Has
HRW Lost Its
Way in DRC,
Silent As UN
Stonewalls on
126 Rapes,
Rights Policy?
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
December 29 --
After the UN
belatedly
admitted that
its
partner the
Congolese Army
committed at
least 126
rapes in
Minova in
late November,
and top UN
Peacekeeper
Herve Ladsous
openly refused
to
answer
questions
about the
rapes,
among the
notably silent
has been
Human Rights
Watch.
HRW
has
historically
been focused
on Eastern
Congo,
particular
though now
deceased
Alison Des
Forges. But of
late, HRW
director Ken
Roth has
only one line
on the Congo:
the M23
mutineers are
bad; Rwanda
supports them;
so Rwanda is
bad and should
not be in the
UN Security
Council.
It's
an advocacy
line, but
Human Rights
Watch usually
pretends to be
objective at
least while it
is collecting
facts. This
model would
be,
compile a
multi-sided
depiction of a
zone of
conflict, name
the bad
actors on all
sides, and
then advocate.
Here,
HRW has made
its position
clear and
now pays -- at
least "travel
costs" -- for
evidence to
support its
position,
as Liberation
has
reiterated
with reporting
from Project
Heal in
Goma.
But
HRW being "all
in" against
M23 means it
has failed
with
regard to not
only the
Congolese
Army, whose
Regiments
including 802
and 1001 were
in Minova
during the
mass rapes,
but also with
regard
to the UN.
The
UN claims to
have a Human
Rights Due
Diligence
Policy, that
it will
not support or
work with army
units engaged
in abuses. But
on
November
27, December
7 and December 18, the UN's Herve
Ladsous
openly refused
to answer any
Press
questions
about which
units were
in Minova.
Even
asking at the
UN noon
briefing and
repeatedly in
writing, the
UN
won't list
which FARDC
units it works
with.
This
would seem to
be a HRW issue
-- "Human
Rights" and
all --
but HRW is
nowhere to be
seen. Its UN
"director"
Philippe
Bolopion,
formerly of Le
Monde
and France 24,
has penned
an anti M23
and anti
Rwanda post in
the Herald
Tribune.
From
the view in
front of the
UNSC,
Bolopion's
references to
the
"lifesaving
work of the
Security
Council" and
claim that
"few countries
dare
challenge the
Security
Council the
way Rwanda
does" ring
false.
Earlier
Bolopion
refused to
answer Inner
City Press on
even the
topics Roth
met with the
UN
about. Bolopion
for HRW told
Inner City
Press, "To
preserve our
ability to
have frank
discussions
with UN
officials and
advance our
advocacy
goals, we
don't
typically
communicate on
the content of
discussions we
have with
them."
When Inner
City Press
asked the
questions
again on
December 16,
Bolopion did
not answer it.
Again we ask,
are only HRW
donors told
about HRW's
meetings with
the UN?
More to this
point, did
Roth
meet with
Ladsous? What
is HRW's
position on
Ladsous'
refusal to
answer basic
questions
about the UN's
Human Rights
Due Diligence
Policy?
The question
has been
posed, to Ken
Roth and two
other HRW
staffers.
Watch this
site/
, 
