Human Rights Watch as a Political Instrument of Liberal Cosmopolitan Elite of the United States of America
“I feel that I’m here as a friend among friends…
I know very well what you did for us, and
perhaps without you, our revolution could not be”
THE SAME ARE PURPOSES, BUT METHODS…
By this act Soviet leaders legalized transformation of the problem of human rights observation from internal into intergovernmental. Accordingly, the status of critics of human rights violations in the USSR was principally changed, so far as these violations became not only a matter of domestic concern; criticizing such violations in the Soviet Union by western human rights activists became valid. And what is more, this criticism could not be formally considered hostile propaganda, as far as it had no concern with the defense of US national interests (or “American imperialists’ interests”) but it became subject of international law recognized by legitimate Soviet leaders who signed this Agreement. Both western and Soviet human rights activists appeared before the general (especially leftist) public as defenders of universal human rights, not interests of the ruling elite of the US.
Since James Carter who proclaimed defense of human rights the central element of his foreign policy became the President of the United States, informational and ideological pressure on Soviet leaders had increased. The problem of human rights was no more a concern of “world human rights defenders” but was added to US governmental armory. This doesn’t mean that in 1970s US Helsinki Watch and Lawyers for Human Rights on the one hand, American governmental or semi-governmental organizations such as CIA, Rand Corp., or Council for Foreign Relations which professionally specialized in sovetology on the other hand arranged joint propagandist actions. Though Democratic (liberal) administration and liberal human rights activists had had similar (sometimes equal) concrete tasks - for example to create in the Soviet Union a necessary ideological base to change its political and economical structure – these groups understood the meaning of these changes differently.
Jimmy Carter’s “liberal” Administration in the person of his national security advisor Zbigniev Brzezinski considered propaganda of the ideas of “freedom of speech, human rights and democracy” in common context of geopolitical opposition and ideological struggle between the USA and the USSR. Accordingly, the “workers of ideological front” (Freedom House, Rand Corp., Council for Foreign Relations, US Institute for Peace, Voice of America, Radio Liberty and other governmental organizations and research centers) propagandized the ideas of human rights striving for creation of favorable “subjective” conditions of political and ideological changes in Eastern European countries in the direction needed by the US.
Western human rights activists-liberals (many of them had shared anti-capitalist and even socialist views) regarded the “introduction” of universal ideas of human rights in the USSR as a necessary element of the struggle for “liberation of the whole mankind” a kind of missionary activities. For the same reason they wanted to defend human rights in any country of the world, no matter what kind of political and block orientation it was possessed. In other words, American human rights activists didn’t appear only as US citizens troubling about American interests but as defenders of human rights worldwide. This wing of realists-liberals is often called by American public a “liberal cosmopolitan” wing.
Also we shouldn’t forget that many of western (and American) human rights activists including some US Helsinki Watch members (Catherine Fitzpatrick, Aryeh Neier) took a great part in anti-war movement which had been spread worldwide at the beginning of 80s.
Non-coincidence of tasks of American administration and American human rights activists became evident just after neo-conservative interventionalist Reagan’s administration came to power. Reagan conducted the policy of pressure on the Soviet Union and Socialist countries and the policy of “double standards” in the sphere of human rights defense. By the words of Jeanne Kirkpatrick, then a US representative in UN, the United States had been going to criticize human rights violations stronger in the countries, where the regimes were “leftist”.
FROM A HELSINKI GROUP TO WORLDWIDE HUMAN RIGHTS MONITORING
At first the activities of US Helsinki Watch Committee were limited to issuing annual reports on human rights observation in the Soviet Union and Warsaw Treaty countries and also to issuing statements on concrete persecutions and arrests of human rights activists (especially members of Helsinki groups) in these countries. The staff of US Committee grew relatively slowly. At the beginning of 80s the number of its members wasn’t more than 10; except above mentioned a multimillionaire M. Bernard Aidinoff, lawyers Roland R. Algrant, Charles E. Biblowit and Russell Karp joined the group. The practical activities of the group were conducted by Catherine Fitzpatrick, an excellent Russian-speaker.
The International Conference of Helsinki groups, which took place in fall of 1982 in Alpine resort near Como, Italy, was a very important event in the process of internationalization of human rights defense. Among the participants there were not only such human rights activists as L. M. Alekseeva of Moscow Helsinki Group and Jeri Laber of US Helsinki Watch, but such well-known liberal leftist political and social activists of Europe and America as French philosopher Pierre Emmanuel and Jiri Pelikan, who was a head of Czechoslovak television in the times of the Prague Spring (Among the guests of the Conference there was also an author of this article).
