Let’s face it, Human Rights Watch (HRW) has hit a nerve. In recent months, HRW has not only managed to infuriate the ‘democratic government’ of Venezuela with a report that led to the illegal expulsion of its Americas director, José Miguel Vivanco, but just days later, the president of Colombia made a series of unfounded ‘accusations’ against Vivanco, even suggesting he sympathizes with the narcoterrorist group FARC.
Vivanco’s stance is reminiscent of Rómulo Betancourt: a man equally capable of launching sharp critiques against coup leaders on both sides of the political divide. After all, unless some have failed to grasp the lessons of history, the attempts on Betancourt’s life were orchestrated by both the right and the left, targeting dictators alike. We no longer live in an era of towering moral figures, of presidents who expel dictators from the community of democratic nations, as Betancourt once did with Trujillo.
However, this report is making some ‘intellectuals’ furious; after all, success in defending civil rights is measured not by the praises of friends but by the hostility of foes. One of HRW’s mistakes is citing my article as a source in their report. The ‘intellectuals,’ many of whom have been exposed as nothing more than paid propagandists for Chávez, argue that HRW did not apply “minimum standards of scholarship, impartiality, accuracy, or credibility” in producing the report. Regarding strict adherence to academic standards, a concept entirely foreign to some of them, they daringly claim: “this report ventures even further into the realm of unreliable sources and cites a mentally unstable opposition blogger as a source. (p. 20, footnote 30).” Undoubtedly, a remarkably ‘precise’ statement, surely reached after applying rigorous academic principles.
It is worth noting that this collective of Latin American ‘experts’ is encouraging a military strongman who has shown no qualms about staging coups, ordering mass killings, and imprisoning political opponents while coddling and protecting internationally wanted terrorists and being deeply involved in destabilizing regional conflicts, corruption, and antidemocratic practices.
I guess I must be doing something right. Perhaps I should feel proud that the ‘leading intellectual in the world’ and a group of ‘prominent’ figures from the radical left are dedicating their time, ‘credibility, and impartiality’ to provide ‘accurate’ conclusions about my mental state.