By Alan MACLEOD

A recently released bombshell Human Rights Watch (HRW) report has made waves around the world. For the first time, the New York-based non-governmental organization has categorized Israel as an apartheid state guilty of “crimes against humanity.”

The 213-page study goes into detail about a range of racist laws and policies carried out by successive administrations, concluding that there is an “overarching Israeli government policy to maintain the domination by Jewish Israelis over Palestinians and grave abuses committed against Palestinians living in the occupied territory, including East Jerusalem.”

The report accuses the state of Israel of widespread “institutional discrimination” and of “denying millions of Palestinians their fundamental rights…solely because they are Palestinian and not Jewish.” It further notes that, across Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, it has “sought to maximize the land available for Jewish communities and to concentrate most Palestinians in dense population centers.”

“Prominent voices have warned for years that apartheid lurks just around the corner if the trajectory of Israel’s rule over Palestinians does not change,” said the organization’s executive director, Kenneth Roth. “This detailed study shows that Israeli authorities have already turned that corner and today are committing the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.

Perhaps most importantly, Human Rights Watch is now openly calling for global action to end the repression. The report asks the International Criminal Court to investigate and prosecute those involved in Palestinian persecution. While not explicitly endorsing the Boycott, Divestment and Sactions (BDS) movement, Human Rights Watch directly advocates that “[s]tates should impose individual sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes, against officials and individuals responsible for the continued commission of these serious crimes,” and for businesses to “cease business activities that directly contribute to the crimes of apartheid and persecution.”

A big splash

The report was widely covered across the world and has been heralded by Palestine solidarity activists, with experts seeing it as a potential turning point in the struggle for Palestinian sovereignty. “It was inevitable that Human Rights Watch would have to declare Israel an Apartheid state and, from what I hear, Amnesty International is going to be next to say it,” Asa Winstanley of the Electronic Intifada told MintPress. “It puts Israel’s backers in a difficult spot because Human Rights Watch is really part of the establishment so they cannot just dismiss it and it makes it impossible to ignore… It is harder for them to say Human Rights Watch is anti-Semitic, but they’re trying it anyway,” he added.

Trying indeed. Michigan Congresswoman Lisa McClain tweeted that “Human Rights Watch has shown again how they have an anti-Israel agenda,” suggesting they instead focus their attention on China or Iran’s repressive governments. “Hostility and hypocrisy are HRW’s hallmarks when it comes to Israel,” wrote the American Jewish Committee. The Jerusalem Post’s editorial board was equally condemnatory, denouncing what they saw as the “cynical appropriation of the suffering of the victims of the actual apartheid regime.” Other Israeli journalists described the report as “a disgrace to the memory of the millions who suffered under that policy [apartheid] in South Africa.” The news even made enough waves to force a response from the White House. Press Secretary Jen Psaki replied that “[a]s to the question of whether Israel’s actions constitute apartheid, that is not the view of this administration.”

Organized spontaneity

Yet much of the online anger at the report was actually manufactured by an Israeli government-sponsored app, Act.IL, which organized supporters of the Jewish state to act in sync to create an artificial groundswell of opposition to it. The app, which reportedly has a budget of over $1 million per year, instructed users to leave combative comments on Facebook, Twitter, and popular news outlets, and to like and promote others who did the same.

Human Rights Watch’s Facebook post announcing the report’s release has received over 1,400 comments, hundreds of them written in a similar, scathingly negative tone. One that the app directly told users to signal boost, for instance, described Palestinians as a people “indoctrinated with hate for Israel and Jews for over 100 years,” and claimed they were paid salaries to murder Israelis. It also presented the 1967 war and occupation as a humanitarian effort to bring electricity and other infrastructure to Arabs.

Another “mission” Act.IL gave its users was to promote a Facebook comment attacking the report as “nothing more than hate speech” and calling its lead author a “rabid anti-Zionist and Israel hater.”

One of the many images provided to Act.IL users for their astroturfing campaign against HRW

Act.IL is one of the chief tools in Israel’s online public relations enterprise. The app debuted in 2017 and is part of what Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Gilad Erdan called an “Iron Dome of Truth.” “Our cell phones are the number one weapon against us,” he explained, noting that public opinion in the U.S. was beginning to turn against them. While most of the app’s nearly 20,000 users are volunteers, a core of them are paid operatives, with many students receiving scholarships as a reward for their work.

The app has been designed to feel like a game, with points assigned for completing “missions” such as sharing pro-Israel videos, reporting anti-Israel content, signing petitions, or attending online seminars. Users can track their progress on leaderboards, earn badges and prizes, and chat with other members of the community. While it might feel like Animal Crossing or World of Warcraft for some, its creators see this very much as a new front in the war against Palestine. Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked categorizes BDS as “another branch of terrorism in the modern age,” and has been an important voice in taking the fight to a new front.

An Act.IL mission encouraging astroturfing of online discussions. Source @AntiBDSApp

There is also an online toolkit full of folders of responses to typical questions and issues that arise. Users can, for instance, go to the BDS folder to find stock replies to their arguments. Or they can go to a specific folder to find articles, images and videos they can use to demonize Hamas.

The missions are organized by outlet, so users can, for instance, target only Facebook, Telegram, or other platforms they are most familiar with. At the time of writing, there are 10 missions each to complete on Facebook and YouTube, 30 on Instagram, 25 on Twitter.

One current challenge is to upvote an answer to a question on Quora that asks about the validity and purpose of checkpoints in the West Bank. The answer claims they are purely about protection from terror attacks, and claims that Red Crescent ambulances are used to ferry bombs around the area. Other missions include pressuring an online store to remove a bag with a message stating “Make Israel Palestine Again.”

An Act.IL “mission” encouraging users to demand the removal of products with pro-Palestinian messaging

“It is quite astounding how openly they do it. But, of course, when you see a comment online, you wouldn’t necessarily think that it was coming from the Israeli government, but this is essentially what is happening,” Winstanley said. “Israel is not the only state to do this, but they do it fairly successfully.”

For all this, however, it is clear that Act.IL has a serious problem with user retention and lacks the volunteer numbers for it to be truly game changing.

Controlling the message

In a time of heightened awareness about foreign government interference online, it is particularly surprising that these operations can be openly carried out across virtually every major platform. Big tech companies like Twitter, YouTube and Facebook are constantly deleting tens of thousands of Russian, Chinese, Iranian and Cuban accounts belonging to what they claim are organized, state-sponsored disinformation campaigns.

In an effort to gauge the legality of its operations, MintPress reached out to Facebook, YouTube, Quora, and other big platforms used by Act.IL. We received no response from any of them. While this is particularly noteworthy — as these companies have teams of public relations representatives and are extremely forthright and timely with responses on other issues — it is perhaps not surprising. Facebook especially has long been working closely with the Israeli government in deciding which voices to censor. As far back as 2016, Ayelet Shaked boasted that Facebook removed 95% of the posts her office asked them to. Yet when Shaked herself called for a genocidal war against Palestine and its women, who give birth to “little snakes,” not only did the post remain online, it received thousands of likes and was widely circulated.

“The concern is that Facebook is adopting Israeli policy and terminology when it comes to defining what incitement is,” said Nadim Nashif, co-founder of 7amleh, the Arab Centre for the Advancement of Social Media. 7amleh was therefore dismayed when last year, Facebook appointed former Israeli Minister of Justice Emi Palmor to its Oversight Board, the council having the final say in the moderation of content on the platform used by 2.6 billion people worldwide. In her role as justice minister, Palmor was directly implicated in the persecution and subjugation of Palestinians.

Earlier this year, an Israeli Defense Forces soldier attempted to sue a Palestinian-American activist living in California over an allegedly slanderous Facebook post condemning her for participating in ethnic cleansing. Remarkably, the plaintiff attempted to convince a California judge to apply Israeli law to the incident, despite the fact that both she and the defendant are American citizens.

Top media figures have also paid the price for their support of BDS. CNN fired commentator Marc Lamont Hill after he made a speech at the United Nations calling for a free Palestine. Meanwhile, journalist Abby Martin was blocked from speaking at a conference at Georgia Southern University last year after she refused to sign a contract promising to renounce BDS. Georgia is one of dozens of U.S. states to have anti-BDS legislation, essentially forcing any would-be recipient of public contracts or funds, including government employees, to sign a pledge not to boycott Israel. Martin is currently suing the state of Georgia.

Perhaps the greatest PR victory for the Israel lobby in recent years was its defamation campaign against British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn. The lifelong pacifist, anti-racist campaigner was transformed into a raging anti-Semite in the minds of many, thanks to a massive propaganda onslaught. In the three months before the 2019 election, there were 1,450 articles in national British newspapers linking Corbyn with anti-Semitism, chiefly because of his support for Palestinian liberation. Much of this was orchestrated by Israel and its lobby, which worked closely with journalists and politicians keen to see the socialist politician’s demise. The media blitz succeeded. When media researchers asked the public what percentage of Labour members faced official complaints over anti-Semitism, the average guess was 34%. The actual answer was less than 0.1%; and more than half of those complaints were made by one person. Corbyn lost the election and the U.K. chose Boris Johnson.

Winstanley, whose documentary “How they brought down Corbyn” premiered last week, told MintPress:

The most effective propaganda strategy against [Corbyn] was the fabrication that he was an anti-Semite on the basis of his past criticisms of Israel and his Palestinian solidarity. In my view, the maliciously fabricated anti-Semitism crisis against the Labour Party was the main factor in his [being deposed] as Labour Party leader. Without this factor, he would have made it to Number 10 Downing Street and become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.”

While Human Rights Watch’s report is new, the charge of apartheid is not. In 2017, a United Nations report “clearly and frankly concludes” that Israel is “a racist state that has established an apartheid system that persecutes the Palestinian people.” Earlier this year, Israeli human rights organization B’TSelem also used the word “apartheid,” claiming that Israel had established “a regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.”

In the wake of World War Two and the Holocaust, Israel was created by the United Nations in 1947, cutting a section of territory from the British mandate of Palestine to form a new state. While it was immediately recognized by the international powers, Arabs who lived in the region were dead against it, leading to a war in 1948. David Ben Gurion and the founding fathers of Israel immediately began a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the local population, razing their villages and forcing them to flee. Today there are more than 5 million Palestinians registered as refugees.