One of the topics of the Conference held in David Rockefeller’s villa was a discussion of above mentioned “double standard” policy conducted by Reagan’s administration. The “answer” of “liberals-realists” to such a policy was the establishment of a new human rights organization, a filial of US Helsinki Watch, with its mission of monitoring human rights violations in Latin American countries – Americas Watch. A Wall Street lawyer and the vice president of US Helsinki Watch Adrian W. DeWind became the first Chairman of the Advisory Committee of Americas Watch.
After Como Conference which set forward a task to organize human rights defense worldwide, not to be limited to the criticism of Socialist countries, Robert L. Bernstein and his US Helsinki Watch colleagues began to establish branches “responsible” for concrete regions of the world.
More and more branches had been established using the scheme of US Helsinki Watch: human rights defense proper was conducted by young hired lawyers and politologists, among them there were former anti-war movement activists; connections with the federal administration, public organizations and political and financial elites of the USA was conducted through the Advisory Committees attached to every branch. Among the members of these Committees there were businessmen-multimillionaires, managers of charity funds such as the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, eminent lawyers, well-known pastors and rabbis, politicians of moderate liberal views and heads of “think tanks”.
In 1985 a human rights organization named Asia Watch was established; the most well-known American liberal lawyer Jack Greenberg became its Advisory Committee’s Chairman. In 1988 – Africa Watch, in 1989 – Middle East Watch, which conducted monitoring of human rights violations in the zone of Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
By 1989 all human rights organizations united in one - Human Rights Watch (HRW) with united leaders and united Advisory Committee which was later renamed the Board of Directors. Robert L. Bernstein himself became the first Chairman of HRW, Adrian W. DeWind, a lawyer, became its vice-Chairman. A former ACLU leader Aryeh Neier became the Executive Director of HRW, and “a rising star” of human rights establishment Kenneth Roth became the vice-CEO. There were 22 members in the Advisory Committee of Human Rights Watch; some of them were leaders and advisors of human rights branches, others – charity funds’ managers and multimillionaires-donors (Dorothy Cullman, Irene Diamond etc.).
Robert L. Bernstein also continued to be the Chairman of US Helsinki Watch. The President of New School University historian Jonathan F. Fanton and Alice H. Henkin, a lawyer, one of directors of the most influential think tank – the Aspen Institute - became his deputies. The members of the Advisory Committee of US Helsinki Watch were worldwide known scientists Hans Bethe and Jerome B. Wiesner, writers Ed Doctorow and Arthur Miller, Jesuit pastor Fr. Robert F. Drinan and rabbi Rolando Matalon, former anti-war movement activists Frances T. Farenthold and Stanley Sheinbaum, specialists in international law Marvin E. Frankel and future President of so-called International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Theodor Meron; and, of course, bankers multimillionaires M. Bernard Aidinoff, Ellen V. Futter, Felix G. Rohatyn, among them especially outstanding person – billionaire John H. Gutfreund, “the king of Wall Street”, for many years the Director of Salomon Brothers Inc. Jeri Laber continued to be US Helsinki Watch Executive Director. Catherine Fitzpatrick who had been a director of the Research department for years left HRW at the end of 1980s because of her disagreement with a new strategy of HRW (described below).
The financing of all the branches of HRW was generally provided by Jewish charity funds such as Aaron Diamond Foundation, Jacob M. Kaplan Fund, Revson Foundation and Scherman Foundation. As in 70s, the Ford Foundation continued financing HRW too. Among new “donors” there appeared well-known multimillion philanthropic funds such as MacArthur Foundation, John Merck Fund and J. Mertz-Gilmore Foundation. Financing had also been provided by the Fund for Free Expression, established by Robert L. Bernstein at the beginning of 70s. At the same time the list of its activists included the names of well-known writers, scientists, artists (Arthur Miller, Kurt Vonnegut, John Updike etc.) and managers of large charity funds (already mentioned Dorothy Cullman, Irene Diamond and Mark Kaplan).
TO GLOBALIST “OPEN SOCIETY”
And the step, which decided the fate of HRW and influenced not only the character of its activities and the choice of objects to criticize but the very mission of the organization was its “alliance” with stockjobber-billionaire George Soros. Soros joined HRW not only himself. His wife Susan, the shareholders of his Quantum Fund multimillionaires John Gutfreund and John Studzinski, Fiona, the wife of the manager of his fund billionaire Stanley Druckenmiller, even the employees of companies and funds managed by Soros, well-known politologists Barnett Rubin and William D. Zabel, and also Warren Zimmerman, a diplomat became members of the Advisory Committee of HRW and its branches.
