removed Chávez from office and replaced him with an unelected president who, in his first official act, dissolved the country’s democratic institutions, suspending the legislature and disbanding the Supreme Court.”

O’Shaughnessy also takes HRW to task for “unjustifiably criticising political freedoms, the state of the trade union movement, government treatment of what remains the wonderfully free media and daily life which has got an awful lot better for poorest Venezuelans”.

In fact the report goes out of its way to underline that Venezuela still enjoys a vibrant public debate in which anti-government and pro-government media are equally vocal in their criticism and defence of Chávez. And nowhere does the report criticise the progress that has been made under Chávez in the economic and social betterment of the poorest Venezuelans.

Besides misrepresenting the report, O’Shaughnessy fails entirely to address the concrete evidence HRW puts forward to support its critique of the Chávez government’s human rights record: the expansion and toughening of penalties for speech and broadcasting offenses, the disregard for the separation of powers, the attacks on the independent judiciary and on workers’ rights to associate freely, the harassment of human rights advocates and other civil society activists.

Nor does O’Shaughnessy address the main argument of the report, namely that over the past decade Chávez has squandered the opportunity presented at the time of his first election in 1998, when Venezuela’s political system was largely discredited, to shore up the rule of law and strengthen the protection of human rights.

O’Shaughnessy’s criticisms of HRW’s work on the Middle East are equally out of touch with reality. On the basis of thorough research on the ground by HRW experts during the 2006 war in Lebanon, HRW has spoken out publicly, frequently and strongly against Israel’s war crimes, including the massive use of cluster munitions. We have also been energetic in our public criticism of Israel’s indiscriminate attacks in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and, more recently, its siege of the Gaza strip, which amounts to collective punishment of the civilian population.

O’Shaughnessy appears to believe that for our criticism of Israel to be taken seriously HRW should refrain from scrutinising or exposing the poor human rights records of Hamas and Hezbollah or their violations of international humanitarian law. We argue that in fact the opposite is the case: it is precisely because we are seen as impartial investigators of human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law that we are taken seriously by opinion makers and decision makers.

O’Shaughnessy’s parting shot at HRW is also his cheapest, most puzzling and most uninformed. “Surely, he says, “HRW doesn’t want to go down with George Bush … and poor Lynndie England of West Virginia and Abu Ghraib as another of today’s US failures.”

If O’Shaughnessy had bothered to do his homework he would have discovered that HRW not only played an important role in unearthing and exposing the abuses of the US government in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the secret CIA detention programme, extraordinary rendition and the rest of it, but has worked hard to keep these abuses in the international public eye, to bring them to an end, and to secure accountability.

Tom Porteous is Human Rights Watch's London director

Tom Porteous is the London director of Human Rights Watch
Getty
Show Hide image

An army with lead boots

Last Friday morning, within a few hours of the street massacre in Nice, I arrived in Paris.

Last Friday morning, within a few hours of the street massacre in Nice, I arrived in Paris to report on the way France was responding to the attack. Even before my report went out on that night’s BBC News at Ten, reports of the attempted coup in Turkey were coming in. By Saturday morning, I gave up asking senior French politicians for interviews because British interest in Nice was fading. By Sunday three policemen were dead in Baton Rouge. The next day an Afghan attacked railway passengers in southern Germany and was shot dead. New events crowd in on us constantly, overlaying and obliterating whatever happened yesterday, or this morning, or tonight.

But not, understandably, in France. Nicolas Sarkozy says that France is now at war. So does Le Figaro, which was calling on Saturday for a “pitiless response”. “Merah, Charlie, Bataclan, Magnanville and now Nice . . . How many savage murders and blind massacres before our leaders admit that Islamic fanaticism is engaged in a struggle to the death against our country and our civilisation?”

As Le Figaro’s editorial director whipped himself up into a frenzy of imprecision in his editorial, I was reminded of a television interview I once did with Margaret Thatcher at the height of the IRA’s terror campaign. I was never an admirer of hers but on this occasion I thought she was magnificent. “War?” she said as the camera turned over. “War? This isn’t a war. These are criminals, murdering and injuring decent people. We’ll find them and the courts will put them in prison, and there’s an end to it.”