While many defenders of Israel today balk at the comparison to apartheid South Africa, the two countries were close friends for much of the late 20th century, seeing themselves as similar settler colonial projects surrounded by hostile nations. Furthermore, leaders of the African liberation movement saw themselves as part of the same struggle as those in Palestine. “We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians,” Nelson Mandela said in 1997. “I have witnessed the systemic humiliation of Palestinian men, women and children by members of the Israeli security forces,” said Archbishop Desmond Tutu in a statement endorsing BDS. “Their humiliation is familiar to all black South Africans who were corralled and harassed and insulted and assaulted by the security forces of the apartheid government,” he added.

A turning tide

The Human Rights Watch report is the latest reference point showing Western public sympathies swaying towards Palestine. During the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination race, a number of top-tier candidates very publicly shunned the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, refusing to attend the AIPAC conference. Last week, the Pilsbury family called for a global boycott of the food company that bears its name. “As long as General Mills [which owns the Pilsbury brand] continues to profit from the dispossession and suffering of the Palestinian people, we will not buy any Pillsbury products,” they stated, denouncing the building of a factory on illegal settlement land.

Advocates for Palestine hailed Human Rights Watch’s study. Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies wrote:

There can be little doubt that much of HRW’s decision to issue this report now was based on the recognition that not only is it no longer political suicide to call Israeli apartheid what it is, but that we are now at a tipping point whereby failing to call out apartheid risks losing credibility for a human rights organization. It’s a huge victory for our movement.”

The battle, however, is far from won, and it is clear that the Israel lobby will continue to fight to hold back the tide until it is insurmountable.

mintpressnews.com

A war crimes complaint has been filed against Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump adviser Jared Kushner in the International Criminal Court (ICC). It is now up to the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor to decide whether the complaint should be pursued. If the prosecutor launches a preliminary examination and finds reason to believe they committed war crimes, the court could then authorize a full investigation.

The complaint, filed by Middlesex University law professor William Schabas on June 30 on behalf of four Palestinians who live in the West Bank, states “there is credible evidence” that Trump, Netanyahu and Kushner “are complicit in acts that may amount to war crimes relating to the transfer of populations into occupied territory and the annexation of the sovereign territory of the State of Palestine.” Under article 15 of the ICC’s Rome Statute, any individual, group or organization can bring a complaint to the Office of the Prosecutor.

Schabas’s complaint comes on the heels of unusual moves last month from the Trump administration, which declared a “national emergency” in June in an effort to shield U.S. and Israeli officials from ICC accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The order authorizes the freezing of assets and family travel bans against ICC officials and others who have participated in, or provided assistance to investigations, arrests, detentions or prosecutions. It’s not necessary that a person be involved with an ICC action, however, to be subject to Trump’s new sanctions. His order covers any ICC employee or agent whom the secretary of state determines “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Trump’s Endorsement of Israel’s Illegal Annexation Is a War Crime

Schabas’s complaint alleges that the Trump administration’s endorsement of Israel’s annexation constitutes a war crime.

Trump’s “Peace to Prosperity” plan endorses the illegal Israeli annexation of 30 percent of the West Bank which, Schabas alleges, “is intricately linked to the war crime of changing the population of an occupied territory.” The annexation, slated to occur on July 1, has been delayed, likely for political reasons.

Article 49  of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that an “occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territories it occupies.” The Rome Statute says that an occupying power’s direct or indirect transfer “of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a war crime.

Sixty-seven special independent experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council declared in a statement that Israel’s annexation of occupied territory “is a serious violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions, and contrary to the fundamental rule affirmed many times by the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly that the acquisition of territory by war or force is inadmissible.”

Trump Claims the ICC Has No Jurisdiction Over Americans and Israelis

In his June 11 order, Trump states that the ICC’s “illegitimate assertion of jurisdiction” over nationals of the U.S. and its allies would “threaten to infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States.” Trump notes that the U.S. is not a party to the ICC’s Rome Statute and has never consented to the jurisdiction of the court.

Although Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute as he left office,  the United States never ratified it. In an unprecedented move, George W. Bush withdrew the U.S.’s signature from the statute in 2002. 

Even though the United States isn’t a party to the Rome Statute, U.S. nationals can still be held liable in the ICC for crimes that occurred in the territory of a country that is a party.  So although the United States has not ratified the Rome Statute, the ICC nevertheless has jurisdiction over crimes committed by U.S. nationals in the territory of Afghanistan, which is a party.

On March 5, the ICC Appeals Chamber accepted Bensouda’s recommendation to proceed with an investigation of war crimes allegedly committed by U.S. military and CIA officials in Afghanistan and at CIA black sites.

Less than three months prior, on December 20, 2019, Bensouda had found a reasonable basis to believe that Israeli forces and Palestinians committed war crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories. She recommended that the Pretrial Chamber launch an investigation if it decided the court had territorial jurisdiction over Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

The same day the Appeals Chamber announced its approval of an investigation of U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo threatened to “take all necessary measures to protect our citizens from this renegade, so-called court.”

With his new national emergency declaration, Trump aims to ensure that no U.S. or Israeli persons are brought before the international court to answer for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He cited the American Service-Members Protection Act, enacted after Bush removed the U.S.’s signature from the Rome Statute. The act contains the “Hague Invasion Clause,” which authorizes the U.S. military to use armed force to extricate any U.S. or allied national detained by the ICC. This provision has never been used but its ramifications are frightening.

U.S. Pressure on the ICC Didn’t Work the First Time

In November 2017, Bensouda’s preliminary examination found reasonable grounds to believe that,  pursuant to U.S. policy,  members of the U.S. military and the  CIA had committed  war crimes. They included torture and cruel treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity and sexual violence against people in detention facilities in the territory of states parties to the Rome Statute, including  Afghanistan,  Romania, Poland and Lithuania.

The alleged crimes by the CIA and U.S. military “were not the abuses of a few isolated individuals,” but rather “part of approved interrogation techniques in an attempt to extract ‘actionable intelligence’ from detainees,” Bensouda wrote. She concluded there was “reason to believe” that crimes were “committed in the furtherance of a policy or policies … which would support US objectives in the conflict of Afghanistan.”

Bensouda requested that the ICC’s Pretrial Chamber approve an investigation into these allegations. The Trump administration threatened to deny visas to ICC judges and prosecutors and warned it would retaliate with sanctions if the court opened an investigation.

On April 5, 2019, the U.S. government revoked Bensouda’s visa to travel to the United States.

A week later, on April 12, 2019, the Pretrial Chamber apparently succumbed to U.S. pressure and declined to authorize Bensouda’s investigation. Although agreeing with Bensouda that there were reasonable grounds to believe that CIA members had committed war crimes, the Pretrial Chamber denied her request for an investigation “in the interests of justice.” That chamber cited the “extremely limited” possibility of an effective judicial process due to the likely refusal of U.S. and Afghan authorities to cooperate.

But in a landmark decision, on March 5, 2020, the Appeals Chamber overruled the Pretrial Chamber’s determination and authorized Bensouda to initiate an investigation.

Trump declared his “national emergency” three months later.

Bensouda Requested an Investigation of War Crimes Committed in Palestine

Trump’s June 11 executive order was also designed to shield Israeli officials from liability in the ICC for their war crimes.

On December 20, 2019, Bensouda told the Pretrial Chamber there was a reasonable basis to launch an investigation of “the situation in Palestine.” She had a reasonable belief that Israeli forces had committed war crimes of willful killing, willfully causing serious injury to body or health, disproportionate use of force, transfer of Israeli civilians into the Palestinian territory of the West Bank, and the killing of more than 200 Palestinians during protests at the Israel-Gaza fence. Bensouda also found a reasonable basis to investigate alleged war crimes by Palestinians, including intentional attacks against civilians, using civilians as human shields, and the commission of torture and willful killing.

Bensouda wrote that she was satisfied “(i) war crimes have been or are being committed in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip … (ii) potential cases arising from the situation would be admissible; and (iii) there are no substantial reasons to believe that an investigation would not serve the interests of justice.”

But although Bensouda determined that the ICC has territorial jurisdiction over the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza — she asked the Pretrial Chamber for a ruling on “the scope of the territorial jurisdiction” of the ICC.

Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute. But the ICC could take jurisdiction over Israelis if their crimes were committed in the territory of a state party. Israel maintains that Palestine is not a state so there is no ICC jurisdiction.

In 2012, the UN General Assembly recognized Palestine as a non-member observer state in the United Nations. Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute, thereby becoming a member of the States Parties of the International Criminal Court.

The International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) filed an amicus brief on March 16, 2020, urging the ICC to confirm its jurisdiction over Palestine. IADL bureau member Richard Harvey wrote:

The ICC’s normative power and legal authority will be strengthened by confirming its jurisdiction over the State of Palestine, including the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, and opening an investigation into the Palestinian situation. Thereby the equal rights of all peoples to justice for international crimes will receive much-needed affirmation.

ICC States Parties and UN Security Council Members Express “Unwavering Support” for ICC

Sixty-seven ICC member countries representing regions throughout the world issued a joint statement expressing their “unwavering support for the Court as an independent and impartial judicial institution.” They pledged to remain “undeterred by any measures or threats against the Court, its officials, and those cooperating with it.”

Likewise, 10 members of the 15-member UN Security Council issued a statement to “reconfirm our unwavering support for the Court as an independent and impartial judicial institution” and “preserve its integrity undeterred by any threats against the Court, its officials and those cooperating with it.” The group, which included two permanent members of the Council – France and the United Kingdom – renewed their “resolve to stand against impunity which is at the core of the Rome Statute.”

The remarkable action of the Appeals Chamber in defying U.S. threats and blackmail and approving a war crimes investigation of U.S. officials indicates that the ICC is striving to fulfill its mandate to bring those who have committed the most serious crimes to justice.

truthout.org

Ben NORTON

Human Rights Watch, the leading so-called rights organization in the United States, has actively lobbied for Washington to impose suffocating sanctions on leftist governments in Latin America. The group has even praised the Donald Trump administration for ramping up its aggressively destabilizing regime-change measures.

NGOs like Human Rights Watch (HRW) depict targeted sanctions as a more palatable alternative to military action, although these measures are widely recognized by international legal experts to be a form of economic warfare that have led to the deaths of many thousands of civilians, destroyed the livelihoods of countless people, and devastated entire nations’ economies.

As the coronavirus pandemic spread across the globe, HRW operatives took credit for new sanctions the Trump administration had imposed on Nicaragua’s democratically elected leftist government. Among those cheering on the escalation of economic warfare was HRW Australia development and outreach manager Stephanie McLennan, who chirped that the fresh round of sanctions were “great news!”

