Human Rights Watch On The 'Hotseat' As USG Proxy, With 'Revolving Door'

[Peter Lemkin]

Nobel Peace Laureates to Human Rights Watch: Close Your Revolving Door to U.S. Government

May 12, 2014 |
The following letter was sent today to Human Rights Watch's Kenneth Roth on behalf of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates Adolfo Pérez Esquivel and Mairead Maguire; former UN Assistant Secretary General Hans von Sponeck; current UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Richard Falk; and over 100 scholars.
Dear Kenneth Roth,
Human Rights Watch characterizes itself [2] as "one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights." However, HRW's close ties to the U.S. government call into question its independence.
For example, HRW's Washington advocacy director, Tom Malinowski, previously served [3] as a special assistant to President Bill Clinton and as a speechwriter to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. In 2013, he left HRW after being nominated [4] as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights & Labor under John Kerry.
In her HRW.org biography, Board of Directors' Vice Chair Susan Manilow describes [5] herself as "a longtime friend to Bill Clinton" who is "highly involved" in his political party, and "has hosted dozens of events" for the Democratic National Committee.
Currently, HRW Americas' advisory committee [6] includes Myles Frechette, a former [7] U.S. ambassador [8] to Colombia, and Michael Shifter, one-time Latin America director [9] for the U.S. government-financed National Endowment for Democracy. Miguel Díaz, a Central Intelligence Agency analyst in the 1990s, sat on HRW Americas' advisory committee from 2003 [10]-11 [11]. Now at the State Department [12], Díaz serves [13] as "an interlocutor between the intelligence community and non-government experts."
In his capacity as an HRW advocacy director, Malinowski contended [14] in 2009 that "under limited circumstances" there was "a legitimate place" for CIA renditionsthe illegal [15] practice [16] of kidnapping and transferring terrorism suspects around the planet. Malinowski was quoted paraphrasing [14] the U.S. government's argument that designing an alternative to sending suspects to "foreign dungeons to be tortured" was "going to take some time."
HRW has not extended [17] similar consideration to Venezuela [18]. In a 2012 letter [19] to President Chávez, HRW criticized the country's candidacy for the UN Human Rights Council, alleging that Venezuela had fallen "far short of acceptable standards" and questioning its "ability to serve as a credible voice on human rights." At no point has U.S. membership [20] in the same council merited censure from HRW, despite Washington's secret, global assassination program [21], its preservation [22] of renditions [23], and its illegal detention [24] of individuals at Guantánamo Bay.
Likewise, in February 2013, HRW correctly described as "unlawful [25]" Syria's use of missiles in its civil war. However, HRW remained silent [26] on the clear violation [27] of international law constituted by the U.S. threat of missile strikes on Syria in August.
The few examples above, limited to only recent history, might be forgiven as inconsistencies or oversights that could naturally occur in any large, busy organization. But HRW's close relationships with the U.S. government suffuse such instances with the appearance of a conflict of interest.
We therefore encourage you to institute immediate, concrete measures to strongly assert HRW's independence. Closing what seems to be a revolving door would be a reasonable first step: Bar those who have crafted or executed U.S. foreign policy from serving as HRW staff, advisors or board members. At a bare minimum, mandate lengthy "cooling-off" periods before and after any associate moves between HRW and that arm of the government.
Your largest donor, investor George Soros, argued [28] in 2010 that "to be more effective, I think the organization has to be seen as more international, less an American organization." We concur. We urge you to implement the aforementioned proposal to ensure a reputation for genuine independence.
Sincerely,

1. Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Nobel Peace Prize laureate
   
   
2. Mairead Maguire, Nobel Peace Prize laureate
   
   
3. Joel Andreas, Professor of Sociology, Johns Hopkins University
   
   
4. Antony Anghie, Professor of Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah
   
   
5. John M. Archer, Professor of English, New York University
   
   
6. Asma Barlas, Professor of Politics, Director of the Center for the Study of Culture, Race, and Ethnicity, Ithaca College
   
   
7. Rosalyn Baxandall, Professor Emeritus of American Studies, State University of New York-Old Westbury
   
   
8. Marc Becker, Professor of Latin American History, Truman State University
   
   
9. Jason A. Beckett, Professor of Law, American University in Cairo
   
   
10. Angélica Bernal, Professor of Political Science, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
    
    
11. Keane Bhatt, activist, writer
    
    
12. William Blum, author, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II
    
    
13. Audrey Bomse, Co-chair, National Lawyers Guild Palestine Subcommittee
    
    
14. Patrick Bond, Professor of Development Studies, Director of the Centre for Civil Society, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban
    
    
15. Michael Brenner, Professor Emeritus of International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh
    
    
16. Jean Bricmont, Professor of Theoretical Physics, University of Louvain; author, Humanitarian Imperialism
    
    
17. Renate Bridenthal, Professor Emerita of History, Brooklyn College, CUNY
    
    
18. Fernando Buen Abad Domínguez, Ph.D., author
    
    
19. Paul Buhle, Professor Emeritus of American Civilization, Brown University
    
    
20. David Camfield, Professor of Labour Studies, University of Manitoba
    
    
21. Leonard L. Cavise, Professor of Law, DePaul College of Law
    
    
22. Robert Chernomas, Professor of Economics, University of Manitoba
    
    
23. Aviva Chomsky, Professor of History, Salem State University
    
    
24. George Ciccariello-Maher, Professor of Political Science, Drexel University
    
    
25. Jeff Cohen, Associate Professor of Journalism, Ithaca College
    
    
26. Marjorie Cohn, Professor of Law, Thomas Jefferson School of Law
    
    
27. Lisa Duggan, Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis, New York University
    
    
28. Carolyn Eisenberg, Professor of History, Hofstra University
    
    
29. Matthew Evangelista, Professor of History and Political Science, Cornell University
    
    
30. Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law, Princeton University
    
    
31. Sujatha Fernandes, Professor of Sociology, Queens College, CUNY Graduate Center
    
    
32. Mara Fridell, Professor of Sociology, University of Manitoba
    
    
33. Frances Geteles, Professor Emeritus, Department of Special Programs, CUNY City College
    
    
34. Lesley Gill, Professor of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University
    
    
35. Piero Gleijeses, Professor of American Foreign Policy and Latin American Studies, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University
    
