Ken Roth talks to Tony Harris

Tony Harris: Thanks for being with us here on “Talk to Al Jazeera.” Let's start with Gaza. The latest flare-up. We have hundreds of Gazans who have been killed, we've got Israeli soldiers that have been killed. Israeli civilians have been killed. Do you get a sense of what's really happening on the ground? 

Ken Roth: Yes. We do have an investigator in Gaza who's based there permanently. Israel has not let us send additional people in, which we'd like to do. But nonetheless, we're able to conduct investigations. I think there's a tendency, when you look at a conflict like Gaza, people sometimes just throw up their hands and say, you know, "War is hell and people get killed, and what can you do?" That's not the way to look at it. The Geneva Conventions impose rules that are designed to spare civilians as much as possible the hazards of conflict, and they apply to both sides in any conflict equally. So with respect to Hamas, they completely prohibit the indiscriminate rocket attacks aimed broadly at Israel, but basically at Israeli population centers. With respect to Israel, they have been violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting a series of civilian structures where there's no military justification for doing that. Whether that's the hospitals in northern Gaza, whether that's homes where you see, in one case, two dozen civilians killed because maybe ostensibly there was one militant there. No one would ever justify an attack like that. You saw Israel killing the young boys on the beach because they were running away from a structure that was being shelled, as if anybody would stand next to the structure as it was being shelled.

So time after time we've seen Israel violating the rules that say, "You have to make sure what you're targeting is a legitimate military target. And only aim at that, and only do it in circumstances designed to minimize civilian casualties." Israel is violating that left and right.

Which leads me to the question, does Israel care? Do any of the governments that are involved in these conflicts, in these conflict zones, do they really care about human rights violations?

The truth is, everybody cares about their reputation in respecting rights. And we don't have to argue these days about the standards. Everybody accepts that human rights law, or the laws of war, are legitimate standards that apply to them. What they argue about is the facts, and they try to spin the facts as best they can. The role of Human Rights Watch is to state objectively, to investigate what actually happened. And governments go to enormous lengths to avoid critical reports and to avoid condemnations. They care about their reputation. They care about political consequences of other governments penalizing them for abuses. And they care about avoiding prison, because war crimes can be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court or other international tribunals.

What are your thoughts on the blockade? And whether that ultimately — any work that's going on right now would provide a framework where there could be a discussion of the blockade and what that is doing economically, for example, to Gazans.

Well, I think that, you know, Hamas' main demand, probably, is that the siege be lifted. And Israel has legitimate and illegitimate reasons for wanting that siege. The legitimate one is to try to stop the import of rockets that are then used to indiscriminately shell Israeli cities. The illegitimate reason is they are trying to simply punish the people of Gaza for having chosen Hamas. And so where I think Hamas legitimately is objecting to the siege is because Israel is basically trying to destroy the Gazan economy, preventing import or export of the most basic goods to try to just harm the Gazan people enough so that ultimately they may choose to get rid of Hamas. That is wholly inappropriate.

What are your thoughts on Syria these days? And is there any way in the foreseeable future you see any indications, any signs that would give anyone any reason to believe that that violence could come to an end anytime soon?

My view on Syria is that it is going be a long, long effort to get a negotiated solution.  So we can't wait —

We're three-plus years in now.

Yes. And we're no place close to it. You know, the Geneva II process completely failed. You know, people talk of Geneva III; don't hold your breath. The real issue is, how do you reduce the harm to civilians while we wait and wait and wait as the various warring parties duke it out? There have been some positive steps that have been taken. The chemical weapons have been removed. Most recently, the U.N. Security Council did finally authorize the U.N. to do cross-border humanitarian delivery into the opposition-held areas. It took a long time to get there, but finally Russia went along. That can make a big difference in terms of providing just food, shelter and medical assistance to people who are severely deprived. The next big step is, how do you stop the indiscriminate method of warfare, particularly the barrel bombing of cities that has been [President Bashar al-]Assad's main way of fighting the war in recent months? I think the international community has shown itself capable of putting enough pressure on the Syrian government to stop these kinds of atrocities if Russia will let it. The key is, how do you pressure Russia? How do you make it hurt enough so that Russia is willing to stop backing Assad's utterly inhumane ways of fighting this war?