This is great news! US sanctions on #Nicaragua officials open door for accountability. In 2019, we recommended sanctions against two of the three named officials—Luis Alberto Pérez Olivas and Justo Pastor Urbina—after finding evidence of grave abuses. https://t.co/f7zFdl2X22

— Stephanie McLennan (@StephMcLennan) March 17, 2020

Rather than challenge the unilateral economic war waged across the globe by the US, Human Rights Watch is taking credit for the escalation of Washington’s assault on Nicaragua – and at the very moment when the small country of just 6 million people grapples with the deadly Covid-19 outbreak, and an arduous peace and reconciliation process.

In 2018, the Trump administration backed a bloody coup attempt in Nicaragua, in which right-wing extremists shot, tortured, and killed state security forces and leftist Sandinista activists, burning down buildings and setting people on fire, in hopes of destabilizing the government. When the putsch fizzled out, opposition groups funded by the US government turned to economic warfare and sanctions as the next weapon in the regime-change arsenal.

Purported “human rights” organizations in Nicaragua that work closely with the right-wing opposition played a major role in this coup attempt, selling outlandish, fabricated statistics that were eagerly regurgitated by the corporate media and international NGOs like HRW.

HRW’s staunch support for US sanctions clearly demonstrates how the group has been instrumentalized as an arm of US pressure against independent states in the Global South, especially socialist ones. NGOs like HRW provide cover for economic warfare, preventing nations like Nicaragua from rebuilding and healing the social divisions that have been exacerbated through successive US-backed destabilization campaigns.

The same strategy is apparent in Venezuela, another leftist country in Latin America targeted by an ongoing US coup attempt. Having spent over a decade demonizing the socialist government in Caracas, HRW is now calling for more painful sanctions to be levied against the country, which is already under an illegal, unilateral US blockade that has caused the deaths of at least 40,000 civilians, and perhaps as many as 100,000.

Scholars and independent human rights experts have long criticized HRW for its blatant double standards against Venezuela. In 2008, following a wave of sabotage and violence by the country’s US-backed opposition, HRW published a massive report uncritically echoing the unsubstantiated claims of right-wing activists as supposed facts, while systematically whitewashing their violence. The dubious report prompted more than 100 scholars to pen an open letter panning HRW for its failure to meet “minimal standards of scholarship, impartiality, accuracy or credibility.”

Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth has led the charge for more sanctions on Nicaragua and Venezuela. His pleas for escalating the US economic war have been vociferously amplified by José Miguel Vivanco, the director of HRW’s Americas division.

Vivanco is a close ally of the right-wing opposition forces in Latin America, and is notorious for advancing their most maximalist positions under the guise of human rights concern.  He rejects virtually any effort at negotiations with the leftist states that comprise the Trump administration’s “Troika of Tyranny,” insisting that sanctions are “the only language they understand.”

Vivanco has spilled oceans of ink lobbying the US Congress to drop the economic hammer on the few remaining socialist governments in Latin America. His behavior is part and parcel of HRW’s historic mission to destabilize virtually any government the US State Department deems to be insufficiently democratic, and to do so behind the veil of performative concern for the oppressed.

HRW, a coup-supporting ‘human rights’ group funded by a billionaire cold warrior

Since its founding days, Human Rights Watch has functioned as a revolving door between the NGO sector and the US government. It has repeatedly refused to oppose American wars and military interventions, and displayed clear double standards toward Washington’s allies, while fixating obsessively on the supposed misdeeds of independent nations targeted by the US for regime change.

HRW was founded during the height of the Cold War as Helsinki Watch, an anti-Soviet lobby group closely linked to the US government and funded by the Ford Foundation, which served as a CIA passthrough.

Ken Roth has directed HRW for 27 years – far longer than most leaders he derides as dictators. Having begun his career as a federal prosecutor in the US Attorney Southern District of New York Office, Roth has never deviated much from Washington’s foreign-policy agenda.

Roth supported the far-right military coup in Bolivia in November 2019, and subsequently downplayed the junta’s massacre of indigenous protesters. Back in 2011, the HRW director wrote an op-ed glorifying the “responsibility to protect” doctrine, which holds that the US and its allies must dispatch their military to destroy governments that supposedly threaten civilian populations. He deployed the thin cover for imperial conquest to justify the NATO military intervention in Libya, which transformed the previously prosperous country into a failed state that was home to open-air slave markets.

This January, Roth helped justify the Trump administration’s extrajudicial execution of top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani, a brazen act of war that nearly plunged the region into a catastrophic conflict. In recent months, he has taken his longstanding resentment of China’s government to unhinged levels, likening Beijing to Nazi Germany and spreading a fake video of a special effects training which he implied depicted Chinese “killer robots.”

All the while, Roth’s organization has marketed itself as a noble and absolutely impartial defender of human rights. Its disingenuous global branding campaign has been possible thanks to a $100 million grant from  anti-communist billionaire George Soros. Soros is a key financier of the regime-change industry and a zealous cold warrior who worked closely with the United States and Western Europe to help overthrow socialist-oriented governments in Eastern Europe through a series of “color revolutions,” privatize their economies, and integrate the newly capitalist states into the European Union and NATO.

The Washington Post’s David Ignatius named Soros in 1991 as a key figure among a coterie of “overt operatives” who “have been doing in public what the CIA used to do in private – providing money and moral support for pro-democracy groups, training resistance fighters, working to subvert communist rule.”

While Soros has become something of a bogeyman for the right-wing, targeted with inane conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic vitriol, the oligarch has been granted broad cover from center-left forces across the West to finance pro-neoliberal regime change operations.

One of the two co-founders of HRW, Aryeh Neier, went on to become the president of Soros’ Open Society Foundations. The other co-founder, Robert L. Bernstein, gave Neier most of the credit for the organization’s genesis, writing in his memoir, “It would be hard to overstate the role that Aryeh Neier had in the development of HRW.”

George Soros commits a remarkable one billion dollars to liberal education. The perfect antidote to illiberal rule is to create generation after generation of George Soroses. https://t.co/KI3wTr0Lwy pic.twitter.com/wW08vugAbW

— Kenneth Roth (@KenRoth) January 23, 2020

Like Roth, HRW’s billionaire sponsor has taken a hardline position against China, calling it a “mortal danger” to neoliberal capitalist democracies, pouring money into groups to try to weaken and destabilize Beijing and remove the Communist Party from power.

China presents a “mortal danger” to open societies because of “the instruments of control that machine learning and artificial intelligence” have put in the hands of this repressive regime: Soros. https://t.co/6MH3AcEVO2 pic.twitter.com/S7fOrLcgtn

— Kenneth Roth (@KenRoth) January 24, 2019

Thanks to the generous patronage of billionaire oligarchs like Soros, HRW operatives hobnob with fellow elites in the organization’s opulent office space in New York City’s Empire State Building. From these lavish headquarters, HRW operatives look down from their three entire floors as they plot ways to turn up the heat on foreign governments they consider “authoritarian.”

The Empire State Building in fact honored these tenants in 2013 by turning “a bright blue to honor Human Rights Watch.” Four years earlier, HRW officials sent an indignant open letter to the building’s management condemning its decision to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China.

The Empire State Building shines blue to celebrate #HumanRightsDay! Support @hrw http://t.co/HMbDUnxgHO pic.twitter.com/8IMTWhqbYF

— Human Rights Watch (@hrw) December 10, 2014

HRW’s neoliberal political orientation reflects the ideology of its billionaire sponsors. The group has a very limited understanding of human rights that excludes the right of colonized peoples to resist their occupiers with force or the right of workers to organize and form a union.

HRW is muted in its concern for inhabitants of the Global North, saying far less about Black Americans brutalized and murdered by US police than it does about the repression of participants in NATO-backed color revolutions in Eastern Europe.

While it actively undermines socialist governments and their worker-based constituencies, HRW has collaborated closely with corporate America. In fact, it celebrated its 40th anniversary on Wall Street in March 2018, ringing the bell that opens the NASDAQ stock exchange.

“At Human Rights Watch we know business prospers where human rights & the rule of law are protected,” tweeted Minky Worden, its director of global initiatives, without a hint of irony.

No, it’s not an IPO for @HRW! We are ringing the opening bell @NASDAQ today for our 40th anniversary+to celebrate #HumanRights worldwide! At Human Rights Watch we know business prospers where human rights & the rule of law are protected. Join us! https://t.co/IR7zotTPM1 pic.twitter.com/sV8RrKPyFj

— Minky Worden (@MinkysHighjinks) March 15, 2018

Soros is not the only billionaire signing checks for HRW. The group has also come under fire for taking huge sums from a Saudi oligarch as apparent hush-money after documenting the abuse of his employees. Ken Roth personally oversaw the $470,000 grant from the Saudi billionaire, and accepted responsibility for the highly questionable decision only after it was publicly exposed.

While conservatives have on occasion attacked Human Rights Watch because of its links to liberal organizations and its criticisms of Israel’s atrocities in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories, HRW has paid tribute to one of the most militaristic senators to serve in Congress.

When Sen. John McCain died in 2018, HRW lionized the Republican politician, a stalwart champion of American wars of aggression, as a “compassionate voice” whose legacy was defined by his supposed “defense of human rights.”

In the same vein, HRW refused to oppose the US invasion of Iraq, which was blatantly illegal under international law. (Only after the start of the Iraq War did the NGO finally speak out, when it was safe — and guaranteed to not have a tangible impact.)

Similarly, HRW has repeatedly declined to call for an end to the US-backed Saudi war on Yemen, even while it has documented the Washington-backed Saudi forces’ horrendous atrocities in the country.

As it shrinks from vocal opposition to Washington’s regime-change wars, HRW actively lobbies the US and other Western governments to impose sanctions on nations it claims are rights violators.

HRW insists the sanctions it lobbies for do not hurt civilians because they are “targeted” against government officials and institutions. The best evidence debunking this claim is the reality for inhabitants of Venezuela and Iran, where US sanctions have made lives hell for much of the population, particularly the poor, by locking these countries out of the international financial system, depriving them of the assets they need to import food, medicine, and medical equipment.

And even when HRW has, in very rare cases, acknowledged the destructive impact on US sanctions, as it did in a one-time report on Iran, it has expressly refrained from calling for an end to them. Instead of opposing sanctions on principle, it has simply criticized the way they are implemented, calling for “clarifications” on the measures that already exist.

Meanwhile, as Human Rights Watch lobbies for even more aggressive sanctions on Washington’s Official Enemies, it has not demonstrated a fraction of the same concern for repressive right-wing regimes backed by the US. HRW does sporadically report on these countries’ abuses, but not nearly as consistently.

