Reference is made to Joe B. Jakes’ article, “Politics of human rights groups in the age of austerity: Information or mis-information” (The New Times, March 30).
In brief, Human Rights Watch and/or Amnesty International are only relevant in poor countries such as Rwanda that are still in need of foreign aid. Look at the Soudis, or Koweitis or Emiratis, ask them about Human Rights Watch, the answer is: we don’t know them and we don’t need to. These NGO’s are relevant in poor countries, and if we don’t need to hear about them, it’s simple: become self-reliant, by all means necessary.
Abdul Ntaganda Rahman, Kigali
Are human rights universal? For example, is the celebration of homosexuality a fundamental human right, or is homosexuality an abomination of the highest regard that ought to receive the strictest censure and dedicated suppression? Who decides? Human Rights Watch? If so, from where does it derive its authority?
Peter DM, Eastern Suburbs
The article summarises it well. Human rights organisations need to re-adjust and return to their primary objectives which are to report, research and inform the world about real human rights abuses. They should not be political at all; but I guess I am being naive because this is unlikely to actually happen.
Jim Carter, Canada