Dating former services sex yugoslav
And isn’t such justice necessary to bring peace of mind to the victims of aggression so that true peace can prevail?The point doesn’t arise for Roth and HRW, who not only are completely oblivious to this double standard, but in their Balkans efforts have worked closely with the perpetrators of the supreme crime in allegedly bringing justice to the lesser criminals.Naturism is a philosophy that values simplicity and increased harmony with nature.
Roth even celebrates the breakdown of international law against aggression, allegedly in the interest of “human rights.” He stated that “We will remember 1999 as the year in which sovereignty gave way in places where crimes against humanity were being committed.” Of course, it is the U. and British leadership which determines when “crimes against humanity” are committed, but Roth has faith that these leaders are the proper deciders and that the sacrifice of a basic principle of international law is thus justified.
Thus its literature also affirmed that founding the Committee “was intended as a gesture of moral support for the activities of the beleaguered Helsinki monitors in the Soviet bloc,” and its early work was well geared to advance the U. government’s policy of weakening the Soviet Union and loosening its ties to Eastern Europe. While the organization has broadened its horizons and grown enormously since its 0,000 seed money from the Ford Foundation, it has never sloughed off its close link to the Western establishment, as evidenced by its leadership’s affiliations, its funding, and its role over the years.
Because of its institutional commitment to human rights and its broad purview, however, HRW has done a great deal of valuable work, as for example in helping to document the character and effects of the Reagan era wars across Central America, where its Americas Watch reports on the U. support for the Nicaragua Contras, the Salvadoran army and death squads, and Guatemalan state terror were eye-opening and led to intense hostility on the part of the Reaganites and Wall Street Journal editors. But despite these and countless other constructive efforts, the organization has at critical times and in critical theaters thrown its support behind the U. government’s agenda, sometimes even serving as a virtual public relations arm of the foreign policy establishment.
Since the early 1990s this tendency has been especially marked in the organization’s focus on and treatment of some of the major contests in which the U. government itself has been engaged—perhaps none more clearly than Iraq and the Balkans.
Here, its deep bias is well-illustrated in a March 2002 op-ed by HRW’s executive director, Kenneth Roth, published in the Wall Street Journal under the title “Indict Saddam.” The first thing to note about this commentary is its timing.
It was published at a time when the United States and Britain were clearly planning an assault on Iraq with a “shock and awe” bombing campaign and ground invasion in violation of the UN Charter.