On August 15, Human Rights Watch issued a statement— still published on their website without comment– saying its researchers “have uncovered evidence that Russian aircraft dropped cluster bombs in populated areas in Georgia.” On that same page is a photo of Georgian men standing around a crater pointing to what is described in the caption as “the remnants of an RBK-250 cluster bomb dropped by Russian aircraft on the village of Rusisi…”
This story about “Russia’s use of cluster bombs in Georgia” got huge play in the western MSM, many of whose leading contributors have come to treat HRW with almost oracular reverence.
On August 21, HRW issued another statement on the same subject, adding that despite Russia’s denials that it had used these weapons, its researchers had “documented additional Russian cluster munitions attacks during the conflict in Georgia.”
It turns out, though that the “research” in question was considerably less than expert or thorough, and that HRW’s much-lauded lead “researcher” on this topic, Marc Garlasco, may have fallen victim– or worse– to a Georgian disinformation campaign.
Bernhard of Moon of Alabama is just one of those who’ve been pointing out that the bomb remnants in the photos published by HRW in those two releases are very different from those of a Russian “RBK-250 cluster bomb”, or its submunitions. Indeed, they’re not items of Russian manufacture at all… but Israeli, as can easily by seen by comparing them with stock weapons-ID photos and charts.
However… At some point in late August, the Georgian government finally confessed to HRW that it had used cluster bombs during the recent conflict– and that these had indeed been of Israeli manufacture. That news was posted on the HRW website yesterday, here.
The latest HRW news release does nothing to retract or raise questions about its earlier “reports” about Russian use of cluster bombs in Georgia. Instead it says this:
- In August, Human Rights Watch documented Russia’s use of several types of cluster munitions, both air- and ground-launched, in a number of locations in Georgia’s Gori district, causing 11 civilian deaths and wounding dozens more. Russia continues to deny using cluster munitions.
“Russia has yet to own up to using cluster munitions and the resulting civilian casualties,” said Garlasco.
So Garlasco is still in good favor at HRW’s New York headquarters, in spite of the clearly flawed nature of his earlier “documentation”?? And the two August reports about Russian use of cluster bombs remain in their original positions on the HRW website, with no clarificatory comment attached?
We need to understand what Garlasco’s original “research” or “documentation” on the cluster-bomb remains in Georgia consisted of.
Here’s what the first of the reports on the HRW website said about the research methodology:
- Human Rights Watch researchers interviewed numerous victims, doctors, and military personnel in Georgia. They examined photos of craters and video footage of the August 12 attack on Gori. Human Rights Watch has also seen a photo of the submunition carrier assembly and nose cone of an RBK-250 bomb in Gori. The Gori video showed more than two dozen simultaneous explosions during the attack, which is characteristic of cluster bombs. Two persons wounded in Gori described multiple simultaneous explosions at the time of the attack. Craters in Gori were also consistent with a cluster strike.
… Photographic evidence on file with Human Rights Watch shows a civilian in Ruisi holding a PTAB submunition without realizing it could explode at the slightest touch…
So the researchers don’t even claim that they’ve actually traveled to see the cluster bomb remnants in situ, and document where they had been found. All they did was rely on “photographic evidence” about them. All talk about photographic “evidence” is quite meaningless unless we have a well identified provenance for these items. Whose word are we being asked to take that these photos were taken “in Gori” or wherever it was listed as? And whose, that these cluster bombs were seen being delivered “by Russian aircraft”?
Garlasco also considerably– perhaps fatally– undermines his own credibility by stating that the cluster bomb remnant in the photo is that of a “cluster bomb dropped by Russian aircraft”, since the remnant in question not only isn’t Russian but also was not dropped by any aircraft, since its fins have the distinctive curving of the ‘pop-put’ fins of an artillery-launched bomb.
Garlasco seems guilty of, at the very least, considerable professional slipshoddiness as a researcher. And how could his superiors at HRW have accepted– and agreed to publish– as “evidence” for his claims, just a few photos whose provenance, timing, and other attributes have not been thoroughly checked and cross-checked? The professional slipshoddiness at HRW goes considerably higher than just Marc Garlasco. And it also extends to those media outlets that just reproduced all his/HRW’s arguments and claims about “Russian” use of cluster bombs– for which we still have no actual evidence, at all– without interrogating and trying to understand the extremely flimsy nature of the “evidence” he was using.
This incident reminds me a lot of the time in January 1991 when Amnesty International got “used” by the Kuwaiti hasbara machine in Washington to give its stamp of approval to Kuwait’s fabricated story about the Iraqis throwing babies out of incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital. Then, as now– and as very frequently happens when people are trying to beef up public support for a war venture– the “bloody shirt” of the civilian losses inflicted by the other side is waved to try to persuade people of “our side” to support confrontation, escalation, and war.