    
36. Jeff Goodwin, Professor of Sociology, New York University
    
    
37. Katherine Gordy, Professor of Political Science, San Francisco State University
    
    
38. Manu Goswami, Professor of History, New York University
    
    
39. Greg Grandin, Professor of History, New York University
    
    
40. Simon Granovsky-Larsen, Professor of Latin American Studies, Centennial College, Toronto
    
    
41. James N. Green, Professor of Latin American History, Brown University
    
    
42. A. Tom Grunfeld, Professor of History, SUNY Empire State College
    
    
43. Julie Guard, Professor of Labor Studies, University of Manitoba
    
    
44. Peter Hallward, Professor of Philosophy, Kingston University; author, Damming the Flood
    
    
45. John L. Hammond, Professor of Sociology, Hunter College, CUNY Graduate Center
    
    
46. Beth Harris, Professor of Politics, Ithaca College
    
    
47. Martin Hart-Landsberg, Professor Economics, Lewis and Clark College
    
    
48. Chris Hedges, journalist; author, War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning
    
    
49. Doug Henwood, journalist; author, Wall Street
    
    
50. Edward Herman, Professor Emeritus of Finance, University of Pennsylvania; co-author, The Political Economy of Human Rights
    
    
51. Susan Heuman, Ph.D., independent scholar of history
    
    
52. Forrest Hylton, Lecturer in History & Literature, Harvard University
    
    
53. Matthew Frye Jacobson, Professor of American Studies and History, Yale University
    
    
54. Jennifer Jolly, Co-coordinator of Latin American Studies, Ithaca College
    
    
55. Rebecca E. Karl, Professor of History, New York University
    
    
56. J. Kehaulani Kauanui, Professor of Anthropology and American Studies, Wesleyan University
    
    
57. Ari Kelman, Professor of History, University of California, Davis
    
    
58. Arang Keshavarzian, Professor of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, New York University
    
    
59. Laleh Khalili, Professor of Middle East Politics, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
    
    
60. Daniel Kovalik, Professor of International Human Rights, University of Pittsburgh School of Law
    
    
61. Rob Kroes, Professor Emeritus of American Studies, University of Amsterdam
    
    
62. Peter Kuznick, Professor of History, American University
    
    
63. Deborah T. Levenson, Professor of History, Boston College
    
    
64. David Ludden, Professor of History, New York University
    
    
65. Catherine Lutz, Professor of Anthropology and International Studies, Brown University
    
    
66. Arthur MacEwan, Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of Massachusetts-Boston
    
    
67. Viviana MacManus, Professor of Women's and Gender Studies, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
    
    
68. Chase Madar, civil rights attorney; author, The Passion of [Chelsea] Manning
    
    
69. Alfred W. McCoy, Professor of History, University of Wisconsin-Madison
    
    
70. Teresa Meade, Professor of History, Union College
    
    
71. Thomas Murphy, Professor of History and Government, University of Maryland, University College Europe
    
    
72. Allan Nairn, independent investigative journalist
    
    
73. Usha Natarajan, Professor of International Law, American University in Cairo
    
    
74. Diane M. Nelson, Professor of Cultural Anthropology, Duke University
    
    
75. Joseph Nevins, Professor of Geography, Vassar College
    
    
76. Mary Nolan, Professor of History, New York University
    
    
77. Anthony O'Brien, Professor Emeritus of English, Queens College, CUNY
    
    
78. Paul O'Connell, Reader in Law, School of Law, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
    
    
79. Christian Parenti, Professor of Sustainable Development, School for International Training Graduate Institute
    
    
80. David Peterson, independent writer and researcher
    
    
81. Adrienne Pine, Professor of Anthropology, American University
    
    
82. Claire Potter, Professor of History, The New School
    
    
83. Margaret Power, Professor of History, Illinois Institute of Technology
    
    
84. Pablo Pozzi, Professor of History, Universidad de Buenos Aires
    
    
85. Gyan Prakash, Professor of History, Princeton University
    
    
86. Vijay Prashad, Edward Said Chair of American Studies, American University of Beirut
    
    
87. Peter Ranis, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, CUNY Graduate Center
    
    
88. Michael Ratner, human rights attorney; author, The Prosecution of Donald Rumsfeld
    
    
89. Sanjay Reddy, Professor of Economics, New School for Social Research
    
    
90. Adolph Reed, Jr., Professor of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania
    
    
91. Nazih Richani, Director of Latin American Studies, Kean University
    
    
92. Moss Roberts, Professor of Chinese, New York University
    
    
93. Corey Robin, Professor of Political Science, Brooklyn College, CUNY Graduate Center
    
    
94. William I. Robinson, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara
    
    
95. Patricia Rodriguez, Professor of Politics, Ithaca College
    
    
96. Andrew Ross, Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis, New York University
    
    
97. Elizabeth Sanders, Professor of Government, Cornell University
    
    
98. Dean Saranillio, Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis, New York University
    
    
99. T.M. Scruggs, Professor Emeritus of Music, University of Iowa
    
    
100. Ian J. Seda-Irizarry, Professor of Political Economy, John Jay College of Criminal Justice
     
     
101. Denise A. Segura, Professor of Sociology; Chair, Department of Chicana and Chicano Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara
     
     
102. Mark Selden, Senior Research Associate, East Asia Program, Cornell University
     
     
103. Falguni A. Sheth, Professor of Philosophy and Political Theory, Hampshire College
     
     
104. Naoko Shibusawa, Professor of History, Brown University
     
     
105. Dina M. Siddiqi, Professor of Anthropology, BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
     
     
106. Francisco Sierra Caballero, Director of the Center for Communication, Politics and Social Change, University of Seville
     
