Watching the Watchmen

THE last six months have not been good ones for leading human-rights groups—but not for the reason they think. From their point of view, America and its allies are paying less attention to human rights now because of the war on terrorism. The latest annual report from Human Rights Watch is full of gloom on this score: “Unfortunately, the coalition’s conduct so far has not been auspicious. … Its leading members have violated human rights principles at home and overlooked human rights transgressions among their partners. They have substituted expediency for the firm commitment to human rights that alone can defeat the rationale of terrorism. Whatever its success in pursuing particular terrorists, the coalition risks reinforcing the logic of terrorism unless human rights are given a far more central role.”

But it is the human-rights organizations—including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Oxfam, and Doctors Without Borders—whose conduct so far has been dismal. In episode after episode, they have shown a stunning moral and practical obtuseness about the war. They have issued lofty pronouncements unhinged from reality. Their posture toward America has been unsympathetic, suspicious to the point of paranoia, demanding, implacable. This performance should be no surprise to anyone who has followed these groups over the years. But Americans who know only of their good works—their efforts in behalf of political prisoners, most notably—may be mystified and angered. The war isn’t making Americans indifferent to the claims of human rights. It may yet make them indifferent to the claims of the organizations that purport to stand for them.

About the Author

Ramesh Ponnuru

Ramesh Ponnuru is the editor of National Review, a columnist for the Washington Post, and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Featured Tags

Religious Persecution

George W. Bush

United States

THE last six months have not been good ones for leading human-rights groups—but not for the reason they think. From their point of view, America and its allies are paying less attention to human rights now because of the war on terrorism. The latest annual report from Human Rights Watch is full of gloom on this score: “Unfortunately, the coalition’s conduct so far has not been auspicious. … Its leading members have violated human rights principles at home and overlooked human rights transgressions among their partners. They have substituted expediency for the firm commitment to human rights that alone can defeat the rationale of terrorism. Whatever its success in pursuing particular terrorists, the coalition risks reinforcing the logic of terrorism unless human rights are given a far more central role.”

But it is the human-rights organizations—including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Oxfam, and Doctors Without Borders—whose conduct so far has been dismal. In episode after episode, they have shown a stunning moral and practical obtuseness about the war. They have issued lofty pronouncements unhinged from reality. Their posture toward America has been unsympathetic, suspicious to the point of paranoia, demanding, implacable. This performance should be no surprise to anyone who has followed these groups over the years. But Americans who know only of their good works—their efforts in behalf of political prisoners, most notably—may be mystified and angered. The war isn’t making Americans indifferent to the claims of human rights. It may yet make them indifferent to the claims of the organizations that purport to stand for them.