What Do Human Rights Mean in HRW’s Eyes?

When I was young, the name Human Rights Watch (HRW) inspired admiration. I imagined a fearless guardian of justice, a voice for the voiceless, and a shield for the vulnerable.

But as I grew older and read its reports, admiration turned into questions. At times, the supposed watchdog seemed less interested in guarding rights than in tearing down reputations. One cannot help but wonder whether the Human Rights Watch has become Human Rights Wrecker?

Rwanda offers a troubling example.

On October 16, HRW criticized Rwanda’s ambition to host a Formula One Grand Prix in the early 2030s, framing the initiative through allegations of “sportswashing” and potential human rights abuses before the event has even begun.

Bringing Formula One to Africa is more than a sporting milestone; it is an opportunity to showcase the continent’s potential, attract investment, and place Africa more firmly on the global stage.

Of course, no country should be beyond scrutiny. But when scrutiny becomes speculation, and suspicion overshadows achievement, advocacy risks losing its moral compass.

This is not the first time Rwanda’s hosting of major international events, from CHOGM to the Basketball Africa League, has attracted criticism from HRW. Such a pattern raises a legitimate question: are the organization’s standards applied consistently, or does Rwanda’s progress receive more suspicion than recognition?

Three decades after the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, Rwanda has risen from unimaginable devastation to pursue a remarkable journey of reconstruction and development. Its challenges remain, as they do in every nation, but its progress cannot simply be erased from the story.

Meanwhile, here is the troubling fact. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, civilians continue to endure conflict, killings, persecution, and other grave abuses but the HRW is dumb. These suffering people deserve the same urgency, attention, and determination to seek accountability. Human rights cannot be a spotlight directed at some while others remain in the shadows.

The issue is not whether HRW should criticize Rwanda. It is whether it can do so fairly, just as it must scrutinize every other country, with evidence rather than conjecture, consistency rather than selectivity, and principle rather than prejudice.

Human rights are universal, not selective; justice has no preferred geography. An organization that claims to defend humanity must prove that its compass points toward every victim, not merely those who fit its narrative.

So, the question remains: In HRW’s eyes, are human rights truly universal, or do they depend on whose story it chooses to tell? It’s high time the world called out HRW’s double standards.

Visited 1 times, 1 visit(s) today