Neoconservative Human Rights Watch Americas director José Miguel Vivanco with Organization of American States Secretary General Luis Almagro, another regime-change lobbyist (Photo credit: OAS)

HRW praises Trump admin for imposing Nicaragua sanctions it lobbied for

The Trump administration has dedicated itself to the overthrow of Nicaragua’s democratically elected  Sandinista government, backing a violent coup attempt in 2018, dubbing the small country a supposed “threat to national security,” and imposing several rounds of sanctions, which have crippled the economy and disproportionately impacted the poor and working class.

On March 5, the US government hit Nicaragua with a new round of sanctions, this time targeting the country’s police forces.

Numerous Human Rights Watch operatives responded by publicly lavishing praise on the Trump administration. One HRW employee who previously worked for the US government placed an op-ed in a right-wing Nicaraguan media outlet applauding the sanctions.

The Grayzone has previously reported on how HRW joined the US government and Organization of American States to vigorously lobby for the release of violent criminals who participated in the coup attempt, using lists of Washington-funded right-wing opposition groups that falsely characterized them as “political prisoners.” After the Sandinista government ceded to the international pressure campaign and agreed to an amnesty, one man who was released went on to stab his own pregnant girlfriend to death, murdering her in cold blood.

HRW has not commented on this scandal, and has shown no regret for its actions. Instead, the “rights” group doubled down on its call for more aggressive international action against Nicaragua’s elected government.

On March 17, in the middle of the deadly coronavirus pandemic, an associate in HRW’s Americas division named Megan Monteleone published an article praising the Trump administration for the new sanctions on Nicaragua’s police force.

Monteleone notes in her official bio on the HRW website: “Prior to joining Human Rights Watch, she worked as an International Affairs Specialist at the U.S. Department of Justice” — yet another example of the revolving door between Washington and this so-called non-governmental organization.

New US sanctions on Nicaraguan police commissioners who bear responsibility for grave human rights abuses committed during the 2018 crackdown offer a sign of hope for victims awaiting justice. Read my op-ed: https://t.co/8lu05x7f6S

— Megan Monteleone (@MegMonteleone) March 17, 2020

Monteleone’s op-ed was printed in the website Confidencial, a mouthpiece for Nicaragua’s right-wing opposition — which is heavily funded by the US government and closely collaborates with Washington.

Confidencial does not even feign partiality; it is aggressively partisan, routinely referring to Nicaragua’s elected government as a “regime” and a “dictatorship.”

Confidencial is owned by Carlos Fernando Chamorro, an oligarch from the Chamorro clan, the most powerful family in Nicaragua, which has produced one rightist opposition leader after another. He is the son of Nicaragua’s former President Violeta Chamorro, a conservative who took power after a decade-long US terror war and economic blockade.

Confidencial strongly supported the violent 2018 coup attempt in Nicaragua, acting as a de facto public relations vehicle for the US-backed coup-mongers as they killed and terrorized state security forces, leftist activists, Sandinista supporters, and their family members.

Human Rights Watch firmly took the side of the violent US-backed opposition in the 2018 putsch. The supposed rights organization blamed the government entirely for the violence, whitewashing and erasing the heinous crimes carried out by the Washington-allied coup-mongers.

Monteleone’s article in Confidencial was a continuation of HRW’s exercise in naked bias: She did not once mention the wave of opposition violence, while declaring, “New US sanctions offer hope for victims who are waiting for justice.”

In fact, HRW took credit for the new Trump administration sanctions. Monteleone pointed out in her article that, “In 2019, Human Rights Watch recommended sanctions against two of the three named officials.”

Monteleone even quoted the US government (her former employer) in the op-ed, treating the highly politicized accusations of the US Treasury as unquestionable fact.

“The new sanctions are a positive step, not only to hold those responsible to account, but also to help curb ongoing abuses,” the HRW associate wrote.

She concluded her op-ed in the Nicaraguan opposition mouthpiece by calling for more countries to impose more sanctions: “It is critical for governments in the region and Europe to reinforce this message and continue pressuring the Ortega government by adopting more targeted sanctions directed at top officials responsible for past and ongoing abuses.”

Confidencial translated Monteleone’s article into Spanish and published it alongside a political cartoon demonizing the Nicaraguan police force. Her op-ed was also promoted on Twitter by HRW’s right-wing Americas director José Miguel Vivanco, who works closely with conservative opposition forces in Latin America and advances their agenda on the international stage.

On March 19 — after thousands of Americans had died from the Covid-19 pandemic, and the federal US government was doing virtually nothing to help them — HRW executive director Kenneth Roth praised the Trump administration for “imposing a modicum of accountability” with its new sanctions. (This came just a week after Roth condemned the World Health Organization for supposedly being “overly sycophantic to China.”)

Senior members of Nicaraguan Pres Ortega’s government have enjoyed impunity for their 2018 violent crackdown against protesters. Now the US is imposing a modicum of accountability with targeted economic sanctions against three National Police officials. https://t.co/p24UA7UDTF pic.twitter.com/fxldwut2FH

— Kenneth Roth (@KenRoth) March 19, 2020

Monteleone’s obsessive hatred of Nicaragua’s leftist government is apparent on her Twitter account, where almost all of her tweets are anti-Nicaragua posts. Apparently other countries in Latin America, let alone the rest of the world, are not violating human rights.

HRW colleagues joined Monteleone in praising the new Trump administration sanctions on Nicaragua, including Emma Daly, the acting deputy executive director for media at Human Rights Watch, and Jan Kooy, HRW’s deputy European media director.

HRW lobbies for more civilian-killing sanctions on Nicaragua (and Venezuela)

This was far from the first time Human Rights Watch clamored for sanctions on Nicaragua. In fact, the “rights” group has actively lobbied on behalf of the country’s tiny right-wing opposition.

HRW Americas division director José Miguel Vivanco has shown a blatant bias against left-wing countries in the region, along with an obsession with undercutting Nicaragua’s Sandinista government.

In June 2019, Vivanco testified before the US Congress, lobbying the legislative body “to impose targeted sanctions —including asset freezes— against senior Nicaraguan officials.”

Today I testified before the US Congress about Ortega’s crackdown in Nicaragua.

I urged Congress to press the executive to impose targeted sanctions —including asset freezes— against senior Nicaraguan officials responsible for abuse. @hrw press release: https://t.co/o05TmQy3qT pic.twitter.com/3iFOY0xA97

— José Miguel Vivanco (@JMVivancoHRW) June 11, 2019

HRW made no mention whatsoever of the extreme violence carried out by the Nicaraguan right-wing opposition in its coup attempt,  blaming all of the deaths and injuries on the government instead.

The so-called rights organization also praised the Trump administration’s previous imposition of sanctions on Nicaragua, declaring in its press release, “Human Rights Watch supports the successful application of the Global Magnitsky Act in July and December 2018, when the US Treasury Department imposed sanctions on five Nicaraguans implicated in human rights abuses and corruption.”

HRW went a step further and urged US members of Congress to meet with their leaders of Nicaragua’s US-backed opposition: “Human Rights Watch also recommended that the US Congress: … Meet regularly with human rights defenders, activists, journalists, and the opposition from Nicaragua who come to Washington to maintain balance in its understanding of the situation in Nicaragua,” the group stated.

Just a week after the congressional testimony, Human Rights Watch and Vivanco revived their calls for the Trump administration to impose sanctions on Nicaragua in a report titled “Crackdown in Nicaragua: Torture, Ill-Treatment, and Prosecutions of Protesters and Opponents.” The paper completely whitewashed the coup attempt, uncritically echoing the dubious and rumors narratives of the right-wing opposition.

In a new press release accompanying this report, HRW expanded its call for sanctions not just from the US government, but also from other governments in Europe and Latin America.

“Governments in the Americas and Europe should impose targeted sanctions against top Nicaraguan authorities,” HRW wrote.

This “rights” organization provided a list of Nicaraguan government officials who “should be subjected to targeted sanctions, such as travel bans and assets freezes,” including President Daniel Ortega and numerous top police and security officials. Most of these Nicaraguan officials had or have subsequently been sanctioned by the US government.

In both English and Spanish, Vivanco amplified this demand for more economic war.

NEW @HRW REPORT

The Nicaraguan government has tortured, abused and arbitrarily prosecuted critics.

The only way to curb widespread abuses is through sustained international pressure, including targeted sanctions and pressure for accountability.

Read: https://t.co/NGRWG2YCaE pic.twitter.com/eLbfvs8ggn

— José Miguel Vivanco (@JMVivancoHRW) June 19, 2019

Vivanco: ‘You can’t negotiate… You have to double down on the sanctions’

José Miguel Vivanco, the director of Human Rights Watch’s Americas division, has adopted some of the most maximalist positions of Latin America’s right-wing as his own. He publicly opposes negotiations with Nicaragua’s government, insisting that economic warfare is the only possible action.

In English, Vivanco’s language is careful to appear reasonable. In Spanish, however, the gloves come off, displaying the hyperbolic rhetoric familiar to radical right-wing Latin American activists. Vivanco regularly refers to the Nicaragua’s democratically elected government in Spanish as a “regime” and “dictatorship,” for example.

“You can’t negotiate with the blood-soaked dictatorship of Ortega and Murillo,” Vivanco tweeted in March 2019. “On the contrary, you have to double down on the sanctions.”

Esta es una de las razones por las que no se puede negociar con la sanguinaria dictadura de Ortega y Murillo. Al contrario hay que redoblar las sanciones. https://t.co/09lH3n69TY

— José Miguel Vivanco (@JMVivancoHRW) March 13, 2019

A few days later, in a softball interview with the corporate media monolith Univision, Vivanco insisted, “The only language that Daniel Ortega understands is sanctions and international pressure.” (He has repeated this hardline position numerous times.)

El único lenguaje que entiende Daniel Ortega es el de las sanciones y la presión internacional.

Mi entrevista en @Univision:@cefeche @hrw_espanol https://t.co/j3paIg2qkH

— José Miguel Vivanco (@JMVivancoHRW) March 17, 2019

Vivanco has again and again, on dozens of occasions, called for sanctions on Nicaragua and Venezuela, while praising existing US government sanctions, in both English and Spanish.

Human Rights Watch accuses Nicaragua of torture against protesters, urges sanctions. ⁦@HRW https://t.co/FaaQ85uTlh

— José Miguel Vivanco (@JMVivancoHRW) June 20, 2019

Vivanco frequently shares hardline op-eds from Nicaragua’s right-wing media outlets. He even amplifies press releases from the country’s opposition groups, like the US government-backed Civic Alliance, tweeting their call for sanctions — giving the HRW stamp of approval to these extreme right-wing political forces.

