Human Rights Watch – joint organization of Soros and Obama - ANALYSIS
According APA Analytics, Human Right Watch’s mission, style of activity, selection of targets to criticize have been critically affected by the alliance with George Soros, a stock swindler and an adventurous billionaire. Soros has not joined Human Right Watch alone. Among the organization’s advisers, committee members and heads of subsections are George Soros’s wife Susan Soros, multimillionaires John Gutfreund and John Studzinski who are investors of the Quantum Fund investment foundation that he has founded, Fiona Druckenmiller, the wife of the foundation’s manager, billionaire Stanley Druckenmiller, employees of Soros’s companies and foundations, well-known politicians Barnett Rubin, William Zabel and diplomat Warren Zimmermann.
Some HRW employees stayed in the organization’s leadership, starting to work at Soros structures. Chairman of the HRW Europe and Central Asia Division’s Advisory Committee, member of the Board of Directors, journalist Peter Osnos has been appointed head of the publishing house owned by Soros. Women's Rights Division's Advisory Committee, homosexual rights activist Gara LaMarche was appointed vice-president of the Soros Foundation’s New York department.
There is too little information about Soros’s role and participation in human rights movement and HRW. And the existing information is based on the transfer of HRW’s leading employees to Soros’s structures. However, the issue is not confined to Soros funding HRW and its members. In the mid ’80s of the past century, a coincidence happened. Having increased in wealth on account of stock swindles during those years, Soros began to form a philosophic doctrine for himself and called it “Open Society”.
It is no secret that Soros has made those billions by means of swindles in foreign exchange market. For instance, he made a billion in stock in a single day in 1992. Soros invests his money in “zero-risk funds” that he has founded. Offering high percentages to share holders, these foundations also receive investments from other exchange swindlers Stanley Druckenmiller, Bruce Kovner, Franklin Booth, and Henry Kravis. Having made several billions by this means, Soros then turned toward the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The billionaire sees Russia and Eastern Europe – both undergoing a period of hardship at that time – as a favorable locale for its political-economic experiments. The purpose of the experiments to ensure an independent turnover of financial capital in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and occupy foreign currency markets of this country. Soros thought he could achieve this goal by helping build a western-style democracy, free media and market economy in those countries.
However, Soros understood that the market economy that is not managed by the government is a destructive power which can lead sooner or later to global financial crisis, and degradation of the international economic and political system. Soros saw the only solution to this global problem in creating a state within the state and formation of parallel government structures.
Soros actually supports the establishment of a world government. In his opinion, the coalition of open societies can take the mission of the UN and become the UN General Assembly’s main legislative body that protects the international law. In such a case, universal liberal human rights watch organization was a godsend for him. It is an organization which hails the global ideas on human rights, claiming the human rights are superior to the state, society, traditions, religion and spirituality. The class interests of Soros and other cosmopolitan financial magnates, at this point, coincided with Human Rights Watch which shares liberal-cosmopolitan values and was founded and is managed and by publisher and lawyers. This "synthesis" resulted in the creation of a political organization, financed and managed by American liberal-cosmopolitan establishment. This establishment began to benefit from the human rights activities of this organization to meet its political and economic interests. In other words, the Human Rights Watch organization converted its activity from the information-humanitarian direction to information-propaganda, and began to serve the financial, political and academic interests of the US liberal-cosmopolitan establishment.
In some cases, the HRW serve those interests of the U.S. administration which coincide with George Soros’s interests. This was clearly noticed during the Yugoslav Wars in the mid-1990s. During the Balkan crisis, the Human Rights Watch management and George Soros supported the U.S. military intervention in Yugoslavia, defending the interests of the Clinton administration in Yugoslavia. Soros, who supported the military intervention in Yugoslavia, stood against the U.S. intervention in Iraq, claiming that his purpose in life is to drive out George W. Bush from the White House. Following this statement of Soros, Human Rights Watch took a neutral position in Iraq war and suspended the cooperation with the Bush administration.