     
107. Brad Simpson, Professor of History, University of Connecticut
     
     
108. Nikhil Pal Singh, Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis and History, New York University
     
     
109. Leslie Sklair, Professor Emeritus of Sociology, London School of Economics
     
     
110. Norman Solomon, author, War Made Easy
     
     
111. Judy Somberg, Chair, National Lawyers Guild Task Force on the Americas
     
     
112. Jeb Sprague, author, Paramilitarism and the Assault on Democracy in Haiti
     
     
113. Oliver Stone, filmmaker; co-author, The Untold History of the United States
     
     
114. Steve Striffler, Professor of Anthropology, Chair of Latin American Studies, University of New Orleans
     
     
115. Sinclair Thomson, Professor of History, New York University
     
     
116. Miguel Tinker Salas, Professor of History and Latin American Studies, Pomona College
     
     
117. James S. Uleman, Professor of Psychology, New York University
     
     
118. Alejandro Velasco, Professor of History, New York University
     
     
119. Robert Vitalis, Professor of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania
     
     
120. Hans Christof von Sponeck, former United Nations Assistant Secretary General (1998-2000)
     
     
121. Hilbourne Watson, Professor Emeritus of International Relations, Bucknell University
     
     
122. Barbara Weinstein, Professor of History, New York University
     
     
123. Mark Weisbrot, Ph.D., Co-director, Center for Economic and Policy Research
     
     
124. Kirsten Weld, Professor of History, Harvard University
     
     
125. Gregory Wilpert, Ph.D, author, Changing Venezuela by Taking Power
     
     
126. John Womack, Jr., Professor Emeritus of Latin American History and Economics, Harvard University
     
     
127. Michael Yates, Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown
     
     
128. Kevin Young, Ph.D., Latin American History, State University of New York-Stony Brook
     
     
129. Marilyn B. Young, Professor of History, New York University
     
     
130. Vazira Fazila-Yacoobali Zamindar, Professor of History; Co-Director, South Asian Studies, Brown University
     
131. Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and Coordinator of Middle Eastern Studies, University of San Francisco
     

[29]




See more stories tagged with: human rights watch [30],
venezuela [31],
syria [32]

---

Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/world/nobel-peac...government
Links:
[1] http://alternet.org
[2] http://www.hrw.org/about
[3] http://web.archive.org/web/2012040122053...malinowski
[4] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-t..._blog.html
[5] http://www.hrw.org/bios/susan-manilow
[6] http://www.hrw.org/node/105587
[7] http://web.gc.cuny.edu/bildnercenter/eve...31.1.shtml
[8] http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy/tra.../napbc.htm
[9] http://www.ned.org/research/research-cou...el-shifter
[10] http://web.archive.org/web/2003081310361...board.html
[11] http://web.archive.org/web/2011050115205...#_Americas
[12] http://careers.state.gov/ff/meet-the-fel...iguel-diaz
[13] http://www.worldpittsburgh.org/programsC...3019236777
[14] http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/01/...rendition1
[15] https://www.aclu.org/national-security/f...-rendition
[16] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/03/10/63...olicy.html
[17] http://nacla.org/news/2014/2/4/hypocrisy...ghts-watch
[18] http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/4051
[19] http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/11/09/lette...ts-council
[20] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pag...mbers.aspx
[21] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/...qaeda.html
[22] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/...wanted=all
[23] http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/re...-rendition
[24] http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/04/25/guant...-continues
[25] http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/02/26/syria...l-more-140
[26] http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/08/30/dispa...p-priority
[27] http://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/11/ch..._threat_to
[28] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/business/07gift.html
[29] mailto:corrections@alternet.org?Subject=Typo on Nobel Peace Laureates to Human Rights Watch: Close Your Revolving Door to U.S. Government
[30] http://www.alternet.org/tags/human-rights-watch-0
[31] http://www.alternet.org/tags/venezuela-0
[32] http://www.alternet.org/tags/syria-0
[33] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

[Peter Lemkin]

Debate: Is Human Rights Watch Too Close to U.S. Gov't to Criticize Its Foreign Policy?