“Rechazamos la campaña engañosa.. que pretende hacer ver estas sanciones como perjudiciales a los más pobres y humildes, cuando en realidad afecta a los funcionarios señalados por sus actos de corrupción y violación a los derechos humanos.”

https://t.co/ciNy6zLXbn

— José Miguel Vivanco (@JMVivancoHRW) May 4, 2019

Nicaragua is not the only country where Human Rights Watch has lobbied for economic warfare.

HRW also has a long history of extreme bias against Venezuela and its leftist Chavista government.

Executive director Kenneth Roth frequently condemns President Nicolás Maduro as “autocratic,” while Americas director José Miguel Vivanco calls routinely for expanding sanctions on Venezuela and its officials.

When the Trump administration expanded its already suffocating sanctions on Venezuela in September 2018, Vivanco cheered. “Today’s sanctions against the Maduro regime are very revealing of the political isolation of the government and its lack of legitimacy,” he wrote.

Today’s sanctions against the Maduro regime are very revealing of the political isolation of the government and its lack of legitimacy.https://t.co/6V9nQfxJUq

— José Miguel Vivanco (@JMVivancoHRW) September 26, 2018

Repeating much of the same neoconservative rhetoric he employed against Nicaragua, the HRW Americas director called for European governments to follow Trump’s lead.

“Targeted sanctions is the only language Maduro seems to understand. Time for European nations to impose them,” Vivanco tweeted.

Targeted sanctions is the only language Maduro seems to understand. Time for European nations to impose them. https://t.co/3bIs8C7jNG

— José Miguel Vivanco (@JMVivancoHRW) June 15, 2019

Vivanco welcomed the economic assault, demonizing Venezuela’s democratically elected President Nicolás Maduro as a “dictator.”

US gov sanctions Venezuelan dictator Maduro, freezing his assets and blocking US persons from transactions involving him. pic.twitter.com/3VOEMQAlom

— José Miguel Vivanco (@JMVivancoHRW) July 31, 2017

Vivanco has even used Venezuela to attack prominent left-wing intellectuals, such as Noam Chomsky. Taking a hardline neoconservative position, Vivanco tweeted, “Ideology has made Chomsky and friends say some nonsense about Venezuela.”

“There’s no democracy in [Venezuela],” Vivanco declared. “The problem in [Venezuela] is not ‘polarization’ (it’s that the regime oppresses dissent).”

The leading “human rights” official also doubled down on his staunch support for sanctions, declaring, “US/Canada sanctions do not harm the poor (but are targeted to specific officials).”

This demonstrably false claim has been debunked by credible international human rights experts, who have warned that the international sanctions on Venezuela prevent the country from importing medicine and medical equipment, because the government is locked out of the financial system and cannot do business with companies that fear being hit with secondary sanctions by Washington.

Ideology has made Chomsky and friends say some nonsense about Venezuela:
1. There’s no democracy in Vnzla;
2. The problem in Vnzla is not “polarization” (it’s that the regime oppresses dissent)
3. US/Canada sanctions do not harm the poor (but are targeted to specific officials). https://t.co/dQtDCtGB9o

— José Miguel Vivanco (@JMVivancoHRW) March 10, 2018

When the Trump administration hit Venezuela with suffocating sanctions in July 2017, the action was so severe that it led to a response from the UN special rapporteur on on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures, Idriss Jazairy.

Jazairy released an official statement in his capacity as the UN’s top experts on sanctions, stating, “Sanctions would worsen the situation of the people in Venezuela, who are already suffering from crippling inflation and a lack of access to adequate food and medicine.”

These sanctions “can have a particularly devastating impact” of civilians, Jazairy warned.

HRW’s Americas director threw a tantrum in response, attacking the UN special rapporteur and defending the US sanctions.

“Nonsense,” Vivanco tweeted. He claimed the UN expert “fails to distinguish [between] targeted and general sanctions.”

This concern for Venezuelan civilians is “helping Maduro,” the right-wing HRW official declared.

Speaking of helping Maduro, UN Rapporteur fails to distinguish btwn targeted and general sanctions; calls for vague “dialogue”. Nonsense. pic.twitter.com/4bzW9VDkfu

— José Miguel Vivanco (@JMVivancoHRW) August 12, 2017

In the process, Vivanco revealed his blatant double standards.

Back in 2017, the Venezuelan government arrested the right-wing opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez, who had presided directly over a wave of violence and numerous US-backed coup attempts against the elected Chavista administration.

Referring to Venezuela’s attorney general, Tarek William Saab, as “just another bureaucrat,” Vivanco harshly condemned the arrest.

For HRW’s Americas director, Venezuela’s sovereign government does not have the right to crack down on coup-plotters inside its own territory — but the US government and European nations have every right to hit Venezuela with all forms of economic warfare.

Como un burócrata más, @TarekWiliamSaab actúa como si sanciones contra @leopoldolopez fueran justas y legales. ¿Defensor del Pueblo? pic.twitter.com/kaZzJm8Cri

— José Miguel Vivanco (@JMVivancoHRW) April 24, 2017

José Miguel Vivanco’s hypocrisy was also apparent when he held a friendly meeting with the repressive, US-backed leader of Ecuador, Lenín Moreno, in July 2019.

“It was an honor to meet today with President Lenín,” Vivanco said, heaping praise on the US-backed leader.

Fue un honor reunirme hoy con el Pdte @Lenin.

Le expresé nuestro pleno apoyo al proceso de restauración del estado de derecho en el país. También le presenté argumentos jurídicos que explican por qué Ecuador debería despenalizar el aborto en casos de violación sexual. pic.twitter.com/zVXYbUh5oW

— José Miguel Vivanco (@JMVivancoHRW) July 18, 2019

Moreno has imprisoned numerous democratically elected politicians, including mayors and other senior officials from the Citizens’ Revolution party, liquidating his political opposition. All along, Moreno has enjoyed the staunch backing of the US government, which successfully encouraged him to end the asylum protections afforded to journalist Julian Assange and hand him over to British authorities, violating national and international law.

Moreno’s security forces also killed, wounded, and detained thousands of Ecuadorians protesting neoliberal economic reforms he tried to push through in October.

Instead of criticizing the overtly repressive Moreno government in Ecuador, Vivanco has praised it. And at the same moment, Vivanco has even referred to Ecuador’s former democratically elected President Correa as “authoritarian,” with no explanation whatsoever as to how he violated democratic norms.

As with Nicaragua and Venezuela, Vivanco has adopted the most extreme position of Ecuador’s right-wing. “Lenín and Correa are like water and oil,” he asserted. “One [Correa] is an autocrat; the other [Lenín], a democrat. One is a messianic narcissist; the other, a leader who listens.”

.@Lenin y Correa son como el agua y el aceite. Uno es un autócrata; el otro, un demócrata. Uno es un narcisista mesiánico; el otro, un líder que escucha. https://t.co/UX8FNnugFP

— José Miguel Vivanco (@JMVivancoHRW) September 16, 2018

But for Human Rights Watch, a billionaire-backed regime-change-lobbying organization that supports coups against elected governments, hypocrisy is the inevitable outgrowth of constantly catering to Washington.

thegrayzone.com

At a time when the Western world desperately needs alternative voices to the neoliberals, the neoconservatives, the presstitutes and the Trump de-regulationists, there are none. The Western leftwing has gone insane.

The voices being raised against Trump, who does need voices raised against him, are so hypocritical as to reflect less on Trump than on those with raised voices.

Sharon Kelly McBride, speaking for Human Rights First, sent me an email saying that Trump stands on the wrong side of “America’s ideals” by his prohibition of Muslim immigrants into the US.

My question to McBride is: Where were you and Human Rights First when the Bush/Cheney/Obama regime was murdering, maiming, orphaning, widowing, and displacing millions of Muslims in seven countries over the course of 4 presidential terms?

Why is it OK to slaughter millions of peoples, destroy their homes and villages, wreck their cities as long as it is not Donald Trump who is doing it?

Where does Human Rights First get off. Just another fake website, or is McBride seizing the opportunity to prostitute Human Rights First in hopes of donations from the DNC, the Soros’ NGOs, the Isreal Lobby, and the ruling One Percent?

Money speaks, and alternative voices need money in order to speak. As so many Americans are indifferent to the quality of information that they get, many alternative voices are thrown back to relying on whatever money is available. Generally, it is the money of disinformation, of information that controls the explanations in ways that favor and enhance the ruling oligarchy.

Is this the position in which McBride has placed Human Rights First?

Turn now to Truthout. This website says that Trump is demonizing Muslims by denying them immigration into the US. Where has Truthout been for the past 16 years? Did Truthout not notice that the George W. Bush regime said “We have to kill them (Muslims) over there before they (Muslims) come over here.”

Did Truthout not notice that Obama continued the policy of “killing them (Muslims) over there”?

How insane, how corrupt, does Truthout have to be to say that it is Trump who is demonizing Muslims?

Trump has not said that he wants to “kill them over there.” He has said that if the masses of peoples we have dislocated and whose families we have murdered want to come here, they might wish to exact revenge. Having made Muslims our enemies, it makes no sense to admit vast numbers of them.

According to Bush and Obama, we are supposed “to kill them over there,” not bring them “over here” where they can kill us as a payback for the murder machine we have run against them.

This is common sense. Yet, the deranged left says it is “racism.”

What happens to a country when the alternative voice is even more stupid and corrupt than the government’s voice?

paulcraigroberts.org

It’s worth to have a closer look at the organizations that make up this coalition. The list of signatories is reported to include Human Rights Watch, CARE International and several Syrian non-governmental organizations (NGO).

Syrian NGOs with HQs located abroad? It’s well known that many of them are represented by one person who has no access to the real situation in Syria. For example, the most frequently cited one – The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) – is run by Rami Abdulrahman (pseudonym Osama Suleiman), a Syrian Sunni Muslim who owns a clothes shop. He left Syria in 2000 and lives in Coventry now. Can the news he spreads around be considered as reliable information received on the spot? Any person, who has left Syria, no matter what were the reasons, can be considered as a «Syrian NGO». No «Syrian NGO» was mentioned in the report published by The Independent, the media outlet that reported the news first, but it does not matter. Few of them, if any, can provide reliable information on what is taking place in Syria.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) is a well-known US-founded international NGO that conducts research and advocacy on human rights. It has always been hostile to Russia. It’s record includes praises sung to glorify Chechen terrorists.

