Human Rights Watch Decries Iraq War
Quote:
"The Bush administration cannot justify the war in Iraq as a humanitarian intervention, and neither can Tony Blair.
"Such interventions should be reserved for stopping an imminent or ongoing slaughter. They shouldn't be used belatedly to address atrocities that were ignored in the past."
"The Bush administration cannot justify the war in Iraq as a humanitarian intervention, and neither can Tony Blair.
"Such interventions should be reserved for stopping an imminent or ongoing slaughter. They shouldn't be used belatedly to address atrocities that were ignored in the past."
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...131895,00.html
This is exactly what I have been hearing from aid workers this whole time, a few of which have been in or are currently in Iraq.
Here's the bit on the HRW site, but I haven't finished it yet:
http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm
Quote:
Human Rights Watch ordinarily takes no position on whether a state should go to war. The issues involved usually extend beyond our mandate, and a position of neutrality maximizes our ability to press all parties to a conflict to avoid harming noncombatants. The sole exception we make is in extreme situations requiring humanitarian intervention.
Because the Iraq war was not mainly about saving the Iraqi people from mass slaughter, and because no such slaughter was then ongoing or imminent, Human Rights Watch at the time took no position for or against the war. A humanitarian rationale was occasionally offered for the war, but it was so plainly subsidiary to other reasons that we felt no need to address it. Indeed, if Saddam Hussein had been overthrown and the issue of weapons of mass destruction reliably dealt with, there clearly would have been no war, even if the successor government were just as repressive. Some argued that Human Rights Watch should support a war launched on other grounds if it would arguably lead to significant human rights improvements. But the substantial risk that wars guided by non-humanitarian goals will endanger human rights keeps us from adopting that position.
Over time, the principal justifications originally given for the Iraq war lost much of their force. More than seven months after the declared end of major hostilities, weapons of mass destruction have not been found. No significant prewar link between Saddam Hussein and international terrorism has been discovered. The difficulty of establishing stable institutions in Iraq is making the country an increasingly unlikely staging ground for promoting democracy in the Middle East. As time elapses, the Bush administration?s dominant remaining justification for the war is that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who deserved to be overthrown?an argument of humanitarian intervention. The administration is now citing this rationale not simply as a side benefit of the war but also as a prime justification for it. Other reasons are still regularly mentioned, but the humanitarian one has gained prominence.
Does that claim hold up to scrutiny? The question is not simply whether Saddam Hussein was a ruthless leader; he most certainly was. Rather, the question is whether the conditions were present that would justify humanitarian intervention?conditions that look at more than the level of repression. If so, honesty would require conceding as much, despite the war?s global unpopularity. If not, it is important to say so as well, since allowing the arguments of humanitarian intervention to serve as a pretext for war fought mainly on other grounds risks tainting a principle whose viability might be essential to save countless lives.
In examining whether the invasion of Iraq could properly be understood as a humanitarian intervention, our purpose is not to say whether the U.S.-led coalition should have gone to war for other reasons. That, as noted, involves judgments beyond our mandate. Rather, now that the war?s proponents are relying so significantly on a humanitarian rationale for the war, the need to assess this claim has grown in importance. We conclude that, despite the horrors of Saddam Hussein?s rule, the invasion of Iraq cannot be justified as a humanitarian intervention.
Human Rights Watch ordinarily takes no position on whether a state should go to war. The issues involved usually extend beyond our mandate, and a position of neutrality maximizes our ability to press all parties to a conflict to avoid harming noncombatants. The sole exception we make is in extreme situations requiring humanitarian intervention.
Because the Iraq war was not mainly about saving the Iraqi people from mass slaughter, and because no such slaughter was then ongoing or imminent, Human Rights Watch at the time took no position for or against the war. A humanitarian rationale was occasionally offered for the war, but it was so plainly subsidiary to other reasons that we felt no need to address it. Indeed, if Saddam Hussein had been overthrown and the issue of weapons of mass destruction reliably dealt with, there clearly would have been no war, even if the successor government were just as repressive. Some argued that Human Rights Watch should support a war launched on other grounds if it would arguably lead to significant human rights improvements. But the substantial risk that wars guided by non-humanitarian goals will endanger human rights keeps us from adopting that position.