Human Rights Watch, one of the world's largest and most influential human rights organizations, is facing an unusual amount of public criticism. Two Nobel Peace Prize laureates, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel and Mairead Maguire, and a group of over 100 scholars have written an open letter criticizing what they describe as a revolving door with the U.S. government that impacts HRW's work in certain countries, including Venezuela. The letter urges HRW to bar those who have crafted or executed U.S. foreign policy from serving as staff, advisers or board members. Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth has defended his organization's independence, responding: "We are careful to ensure that prior affiliations do not affect the impartiality of Human Rights Watch's work. … We routinely expose, document and denounce human rights violations by the US government, including torture, indefinite detention, illegal renditions, unchecked mass surveillance, abusive use of drones, harsh sentencing and racial disparity in criminal justice, and an unfair and ineffective immigration system." We host a debate between HRW counsel Reed Brody and Keane Bhatt, a writer and activist who organized the open letter.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: One of the world's largest and most influential human rights organizations is facing an unusual amount of public criticism. Two Nobel Peace Prize laureates, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel and Mairead Maguire, and a group of over a hundred scholars have written an open letter to Human Rights Watch criticizing what they describe as the group's close ties to the U.S. government.
The letter claims there is a revolving door between the U.S. government and Human Rights Watch and that it has impacted the organization's work in certain countries, including Venezuela. It cites the example of Tom Malinowski. In the 1990s he served as a special assistant to President Bill Clinton and as a speechwriter to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Then he became HRW's Washington advocacy director. Then, last year, he left the organization after being nominated as assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor under John Kerry. The letter also notes a former CIA analyst named Miguel Díaz who sat on a Human Right Watch advisory committee from 2003 to 2011. Díaz is now at the State Department. The letter urges Human Rights Watch to bar those who have crafted or executed U.S. foreign policy from serving as staff, advisers or board members.
AMY GOODMAN: Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth has defended his organization's independence. In a recent letter to the Nobel laureates, Roth wrote, quote, "We are careful to ensure that prior affiliations do not affect the impartiality of Human Rights Watch's work."
Roth went on to highlight the group's history of criticizing the U.S. human rights record. Roth wrote, quote, "We routinely expose, document and denounce human rights violations by the US government, including torture, indefinite detention, illegal renditions, unchecked mass surveillance, abusive use of drones, harsh sentencing and racial disparity in criminal justice, and an unfair and ineffective immigration system."
Well, today we host a debate. Reed Brody is counsel and spokesperson for Human Rights Watch. He worked as lead counsel for the victims in the case of the exiled former dictator of Chad, Hissène Habré, and in the cases of Augusto Pinochet and Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier in Haiti.
Keane Bhatt is the lead organizer of the open letter to Human Rights Watch. Earlier this year, he wrote an article headlined "The Hypocrisy of Human Rights Watch." He's a Washington, D.C.-based writer and activist.
Well, Keane Bhatt, you're the one who wrote the letter that was signed by the Nobel laureates and about a hundred scholars. Explain your concerns with Human Rights Watch.
KEANE BHATT: The concern is that the revolving-door process that we delineated in the letter leads to a perverse incentive structure. That is to say, if you are a Human Rights Watch staff member and you are to criticize harshly and in principled terms actions by the U.S. government, one shouldn't have in the back of his or her mind the possibility of actually working for that government. And we think that that possibility of looking at the U.S. government, which, you know, Human Rights Watch should be antagonistic towards, along with any other government, one should not see that as a possibility for future career advancement. And that generates perverse incentives. The revolving-door process is something that's quite clearly understood in other industries, like the financial sector, in which you have a revolving door there. So we are simply saying that in the case of Human Rights Watch, which stands by its independence, that it should demonstrate that independence further by implementing an actual policy to have either a cooling-off period before and after HRW associates go into the U.S. government, or that they simply bar those who have created or executed U.S. foreign policy, given that the U.S. foreign policy establishment in the U.S. government is a routine human rights violator.
AMY GOODMAN: Reed Brody?
REED BRODY: Well, first of all, I want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to come on to discuss these charges. Unfortunately, every time Human Rights Watch publishes a report on Venezuela, this is what happens: The government and the people who support the government then denounce Human Rights Watch. This is not the first sign-on letter of this kind. This one is particularly pernicious because of the charges it raises, this idea that somehow Human Rights Watch is in lockstep with the U.S. government because of some revolving-door policy. I think anyone who is familiar with our work, anyone who takes the time to look at our website, would see, first of all, that we routinely criticize the U.S. government. We routinely criticizein fact, earlier this week, Amy, you had on your show a Human Rights Watch researcher, together with a recently freed Bahraini activist, criticizing the U.S. government for its support of the government in Bahrain.
Therewe have 399 people on staff, from 67 countries. We have peoplethere's probably a handful of people who have worked for the U.S. government. There are also people who have worked for the governments of Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Spain, South Africa, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Now, I can go through the list of the directors, the regional directorsour Africa director, a former Ethiopian political prisoner under U.S. ally Meles Zenawi; the person in charge of all our program, Iain Levine, who you know, a British-trained nurse 10 years in Africa, then UNICEF, then Amnesty International; Ken Roth, the director of Human Rights Watch, 27 consecutive years at Human Rights Watch. There's a handful of peoplethis revolving-door policy, if we implemented it, would have changed one person at Human Rights Watch. To the extent that there is a revolving-door policy at Human Rights Watch, it's with the United Nations. There are many people, myself included, who have worked at the United Nations, the U.N. high commissioner for refugees, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights. So, this isthere really is no basis to this kind of allegation.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, Keane Bhatt, can you respond specifically to what Reed Brody said about the number of former government officials from a number of other countries who are employed at Human Rights Watch?