The organization blasts each and every thing Russia does or says. HRW has been criticized for bias by the national governments and by its own founder and former chairman, Robert L. Bernstein. Contrary to what it claims, its income comes from government funded foundations and the people like George Soros, who donated $100 million in 2010. Along with Georg Soros’ Open Society Foundations, HRW is among least transparent organization in the United States.

Activists have charged the organization with having a «revolving door» relationship with the US government. According to Keane Bhatt, an activist residing in Washington, DC., «A revolving-door policy as pertains to Human Rights Watch is one in which high-level US foreign policy staff — those who have crafted and executed US foreign policy – are allowed into Human Rights Watch as staffers, advisory committee members, and as board members. These people can wield an enormous as influence on the priorities and advocacy of HRW».

For example, Tom Malinowski served as the senior director of Bill Clinton’s National Security Council, then as HRW’s Washington director, and then assistant secretary of state for President Obama.

In 2014, two Nobel Peace Prize Laureates and over 100 academics, journalists, and human rights activists questioned the HRW activities in a letter.

«HRW's close ties to the US government call into question its independence,» the letter states. «It’s impartiality is seriously doubted. For instance, it turns a blind eye on the human rights violations committed by Saudi Arabia and other America allies», the document notes.

In contrast, CARE International is not so much politicized as HRW. It does much more fighting poverty around the world, so its voice has more weight. But its evidently biased stance on Syria is not a feather in the hat of the organization. It puts the blame for everything going wrong solely on Syria’s President Bashar Assad. The watchdog never mentions Western air strikes hitting wrong targets «by mistake» and things like that.

Russia won three-year seats on the Geneva-based UNHRC in 2013. No country is eligible for immediate re-election after serving two consecutive terms. If elected, Russia will be represented in the 47-nation Council for three years, starting from 2017 till 2019.There is little the Council can do in pure practical terms. Losing a seat does not mean much for Russia. It does not affect its far more important activities in the UN Security Council and other UN agencies. Anyway, the letter signed by 80 humanitarian groups will not have any influence on the results of the vote.

The Independent article and other reports are nothing but an element of information war waged against Russia.

True, Syria is in dire straits today and the best way to address the problem is to launch an international joint effort, as Russia proposes, instead of putting the blame on Moscow for striking «good guys» or «moderate» opposition to President Bashar Assad. No «good terrorists» worth to be supported by supplies and information campaigns exist. Civilian suffering is an inevitable part of operations, as the ongoing fight in Mosul shows. But in the case of Aleppo, Russia and the Syrian government get all the blame with the NGOs acting as propaganda pawns. The human rights activists would be much more helpful providing real help to the Syrians who need it than by signing letters and petitions that have no whatsoever relation to reality.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) has just released its report, “Extreme Measures: Abused Children Detained As National Security Threats”.

From my reading of the report, Israel and the US are the two worst abusers. Boko Haram is a distant third.

Which country is the worst abuser, Israel or the US? Taking into account that the US is responsible for the violence in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria that has resulted in torture and detention, if we include these victims in the American total, then the US is the Number One torturer of children. As it is unlikely that Israel could get away with abuse of Palestinian children without Washington’s support, we can add Israel’s abuses to Washington’s total.

Guantanamo Bay is a great distance away from Washington’s wars against Muslims in Afghanistan, North Africa and the Middle East. Yet even at Guantanamo, where the only violence is the violence that the US military inflicts on detainees, the US government tortured children, according to the Human Rights Watch report.  

What kind of military tortures children? The only answer that I can come up with is a military that has no self-respect. 

What kind of US government would pay two US psychologists $81 million to help the CIA devise torture techniques? Only a lawless government with no respect for US law and international law.

Think back to the torture memos written by US Department of Justice (sic) officials John C. Yoo and Jay S. Bybee. These memos justifying the US government’s torture of detainees despite the prohibition of torture by both US statutory law and international law to which the US is a signatory have been denounced by civil libertarians as the work of legal incompetents or criminals or both. Yet, John Yoo is a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, and for his service to the White House torturers Jay Bybee was appointed a US federal judge to the second highest court. If Hitlery becomes president, Bybee and Yoo could end up on the Supreme Court.

The positions held by Yoo and Bybee tell the world all that is needed to know that the United States is a lawless entity and that this lawlessness is accepted by America’s legal, political, and educational institutions and by the American people.

What self-respecting parent would send a son or daughter to study law at a university that hosts a “legal scholar” who discounts law in behalf of torture?

If you were a judge on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals and a torturer was appointed to the court, would you welcome the criminal or resign in protest against a government that has no respect for its own laws?

How many NSA officials have resigned over illegal spying on the American people?

How many FBI officials have resigned over false flag frame-ups of “terrorists”?

When the Democratic National Committee can hire Americans for $50 per night to fill up the empty seats at the Democratic convention, what does that tell you about the price of American integrity?

Do you remember the 775 Guantanamo detainees described by the US Secretary of Defense and the Vice President of the US as the most dangerous, most violent men on earth? We will never know how many of these detainees were tortured in an effort to elicit a confession in support of the government’s unfounded claims, but nine of them died in custody. We do know that despite torture and the assurances from the highest officials that the detainees were dangerous and violent, as of July 12, 2016, 90 percent of the detainees have been released without charges. Only 76 remain, and apparently there is no evidence that can be used to charge them. Apparently, they are being held only in order to save the US government from being 100 percent wrong. Being 90 percent wrong is close enough for government work. See here.

Do you remember those photos of the torture of the Abu Ghraib prisoners? As horrifying as the photos are, they are the mild part. Others photos were not released. The photos reveal more than torture. The photos reveal the extreme pleasure that the US soldiers got from torturing the prisoners. They were having the time of their life abusing other humans!

Some feminists have excused the female soldier, one of the several grunts punished while the higher officials responsible went scot free, with the rationale that she was only getting back at the male gender for the abuses she, as a female, had suffered from men.  

The Abu Ghraib photos required silencing. Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the senior American commander in Iraq, appointed Major General Antonio Taguba to compile a report based on an investigation of the torture. All Gen. Taguba had to do was to explain away the torture and be promoted from 2-star to 3-star general.  

If that is what Sanchez intended, he chose the wrong man. Gen. Taguba filed an honest report, finding:“That between October and December 2003, at the Abu Ghraib Confinement Facility (BCCF), numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees. This systemic and illegal abuse of detainees was intentionally perpetrated by several members of the military police guard force (372nd Military Police Company, 320^th Military Police Battalion, 800th MP Brigade), in Tier (section) 1-A of the Abu Ghraib Prison (BCCF). The allegations of abuse were substantiated by detailed witness statements (ANNEX 26) and the discovery of extremely graphic photographic evidence… In addition to the aforementioned crimes, there were also abuses committed by members of the 325th MI Battalion, 205th MI Brigade, and Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center (JIDC).” 

Instead of becoming a 3-star general with lucrative consulting opportunities and board memberships at the end of his military career, Taguba was sent into retirement.

Seymour Hersh’s report on “The General’s Report” shows a US military whose leaders, both military and civilian, are devoid of integrity.

If we contrast the fate of Gen. Taguba, who took the US Military Code seriously, with the mindlessness of Fox “News” and its incoherent insouciant Medal of Honor winner, Dakota Meyer, who is displayed on need, we can see how integrity was lost to ignorance and propaganda.  

Mischaracterizing Democratic convention delegates protests, “no more war”, as disrespect for the military, Dakota Meyer declares that “America is the beacon of hope”.

That is not the way the world sees it. In every world poll, the United States is ranked overwhelmingly as the greatest threat to peace, with Israel as the runner-up. The “threats”, such as North Korea and Iran, designated by the warmongers in Washington hardly register as threats in world polls.

Long ago Americans were divided into “liberals” and “conservatives” and set against one another, while those who did the dividing took away our civil liberties and prosperity. Both the Fox “News” imbecile and the Medal of Honor winner, who think of themselves as “conservatives”, believe that it is liberals who are disrespectful of the military and that their hatred of the military is why “liberals” are opposed to war. Of course, informed Americans are aware that it was conservatives who did not want to get into wars. It was conservatives, not liberals who opposed US involvement in WWI and WWII. Liberals were hot to trot.

It has escaped Fox “News” and the Medal of Honor winner that Democrat Hitlery is all in favor of war and wants more of it. The people who don’t want war are the ones that understand that WWIII will be nuclear and bring an end to life on earth. The people denigrated by the Fox “News” imbecile and the insouciant Medal of Honor winner are the people who are trying to save not only the United States but all life on earth from the stupid, reckless, arrogant war crowd. 

To whom is America “the beacon of hope”? Is America the beacon of hope to the millions of peoples who have been killed, maimed, and displaced by America’s wars during the past 15 years? Is America the beacon of hope to the Palestinians trapped in the Gaza Ghetto that Israel uses for a shooting gallery? Is America the beacon of hope to the Latin American peoples whose representative governments Washington routinely overthrows? Is America the beacon of hope to the Russians and Chinese who are being encircled with military bases and demonized with hostile words and misrepresented with lies? Is America the beacon of hope for the middle class whose jobs and future were offshored? Is America the beacon of hope to the poor whose public assistance was wiped out by Clinton’s Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996?

America is a beacon of hope only to the One Percent who loot and plunder both our economic future and our civil liberties.

People can be intelligent without being brave, and they can be brave without being intelligent. Our soldiers fit in the later category. They do the work for the One Percent and are paid for their physical and emotional injuries with medals.

In the past 15 years “the beacon of hope” has destroyed in whole or part seven countries–Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, and Syria. The “beacon of hope” has overthrown representative governments in Honduras, Ukraine, Egypt, Argentina, and Brazil, installing in their place right-wing crooks, and is working hard to overthrow the elected governments in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia. The extraordinary range of death and suffering for which “the beacon of hope” is responsible is unprecedented.

As if this is not enough, “the beacon of hope” is now recklessly and irresponsibly threatening two nuclear powers–Russia and China–with military encirclement justified with the most blatant and transparent lies. We hear the propaganda 24/7. Even the “liberal” NPR specializes in telling lies about Russia. Is it hopeful to convince two nuclear powers that the US is preparing to attack?

It is Donald Trump, the Republican presidential candidate, who says he doesn’t want conflict with Russia and sees little point to NATO. Yet, the “liberal” media doesn’t miss an opportunity to demonize Trump, just as the presstitutes demonize the peace-seeker, Vladimir Putin.

The presstitutes are screaming: “Give us Hitlery and more war!”

Feminists want Hitlery for war on the glass ceiling.