A number of the functionaries of HRW joined the structures own by Soros, remaining their HRW duties: a member of the Board of Directors, the Chairman of HRW Europe and Central Asia Advisory Committee (former US Helsinki Watch) journalist Peter Osnos became the Executive Director of a publishing house own by Soros. A member of HRW Women’s Rights Division Advisory Committee, an activist of struggle for rights of homosexuals Gara LaMarche became the vice-President of the Open Society Institute of Soros.
Very little you can read about participation of George Soros in struggle for human rights and, in particular, in HRW activities. It generally comes to the enumeration of leaders of HRW (Board of Directors and Advisory Committees) supported by Soros. But direct financing HRW and its leaders wasn’t the point; the situation was as follows: some historical coincidence occurred at the second half of 80s. Just by that time George Soros who had grown rich through currency speculation formed for himself a philosophical doctrine which he called (following his teacher Karl Popper) a philosophy of “Open Society”.
It’s known that George Soros “earned” his first billion dollars through international currency speculation. (for example, in 1992 Soros “earned” one billion US dollars) He invested money into high-profitable investment funds (organized by Soros, including Hedge Funds, where investor’s minimal payment is 100,000 US dollars). These high-percent dividend funds were, in general, invested by currency speculators millionaires and billionaires such as George Soros, Stanley Druckenmiller, Bruce Kovner, Franklin O. Booth and Henry R. Kravis. When he “earned” that way several billion dollars, he turned his eyes on “virgin spaces” of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. In the troubled period of Russian and Eastern European history this ambitious billionaire found an opportunity to organize his political economical experiments.
The goal of his experiments was to create in the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries conditions for free non-government-controlled transfer of financial capitals (including interference into their currency markets). Soros considered that it would be possible when so called “Open Societies” with western-type representative democratic institutions, market economy, legal state and mass media, independent from state authorities would have been established in Russia and Eastern European countries. At the same time Soros realized that independent, i.e. non-state-regulated market economy was the destructive power which would lead to the world financial crisis and disintegration of world economical and political system. And the only solution of this Global problem Soros saw in establishing transnational and transgovernmental structures.
In fact, Soros appealed for establishing the World Government as a “coalition of open societies, which would take in hand UN functions and would turn the General Assembly into the true legislative power enforsing international law”. And occasionally a liberal human rights organization with universalist (in fact, globalist) conception of universal human rights as predominant over national laws, social traditions, religions and morals turned up at the right moment. That was the junction of class interests of Soros and other transnational cosmopolitan financial (non-industrial) tycoons and professional interests of the transnational organization, founded by publishers and lawyers sharing liberal cosmopolitan views.
The political organization under control and financing of American liberal cosmopolitan establishment (mainly of Jewish origin), which used human rights activities to achieve political goals of that very establishment became the product of this “synthesis”. In other words, the activities of HRW began transforming from informational-humanitarian into informational-propagandist, a kind of “Agitprop” (communist agitation and propaganda department in Soviet Russia of 1920s), serving the interests of American liberal cosmopolitan financial, political and academic establishment.
In a number of cases this “Agitprop” had been serving the interests of the Administration of the President of the United States of America, when its goals were similar to the goals of Soros, as it had happened in Yugoslavia and Russia at the second half of 90s. In Balkans the leaders of HRW and Soros supported US agression against Yugoslavia, where both HRW and Soros were working hand in hand with Bill Clinton’s Administration (Madeleine Albright and James Rubin). In Chechnya conflict HRW and Soros took the part of separatists; together with Zbigniev Brzezinski’s group they organized the American Committee on Chechnya.
But when Soros protested against US military intervention in Iraq and later announced that “the goal of his life” was to remove Bush from the White House, HRW took a neutral position in this issue; it at least hasn’t openly co-operated with the Administration of G. W. Bush.
From the very beginning of “perestroyka” members of HRW (Jeri Laber, Joanna Weschler, Adrian DeWind) began to visit Eastern European countries frequently to collect information about “human rights violations” in these countries. They paid special attention to Czechoslovakia because that very US Helsinki Watch defended the members of Czechoslovak Charter 77 in 1978 persecuted by communist authorities of that time. The results of their investigations were used by US administration and western anti-socialist mass media as an instrument for pressure on Socialist yet leaders of the Republic of Czechoslovakia.