Was Marc Garlasco used, or did he connive in the Georgian disinformation? Either way, why is he still apparently regarded by HRW-NY as a credible researcher on these matters?
This matters to me because I still sit on the Middle East advisory committee of HRW. HRW’s work in the Middle East has certainly been the location of a lot of disagreement about priorities and policies, but overall the Middle East division has done some excellent, ground-breaking work. Work that has always– with one notable exception, back in November 2006– been painstakingly researched, documented, and reviewed long before it is released for publication.
What happened to that whole extensive documentation and review process this time round? HRW has some very serious questions of methodology and internal procedures that it now needs to address.
Also, HRW, which is one of many organizations around the world calling for greater accountability by all kinds of public bodies, needs to become much more accountable, itself.
The November 2006 incident occurred when the organization rushed out a statement criticizing– on grounds allegedly derived from international humanitarian law– an action of mass nonviolence undertaken by Palestinian organizations in Gaza. I was one of those who prominently and publicly called them out on it, noting that nothing in IHL provided any basis for criticizing the action in question. HRW then took more than three weeks to issue a correction. And when it did so, it did it without fanfare and without even distributing the correction to the whole of the same list that had received the original accusation.
That is not good accountability.
This time around, HRW needs to assemble a high-level team of credible people– not including Marc Garlasco– to investigate the performance of the whole organization regarding these accusations of Russia’s use of cluster bombs, and other aspects of its work during the Russian-Georgian war, and then in a timely manner to issue a public report on what was done well and what was done badly during this work. This report should also contain concrete recommendations regarding methodology and internal procedures, to ensure that slipshod and potentially inflammatory work like that done by Marc Garlasco does not appear in the organization’s name again.
I quite understand that, being a privately-funded organization, HRW has a lot of motivation to have “something to contribute” to the public discussion on the latest issues of the day. They probably think this is necessary in order to keep their funding flowing in. (And it also lets HRW’s leaders appear to be “big players” on the international scene.) But there can be no substitute for careful, painstaking, and thoroughly well documented research. Human rights work should never seek to be “flashy”, and should absolutely never allow itself to become politicized.
Wake up, Ken Roth and the rest of the HRW leadership. This issue is most likely your “Kuwaiti incubator story,” and you need to deal with it effectively, honestly, and well.
And yes, if you invite me to sit on your “Georgia incident special investigation team”, I would be happy to do so.
HRW has done some pretty shoddy work in Venezuela, too. Although I don’t have the particulars at hand, the gist of it was they swallowed hook, line, and sinker whatever the political opposition said without doing basic investigation to verify their claims. And the claims were quite easy to debunk. I began to wonder if they were bought off at that point.
They recently released a report highly critical of Hamas and Fatah for human rights abuses mostly committed in the heat of battle for Gaza. It struck me as odd, because their report focused on a brief, uncharacteristic moment to reinforce the conventional wisdom that Palestinians routinely trash human rights.
Now with this Georgia story, I’m almost ready to conclude that HRW is not a neutral, third party. They appear to have become part of the problem.
Thanks Helena, well written and to the point. That HRW didn’t even use its own charts published in 2007 to identify the objects in pictures they got is the worst part to me.
It shows that there is an agenda or incredible sloopiness. I expect the first reason is the real one.
Google “Soros HRW” and google “Soros Rose revolution”.
Who pays the piper …
HRW now has an article about cluster bombs having been used by the Georgians, which they admitted. The tone is quite different from their story blaming the Russians for the same.
The statement by Georgia that no cluster bombs were used against civilians can’t be true, for the simple reason that if the Georgians used then against Tskhinvali, they used them against civilians.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/09/01/georgi19722.htm
http://tinyurl.com/66gsqc
@Hetty – if you would have read the sources Helena linked, especially my research at
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2008/09/hrw-continues-f.html
you would have recognized that the “new” HRW release again blames the Russians while, at the same time, pointing out as its only proof the false allegations it propagandized in its earlier releases.
You also assert that the Georgians used cluster bombs against Tskhinvali. I have not seen any proof for that assertion. I know they have used them around Gori and in some villages in South Ossetia. They also used Grad missiles (120mm) against Tskhinvali. But Grad missiles ain’t cluster bombs, so could you please provide proof for your assertion?
Why is Cobban still on the board of an obvious US/Israeli government front, HRW?
This apparently is a case of Garlasco being quite wrong, but it’s not my impression (HC would of course know better than I) that HRW has been a front for the US. I believe they have documented extensive use of cluster bombs by the US in Yugoslavia and Iraq (both wars) and they have also pushed for a treaty banning these colorful plastic things that don’t always go off until children pick them up.