One cannot forget Human Rights Watch that formally declared itself as a defender of human rights around the world played a key role in the outbreak of the Iraqi War during which fundamental rights of millions of people were violated. The organization began journalistic activity prior to the U.S. military intervention in Iraq. One of the unrevealed reasons of this war was to overcome the threat of Saddam Hussein's regime against Israel. Thus, a few months before the beginning of military operations, Human Rights Watch began to publish a series of reports on gross violation of human rights in Iraq, even covering the events that took place 15 years ago. In its reports, the organization always underlined the fact that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels in 1987. These materials were not aimed at defending the rights of oppressed Arabs, Turkmen, Kurds in Iraq, but softening the international community's reaction to the U.S. aggression against Iraq. After finishing the initial mission, Human Rights Watch didn’t demonstrate its position on the Iraq war in order not to be accused of solidarity with the Bush administration.
A similar process is also clearly observed during the Obama administration. A chronological analysis of the reports of Human Rights Watch and statements of the State Department shows that all of them are made by the Obama administration or HRW is seriously coordinating its activities with the State Department. The Department official’s statement on "human rights violations" in a particular country usually comes a day after the release of HRW report. The Department indirectly creates public opinion through HRW before demonstrating its position, then tries to turn the organization’s pass into a goal. Divergences occurred between the White House and HRW on certain issues during the Bush and Clinton administrations, while Human Rights Watch began operating as an information department of the White House during the Obama Administration. It shows that the interests of Washington, that is trying to implement the concept of a New World Order by all means, coincide with the interests of "Soros and his team", and HRW is used as a political tool by the Obama Administration and Soros in this process.
These are just a few examples of double standard policy of HRW that issues a series of statements and reports on Azerbaijan. There are several reasons why HRW, that is protecting the interests of the Soros and financial tycoons and funded by them, is targeting Azerbaijan. One of the reasons is to make the countries, in which George Soros's dream of establishing “open society” failed, and that were able to move away from the zone of influence of the United States through balanced policy, obey the will of Washington.
Global energy and transport projects being implemented by Azerbaijan due to high economic profitability meet the interests of both regional countries seeking greater market access and some European countries intending to diversify energy supply routes. From a theoretical point of view, these projects must also be in line with the interests of the United States. However, Washington has yet not provided any support for the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars (BTK) railway project that will facilitate transportation of goods from China to the UK. On the contrary, numerous campaigns were carried out against the implementation of these projects in the U.S. and other countries. And the U.S. actually puts pressure on Turkmenistan to obtain its consent to the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India Natural Gas Pipeline (TAPI) project.
It is noteworthy that HWR has not once touched upon the human rights situation in Turkmenistan in the period of cooperation between Ashgabat and Washington on oil and gas projects and begun to release regular statements about the “flagrant violation of human rights in Turkmenistan” as the TAPI project was launched. Hence, the operating principle of HWR is – to use card of “human rights” against the projects that run contrary to Soros’s interests and the format “Soros+administration”. This kind of approach, double standards, as well as Human Rights Watch’s method to criticize has already revealed the true of this organization. For this reason, the world community, including the Azerbaijani society is well aware of the missions of HWR and other similar organizations, and does not take seriously the statements and biased media reports released by the West and its controlled structures.
HWR especially carries out its anti-Azerbaijani activity at the time when Azerbaijan is going to host international events, as it was observed on the eve of the Eurovision song contest and appears again on the eve of the first European Games to be held in the country. Just like before the Eurovision Song Contest in 2012, HRW now, on the eve of the first European Games, urges western countries to exert pressure on Azerbaijan and boycott the European Games. It is no coincidence that this particular period has been chosen to carry out this campaign, because international sports events, song contests always draw worldwide attention, and HRW takes the advantage of this opportunity to continue this campaign. Had Azerbaijan not signed global energy and transportation projects and not been to host a continental contest like the European Games or Azerbaijan’s policy overlapped with Soros’s interests, we would confidently say that there would not be a single sentence about our country in HRW reports.
In fact, anti-Azerbaijan campaigns launched by some organizations that are subordinates of the US financial magnates and government prove that our country is on the right way and defends its own interests. And reports can be valuable only for clients because the whole world are well informed about the mission of HRW and other similar organizations and thus does not take serious statements and reports of the West and organizations under its influence as well as tendentious materials released by different media agencies.