KEANE BHATT: Yeah.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Why the specific focus on U.S. government officials?
KEANE BHATT: Well, one, what we're talking about is both working for the U.S. government before and after Human Rights Watch. In all of the countries that you've listed, I'm not aware of people who have worked in that government, then in Human Rights Watch and then back into government. And that's the revolving-door phenomenon. So, if you have credible evidence of those people, we would probably oppose that, as well.
But the second point about focusing on the United States is that, as opposed to Peru or Mexico or Brazil, the United States is the world's largest military hegemon. And as the world's sole superpower, which has committed, you know, various human rights violations on an order of magnitude far beyond the scope of anything that could be accused upon Mexico or another country, this is really the core issue. And I just want to ask you, if it's only two peopleMiguel Díaz from the CIA, who is now an interlocutor
REED BRODY: Excuse me, Miguel Díaz never worked at Human Rights Watch. We have over 200 people on advisory committees.
KEANE BHATT: So then, if the advisory committee is simply an honorary title, what kind of message is that sending to the world that somebody who has worked at the CIA, perhaps the world's greatest institutional human rights violator in the past half-century, is there as a way foras a kind of a form of credentials? You know, what does thatwhat does that symbolize to the rest of the world when you talk about your independence? And then, secondly, when he goes into the State Department and his job title is explicitly serving as an interlocutor before the intelligencebetween the intelligence community and non-government experts, namely Human Rights Watch and other organizations, what does that signal to the international community? So, let's not even dispute the question of whether HRW's advocacy is aligned with U.S. foreign policy. The very appearance, the very fact that we're having this debate, is indicative of the need of having some kind of a policy
REED BRODY: No, the verythe very fact that we're having this debate is that the Venezuelan government and people who support the Venezuelan government cannot tolerate criticism of Venezuela.
KEANE BHATT: I think this is a complete canard. To
REED BRODY: That's why we're having this debate.
KEANE BHATT: To simply refer to me
REED BRODY: Now, let me answerlet me answer the questions, though, about Miguel Díaz. We have 200 people on our advisory committees. We have advisory committees for each branch of Human Rights Watch. It's a big tent. We've got people on the right; we've got people on the left. Costa-Gavras is on our advisory committee. Bernardine Dohrn is on our advisory committee, Tahar ben Jelloun, Mike Farrell. This is
KEANE BHATT: This is not a question of left or right. This is a question of people who are associated with leading human rights violators working there.
REED BRODY: And at the time
KEANE BHATT: What can he bring to the table? What can he advise upon
REED BRODY: At the time
KEANE BHATT: on human rights, when he has worked at the CIA and he's using
REED BRODY: At the time thatat the time that Miguel Díaz was on the advisory committee, he was the Latin American director of CSIS, a thinka public policy think tank in Washington. Those are the kinds of positions that you bring to an advisory committee. You bring people from the field. You bring people from think tanks. You bring former public policy people. You bring government officials.
KEANE BHATT: Well, then
REED BRODY: Former government officials. We have a rule that you cannot, obviously, be a government official at the same time that you're on the board, on the advisory committee or on the staff of Human Rights Watch.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Keane Bhatt, can I just ask you to outline specificallyyou were in particular critical of the way in which Human Rights Watch has covered Venezuela, so could you outline what some of your criticisms were?
KEANE BHATT: Yeah. First, I would dispute the contention that this is simply an effort by Venezuela supporters to try to tarnish HRW's good name. Again, Reed Brody is not addressing the core issue here about a revolving door that's taking place.
REED BRODY: I have addressed the issue.
KEANE BHATT: Does he dispute the fact
REED BRODY: There is no revolving door.
KEANE BHATT: There is no revolving door if Tom Malinowski works at the
REED BRODY: That's only one person.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain the significance of who Tom Malinowski is?
KEANE BHATT: Well, Tom Malinowski is an interesting case. He worked at the White House National Security Council for Bill Clinton as its senior director when Bill Clinton initiated the Yugoslavia bombings, which Human Rights Watch itself classified as committing violations of international humanitarian law. Secondly, he was a speechwriter for Madeleine Albright when she made the infamous comments that the price is worth it, in terms of imposing U.S. sanctions that may have killed a half a million Iraqi children. Malinowski then worked at Human Rights Watch as its lead lobbyist and then, immediately after, became the assistant secretary of state. You know, and so, the kinds of comments that he made, for example, in reference to Libya after the NATO intervention, are completely unalloyed in theirin their support. And so, when Tom Malinowski is strongly supportive of NATO interventions and then goes on to work at the Obama administration, which is a human rights violatorfor example, you know, the secret kill list in which Obama has the right to murder anyone on the planet based on a, you know, secret order without any judicial oversightthese are the kinds of problems that exist. And whether or notwhether or not the advocacy is tarnished, the appearance of this revolving door should be addressed.
AMY GOODMAN: Reed Brody?
REED BRODY: You know, Human Rights Watch has called for criminal investigation to be opened against the former president of the United States, George Bush, against Donald Rumsfeld, against Dick Cheney, against George Tenet. Ken Roth was on your show talking about that.
KEANE BHATT: So then
REED BRODY: Just last monthtwo months ago, while Tom Malinowski was going into the U.S. government, Ken Roth wrote an op-ed called "Obama the Disappointment." I mean, to suggest that somehow that there's this great conspiracy, that, you know, we're in lockstep with the U.S. government because Tombecause, you know, now and thenin this case, one personwent from Human Rights Watch to the U.S. government, it's just reallyyou know, people on your show should look at our website, read our reports, read Ken Roth's articles, read our reporting on Venezuela and on other U.S. allies, on countries like Mexico, Uzbekistan, Israel, Egypt.
KEANE BHATT: Yeah, well
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, you've pointed out, Keane, that you want Human Rights Watch to be as critical of the Obama administration as it has been of the Bush administration and Human Rights Watch has failed to do that. Could you elaborate?
