Below, Human Rights Watch (HRW) responded to over 100 Chávez apologists who questioned its critical report on Venezuela. As expected, HRW dismissed them once again (read the first response here) as ineffective critics spreading baseless accusations. Perhaps someone should inform HRW that this is how some of them earn a living.
January 28, 2009
Miguel Tinker Salas
History Professor
Pomona College
Gregorio Wilpert
Adjunct Professor of Political Science
Brooklyn University
Greg Gandin
History Professor, Director of Graduate Studies
New York University
Dear Mr. Tinker, Mr. Wilpert, and Mr. Grandin:
I am writing in response to your letter dated January 12, which was a reply to our letter from December 29 where we addressed your letter from December 16 and your critique of our report “A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Missed Opportunities to Advance Human Rights in Venezuela.”
Once again, we have taken the time to review your criticisms to determine if they are well-founded, and once again, we conclude they are not. Your latest letter essentially recycles your previous allegations, which I addressed extensively in my prior letter. I see no point in recycling that response here.
One observation in your most recent letter that I completely agree with is that anyone interested in evaluating your criticisms should read those earlier letters and, most importantly, the report itself. I have no doubt that reasonable people can have differing views on some of the more complex issues we address in the document. However, I do not see how scholars who genuinely read our report can reasonably conclude, as you do, that it “fails to meet even the most minimal standards of scholarship, impartiality, accuracy, or credibility.” On the contrary, what they will find is an objective and rigorous analysis of some of the serious human rights issues facing Venezuela today.
Human Rights Watch values and actively seeks constructive criticism of our work. We believe it helps refine our arguments and correct any errors we may have made in our reports. Less helpful are critics who choose to spread unsubstantiated accusations about our findings, our sources, and our motives.
You claim to be interested in fostering a dialogue. However, you do so by misrepresenting our work and demanding that I instruct my colleagues to retract their criticisms of the Chávez government. Clearly, we have a different notion of what constitutes meaningful dialogue.
It seems to me that continuing this back-and-forth doesn’t make much sense at this time. However, if in the future you have criticisms that truly reflect the content of our work, or other information and analysis that you believe may enhance our understanding of events in Venezuela, please feel free to share them with us.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Roth