The US military has stated that cluster bombs are necessary for war — excuse me, not war, “humanitarian aid.”
Garlasco, HRW, May 22, 2008 : The US (along with China, India, Israel, Pakistan and Russia) has refused the invitation to attend [a meeting to draft a treaty banning cluster bombs], and is instead issuing alarmist briefings in Washington claiming that a ban on cluster munitions would stop the US military from helping out in humanitarian relief operations.
October 11, 2001 2:30 PM EDT
DoD News Briefing – ASD PA Clarke and Maj. Gen. Osman
Clarke: . . .Before he begins, I just wanted to make a couple of points on the strikes. The campaign is still underway with strikes against the Taliban and al Qaeda military targets throughout the country [Afghanistan]. And I just want to underscore once again the purpose of these, and that is to create the conditions for a sustained campaign against terrorism, and to enable us to continue to provide humanitarian aid . . . .
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/05/22/uk18926_txt.htm
Q: On the munitions question, it looked in that brief footage you showed, that there were cluster bombs being dropped on the aircraft. One question is, are you using cluster bombs? And B, is thousand-pounders the biggest you’ve been using for bunker busters, or you’ve got bigger munitions than that?
Osman: The secretary made a statement earlier today, and obviously that statement will hold, with regards to the bunker busters. As far as the other question, we’re using the full range, if you will, of munitions available for the target that’s intended. And of course, different targets essentially require different types of weapons systems.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2045
This apparently is a case of Garlasco being quite wrong, but it’s not my impression (HC would of course know better than I) that HRW has been a tool of the US. I believe they have documented extensive use of cluster bombs by the US in Yugoslavia and Iraq (both wars) and they have also pushed for a treaty banning these colorful plastic things that don’t always go off until children pick them up.
The US military has stated that cluster bombs are necessary for war — excuse me, not war, “humanitarian aid.”
Garlasco, HRW, May 22, 2008 : The US (along with China, India, Israel, Pakistan and Russia) has refused the invitation to attend [a meeting to draft a treaty banning cluster bombs], and is instead issuing alarmist briefings in Washington claiming that a ban on cluster munitions would stop the US military from helping out in humanitarian relief operations.
October 11, 2001 2:30 PM EDT
DoD News Briefing – ASD PA Clarke and Maj. Gen. Osman
Clarke: . . .Before he begins, I just wanted to make a couple of points on the strikes. The campaign is still underway with strikes against the Taliban and al Qaeda military targets throughout the country [Afghanistan]. And I just want to underscore once again the purpose of these, and that is to create the conditions for a sustained campaign against terrorism, and to enable us to continue to provide humanitarian aid . . . .
Q: On the munitions question, it looked in that brief footage you showed, that there were cluster bombs being dropped on the aircraft. One question is, are you using cluster bombs? And B, is thousand-pounders the biggest you’ve been using for bunker busters, or you’ve got bigger munitions than that?
Osman: The secretary made a statement earlier today, and obviously that statement will hold, with regards to the bunker busters. As far as the other question, we’re using the full range, if you will, of munitions available for the target that’s intended. And of course, different targets essentially require different types of weapons systems.
Quite interesting. The last time Garlasco got widespread media play, he was saying unequivocally that a family who was killed on a Gaza beach had been hit by an Israeli shell, a claim he later had to retract for lack of evidence. So he does tend to jump to conclusions, but they don’t always benefit the same side.
Here’s HRW’s involvement in Venezuela. Chavez refused to renew the operating license of a TV broadcaster. HRW alleged that it was because RCTV had been critical of the government. In fact, “critical” is a major understatement: RCTV was a conspirator in the failed coup of 2002. How long would it take the FCC to shut down a network that had been involved in an attempted coup against Bush?
Moreover, RCTV was not denied broadcast privileges in Venezuela. They were only denied use of public air waves and continued to broadcast freely over cable channels.
http://oilwars.blogspot.com/2007_05_20_archive.html
As I said, HRW did a shoddy job, failing to understand either the context, the issues involved, or the eventual effect of the government’s action on the company’s access to the Venezuelan public. Essentially they just parroted whatever the opposition said, which was just fine with the State Department.
Hmmm. Perhaps “Bernhard of Moon of Alabama” (I seem to have missed his credentials here) should replace Marc Galesco as an “expert” investigator. It seems that HRW and other human rights NGOs tend to be “accurate” when it’s politically expedient and “inaccurate” when it’s not.
At any rate, nothing here counters the original claims that the Russians used cluster munitions. In fact, the report of the surgeon here in Israel who treated Tzadok Yehezkieli would tend to confirm that they did use them in Gori.
Wake up, Ken Roth and the rest of the HRW leadership. This issue is most likely your “Kuwaiti incubator story,” and you need to deal with it effectively, honestly, and well.