A member of the Advisory Committee of US Helsinki Watch and the wife of American ambassador in Prague in 1982-86 Wendy W. Luers played almost the leading part in the propaganda of liberal and pro-American views in Czechoslovakia. As he was just elected (1990) the President of Czechoslovakia, Vaclav Havel declared in New York Headquarters of Human Rights Watch: “I know very well what you did for us, and perhaps without you, our revolution could not be.”
Just after pro-American regime in Czechoslovakia was established (at the end of 1989), Wendy Luers organized in Prague the Foundation for a Civic Society joined by a considerable part of Chech intellectuals who had signed Charter 77 in 1977. This Foundation’s money was used for financing the Project on Justice in Times of Transition with annual budget of 3 million US dollars. The goal of the Project was “reinforcement of democracy, legal state, civil society and market economy”. In all, more than 11 million US dollars were spent by the Foundation for a Civic Society to support these activities.
Besides “reinforcement of democracy and market economy” in Czechia, the Foundation for Civic Society “had been giving job” to American and Western European “advisors” in ministries, municipalities and other governmental offices in Czechia and Slovakia. Within three years (1995-1998) the Democracy Network Program, an organization created by “advisors” from HRW with the help of United States Agency for International Development (USAID) spent more than 5 million US dollars for “development and reinforcement of non-governmental organizations (NGO) in Czechia and Slovakia” (http://www.fcsny.org/wendy.html). It’s absolutely evident that these activities of HRW bore no direct relation to its human rights defense. But they eloquently witnessed the true goals of Human Rights Watch and its concrete plans to fulfil in the countries of Eastern Europe.
From the end of 80s, besides human rights violations monitoring which is common to human rights organizations, HRW began to issue Declarations in which it “reprimanded” governments “at fault” for their “misbehavior”. Later, by the middle of 90s HRW began even to recommend UN and NATO governments to punish infringers properly. Yugoslavia, the state which neither wanted to join NATO, nor to open its borders to uncontrolled penetration of financial capital of transnational corporations provoked the special “anger” of HRW and its main donor George Soros.
So, from the beginning of 90s of XX century some functionaries-“researchers” of Human Rights Watch – Fred Abrahams, Peter Bouckaert, Rachel Denber, Lotte Leicht, Benjamin Ward, Joanne Mariner and Martina E. Vandenberg – began to visit Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo regularly to collect information about human rights violations during military operations within Yugoslavian territory. These information had been processed and issued as “reports” and “declarations” during more than 10 years.
Overwhelming majority of these publications “condemned” the authorities of Serbia (President Radovan Karadzic) and Yugoslavia (President Slobodan Milosevic) for “ethnical sweep operations” and “genocide” of Moslem and Croatian population of Bosnia and Kosovo. The fact that HRW was on the side of separatists – Croats, Moslems and Albanian Kosovars – is demonstrated by the direct co-operation between the leaders of HRW, its Advisory Committees and Kosovar separatists. For example, the member of the Europe and Central Asia Advisory Committee (former US Helsinki Watch) Morton Abramowitz was an advisor to a delegation of Kosovar Albanian separatists at the negotiations with Yugoslavian delegation in Rambouillet, France (January – February, 1999).
Of course, HRW functionaries couldn’t ignore atrocities of Croats and Moslems at all. But the “statistics” of HRW Declarations from 1992 to 2001 was as follows: 122 declarations of HRW had been issued on “human rights violations” by Serbian side, 9 declarations – by Croatian side, 4 – by Bosnian (Moslem) and 6 – by Kosovar (UCK/KLA). It’s clear why European and American public opinion had changed after acquaintance with such a statistics. The regimes of R. Karadzic and S. Milosevic began to look criminal, and pro-NATO press started to compare them to Hitler and Stalin.
Besides systematical informational and psychological influence on public opinion in the West, Human Rights Watch and its main donor and ideologist George Soros began to form “civil” and political infrastructure opposing the regime of Milosevic. This structure included dozens of non-governmental organizations, “civic groups”, human rights organizations, clubs, radio and TV broadcasting companies, newspapers and journals. It was made to create “revolutionary” atmosphere in Yugoslavia and not only to support transition of the power under control of “pro-Western” parties, but also to provide support to a new pro-western regime for some “historical stage” needed for fundamental economical and political changes in Yugoslavia (http://emperors-clothes.com/engl.htm#1).