KEANE BHATT: That's correct. I mean, if criminal investigations should be launched against the Bush administration, then clearly the continuation of CIA renditions, the use of torture in Bagram and in Somalia, which Jeremy Scahill quite clearly demonstrated on this broadcast, the fact that Amrit Singh from the Open Society Justice Initiative was also on this program discussing the continuous use of renditionsagain, a level of human rights violation that's perhaps, you know, unparalleled, a secret kill list to kill anyone on the planetall of these instances demand criminal investigations. And the fact that they haven't been pushed by Human Rights Watch for Clinton, where Tom Malinowski once worked, and Obama, where he now works, is indicative of this issue.
And secondly, I think that the core issue here is that when HRW makes criticisms toward NATO, what signal does that send the international community when NATO's former secretary general, Javier Solana, is on the board of directors at HRW? This is somebody who HRW itself criticized for presiding over violations of international humanitarian law. So, why don't we make a simple policy? Those who
REED BRODY: Isn't that the proofisn't that
KEANE BHATT: who bear direct responsibility for human rights violations should not be on the board of directors of an independent human rights organization.
REED BRODY: I would agree with that.
KEANE BHATT: So let's
REED BRODY: But isn'tbut isn'tbut isn't
KEANE BHATT: Let'slet's agree on that. We should have an immediate removal of Javier Solana from the board of directors, given that his power includes being able to remove staff at HRW. That's what board of directors at nonprofits do. So this person, when he's on that board
REED BRODY: Human Rights WatchI mean, the proof
KEANE BHATT: creates the
REED BRODY: The proof that what you're saying is not correct, you've given it. Human Rights Watch has reportedI mean, as soon asas soon as NATO or the United States or Israel or anyone else is involved in military action, we are on the ground as soon as possible to document possible violations of war.
KEANE BHATT: Has Human Rights Watch
REED BRODY: And we've done that in the case of NATO in Libya.
KEANE BHATT: Has Human Rights Watch advocated criminal investigations or taking Javier Solana to International Criminal Court for his presiding over violation of international humanitarian law?
REED BRODY: We have not suggested that Javier Solana was personally involved in the violations of international humanitarian law. There's a difference between violations of the laws of war, which weHuman Rights Watch has documented, and the personal criminal liability of different people and differentin organizations.
KEANE BHATT: Right.
REED BRODY: Please.
KEANE BHATT: So the question ofthat's the core issue, because when HRW documents atrocities committed by NATO, but then does not carry them to their logical conclusion
REED BRODY: We didn't describe them as atrocities, but OK.
KEANE BHATT: Human rights violations, let's saybut does not carry them to their logical conclusion, that leads the international community to question the independence. Look, the United States and its
REED BRODY: I don't think the international community is questioning the independence of Human Rights Watch.
KEANE BHATT: The United States is considered by the world, in a recent poll, to be the greatest threat to world peace today by three times the margin of the second runner-up. So what does it say to the world when HRW has somebody who has presided over a military organization? What does he bring to the table? What can he actually provide in terms of his insights and knowledge of human rights, when he's somebody who presided over the bombing of civilian targets, the use of cluster munitions and so on?
REED BRODY: Javier Solana was the foreign minister of Spain. I don't
KEANE BHATT: He's the secretary general of NATO.
REED BRODY: He was thehe was the secretary general of NATO. He brings to the table his foreign policy experience. We have notwe have been very critical of NATO in Libya, but we have not alleged that he or that NATO was involved in war crimes or that he was personally involved in war crimes.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Reed Brody, could you respond also to what Keane brought up about Human Rights Watch not being as critical of Obama administration officials for continuing Bush policies?
REED BRODY: Well, I mean, I justtwo months ago, Ken Roth, Politico, "Obama the Disappointment": "Obama has"I'll just read the first point. "Obama has disappointed many by failing to make human rights a priority. True, ... he has stood up for people's rights where there are few strategic interests at playin such places as ... Venezuela and Zimbabwe. But his readiness to compromise in places like Afghanistan, Egypt, Mexico, Uzbekistan ... Yemen leaves the impression that he is not committed to the human rights ideal."
We have documented in Yemen, for instance, the human cost of drones. We have taken Obama, the Obama administration, to task for its failure to live up to the promises he made a year ago regarding transparency in the use of drones. So, just because we're not calling for Obama to be prosecuted, that's not the test. When someone is involved, as we believe, directlyI mean, George Bush admitted that he authorized waterboarding. Human Rights Watch documentwe were in Libya. Our people went into Gaddafi's former secret service headquarters and discovered the files that show that the U.S. was sending prisoners to Libya to be interrogated, where they were tortured. We have called for criminal prosecutions on those bases. We havebut criminal prosecution is not the only touchstone for criticism of a government. We haven't called for the prosecution of Chávez and of Maduro.
KEANE BHATT: Yeah, that's because Chávez and Maduro have nowhere near the human rights record of the Obama administration. And secondly, that's the core question, is whether or not HRW chooses to operationalize its relatively tepid criticisms of Obama, given the severity of those human rights violations. Let's take the case of drone strikes in Yemen, for example. What Human Rights Watch is advocating is not for the immediate cessation of drone strikes, which have killed hundreds of civilians around the world. What they're asking for is greater transparency on the legal rationale for continuation of those drone strikes. So, the idea that the United dates can treat the entire planet as a legitimate battlefield is simply unquestioned.
REED BRODY: No, we haven't said that.
KEANE BHATT: And secondly, would HRW ask for the legal rationale from the Cuban government for why it carried out a drone assassination against Luis Posada Carriles? No, of course, it would immediately denounce a violation of that sovereignty, the issue of that, and they wouldn't be asking the Justice Ministry of Cuba to justify its use of missile strikes on Florida.
REED BRODY: I don't believe we've ever talked about that case.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, one of the criticisms of Human Rights Watch in the open letter focused on its position on Syria. Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth posted a series of tweets last summer as the Obama administration was contemplating military action following the use of chemical weapons in August. In one, Roth tweeted, quote, "If Obama decides to strike #Syria, will he settle for symbolism or do something that will help protect civilians?" Roth subsequently appeared on Russia Today and explained his organization's position.