And yes, if you invite me to sit on your “Georgia incident special investigation team”, I would be happy to do so.
Hum, Helena you don’t need to offer yourself for “Georgia incident special investigation team” their is more obvious location and very clear singes of different lethal weapons used against humans and still improved deadly weapon every day been tried on the ground guess where Helena and by whom US your country… instead raising this issue go and did your very personal, effectively, honestly special investigation what used in Iraq and why Human Rights Watch stopped talking about human disaster in Iraq…
the “bloody shirt” of the civilian losses inflicted by the other side is waved to try to persuade people of “
So who are the terrorists/ extremists here?
“The war in Iraq is part of God’s plan, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said in June in a speech at her former church.”
“Palin, the Republican vice presidential candidate whose son will deploy to Iraq in a few weeks, told the students that “our national leaders, are sending [the troops] out on a task that is from God.””
If I may sound a note of dissent, Garlasco has on a number of previous occasions done excellent work for the HRW (in particular having to do with Israeli attacks on civilians in Gaza and in the Israeli war on Lebanon).
I think attacking his _credibility_ here (rather than the work process – i.e. not traveling to Georgia) is premature and a bit too overwrought.
Laleh, good points. His methodology on this occasion most certainly was flawed. But that surely must mean his credibility as a researcher is also undermined?
Another point worth noting is that the ‘standard’ cluster-bomb ID chart used by many researchers in this area is the one that HRW itself produced, as Bernhard had noted in his original post on this. So you’d think his superiors at HRW, or someone, would at least have checked his photos of the bomblets against their own chart?
My post is not primarily about Garlasco, however. It’s about HRW as an organization and its toleration in some cases of extremely flawed ‘research’ and sloppy methodology that undermines its credibility as an honest human rights organization, right across the board.
My goal is to have them clean up their internal procedures to the point they can regain some of the lost credibility. We need to have good strong organizations doing this work. Let’s hope HRW can get back into the role.
WAS MARC GARLASCO USED…………
I believe that Garlasco should not be in JOURNALIST FAMILY as this blunder of his qualify him to bloopers and not a reputable journalist,
is he really opportunist or just dum?
For this as Editor I would suck him as this kind of misleading report on very touchy subject and accusation is a real disaster on its own.
Sergi
well now we get the message that Georgian used Cluster bomb,the point is not on who and where they drop this nasty weapon but who supply this weapon to them and let them use it….hey who is here to blame?
I guess its too obvious….some one just need to dig deeper in and here we will have another GATE….
DUBIAGETE!
Sergi, Garlasco is not a journalist, he tries to be a human rights researcher. Some of the skills are the same– especially the need for diligence and fairness in fact-finding– but some are different. For example, h.r. researchers need to have an intensive understanding of international humanitarian law and human rights law.
Also, his superiors there would not be ‘editors’ as such, that is, under any pressure to get a story out into a daily newspaper or whatever, but would be the central directorate of the organization, with (I would hope) a strong commitment to the quality of HRW’s fact-finding, analysis, and publications, and the integrity and fairmindedness of any related advocacy work.
Well, that’s what I would hope.
thanks to Helen for re-connecting me with Billmon (Moon of Alabama). He used to be my favorite blogger until he quit, two or three years ago.
And “B”, thanks for pointing out the George Soros HRW connection. I thought it was there but couldnt find it in Google this time. HRW, carefully considered, has been a faithful supporter of America’s global agenda, since its inception as a Soviet Union “watch”. I believe HRW may have been the source of the “mass grave” rumours that preceded and justified the bombing of Yugoslavia, for which evidence has never been found once the war was over.
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/09/02/georgi19737.htm
In Ruisi, Human Rights Watch researchers found submunitions that they identified as PTAB 2.5M, which are known to be in Russia’s arsenal. Human Rights Watch based its findings on visual identification of the submunitions and the cluster bomb carrier in Ruisi, craters typical of submunition impact, and accounts from Georgian victims in both towns, as well as doctors and military personnel.
Looks like all this amateur sleuthing is a waste of time, since HRW isn’t (like “bernhard”) basing its conclusions on photos but physical evidence collected on site.
Unfortunately the photos of the physical evidence that they (HWR) have released thus far are not photos of PTAB 2.5M. If they claim to have collected PTAB 2.5M, but every photo of the so-called “PTAB 2.5M” is *NOT* PTAB 2.5M, this tends to case serious doubt on whether there ever was any PTAB 2.5M collected. If they could mis-identify the photos, what keeps them from mis-identifying the actual objects?
They can eliminate this serious doubt by simply releasing photographs of the collected PTAB 2.5M along with time and date and location where it was collected.