HRW
Paid for Anti
M23 Testimony
in Goma, UN
Topics Secret,
CAR Ignored?
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
December 28 --
The disparity
in focus on
rebels in the
Eastern Congo
and now in Central
African
Republic
is striking.
The
M23 mutineers
have been the
subject of
numerous UN
Group of
Experts
leaked
reports by
Steve Hege,
of UN Security
Council
meetings, open
and closed,
and a
resolution,
and
compensated
testimony
gathering by,
along others,
Human Rights
Watch.
The
taking of ten
towns in CAR
garnered
nowhere near
this focus:
two
press
statements and
a single
closed door
meeting of the
UNSC, none
since
embassies
including of
the USA in
Bangui have
closed. Some
have
asked, where
is Human
Rights Watch
on the Central
African
Republic?
For
now, we return
to a topic we
reported
on back on
December 16:
HRW
admitting
paying for
travel for
those who
would testify
to it.
Inner
City Press
asked HRW a
number of
questions, and
received a
canned
statement from
HRW's UN
representative
Philippe
Bolopion:
"Human
Rights Watch
does not pay
witnesses in
exchange for
information,
in
order to
preserve the
integrity of
the interviews
we conduct.
Human
Rights Watch
occasionally
compensates
victims or
witnesses for
incidental
costs they may
incur when
traveling
specifically
in order
to meet with
our
researchers.
As in any
other
conflict,
Human Rights
Watch
documents
abuses
committed by
all sides in
the DRC and
therefore
seeks
information
from anyone
with
first-hand
information
to give."
We
ran the HRW
statement on
December 16; Liberation
ran it as a
"right
of reply" on
December 23,
along with
their
reporter's
damning
sur-reply,
that HRW's
investigator
began with the
position that
M23
was the
primary
perpetrator,
and quoting a
witness at
Heal Africa
that HRW was
"looking for
testimonies
against M23."
Frankly,
while
having an
opinion is a
good thing, it
would not be
surprising
that an
employee of
HRW, seeing
the Tweets of
boss Ken Roth,
would
view his or
her role in
Goma as
finding
testimonies to
prove the
boss' already
expressed
opinion.
But
we remain
interested in
the questions
twice posed to
Human Rights
Watch on
December 16
and still not
answered: what
testimony was
collected?
What has been
done with it?
And since May
2011 have
senior HRW
staff
met with UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon; if
so, what
dates, and
this is a
request again
to know the
topics.
Previously,
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."
But
doesn't HRW
disclose at
least the
topics raised
with the UN to
their donors?
Is that what
one has to do
to be
informed?
Watch
this site.
, 