KENNETH ROTH: We are explicitly not taking a position for or against particular air strikes. Our main focus, as you can find in the statements that we've issued, is that our concern is with protecting civilian lives. And obviously, you know, the issue on the table at the moment are the approximately 1,400 civilians who died as a result of the chemical weapons attacks in the Damascus suburbs, but obviously we're concerned about the tens of thousands, if not hundred thousand, civilians who have died during the conflict, mostly at the hands of conventional weapons. And our concern is that while there is heightened attention to this problem of Syria now, we hope that the answer is going to address the plight of civilians across the board.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, speaking last year on Russia Today. Keane Bhatt, can you explain why it is that you were critical of the position that Human Rights Watch took on Syria?
KEANE BHATT: Well, I'm not critical on the question of neutrality when it comes to intervention, but really what his tweets showand that's not the only tweet; there's numerous tweets, which allow for plausible deniability, but in their effect and in their preponderance show a real egging on of the Obama administration at the height of calls for a U.S. bombing on Syria. And we think that this is simply unbecoming of the head of a human rights organization to be asking for moremore than symbolic bombing, but a really serious kind of a bombing that actually cancan protect civilians. I think that this is completely irresponsible. And, yes, there might be ways to weasel out of the implications of that tweet and other tweetsand people can go to my Twitter to see the full list of Ken Roth's tweets encouraging a Syria strikebut I think that this is something that really shows the need for a separation, a firewall, between HRW and NATO and the U.S. government.
AMY GOODMAN: Reed Brody of Human Rights Watch?
REED BRODY: I'm sorry, there needs to be a firewall between Ken Roth and the U.S. government? Ken Roth has never
KEANE BHATT: There needs to be
REED BRODY: Ken Roth has spent the last 27 years at Human Rights Watch. I really don't imagine that Ken Roth will ever be working for the United States government.
But let me address the issue of intervention. Human Rights Watchand you can see on our website, you can hear from KenHuman Rights Watch does not call, has not called for an armed intervention or any interventionwell, we've called for humanitarian intervention, we've called for the assistance to displaced people. You know, the countries of the world, in 2005, all the countries at the General Assembly, agreed that there were certain circumstances that invoked what they called the right to protect, when it may be necessary for the international community even to use force. And that's the lesson of Srebrenica. It's the lesson of Rwanda.
Now, Human Rights Watch has not calledin fact, since Rwanda, the last time that Human Rights Watch called for a military intervention was inwas over 20 years ago in Rwanda. Soand to suggestand to suggest otherwise isyou know, the policy of Human Rights Watch, and what Ken was saying was, the touchstone is: Are you going to protect civilians? And how are youwhat is the plan to protect civilians? And we did not criticizein the letter, you make an equivalence. You say, well, we criticized Syria's bombing of civilians, but we didn't criticize the U.S. for threatening a military intervention.
KEANE BHATT: Yeah.
REED BRODY: Human Rights WatchOK, go ahead.
KEANE BHATT: So that'sthat's another issue, which is that the parameters for HRW are narrow, such that, you know, violations of international law, such as the threat or use of force, are outside of HRW's purview. What that means is that the lone military superpower in the world, which has violated international law on many occasionsfor example, in the case of Iraq, which led to the deaths of perhaps one million Iraqis, perhaps the greatest, you know, human rights catastrophe of the 21st centurybecause HRW's purview does not allow it to oppose, you know, violations of international law, such as the threat or use of force, you know, we think that that's a defect.
But what I'm saying is a narrower point, which is that if HRW has a stated policy of neutrality, then Tom Malinowski should not be endorsing and praising Libya, the Libya strikes by NATO, in pieces in Foreign Policy, and it should not be
REED BRODY: Human Rights WatchHuman Rights Watch is the organization which documented the effects on civilians
KEANE BHATT: Again
REED BRODY: of the NATO strikes.
KEANE BHATT: Again, documentation is different from advocacy and operationalizing that research. And when Tom Malinowski completely omits the findings of HRW itself on the cases of 72 civilians killed in eight missile strikes by NATO in Libya in his extensive pieces
REED BRODY: We're the ones who documented that.
KEANE BHATT: I understand that, and that's exactly my point.
REED BRODY: Where does that information come from? It comes from Human Rights Watch.
KEANE BHATT: That's exactly my point. When Tom Malinowski, as the Washington advocacy director, simply omits that finding from his piece on NATO's role in Libya, what that does is it raises reasonable suspicions that this person is thinking about possibilities of working within the Obama administration. And sure enough, by having a completely unconditional support and saying that what Libya shows is that Obama should be further engaged in the Arab Spring, what that does is it creates reasonable suspicions. And that's why it's crucial for HRW to impose some kind of a cooling-off period. There's 15,500 people who have signed our petition at RootsAction.org demanding for just a basic cooling-off period. Whetherwe can go back and forth all day discussing HRW's policy priorities, but if it doesn't affect HRW's advocacy, then there should be no problem implementing such a proposal. It's a very commonsense proposal that's understood in any other industry. The human rights industry should be no different.
REED BRODY: You know, again, I mean, look at who is at Human Rights Watch. I'm sorry. If you go position by position at Human Rights Watch, you find peopleyou know, our Americas director, a Chilean human rights activist, never worked in the government. Our U.N. director, a Le Monde correspondent, I mean
AMY GOODMAN: So, Reed, would a cooling-off period threaten this? As you point out, it would affect very few people.
REED BRODY: You know, I think that this is a gimmick. It's a gimmick to tie together criticism of Venezuela, take something here, take something there, and makeit's a solution to a problem that does not exist. OK, we have
KEANE BHATT: I haven't touched on Venezuela.
REED BRODY: I know youI know that you haven't talked
KEANE BHATT: And frankly
REED BRODY: that you haven't talked about Venezuela here.
KEANE BHATT: You know, the people that we're talking aboutMairead Maguire, Adolfo Pérez Esquivelthese people are not Venezuela experts. They're not defending the Venezuelan government in any sense.
REED BRODY: I know, but
KEANE BHATT: What we're talking about is the need for HRW
REED BRODY: Understand where this letter comeswhere this comes
KEANE BHATT: to preserve its credibility as an independent organization.
REED BRODY: I'm very glad that you're concerned about Human Rights Watch's credibility. I think that our reports speak for themselves. The track record, the biographies of the people at Human Rights Watch speak for themselves.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you something, Keane Bhatt: Why do you care about Human Rights Watch? In the work that you do, why is it so important to you?
KEANE BHATT: Human Rights Watch, you know, with its endowment, a $100 million endowment from George Soros, is the leading human rights organization in the world, and it sets an agenda for other organizations. It also has, you know, an outsize influence in Congress, and it has a very powerful network within the media to get its message out. And we think that if it were more independent, that it would be leveraging those very important assets towards, you know, doing more effective human rights advocacy.
So, in the case of Aristide in 2004, Human Rights Watch barely lifted a finger in the face of massive atrocities, perhaps the worst human rights situation in the hemisphere at that time, in the Western Hemisphere. You know, HRW could have simply, you know, positioned op-eds in The Washington Post or The New York Times or elsewhere, demanding the immediate restitution of the constitutional government of Aristide and denouncing the atrocity that took place. Why didn't that happen? You know, the Bush administration literally kidnapped Aristide, as viewers of Democracy Now! know from that reporting, and flew him to the Central African Republic. You know, in that context, under a coup government in which thousands of people were being slaughtered in Port-au-Prince alone, you know, HRW should have taken a stronger approach. And we don't think that it's coincidental that, you know, the U.S. role in that coup and the subsequent atrocities that took place had a role in HRW's relative silence.
