The Human Rights Industry

The international human rights scene is dominated by two huge organizations, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.  In a short paper nearly two years ago, I raised questions about their governance and biases. It was entitled “Human Rights NGOs: Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?”

In that paper I argued that the domination by only two organizations threatens diversity in the field and magnifies the significance of their own biases—the most significant of which is their hostility to Israel. I also argued that both organizations have a “democracy gap” internally: “Such large and rich organizations report to no one, nor of course are they democratically run internally. Their top officials theoretically report to boards of trustees, but the boards are themselves self-perpetuating and independent from any oversight.”

Now, a long-time employee of Human Rights Watch (HRW) has written about its biases and its internal culture.  Danielle Haas, in an article entitled “The Human Rights Establishment,” reports on her 13 years a editor of HRW’s annual “World Report:”

The political and ideological creep in many NGOs has become so pervasive and deep-rooted that Israel has become their watchword of outrage, the focus of disproportionate attention, and the note to sound for signaling fealty to a human-rights movement that is increasingly hijacked by politics and dominated by groupthink….

Pressure Points

Abrams gives his take on U.S. foreign policy, with special focus on the Middle East and democracy and human rights issues.

Url

Email

View all newsletters >

The Water's Edge

James M. Lindsay analyzes the politics shaping U.S. foreign policy and the sustainability of American power. 2-4 times weekly.

Daily News Brief

A summary of global news developments with CFR analysis delivered to your inbox each morning. Weekdays.

The World This Week

A weekly digest of the latest from CFR on the biggest foreign policy stories of the week, featuring briefs, opinions, and explainers. Every Friday.

By entering your email and clicking subscribe, you're agreeing to receive announcements from CFR about our products and services, as well as invitations to CFR events. You are also agreeing to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

View all newsletters >

For too long, human-rights groups have been granted a free pass to serve as society’s watchdogs without first proving they are fit to bark. Opaque, unelected, and largely unaccountable, they must finally be required to descend from their moral mountaintops and demonstrate in their own conduct the accountability and transparency they demand of others.

Haas argues that HRW and other putative defenders of human rights have become little more than political activists bent on advancing their own views. And she reports that hostility to Israel is pervasive, “stifling,” “unnerving,” and in the end intolerable. Moreover, there are no efforts to correct this and many other faults:

Too often, rights groups have been able to swat away allegations of bias without meaningful proof or challenge. Too frequently, NGO issues have arisen only to disappear from the radar as rogue incidents, rather than being connected as points in a possible pattern. There are too many examples of malpractice that have come to light only because of leaks, rather than because rights groups practice the transparency and accountability that they demand of others.

She calls for serious media coverage, external reviews, and the kind of Congressional scrutiny now being dedicated to Ivy League colleges that similarly are tax-exempt.

It’s an article well worth reading and a subject that never gets the attention it deserves. I wrote in 2022 that “The ancient question Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? or ‘Who will guard the guards themselves?’ arises here—and is difficult to answer.” Haas raises it once again, with much damning evidence and several very good ideas about what the answer might be.