Human Rights Watch... mouthpiece for powerful pro-Western interests.

2 posts / 0 new
Last post
Human Rights Watch... mouthpiece for powerful pro-Western interests.

Human Rights Watch Disinformation


10 hours ago

   Share  Tweet

In cahoots with its wealthy donors and imperial USA, Human Rights Watch (HRW) operates as a mouthpiece for powerful pro-Western interests.

During the Cold War after its 1978 founding, it served as an anti-Soviet Russia propaganda instrument.

Its executive director Kenneth Roth is a former federal prosecutor. His predecessor Aryeh Neier left to become president of George Soros’ Open Society Institute. 

Communications Director Carrol Bogert served as Newsweek’s editor, correspondent and bureau chief. 

Michael Shifter is a former undemocratic National Endowment for Democracy (NED) official, Suzan Nossel a former State Department official, Miguel Diaz a former CIA analyst.

Other past and present members are former US officials or have ties to sources representing Washington’s geopolitical interests.

In 2010, Soros’ Open Society Foundation announced a $100 million grant to HRW over a 10 year period through 2020.

At the time, it was the foundation’s largest ever grant to an NGO — made to serve Soros’ geopolitical interests.

In its 2020 World Report, HRW falsely accused China of “pos(ing) a global threat to human rights,” calling on the world community to “unite against its” actions.

In cahoots with Washington’s get tough on China policy, Roth accused Beijing of assaulting the international human rights system.

China is at peace with neighboring states, at war with none anywhere, threatening none, working cooperatively with other nations — polar opposite how the US-dominated West and Israel operate.

China’s Global Times asked the following:

“Have people like Roth ever visited Chinese cities and spoken with ordinary Chinese families?” 

“Have they ever been to the shopping malls and streets that have sprung up all over China, and talked with ordinary Chinese people there?” 

“Have they left nightclubs and walked back to the hotel at night in China,” knowing they’d be safe outside in the late evening? 

“Is China’s human rights system the worst in the world?” 

“Are they talking about human rights or the privileges of the very few followers of the US value?”

Since the 1970s, life expectancy, food, shelter, clothing, education, public health services, economic conditions, and overall development improved significantly in China.

In its report on the country, HRW falsely claimed its ruling authorities are using “growing economic clout to silence critics and to carry out the most intense attack on the global system for enforcing human rights since that system began to emerge in the mid-20th century.”

Days earlier, Roth was denied entry into Hong Kong to introduce his report after Beijing accused HRW of supporting months of US-orchestrated violence, vandalism and chaos in city — aiming to weaken China by attacking its soft underbelly.

Beijing called HRW’s report an exercise of US propaganda devoid of facts, “viewing China from distorted views…(lacking) objectivity.”

It falsely claimed months of violent, disruptive Hong Kong protests have been peaceful, accusing police of using excessive force. 

Its report resembles State Department propaganda against sovereign states on the US target list for regime change.....

.....The NGO of choice, of course by the CBC...good to know the roots of the matrix!


voice of the damned

Global Times asked:

“Have they left nightclubs and walked back to the hotel at night in China,” knowing they’d be safe outside in the late evening? 

From HRW's report on my country of residence...

Although South Korea has a free press and a lively civil society, successive South Korean governments and large corporations have at various times used draconian criminal defamation laws, the national security law, and restrictive interpretations of other laws to create a chilling effect that limits critical scrutiny of the government and corporations.

Criminal defamation law allows for up to seven years’ imprisonment and a fine. The law focuses solely on whether what was said or written was in the public interest and does not allow for truth as a complete defense. Repeal of the criminal defamation law will be one of key tests of the new Moon administration’s commitment to freedom of expression.

The National Security Law criminalizes any positive comments about North Korea or the dissemination of anything that the government classifies as North Korean “propaganda.” The two Koreas are technically still at war, as the Korean War ended with only a ceasefire in 1953.

The law imposes significant restrictions on the freedom of South Koreans to create and join political associations by imposing severe criminal penalties on anyone who joins or induces others to join an “anti-government organization,” a term not clearly defined in law. The law also imposes criminal penalties on anyone who “constitutes or joins an organization aimed at propagating, inciting, praising, or acting in concert with” an anti-government organization.


But this fails to take into account the fact that I could walk home from a nightclub in my city late at night without getting mugged.