American governmental funds such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), in the Board of Directors of which there are members of HRW leading structures (the same Morton Abramowitz) also took part in this broad-scale re-organization of society initiated as far back as in late 80s. Here are the words of NED functionary Paul McCarthy: “The programs of the NED supported to survive for a considerable amount of Yugoslavian free press and to ruin (marked by the author) key centers of government-controlled mass media... by reinforcing influential sources of objective information. The help provided by NED gave newspapers, radio and TV broadcasting companies an opportunity to buy necessary printing and broadcasting equipment. Among them who received our grants there are newspapers “Nasha Borba”, “Vremja” and “Danas”, an independent TV broadcasting company “TV Negotin” in southern Serbia, popular news agency BETA and Beograd radio “Radio B-92”.
That is Human Rights Watch, which initiated establishing so-called “Tribunals” for the leaders of “disobedient” countries, Yugoslavia and Serbia, in the first place – Radovan Karadzic and Slobodan Milosevic. Such International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was established in February of 1993, and it was a direct violation of UN Regulations. Three months later HRW issued a “Report” on the assassination of about 260 captured Croats supposedly committed on the 20th of November, 1991 by Yugoslavian soldiers. The title of this report was extremely significant: “Punisn Now! Human Rights Publishes 8 Cases for International Criminal Tribunal in Former Yugoslavia”. Though there were no cogent arguments to charge Yugoslavian Army with assassination of more than two hundred Croats, the prestige of leading human rights organization was sufficient for much people of the West to believe that all the charges were true.
Just after issuing of that Report Human Rights Watch initiated a campaign named “Arrest Now!” against Yugoslavian leaders. The leadership of Human Rights Watch informed readers with pride that “combining working with lawyers, working with press and mobilization of enormous quantity of people we forced the governments of NATO to arrest the suspects (marked by the author) or to force them to surrender”.
THE DOUBLE STANDARDS OF HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
Now HRW has its offices in the cities of 9 countries of the world – New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Brussels, London, Rio de Janeiro, Moscow, Tbilisi, Dushanbe, Hong Kong. The staff is more than 180 people, and annual budget of the organization is 21,715,000 US dollars. It regularly issues its “Declarations” and “Reports” on human rights violations in almost every country of the world. But, as Orwell wrote, “all people are equal, but some of them are more equal”. To determine who is “more equal” for Human Rights Watch and who is “not so”, it’s enough to examine the statistics of its Declarations and Reports. It brightly illuminated what degree of its double standards HRW uses in different cases and who should or should not be an object of its criticism. This may be used as litmus-paper to witness evident partiality of HRW to concrete “regimes” and states.
As to former Soviet Union countries, HRW had issued 172 Declarations on human rights violations from 1994 to 2001; 117 of them concerned Russia. But at the same period NONE of them concerned Ukraine, 6 - concerned Kazakstan and just 3 – Turkmenistan. For all that, the same HRW blamed Nazarbayev and Niyazov for establishing the regimes of personal power, for suppressing freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, for arrests of members of parties in opposition!
At the same period (1994-2001) Human Rights Watch had not issued ANY Declaration on violations of human rights of the Russians living in Latvia and Estonia. Not a word about either captured Orthodox churches in Ukraine or arrests of Russian Cossack activists in Kazakstan. What for ethnic sweeps in Tadzhikistan and Kazakhstan? Only two Declarations on Turkmenistan contained information on limitation in use of Russian in governmental and private institutions and criminal prosecution of activists of illegal Russian organizations (see details at a website “Materik” (“Continent”) of the Institute of CIS Countries).
What’s the matter? Answers to this question don’t lay even near to human rights sphere. I will quote Elizabeth Andersen; this quotation will dot all “i’s” and cross all “t’s”: “Kazakstan is our key ally in Central Asia because of its gas and oil resources”. It is not a quotation of the Advisor to the President of the United States of America but of the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch Europe and Central Asia branch. Can you imagine S. A. Kovalyov, the Chairman of “Memorial”, saying such a phrase?!
The same for Turkmenistan which has rich gas and oil resources; Turkmenistan annually receives 150-180 million dollars from the Congress and governmental institutions of the United States. Do you realize what this implies? If there is a smack of hundreds of billions, human rights are out of the question!
And what for defense of human rights in the Middle East? It’s scarcely to be denied that the most unlawful and medieval state system in this region is in Saudi Arabia, where they hang members of organisations in opposition instead of filing suits against them and cut off publicly the heads of them who belong to sexual minorities. How many, do you think, Declarations on human rights violations in Saudi Arabia had been issued by Human Rights Watch during the same eight-year period (1994-2001)? Only eight. Try to compare this number to the number of Declarations on human rights violations by Serbian authorities.
