So, what do human rights NGOs do?

[Chaos]

I guess at least a few people here have been wondering about that now and then. I know I did, once upon a time, but I´ve been working for a human rights NGO for going on seven months now, so I may be forgiven for assuming that I have something of a clue about what the answer to that question is. So, if there´s anything you´d like to ask, here´s your chance to do so.

First off, I think I should point that, while I welcome all serious questions, I will no waste any time answering anything posted by the usual conspiracy whacko nutcase crowd.

Second - it should go without saying but you´ll never know - I don´t represent "my" NGO here, any more than my opinions are their official ones. As a rule when I say "we" it´s the NGO´s position, and when I say "I" it´s mine.

Third, we (see previous paragraph for what "we" means) stay out of the whole Israel/Palestine thing entirely. I (see previous paragraph for what "I" means) suspect that´s (1) because it´s a (bleep)ing minefield in that you´re just begging to be accused of supporting terrorism no matter which side you take and (2) because there´s no side to support with an entirely clear conscience, though of course not all are equally bad.


"My" NGO, the International Society for Human Rights, grew out of people in West Germany trying to support political prisoners in East Germany in the early 70s. The East German government did NOT like that (we do have a tendency of pissing off the representatives of despotic governments with our actions...) and declared the organization to be an Enemy of the State - and there are some pretty awesome stories waiting to be told about their efforts to destroy the ISHR.
These days we´re focused mostly on Iran, Cuba and China, although we also work on Egypt, Venezuela, Nigeria, North Korea, Vietnam, Turkey and various ex-Soviet nations at times. The ISHR has national sections in a lot of these countries - including one in Cuba, believe it or not, which happens to be very illegal there - some of which have epic stories of their own to tell. The president of the Uzbekhistan section, for example, used to be a member of parliament there in the 90s until being kicked out for "radically democratic statements" And have you heard about the (relatively) new law in Russia forcing all NGOs which receive funding from abroad to identify themselves as "agents of foreign powers"

 

[joesixpack]

Oh I have a serious question. How is the US viewed by international human rights organizations? I mean, people aren't typically arrested here for political viewpoints, but we have one of the highest per-capita incarceration rates in the world.

 

[Weak Kitten]

I have a question too. How do human rights groups like yours view the UN Council on Human Rights?

 

[Ryokan]

Oh I have a serious question. How is the US viewed by international human rights organizations? I mean, people aren't typically arrested here for political viewpoints, but we have one of the highest per-capita incarceration rates in the world.

You also have a death penalty, which have on a few occassions been given to underage and mentally handicapped people.

I can't speak for all human rights organizations, but the ones I'm a member of, though they do mention both your country and mine when they violate human rights, focus mostly on the biggest offenders.

 

[joesixpack]

You also have a death penalty, which have on a few occassions been given to underage and mentally handicapped people.

I can't speak for all human rights organizations, but the ones I'm a member of, though they do mention both your country and mine when they violate human rights, focus mostly on the biggest offenders.

Seems that the US has been a pretty major offender for some time now. The countries with capitol punishment are a pretty unpleasant collection of dictatorships and theocracies.

 

[Chaos]

Oh I have a serious question. How is the US viewed by international human rights organizations? I mean, people aren't typically arrested here for political viewpoints, but we have one of the highest per-capita incarceration rates in the world.

You also have a death penalty, which have on a few occassions been given to underage and mentally handicapped people.

I can't speak for all human rights organizations, but the ones I'm a member of, though they do mention both your country and mine when they violate human rights, focus mostly on the biggest offenders.

Yeah. Essentially, there are far, far bigger fish to fry out there. Even with the death penalty, the (by first-world standards) crappy justice system, the fact that "Sheriff Joe" Arpaio hasn´t been stripped of his office and indicted yet, Guantanamo Bay etc etc - let´s toss in the generally anti-democratic attitude of so many conservatives while we´re at it -, the US is something like #117 on our List Of Countries We Consider Major Human Rights Offenders. Not that we actually have such a list, though...

Seriously, I´d LOVE to have the luxury of being able to focus on the US - not because I don´t like the US in general, but because I could have this luxury only if an awful lot of sick **** wouldn´t be going on in, say, Iran or Cuba or China. And I wouldn´t say "sick ****" if I didn´t mean REALLY sick ****.

For example, the US has the death penalty, but by and large it´s handed out for stuff like murder, not for stuff like adultery or apostasy - and it´s applied by methods like lethal injection, not methods like stoning. The US may have one of the highest per-capita incarceration rates, but they don´t put 8000 people into a prison designed for 350. And, all justified protests against torture by US personnel aside, torturers in Iran or China make the folks in Abu Ghraib look like a bunch of naughty children.