It worked. A lot of other things had to be done, including addressing the serious grievances of the nationalist community in Northern Ireland and changing the whole basis of life and society there. Yet after its appalling early mistakes the British government stopped declaring war and demanding pitiless responses. On the contrary: life went on as close to normal as possible throughout the IRA’s bombing campaign. There’s no doubt that some shameful things happened in secret, but the basic principle – that a civilised society should remain true to its values even when it’s under attack, and perhaps especially when it’s under attack – was maintained; and the IRA was eventually beaten.

There are dangerous characters in any country and they require monitoring and infiltrating. The Bataclan attackers in Paris last November were a disciplined group with a clear plan. But some of the worst incidents in Europe have been the work of deranged loners. Le Figaro called Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, the mass murderer of the Promenade des Anglais, “a soldier of the caliphate”. Bulls**t: he was just a sad, nasty little character with a propensity for violence against women, who had stopped taking his medication and wanted to validate his craziness. No doubt the Afghan teenager who was shot dead on the German train after going berserk with an axe was deranged, too, but that didn’t make him a soldier in anyone’s army. Attacking people in the street is a horrible, vicious fashion, just like storming on to a university campus in America and shooting people with an ­assault rifle, or stabbing children to death in Chinese schools. You have to take proper precautions and eventually, with luck, the fashion fades away.

However, the security authorities have to get their act together. This is where the French system has fallen down. According to the right-wing president of the Nice regional council, there were only 45 policemen on duty at the 14 July celebrations. No significant roadblocks had been set up, and it was pathetically easy for Lahouaiej-Bouhlel to steer his lorry round the concrete barriers and get on to the boulevard.

The previous week a government commission under a centre-right politician, Georges Fenech, reported that France simply wasn’t very good at defending itself against terrorism. The commission recommended the establishment of a single national counterterrorism agency, in place of the six competing and, by all accounts, mutually hostile intelligence organisations. Fenech said France’s inadequacy was like equipping an army with lead boots. Yet directly after his report came out, the interior minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, rejected the notion of overhauling the intelligence services.

As many as 230 people have been killed in terrorist attacks in France since the start of last year. “Something bad seems to happen every six months,” said a woman I filmed outside the Bataclan, “and we don’t know how to stop it.” France feels itself uniquely targeted. Yet the British example shows that Fenech was right and that it is possible to stop terrorism. After the 7 July 2005 bombs in London, an inquiry showed – in terms remarkably similar to Fenech’s – that intelligence about the culprits hadn’t been shared properly. Regional counterterrorist units were set up across Britain and the Security Service, MI5, opened up to the other agencies to a remarkable extent. The long rivalry between MI5 and the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, was defused.

Now, once a week, MI5 and MI6 hold a meeting with GCHQ and the police at MI5’s headquarters, at which they share intelligence and agree what action to take on it. Extremist groups have been infiltrated with great success. As a result, Britain hasn’t suffered a mass-casualty terrorist attack since 2005, though 40 plots have been foiled in that time – including seven in the past 18 months. Sometimes, of course, we’ve just been lucky: a car bomb was planted outside a London nightclub in 2007 but it was so poorly assembled that it didn’t go off.

Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, who despite his last-minute radicalisation would certainly have been picked up under the British system, rented his white lorry, drove it past the inadequate police check-points, and murdered 84 people who were just out to enjoy themselves. Forget about pitiless responses and declaring war on abstract nouns: what is required is proper, joined-up policing. That’s how a civilised society protects itself best.

John Simpson is the BBC’s world affairs editor. He tweets @JohnSimpsonNews

John Simpson is World Affairs Editor of BBC News, having worked for the corporation since the beginning of his career in 1970. He has reported from more than 120 countries, including 30 war zones, and interviewed many world leaders.

This article first appeared in the 21 July 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The English Revolt