HRW’s campaign to politicize aid
Last week we briefly commented on HRW’s politically motivated report on the make-believe story of politicization of development aid in Ethiopia. This latest report was somewhat unusual even by HRW’s tendentious, and often specious, standards in terms of the sheer contempt expressed not just for Africa, but for anyone who dares to differ with their worldview including so many NGOs. In the past, it’s normally been governments targeted by HRW’s bullying which have sometimes had the courage to say no to its condescending dictation and recommendations. HRW’s stock-in-trade has normally been a barrage of criticism by way of unsubstantiated allegations of human rights abuse and political repression. Its reports are designed to put the targeted government on the defensive, denying it the chance of standing on its own at least without the blessing of HRW and its like. Recent reports on Ethiopia, for example, made no secret of the fact that they were intended to influence the outcome of voting, bringing trumped-up and apocryphal charges of the suppression of political dissent. For maximum effect these reports were invariably filled with lofty rhetoric about human rights and democracy. In fact, they had little impact on the voters and the intended aim clearly failed.
Rather than asking itself whether it was appropriate to try and take remote control of a country’s democratic processes, HRW characteristically blamed other factors for the failure of its campaign against Ethiopia. One culprit, of course, was the government, but it has now also found others to accuse among the development partners, whose support for Ethiopia, HRW appears to believe, has provided a lifeline to a government that would otherwise not survive. HRW, convinced of its capacity to dictate terms to anybody, is now trying to bully the donors into accepting its version of current events and to stopping cooperation with the government of Ethiopia, and the provision of aid to one of the poorest countries in the world. HRW appears convinced that it is this aid that has helped the government of Ethiopia to withstand the persistent criticisms and pressure of HRW.
This is taking its efforts to bully to new heights. Blaming development partners of Ethiopia for what it falsely claims to be complicity with the EPRDF government in covering up political repression, HRW has allowed itself to be carried away by the illusions of grandeur it has developed over the years. The central element of HRW’s attack on Ethiopia’s development partners is emblematic of the unbridled arrogance the organization has flaunted publicly in recent years, when it has been widely and repeatedly criticized in other areas. It dismisses any criticisms of its reports as signs of complicity with an evil government. Other peoples’ investigations into the matter “cannot be trusted” - they are frightened of the government. Only HRW is “brave enough to tell the truth.” So HRW attaches more importance to “private remarks” by unnamed officials than to an official report by a consortium of western development partners currently operating in Ethiopia. HRW’s phantom researchers thousands of miles away are more knowledgeable about the reality in Ethiopia than the very people engaged in day-to-day development on the ground! In a word, for HRW, whatever it says must be accepted. It is not surprising that some see it as a classic case of warped neo-colonialism that seemingly well-intentioned liberals have now developed into a slogan, becoming one of the main themes of those who fund HRW.
Actually, this time around, HRW may have gone a little overboard, possibly even overreaching itself. Pushing its unsubstantiated allegations to the extreme, and by attacking, for good measure, organizations and governments that are genuinely interested in partnership for development, HRW seems to have started a game it must find difficult to win. Comment after comment from the very donors HRW accuses of deliberate complicity in repression in its latest report, take HRW to task. Following the press release by the Donor Assistance Group denouncing the report last week, individual members of the consortium have also come out strongly against HRW’s report. The embassies of the US, of France and of Ireland have strongly condemned the report for completely failing to reflect the reality on the ground. Irish Aid said “our examination, in consultation with other major international aid donors in Ethiopia, does not support the HRW allegations….Irish Aid has a range of rigorous checks and safeguards in place. These include regular audits, independent evaluations and independently-commissioned surveys. Irish Aid staff participate in field monitoring visits to ensure that our aid is achieving the intended development results and that it is benefiting those most in need.” Delegates from the World Bank and NATO visiting Ethiopia this week said they were impressed by the progress achieved in the safety-net food programme which currently reaches some 7 million people.
These are the agencies and NGOs that are actually engaged in the development processes that HRW so vehemently tries to discredit and even scuttle. It’s hardly surprising that donors should react strongly when they are told they are taking part in a crime when in fact they know from firsthand experience the kind of progress their support is helping to bring about in Ethiopia. Even more insulting perhaps, is the fact that these claims come from an organization which has no accountability to any meaningful constituency, only to narrow special interest groups. The governments and organizations HRW is attacking are answerable to their public. HRW seems unaware, or disinterested, that the donors it is trying to bully into supporting its claims and its campaign against the people of Ethiopia, have mechanisms to check if their support is being properly utilized. The Donor Advisory Group itemized this at some length and in considerable detail in the report it produced earlier in the year, a report that HRW of course dismissed because it did not agree with HRW’s allegations. The DAG and its members have detailed this again and again in their reactions to HRW’s report. It is clear enough that if there has been any attempt to politicize aid as HRW claims, it is actually HRW which has been trying to do so.