Related news releases
- 31.05.2017Political analyst: Trump’s letters indicate beginning of new period in US-Azerbaijan relations
- 13.03.2017Trace of "Armenian Connection" in Strasser fantasy
- 06.03.2017The Armenian Connection: How a secret caucus of MPs and NGOs, since 2012, created a network within PACE to hide violations of international law - ANALYSIS
- 19.09.2016Failed rallies that proved unworthy of being called ‘mass’ - ANALYSIS
- 24.08.2016Referendum Act: The Cabinet of Ministers could not change to locomotive of economic reforms – ANALYSE
- 24.06.2016Tseghakronism – fascist doctrine of Garegin Nzhdeh - ARTICLE
- 08.06.2016More people displaced than at any time since WW2- Global Peace Index
- 07.05.2016Sargsyan’s failed attempt of demarche against Kremlin - ANALYSIS
- 13.04.2016Helsinki Final Act – the main factor in breaking Karabakh deadlock - ANALYSIS
- 07.04.2016‘Four-day war’: Changed status quo, balance against Armenia
- 02.04.2016Azerbaijani president’s visit to Washington: Maximal use of all opportunities of essential platform for dialogue - ANALYSIS
- 11.02.2016Turkey and Israel: Rapprochement arising from mutual need - ANALYSIS
- 22.09.2015Russian military support to Syria: A second Afghanistan?
- 11.09.2015European Parliament “annexing” Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia - ANALYSIS
- 09.09.2015Europe’s migration policy: Is Schengen area regime being abolished? - ANALYSIS
- 26.08.2015Who benefits from Greece’s exit from Eurozone? - ANALYSIS
- 10.07.2015Representatives of Azerbaijani community in Nagorno-Karabakh will also address Chatham House, says FM
- 02.07.2015Expectations arising from a default in Greece - ANALYSIS
- 29.06.2015US legalizing ISIL de facto - ANALYSIS
- 22.06.2015Rebecca Vincent – problem of anti-Azerbaijani network - ANALYSIS
- 22.06.2015Western technologist’s lies proved by figures
- 18.06.2015Democracy and human rights lessons from totalitarian Poland under democracy guise - ANALYSIS
- 17.06.2015The Guardian and principles of journalism - ANALYSIS
- 10.06.2015National Endowment for Democracy - generator of coups and chaos - ANALYSIS
- 16.01.2015Azerbaijan-US relations: Tension after returning to bipolar world order - ANALYSIS
- 10.12.201421st member of G20: Azerbaijan - ANALYSIS
- 05.12.2014Putin's visit to Turkey: messages, offers, opportunities ... - Analysis
- 03.12.2014Panoramic notes (second part) - ANALYSIS
- 02.12.2014Panoramic notes (first part) – ANALYSIS
- 01.12.2014Pope: Against Turkey, Beside Armenia – ANALYSIS
- 28.11.2014Conflicting interests of Turkey and Iran against background of Syrian crisis - ANALYSIS
- 24.11.2014Indirect diplomacy: Turkey’s plan of third border crossing point with Armenia - ANALYSIS
- 14.11.2014Downed Armenian helicopter consequence of Yerevan’s military-political provocation - ANALYSIS - PHOTOSESSION
- 17.09.2014How will EU sanctions affect Russian economy? – Comment
- 30.06.2014Two Europes, double Europe…. - ANALYTICS
- 14.04.2014Actual international view as a result of the occupation of Azerbaijani territories
- 10.09.2013The Republic of Azerbaijan: A Model of Good Governance - ANALYSIS
- 04.09.2013Will Armenia’s choosing Customs Union change Europe’s attitude towards Nagorno Karabakh conflict? - ANALYSIS
- 14.08.2013Five visits balancing Azerbaijan’s foreign policy course - ANALYSIS
- 13.06.2013Nagorno Karabakh – “new Afghanistan” of the region - ANALYSIS
- 27.04.201524 April: Who won? Who lost? - ANALYSIS
- 22.05.2015‘Good’ and ‘bad’ separatists classified by West, Azerbaijan’s right to change partners - ANALYSIS
- 09.06.2015BBC: Anti-Azerbaijan campaign deriving from Islamaphobia
- 16.04.2015European Parliament’s resolution incapable of changing realities in the region - ANALYSIS
- 02.04.2015“Georgian expert card” against Georgia - ANALYSIS
- 13.02.2015Southern Gas Corridor: unique project of common interests to all parties - ANALYSIS