Lou: Thanks for the intro comment on Human Rights Watch. In my time here I've dealt with a lot of human rights delegatios who come to survey situations and split. A strage bunch, they are. Lots of indignation, little analysis, and all kinds of bullshit symmetry arguments (the contras are the same as the Sandinistas; Castro the same as Pinochet). And unfailingly loathe to consider economic rights as human rights. A. Cockburn did a good article about 2 years ago, questioning some basic premises of human rights work. He noted that clearly foretelling the carnage in Rwanada did NOTHING to stop it. Then he asked a great qeustion, in typical Cockburn against-the-grain fashion: what good is human right work if it can only chronicle, but not stop, carnage? Liberals might respond: for the record, it's important, etc. Radicals might suggest the point ought to be to stop it, and start looking at the foundations that fund the human rights work, and NOT, say, alternative social justice work. Tom At 14:52 2/12/98 -0500, you wrote: >(Human Rights Watch was one of the outfits that took George Bush at his >word that Iraqi soldiers were murdering Kuwaiti newborns in hospital >nurseries. They whitewash George Bush in this article. This lie helped to >launch the Gulf War. It would be interesting to find out who is exactly >behind this outfit. The latest copy of Ken Silverstein and Alex Cockburn's >Counterpunch reveals that the "Lawyers Committee on Human Rights" has >endorsed a Clinton plan that would allow Nike and similar companies to >maintain sweat shops in Asia. It turns out that some huge and powerful Wall >Street legal firms who counsel these corporations are major funders of the >"Lawyers Committee on Human Rights.") Tom Kruse Casilla 5812 / Cochabamba, Bolivia Tel/Fax: (591-4) 248242 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