Over time, the principal justifications originally given for the Iraq war lost much of their force. More than seven months after the declared end of major hostilities, weapons of mass destruction have not been found. No significant prewar link between Saddam Hussein and international terrorism has been discovered. The difficulty of establishing stable institutions in Iraq is making the country an increasingly unlikely staging ground for promoting democracy in the Middle East. As time elapses, the Bush administration?s dominant remaining justification for the war is that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who deserved to be overthrown?an argument of humanitarian intervention. The administration is now citing this rationale not simply as a side benefit of the war but also as a prime justification for it. Other reasons are still regularly mentioned, but the humanitarian one has gained prominence.
Does that claim hold up to scrutiny? The question is not simply whether Saddam Hussein was a ruthless leader; he most certainly was. Rather, the question is whether the conditions were present that would justify humanitarian intervention?conditions that look at more than the level of repression. If so, honesty would require conceding as much, despite the war?s global unpopularity. If not, it is important to say so as well, since allowing the arguments of humanitarian intervention to serve as a pretext for war fought mainly on other grounds risks tainting a principle whose viability might be essential to save countless lives.
In examining whether the invasion of Iraq could properly be understood as a humanitarian intervention, our purpose is not to say whether the U.S.-led coalition should have gone to war for other reasons. That, as noted, involves judgments beyond our mandate. Rather, now that the war?s proponents are relying so significantly on a humanitarian rationale for the war, the need to assess this claim has grown in importance. We conclude that, despite the horrors of Saddam Hussein?s rule, the invasion of Iraq cannot be justified as a humanitarian intervention.
And then all of the criteria are weighed. It's actually a pretty interesting read so far.
Comments
Thanks for the link.
To continue...
The HRW piece doesn't mention the UN sanctions at all. Quite an oversight, IMO. It is foolish to limit the idea of mass slaughter to deaths caused by weapons of war.
"Iraq's stance of non-cooperation is deplorable," said Hanny Megally, executive director of the Middle East and North Africa division of Human Rights Watch. "The government clearly does not place a high priority on addressing the vital needs of ordinary citizens." At the same time, Megally pointed out, the Secretary-General's report painted a disturbing picture of a continuing public health emergency. "One key factor in this is the resistance of the United States in the Security Council to making necessary changes in the sanctions regime," Megally said. "It's unfortunate that the major media stories on the report focused exclusively on Iraq's non-cooperation."
http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/09/iraq920.htm
Unusual among human rights groups, Human Rights Watch has a longstanding policy on humanitarian intervention. War often carries enormous human costs, but we recognize that the imperative of stopping or preventing genocide or other systematic slaughter can sometimes justify the use of military force. For that reason, Human Rights Watch has on rare occasion advocated humanitarian intervention?for example, to stop ongoing genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia...
http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm
The paper goes on to explain in-depth what the standards are.
Sounds like another liberal organization with an agenda to me.
Because the Iraq war was not mainly about saving the Iraqi people from mass slaughter, and because no such slaughter was then ongoing or imminent, Human Rights Watch at the time took no position for or against the war.
It's not worth their time until it does get to the point of mass something.
Originally posted by Randycat99
It's not worth their time until it does get to the point of mass something.
That's not at all what it says.
Originally posted by Randycat99
...and only as long as it is done a few at a time, not en masse.
It's not worth their time until it does get to the point of mass something.
RTFA. (please)
Originally posted by muah
I am sure the maiming and raping carried out by the Hussein regime is perfectly cool though?
Highly presumptuous, but you knew that, didn't you?
Originally posted by muah
Sounds like another liberal organization with an agenda to me.
You should look up the number of political prisoners killed in Iraq over the past 20 years. Please post a chart if you find one.
Originally posted by Scott
I did a search at HRW and found that they had little to say before GW2. What could be the financial motivation for HWR to ignore Saddam and slam the US at every turn?
That's a remarkable insinuation about an organization like HRW. If you have some evidence to back up the (bizarre) notion that HRW has some kind of financial stake in "going easy" on Iraq, I suggest you present it. Otherwise, STFU.
I Don't remember the press giving coverage to the (sanctioned) dead and dying back then---too busy reporting on Cisco's stock value and how Kozmo.com was going to have us all living out of our homes.
This is a sickening denial of recent history. The sanctions were aparently cool when France, Russia, and Germany were butt-fuccking their little third-world-bitch country---but now that the winds of change are blowing in America we have to break out the Geneva convention and the rubber gloves.
No-fly zones with DAILY bombings and starving kids just don't get the remembrance they used to.
Sick.