The neoconservatives want Hitlery in order for them to achieve their ideology of world hegemony.

The military/security complex and Wall Street want Hitlery for their profits.

Why is it Donald Trump, the candidate who says he wants to avoid dangerous conflict with nuclear powers, who is being demonized?

paulcraigroberts.org

Human Rights Watch (HRW) was documenting the “widespread use of cluster munitions” in fighting between government troops and self-defense forces, according to investigation carried by the watchdog

“While it was not possible to conclusively determine responsibility for many of the attacks, the evidence points to Ukrainian government forces’ responsibility for several cluster munition attacks on Donetsk [Donetsk Region, Eastern Ukraine],” says the report.

The UN is “concerned” by the report, a spokesman for Secretary General Stephane Dujarric said at a briefing, adding that Ban Ki-moon is calling for a “political solution.”

Kiev however denied the use of cluster munitions by the Ukrainian military in the operation in eastern Ukraine.

"Ukrainian military did not use weapons forbidden by international legal law. This also applies to cluster munitions," Andrey Lysenko, spokesman for Ukraine's National Security Council, said at a briefing on Tuesday.

He also said that the observers could have been given "provocative information" from DPR militia, as he proposed to increase the number of international observers in eastern Ukraine.

"When it comes to the use of cluster munitions on civilian quarters of Donetsk, then I must say that the Ukrainian military did not use weapons on the peaceful quarter of the city."

Donetsk, which before the launch of the Kiev military operation in April had a population of about 1 million people, is now literally in ruins. Heavy shelling claimed hundreds of civilians in the city. 

On Monday a huge blast rocked a chemical factory in Donetsk in eastern Ukraine, the city council says on its website. The blast wave reportedly shattered windows in houses in a radius of several kilometers.

Blast rocks chemical plant in Donetsk, claims of tactical missile 

An investigation says that at least six civilians were killed and dozens injured in these attacks. But the real casualty number is probably higher, says HRW, as the watchdog hasn’t yet probed all the allegations of the cluster munition use in the conflict zone.

“It is shocking to see a weapon that most countries have banned used so extensively in eastern Ukraine,”said Mark Hiznay, senior arms researcher at HRW. “Ukrainian authorities should make an immediate commitment not to use cluster munitions and join the treaty to ban them.” 

The danger of cluster munitions is that each of them contains hundreds of smaller submunitions. After the bomb explodes the container opens up “dispersing the submunitions, which are designed to explode when they hit the ground,” says the investigation.

“The submunitions are spread indiscriminately over a wide area, often the size of a football field, putting anyone in the area at the time of attack, whether combatants or civilians, at risk of death or injury.” 

The Convention on Cluster Munitions signed in 2009 includes 114 countries so far. However Ukraine has yet to join the treaty.

“There is particularly strong evidence that Ukrainian government forces were responsible for several cluster munition attacks on central Donetsk in early October,” HRW said. 

The watchdog identified cluster munitions by the distinctive craters, remnants of the submunitions found at the impact sites, and remnants of the rockets found in the vicinity. 

“Ukrainian forces should immediately make a commitment to not use cluster munitions and to investigate and hold accountable any personnel responsible for firing cluster munitions into populated areas. Ukraine should accede to the treaty banning their use,” HRW said.

A destroyed building at Donetsk airport. (RIA Novosti / Gennady Dubovoy)

Ukraine’s authorities neither confirmed nor denied the allegations, says the group, adding that Kiev didn’t respond to a letter sent by the Cluster Munition Coalition in July or a letter sent by HRW on October 13. 

“Firing cluster munitions into populated areas is utterly irresponsible and those who ordered such attacks should be held to account,” Hiznay said. “The best way for the Ukrainian authorities to demonstrate a commitment to protect civilians would be an immediate promise to stop using cluster munitions.”

RT

The UN has stated that at least 3,660 people have been killed in eastern Ukraine since April – including 330 since the ceasefire brokered on Sept. 5.

A total of 8,756 people have been wounded since April, the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said.

The UN statement notes in particular that, despite the ceasefire, “in some areas artillery, tank and small arms exchanges have continued on an almost daily basis, such as in Donetsk airport, in the Debaltseve area in Donetsk region, and in the town of Shchastya in Luhansk region.”

“While the ceasefire is a very welcome step towards ending the fighting in eastern Ukraine, I call on all parties to genuinely respect and uphold it, and to halt the attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure once and for all,” Zeid said in the report.

“For almost half a year, residents of the areas affected by the armed conflict have been deprived of their fundamental rights to education, to adequate healthcare, to housing and to opportunities to earn a living. Further prolongation of this crisis will make the situation untenable for the millions of people whose daily lives have been seriously disrupted,” he added.

The 37-page report covers the period from August 18 to September 16 and contains testimonial evidence of cases of violation on behalf of Ukrainian military units.

“During the reporting period, international humanitarian law, including the principles of military necessity, distinction, proportionality and precaution continued to be violated by armed groups and some units and volunteer battalions under the control of the Ukrainian armed forces,” the report reads.

Specific evidence of “beatings, poor nutrition and lack of medical assistance” are also mentioned in the report, RIA reports. The UN expressed special concern over the “enforced disappearances, arbitrary detention and ill-treatment allegedly perpetrated by members of the volunteer battalions,” in particular Aydar, Dnepr-1, Kiev-1 and Kiev-2.

“In spite of a fragile ceasefire over the past month in the east of Ukraine, the protracted conflict continues to kill and wound civilians, and deprive the more than 5 million residents in areas directly affected by the violence of their basic human rights,” Zeid said.

The UN in its report urges the Ukrainian authorities to exercise greater control over their own army and groups of armed volunteers, as since the beginning of the so-called “anti-terrorist” operation on August 25 according to the Ukrainian Security Service, over 1,000 people have been detained on suspicion of being “militants and subversives.”

The report also highlights that the civilian population is suffering, in particular, because of the bombing of densely populated neighborhoods with heavy artillery. “Some of the reported cases of disproportionate use of fire in residential areas are committed by Ukrainian armed forces,” stated the document.

“After the announcement of the ceasefire on September 5, the scope and intensity of military operations decreased sharply, but not completely,” the document says, adding that civilians “continue to fall under the cross-fire and cross-bombing.”

The UN also reported an increase of “foreign mercenaries” in the ranks of the armed forces of self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk People's republics, “including citizens of Russia.”

Meanwhile the issue of mass graves recently found near Donetsk was not reflected in the document, TASS reports, as they were discovered outside the period under review and formally not subject to consideration by the rights monitoring mission of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

RT

Giving credit to the diplomatic assessments made by Mulet it is necessary to stress that the situation in Kosovo remains tense not because of the activities of Kosovo Serbs but because of the policy of the regional government headed by Hashim Thaci, the former political leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). For the Serbian government and Kosovo Serbs KLA is a terrorist organization while Thaci is the person who is involved in many crimes. 

Thaci and other current political leaders of Kosovo are mentioned in the Kosovo organ trafficking report by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). According to the report a criminal group of Kosovo Liberation Army fighters had kidnapped and executed Serbian and Albanian prisoners and sold their organs on the international black market. It was expected that in the result the investigation initiated by the EU mission in Pristina all the details of the criminal activities of Kosovo separatists would become known.  

So far this has not happened. The international representatives even did not demand that Thaci should suspend his office for the period of the investigation. The investigators are trying to narrow down the case to the activities of the Medicus clinic in Pristina (closed in 2008), where transplantation of kidneys to rich patients from Europe, the US and Canada were performed. But the Medicus is not an infamous «loony bin» in the north of Albania where in the early 2000-s traces of such operations were discovered. Ilir Recaj, the former Kosovo Healthcare Secretary, one of the persons involved in the case is not Hashim Thaci. It is not a coincidence that that the EU prosecutor Jonathan Ratel, who is busy with the investigation, said recently that the investigation did not have any item of evidence pointing at the link between the Medicus case and the accusations of KLA leaders. 

Although in 2010, PACE’s member Dick Marty directly pointed at such a connection, the investigators are continuing to focus on Ilir Recaj, Israeli mediator Moshe Harel, Turkish surgeon Yusuf Soimez and Kosovo urologist Lutfi Dervishi, on anyone but not on the key actors without whose assistance the organ trafficking in Kosovo simply could not exist. Except for few cases Serbs are not mentioned among the victims.

Russia insists that the investigation on the involvement of Kosovo leaders in illegal trade with human organs should be controlled of the UN Security Council. Russia’s permanent envoy in the UN Vitaly Churkin made such a statement at a meeting of the Security Council. According to him, the facts point directly at the involvement of Kosovo’s current leaders in those crimes. But the investigation is led by the governments of the countries which earlier helped those people to come to power. Churkin stressed that Americans are playing the main role there: «What a coincidence! It is a US citizen who now heads the investigation», he said meaning the US prosecutor John Clint Williamson. All the materials including KLA leadership’s worksheets for 1998-1999 are in Williamson’s disposal. These documents remarkable notes: «A middle aged Serbian woman detained, of no interest» or «A blonde man caught, must be sent to by-products. No matter who he is – Serbian or American». 

The list of witnesses, made by the US and EU investigators, is also remarkable. First of all it is Raul Fain, a Canadian citizen, who was operated in the Medicus clinic in 2008. Somehow the prosecution managed to attach his evidence to the case unlike the claims of many local witnesses who had withdrawn their initial complaints or were «reported missing», like Jilma Altun from Turkey. In order not to let it happen to Raul Fain he was allowed to testify from Canada through video communications. 

As we can judge from the evidence of the Canadian, who needed kidney transplantation, he had initial talks with Israeli mediators who introduced him to the administration of the Medicus clinic. The operation cost € 87,000. Fain transferred the money to the account of the mediator Moshe Harel and flew to Pristina via Istanbul where he was examined by transplant surgeon Yusuf Sonmez, who is now one of the main defendants in the case. After that the Canadian patient together with a patient from Germany was taken to the clinic where they received kidney transplants. According to the prosecution’s report, two women from the CIS countries served as the donors for the Canadian and German patients. According to information leakages in some mass media, one of them was Anna Rusalenko from Russia’s Far East. It was her kidney that was transplanted to the Canadian patient but she did not receive the promised compensation of €20,000 and was sent back to Istanbul. 

Similar evidence was given by another international witness – Joseph Koralashvili, a manager from New York who in October 2008 accompanied his father, who needed a kidney transplant, to Kosovo. The safety of this witness was ensured directly by the FBI but his testimony was aimed only to confirm the EU’s official version of the events. Koralashvili said that during his six day stay in Pristina none of the local doctors had introduced himself/herself by name and he did not know whose kidney had been transplanted to his father. 