AMY GOODMAN: Reed Brody?
REED BRODY: Please, Amy, first of all, you know my history in Haiti. You mentioned at the top of the show, I'm involved in the prosecution of a string of U.S.-backed dictators, one of them being Jean-Claude Duvalier. We've called forI've been trying to getI went to Panama to try to get the coup leader, Raoul Cédras, back to Haiti. Ríos Montt, Hissène Habré, PinochetI mean, these are U.S.-backed dictators that we're involved in prosecuting. In the case of Haiti, we are on the ground in Haiti working for the prosecution of the former dictator, Jean-Claude
KEANE BHATT: Where were you in 2004 after the coup? Why did HRW send a letter to Colin Powell, not urging for the immediate restitution, the immediate reinstatement of Aristide, but simply asking Colin Powell, the Bush administration, which kidnapped Aristide, to put pressure on the coup governmentthat it installedto prosecute both paramilitary leaders who precipitated that coup and deposed officials of the constitutional government? This is a warped idea of evenhandedness, and this is exactly the kind of issue that we're talking about. The closeness of HRW with the U.S. government creates these completely bizarre forms of evenhandedness, which at, you know, first blush may seem speciously independent, but, you know, on closer inspection are completely fraudulent.
REED BRODY: I mean, you know, you canyou can take bits and pieces, and interpret it the way you want.
KEANE BHATT: Interpret that for me. What does that mean? What does that signal?
REED BRODY: Human Rights Watch applies
KEANE BHATT: Why didn't it call for the immediate restitution of the Aristide government after the coup?
REED BRODY: Because we don'tthat's not what we do. We don't call
KEANE BHATT: Why didn't it denounce the atrocities that were taking place in
REED BRODY: We did. We did announce
KEANE BHATT: in prominentwhy didn't
REED BRODY: Excuse me, we did announcewe did denounce the atrocities. And since prosecution seems to be your touchstone for things, we have been involved inand I personally have been involved inattempts to prosecute a number of former de facto and military Haitian leaders, if that's your onlyif that's your touchstone.
KEANE BHATT: Well, I find it very curious that Human Rights Watch will appeal to the OAS Democratic Charter in the question of Chávez's court packing in Venezuela but would not appeal to the OAS Democratic Charter in the case of Aristide's ouster, an unconstitutional ouster committed by the U.S. government, putting him on a plane and kidnapping him in Africaand sending him to Africa. Why didn't it invoke the U.N.the OAS Charter?
AMY GOODMAN: We're going to break, and then, when we come back, we'll talk specifically about Venezuela. We are speaking with Keane Bhatt, lead organizer of an open letter to Human Rights Watch that criticizes what it calls its revolving-door policy. Reed Brody is counsel and spokesperson for Human Rights Watch. This is Democracy Now! We'll be back with them in a minute.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We're having a very interesting debate around the issue of Human Rights Watch. An open letter has been sent by our guest today, Keane Bhatt, and a hundred scholars and two Nobel Peace laureates criticizing Human Rights Watch for what they call a revolving-door policy between the government and the organization, also criticizing them around their research and advocacy around Venezuela. Reed Brody is also with us, who is the counsel for Human Rights Watch, who is also called the dictator catcher or pursuer, who has been trying to bring dictators around the world to trial.
I wanted to turn to Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth's tweet after the open letter that Keane Bhatt sent. He wrote, quote, "For those defenders of Venezuela, Rwanda, Syria, Russia etc who say @HRW is soft on US, please read before you Tweet," and he then linked to HRW's 2014 United States country report. So let's go back to that tweet, Reed. He said, for those criticshe says, "For those defenders of Venezuela, Rwanda, Syria, Russia etc." Does Human Rights Watch equate Venezuela with Rwanda and Syria?
REED BRODY: No, but those are the countries where we tend to get pushback. So, for instance, Rwanda, you know, Human Rights Watch, Alisonthe late Alison Des Forges documented the genocide, a book that is probably the most important testimonial to that genocide. But she didn't stop there, and she's been critical of the current government. As a result, Human Rights Watch is the subject of a similar Venezuela kind of campaign.
AMY GOODMAN: But talk about Venezuela, because we only have a few minutes, and that's where we want to end. Your concern about the coverage of Venezuela, Keane?
KEANE BHATT: Yeah, I think that in 2008 a hundred academics clearly denounced what they called, you know, flimsy and inaccurate evidence. You know, HRW is entitled to its advocacy, but you can't make up facts. And the core issue there was that, in one instance, HRW referred to the systematic discrimination and the provision of social services based on political affiliation. They literally had one case, and that was based on hearsay. That was based on a phone call with somebody who had a 98-year-old grandmother who was denied service. I mean, this is a level of scholarship that would not be admissible, you know, at high school level. So, what we're
AMY GOODMAN: And why do you think this is?
KEANE BHATT: What I thinkI mean, let's not even speculate.
REED BRODY: But you have speculated. You've said it's because somehow we're in lockstep
KEANE BHATT: What I'm saying is that it suggests
REED BRODY: with the U.S. government.
KEANE BHATT: It suggests that the revolving-door issue with HRW creates
REED BRODY: Because José Miguel Vivanco and Dan Wilkinson, who wrote the report, are going to work for the U.S. government.
KEANE BHATT: No, I've already
REED BRODY: They never have, and they never will.
KEANE BHATT: I've already delineated the clear instances of HRW personnel
REED BRODY: The one.
KEANE BHATT: and also the board of directors. I mean Javier Solana, again.
REED BRODY: And Javier Solana was involved in Venezuela?
KEANE BHATT: But it hasno, what I'm saying is that there is a U.S.-oriented and NATO-oriented, let's say, permissiveness within HRW. And let's be real here. You know, for example, when Daniel Wilkinson in The New York Review of Books, perhaps the pre-eminent intellectual journal in the United States
REED BRODY: I would suggest people read that article.
KEANE BHATT: When he says, quote, that "two Venezuelan private media stations voluntarily dropped their critical coverage of the government," this is simply false. I've actually demanded a correction.
REED BRODY: He didn'the didn't say that. I understand.
KEANE BHATT: No, I'm quoting him.
REED BRODY: I know. I know that you have.
KEANE BHATT: I'm quoting him directly.
REED BRODY: But he didn't say that.
KEANE BHATT: AndI'm quoting him directly. And in those cases, you haveI showed voluminous instances of Televen and Venevisión, you know, promoting opposition leaders, saying the most
REED BRODY: Yes, but they were told
KEANE BHATT: saying the strongest denunciations of the government.
REED BRODY: But the interviewers were told that they could not use terms like "peaceful demonstrator," that they couldthat they had to watch out for what they said.
KEANE BHATT: You have conclusive evidence
REED BRODY: Imagineimagine that onimagine that on this show you were told what terms you can and cannot use.
KEANE BHATT: María Corina Machado appeared on Televen, OK, a prominent opposition leader, and referred to the Venezuelan government as a dictatorship, said that there was no democracy, accused it of various human rights abuses, and then said that there was a legitimate case toyou know, to use the constitution to push for the ouster of the elected government. These are the kinds of comments that, you know, no senator or congressmember in the United States could ever make at ABC or NBC.
REED BRODY: Really? Really? A U.S. congressman could not go on a TV show in the United States
KEANE BHATT: Could he say that the United States is a dictatorship? I mean, what I'm saying
REED BRODY: He could. He might not, but he could.
KEANE BHATT: it's not that he could notexactly, that's my point, is that these are thethis is the kind of expression, the freedom of expression that exists in Venezuela, where, you know, somebody, a prominent opposition leader, can refer to an elected government as a dictatorship.
REED BRODY: Well, very glad to hear that they can do that.
KEANE BHATT: Yeah, it is great.
REED BRODY: That's a great accomplishment.