 

[Chaos]

Seems that the US has been a pretty major offender for some time now. The countries with capitol punishment are a pretty unpleasant collection of dictatorships and theocracies.

Sure, for a first-world nation with a representative government, the US has a pretty damn piss-poor human rights record. There´s no way around admitting that.

Only, even that kind of record makes you a country of boy scouts compared to any couple dozen countries I could list that aren´t first-world nations with representative governments.

 

[Chaos]

I have a question too. How do human rights groups like yours view the UN Council on Human Rights?

I´m not aware of any official position here; I suppose having it, even the way it is, is better than not having it, but we obviously aren´t going to rely on it doing its job.

 

[joesixpack]

Yeah. Essentially, there are far, far bigger fish to fry out there. Even with the death penalty, the (by first-world standards) crappy justice system, the fact that "Sheriff Joe" Arpaio hasn´t been stripped of his office and indicted yet, Guantanamo Bay etc etc - let´s toss in the generally anti-democratic attitude of so many conservatives while we´re at it -, the US is something like #117 on our List Of Countries We Consider Major Human Rights Offenders. Not that we actually have such a list, though...

Thanks, it's nice to see we're further down the list than I thought.

 

[Chaos]

Thanks, it's nice to see we're further down the list than I thought.

You are. Sorry to shatter your patriotic self-esteem, but the US simply isn´t playing in the big leagues where human rights problems are concerned. You´ll have to REALLY work on that one.

 

[squealpiggy]

I´m not aware of any official position here; I suppose having it, even the way it is, is better than not having it, but we obviously aren´t going to rely on it doing its job.

I question the motivation of the council when they have members from the likes of Uganda, Sudan and Ethiopia. I'm also concerned at their resolution on "defamation of religion".

 

[Weak Kitten]

That was kinda why I asked. Since the membership of the UN Human Rights Council cycles you often see countries that most of us would think of as serious abusers as council members. Personally I feel that it damages the reputation of other groups by association (even if those groups are in no way associated).

 

[Chaos]

That was kinda why I asked. Since the membership of the UN Human Rights Council cycles you often see countries that most of us would think of as serious abusers as council members. Personally I feel that it damages the reputation of other groups by association (even if those groups are in no way associated).

What are they supposed to do? Limit membership to countries with exemplary human rights records? The whole thing would be shut down a heartbeart after the US is kicked out due to its record.

 

[Weak Kitten]

That is the problem isn't it? Does any country have the moral high-ground to actually run such a body?

(Not entirely a rhetorical question. I am curious.)

 

[Cain]

What do Human Rights Groups do? They take their yachts out into the Mediterranean where they're sunning themselves with MY money.

 

[casebro]

Not Good Organization?
New Green Organization?
National Goody-two-shoes Organization?
National Group Organization?

I think I've got the O right, and I guess it's some umbrella parse for human rights groups, but....

 

[Ryokan]

Non-Governmental Organization.

You'd think with the most powerful information tool in history at your finger tips, it'd be real quick to find out for yourself..

 

[Childlike Empress]

Non-Governmental Organization.

Yeah, it means they aren't directly financed by governments but by proxy organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy or the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. Which makes them immune in their own minds against follow-the-money questions. Only "Conspiracy Theorists" like those guys in Russia would ask those, it is always loudly announced.

 

[Ryokan]

Yeah, it means they aren't directly financed by governments but by proxy organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy or the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. Which makes them immune in their own minds against follow-the-money questions. Only "Conspiracy Theorists" like those guys in Russia would ask those, it is always loudly announced.

Considering the incredibly vast amount and variations of NGOs, it's practically impossible to generalize in any way.

I've never heard anyone claim that simply being non-governmental means they're immune to follow-the-money questions, though.

 

[Chaos]

That is the problem isn't it? Does any country have the moral high-ground to actually run such a body?

(Not entirely a rhetorical question. I am curious.)

I don´t have a perfect solution, either.

We could let anybody join, which leads to what we have now.

We could require a sterling human rights record, which would lead to a very small club indeed - and who would take the Council seriously if it consists of Andorra, Liechtenstein and Iceland, or some collection like that?

Or we could define some "cut-off" below which a nation is not qualified to join. My cynical nature leads me to assume that this would mean whichever nations have most pull at the UN would use this to define the criteria so that they and their cronies have a permanent absolute majority of votes - which would cost the Council all its credibility.