The testimonies of Fain and Koralashvili definitely prove a high level of international coordination of «black» transplant surgeons’ activities. At the same time the materials of the case still lack the main facts which were stated by the former Chief Prosecutor of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia Carla del Ponte in her book and reported by Dick Marty – the involvement of the Kosovo leadership headed by Hashi Thaci in the organ trafficking business. Even taking into consideration serious accusations against Yusuf Sonmez and the officials of Kosovo Healthcare Ministry it is hard not to notice that the EU officials who supervise the investigation are trying to take the heat off the key persons involved in the case.

Meanwhile in the materials collected and published by Carla del Ponte contain names of hundreds of Kosovo Serbs who were brought to Albania in the late 1990s and became victims of organ trafficking business. The report also states that KLA leaders headed by Thaci were involved in this criminal business.

By all accounts, the EU investigators circumvent these episodes in their current investigation. The problem is not lack of evidence or West’s reluctance to put at threat the picture of the Kosovo crisis in which Albanians are seen as victims and Serbs as aggressors and criminals. This distortion of real facts served to justify bombings of Yugoslavia by NATO air forces in 1999 and the following recognition of Kosovo's independence by the US and the EU member states. It is not a coincidence that del Ponte published the materials on organ trafficking not in the early 2000s but in April 2008, after the West had recognized Kosovo's independence. If the truth on the terrible crimes had become known earlier Western public would not have made such a confession. Today the investigation led by the EU faces similar obstacles. That is why there is a probability that the court will confine itself to passing sentence upon Turkish doctor Yusuf Sonmez and all references to Serbian victims will be deleted. 

In a recent interview with Belgrade’s daily Press Carla del Ponte noted that the current investigation is lacking political will. She said that the international society does not want to know the truth about those crimes. Human Right Watch’s experts agree with her. They think that neither the EU mission nor the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia in the Hague are capable to investigate the organ trafficking case in which Kosovo regime leaders are involved and it is necessary to establish a new international institution for it. Fred Abrahams, a representative of the Human Right Watch, is convinced that the list of hundreds of Serbs who were executed and whose organs were sold on the international black market is far from being complete. According to the documents which have been recently released by France 24 TV channel, the UN high ranking officials knew about organ trafficking and the involvement of KLA commanders in it as early as 2003.

In January, the European Commission decided to start talks with Kosovo authorities on granting its residents visa-free regime. Another transfer of financial aid to Pristina is next on agenda. I wonder how the European tax payers take such money consuming advances the EU make to the political leaders with such a dingy reputation like Hashim Thaci? 

Is Serbia strongly interested in a full scale investigation into crimes committed in Kosovo? Belgrade and Pristina avoid this topic in their talks. Speaking in the UN Security Council Vuk Jeremic, Serbia’s Security Minister said only that the spirit of truth should prevail in the talks. That sounded encouraging especially considering that Pristina authorities were presented by the delegation of the government of Hashim Thaci, the boss of the Drenica group how he was called in the report by Dick Marti.  

Here have been reports in Serbia that a personal meeting between Serbian President Boris Tadic and Hashim Thaci is to take place soon. In an interview with Alfa TV (Skopje) Thaci said that Tadic and he should shake hands. Taking into account that by March Serbia is to report to the EU on normalization of the relations with Pristina, the probability of this handshake is high. To punish Turkish doctor and an Israeli mediator for the crimes of «black» transplant surgeons, to narrow down the crimes of the Albanian leaders to tricks of a second ranking official and to make Tadic and Thaci seat at the negotiating table – the architects of the «new world order» could only dream about such a solution of the Kosovo issue…

And in yet another display of oxymoronic Orwellian “Newspeak,” the main Defense Department activity for developing “Mass Atrocity Response Operations” or “MARO” is the Army’s Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute (PKSOI) at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

The new American justification for military intervention arises from Presidential Study Directive 10/PSD-10, a memorandum issued by the White House on August 4, 2011, which created an Interagency Atrocities Prevention Board and interagency review to bring administration policy in line with a new presidential policy that deems “preventing mass atrocities and genocide” a “core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.”

The new American foreign policy initiative was justified by the 2008 report of the Genocide Prevention Task Force co-chaired by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Secretary of Defense William Cohen. The task force was heavily influenced by the neoconservative and federally-funded U.S. Institute of Peace, as well as George Soros-funded think tanks like the Center for American Progress and pro-Israeli organizations like the US Holocaust Memorial Museum.

PSD-10 was largely the brain child of National Security Council staff member Samantha Power, who is married to Obama’s “propaganda czar” Cass Sunstein, and Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the UN. The White House press briefing on Obama’s Mass Atrocity Prevention doctrine specifically mentioned Syria, Libya, Sudan, Cote d’Ivoire, and Kyrgyzstan as examples of when U.S. diplomatic and stronger intervention was required. The announcement cited the Holocaust in Europe and the genocide in Rwanda as reasons for the new U.S. policy but curiously omitted the U.S.-supported Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia and the CIA-supported post-1965 coup genocide in Indonesia, the latter involving President Obama’s Indonesian step-father, a lieutenant colonel in the Indonesian army.

A core elite of Democratic Party foreign policy wonks, many sheep-dipped through Soros-funded and – influenced non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the Clinton administration. In addition to Power and Rice, a major player behind MARO and U.S. “humanitarian” interventionism is Sarah Sewall, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Peace Operations in the Clinton administration. She now heads a MARO team at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations-heavy Kennedy School at Harvard. Sewall’s MARO project director is Sally Chin, formerly with the U.S. Institute of Peace-funded Search for Common Ground (SFCG), which has also received support from Soros, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Saudi billionaire Prince Al Waleed bin Talal. SFCG target countries include Sudan, Pakistan, Kosovo, Kenya, Indonesia, Cote d’Ivoire, Burundi, Liberia, Lebanon, Zimbabwe, and the city of Jerusalem.

Funding for Sewall’s foreign policy-laundering operation for the Obama administration comes from PKSOI and Humanity United, an NGO having interlocking management links with many other George Soros-funded operations, including Human Rights Watch (HRW), the Tides Center, and the International Crisis Group (ICG). In addition Humanity United is linked to the U.S. intelligence and Pentagon military operations planning contractor, the RAND Corporation; CIA-linked World Vision; and the William J. Clinton Foundation, headed up by the husband of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has also embraced the MARO doctrine.

Current targets for meddling by MARO and the Soros NGO network are Syria, Somalia, Philippines, Kenya, post-Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC) Colombia, Guatemala, Pakistan, Uganda (targeting the Lord’s Resistance Army), and North and South Yemen. Past target nations that saw major “humanitarian” destabilization efforts by Obama’s new doctrine were Haiti, Kosovo, South Sudan, Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya.

The concept of R2P arose from a December 2001 report from another Orwellian “Newspeak”-named entity, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), the brainchild of then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. The commission is defunct but its role in pushing R2P was assumed by the Global Center for Responsibility to Protect (GCR2P), which has been championed by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. GCR2P was founded by the same cast of Soros-influenced NGOs that helped to develop the MARO doctrine for the Obama administration: ICG and HRW, the founding partners of GCR2P. Among the major donors to GCR2P is Soros’s Open Society Institute (OSI). GCR2P’s target countries match those of other NGOs involved in advancing the MARO doctrine: Syria, Libya, Uganda, Sudan, and Democratic Republic of Congo.

The MARO doctrine and R2P are currently being used to justify covert and proposed overt NATO and U.S. military operations to topple the government of President Bashar Assad in Syria, the same “humanitarian” intervention template used to justify NATO’s and the Gulf Cooperation Council’s (GCC) military intervention in Libya on behalf of the Transitional National Council, which plunged Libya into a worse human rights situation under rebel rule than anything ever experienced under the Qaddafi regime, including the massacre of Libyan civilians and foreign black African guest workers; summary executions of Qaddafi, members of his family, and his supporters; and detention of children.

One of the MARO principles, establishing “safe areas” for internally-displaced persons, is now at the heart of proposed NATO intervention in Syria. Another MARO military principle being proposed for Syria is the establishment of an “oil spot,” systematically securing limited areas with a “clear-hold-build” approach. Yet another MARO principle, containment through blockades and no-fly zones, was used to justify NATO intervention in Libya and is being proposed for Syria and Iran.

Other MARO operations include fomenting labor strikes in targeted nations; saturating large areas in target nations with sufficient military forces; creating buffer or demilitarized zones between perpetrator forces and victims; partner enabling by supplying advisors, equipment, and special support to host nations, coalition partners, and “victim groups” (more Orwellian “Newspeak” for rebel and secessionist forces – MARO doctrine, thus, incorporates decades of U.S. military doctrine on counter-insurgency – COIN – operations, which brought the world such “humanitarian” achievements as the My Lai massacre in South Vietnam, and other U.S. massacres of civilians in Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos, Nicaragua, Iraq, and Afghanistan); and militarily defeating “perpetrator” leadership and their capabilities.

MARO and R2P, especially the training and special assistance to coalition partners, are being used by the Pentagon and CIA to beef up the U.S. military and intelligence presence at bases in east Africa and the Horn of Africa, ostensibly to protect Somalis from Al Shabab Islamist guerrillas. In fact, a virtual invading force of U.S. Special Operations forces, CIA operatives, and private military contractors have descended on the region, under the aegis of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), to prop up local armies in order to secure a developing western oil and natural as production infrastructure, including pipelines and oil sea terminals in the area. Drone, intelligence collection, and U.S. special forces and training bases have been established at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti; Victoria, Seychelles; Manda Bay, Kenya; Bujumbura, Burundi; Entebbe, Uganda; Mogadishu, Somalia; and Arba Minch, Ethiopia.

Beyond Africa, the Obama administration is building five new military bases in Australia, including a Marine base in Darwin. The U.S. military presence is also being expanded in the Philippines and Vietnam. It is well-known that beyond the Middle East and Africa, MARO doctrine is being used to eventually challenge the governments of China and Russia. In the world of Obama’s Orwellian “Newspeak,” mass atrocity prevention could result in a situation where billions die as a result of global thermonuclear warfare because a few oligarchs like Soros, Obama, and neo-conservative “New American Century” advocates decide that Western imperialism cannot be satisfied until “problem” regimes in Tehran and Pyongyang and, eventually, powerful governments in Beijing and Moscow are replaced by vassal regimes. In the world of the globalists, vulture capitalists and bankers, and militarists, the R2P promoters are now leading the initial military charge up the hill.