The directions of Human Rights Watch on Israeli-Palestinian conflict is typical: every year approximately equal number of Declarations on human rights violations by both Israel or Palestine is issued. Israel was “guilty” for 32 times, Palestine – for 33. But this “equalization in sin” didn’t save HRW from charges of inobjectivity and preconception from both sides of the conflict.
The way Human Rights Watch “informed” Western readers about events in Chechnya: during the period of military operations from the September, 30, 1999 till April, 16, 2000 HRW issued 41 Declarations on human rights violations in Chechnya. The Russian side of the conflict was condemned by 38 Declarations, “Ichkerian” (“Chechen fighters”, in terms of HRW) – by one (!) Declaration; the both sides was condemned by two Declarations. In that way, according HRW “information”, Russian army, OMON (special police squads) etc. violated human rights 13 times more frequent than “fighters” of Basaev-Maskhadov-Abu Walid! Taking into consideration that before the second Chechen campaign “Russian” side of the conflict was condemned by human rights activist from HRW 19 times and “Chechen” – only once, who in the West could doubt as to colonial and “atrocious” policy of Russia relative to “freedom-loving Chechen nation”.
Extreme publicistic activities of HRW on the eve of US agression against Iraq is an illustration of interests of HRW in the conflict. One of consealed tasks of this agression is to eliminate potential treat to Israel from Saddam Hussein’s regime. So, several months before the beginning of military operations Human Rights Watch initiated a series of Reports and Declarations on human rights violations in Iraq... 10 and even 15 years before, including the use of chemical weapons by Hussein’s regime against Kurd separatists in 1987. The goal of these publications is evident: to show the world the horrors of Saddam’s ruling and by means of this to reduce expected negative reaction to US agression against Iraqi Republic. But not to give rise to suspect HRW of solidarity with Bush’s Administration Human Rights Watch preferred not to declare its position on Iraqi war.
INSTEAD OF CONCLUSION
Against the background of imperialist, expansionist and openly agressive foreigh policy of the Administration of G.W. Bush violating international law, all the more human rights – selective defense of human rights and double standards of Human Rights Watch look petty and insignificant, as if you compare childish tricks to street banditism. However, now it became evident for the majority of observers that the newly just brought to light masters of “a new world order” overrated their strength and degree of resistence of antiglobalists even within the United States. “Bolshevist” milieu of G. W. Bush – the disciples of Jewish-German philosopher Leo Strauss and yesterday’s trotskists who started “permanent democratic revolution” are just “kings for a day”. When George Bush and Richard Cheney leave the White House, they will also leave (and they – Richard Perle, David Frum – have already left) it.
Then today’s critics of American “bolshevists-neocons” – “menshevist-liberals”, supporters of “humanitarian interventions” like the one in Yugoslavia (Zbigniev Brzezinski, Kenneth Roth, Morton Abramowitz, Strobe Talbott, Barnett Rubin, Rita Hauser, Richard Dicker and, of course, George Soros, who is financing now presidential candidates from the Democrats) will fill their posts. Anew avalanches of “Declarations” on “atrocious treatment of Chechen refugees in Ingushetia” by Russian authorities and “violations of human and civil rights of Meskheti turks” in their new homeland (this time in Kuban), on “raging of fascism and antisemitism” in the streets of Russian cities will overflow the Congress of the United States, the Administration of the President and UN.
And E. G. Bonner, L. A. Ponomaryov, S. A. Kovalyov, A. M. Brod, O. P. Orlov, A. S. Politkovskaya, Yu. V. Samodurov, A. M. Cherkassov, A. Verkhovsky and other Russian human rights activists – colleagues and persons holding the same views as American liberals-cosmopolitans from Human Rights Watch.
26 / 11 / 2004
Also here you can read
The European Left’s War On Christianity
Terry Mattingly: 2014 is bloody year of the Islamic State
Newsweek Scholarship: So Sloppy It’s a Sin
Restored religious monuments succeed where politicians fail
Christianity: a persecuted religion
Foxy lady: 70yo Russian Old Believer's only fear is hungry Siberian predator
Has the Church of England Finally Kicked the Bucket?
Mercy is Living for the Sake of Repentance
Do We Really Need a Church in Antarctica?
The Orthodox Church of Greece and the Economic Crisis
Should we go to a priest or to a psychologist?