Can you paint a bit of a picture for us of the desperation inside Syria among the civilians there? 

Well, I mean, you know, take the situation in Aleppo. I think of one family where the father had to calculate, "Is it safer to move closer to the front line because Assad would be less likely to drop a barrel bomb there for fear of hitting his troops? Or is it safer to move away from the front line?" He chose going toward the front line, and his daughter was hit by a sniper. You know, these are the awful life-and-death decisions that civilians have to make all the time in this inhumane war. Not to mention the fact, how do you feed your family? How do you find shelter? You know, there are 3 million refugees; there are another probably similar number who are displaced within the country. These are people who are absolutely desperate.

What are your thoughts on the international community's reaction to it — many would say lack of action — in dealing with Syria these three-plus years?

I think the biggest recent difficulty is that as ISIS [also called ISIL or the Islamic State], as the jihadists have become dominant within the armed opposition, there's a decreased willingness on the part of the international community to get involved and to really push the Syrian military to stop its war against Syrian civilians in opposition-held areas. So that's the real challenge right now. It's hard to find the good guys. There are a handful of moderates within the armed opposition, but these people are not in the ascendancy. And that's why I think it's important not to take sides so much other than to take the sides of the civilians, and to put pressure on all, whether it's ISIS or the government or any other faction, not to be targeting civilians as they fight this war.

Can we switch to Iraq for a moment? I read something, it was a headline, and then there was a longer piece associated with it. Can you tell me why you feel the United States only has itself to blame? You know the headline I'm referring to.

Yes.

Only has itself to blame for the situation in Iraq right now?

When the U.S. pulled out of Iraq militarily, they did it at a point where they had really tried to build a multisectarian government. They tried to have the Iraqi government really represent not just the majority Shia but also the minority Sunnis and the Kurds in the north. And [Nouri al-]Maliki, the prime minister, unfortunately chose to govern in a narrow, sectarian way. So whereas the jihadists had been defeated by actually bringing in Sunni tribes, the whole Sunni awakening event —

Yes, the awakening, sure.

Yes. That was lost because the Sunnis looked at Maliki and said, you know, "This guy doesn't represent us. To the contrary, he's attacking us." So you found an increasingly alienated Sunni population which was willing to turn, out of complete desperation, to ISIS. I mean, nobody likes ISIS. But that was the alternative to Maliki. And so that's why we've been pushing the U.S. government that if it's going to re-engage militarily, it's got to insist on a new form of governance, one that I don't think Maliki is capable of. But one in which the government in Baghdad represents all Iraqis, not just a narrow, sectarian slice of Iraqis.

How much influence do you really think you have, and the work of your investigators and everyone that works with you at Human Rights Watch? How do you see your influence? 

Well, you know, our influence comes in a number of different ways. First, governments really look to us for a very detailed, accurate account of what's going on on the ground.

Our researchers are there, and they're able to tell the world, in very precise detail, what are the abuses taking place? They're able to provide an analysis of what's going on. And governments are thirsty for that. They eagerly await it. We then ask governments to do something about the abuses. And sometimes they do that voluntarily. Sometimes they're reluctant because they have other interests; human rights are not at the top of their agenda. And in those circumstances, part of why they listen to us is because the media pays attention to us.

And nobody wants to be embarrassed in the media. All these governments know that Human Rights Watch has the capacity to embarrass them by showing, on the one hand, these terrible abuses, and on the other hand, this important government just cozying up —

What do you point to as a recent success of your work, your investigators, your reporting getting some solid action and a solid response from a government?

Well, let me give an example. Probably the worst situation in Africa over the last year has been in the Central African Republic.

And when it started off, most people didn't know where the Central African Republic was other than, you know, "Well, it must be in central Africa someplace," you know? And so we sent investigators on the ground and were able to describe this horrific combination of ethnic, religious, political slaughter taking place at a stage where nobody was looking to get involved in another African conflict.

So we had to rapidly put out information on these atrocities, and try to get the international community engaged. The first step was the French, and we were able to convince the French government to deploy 2,000 emergency peacekeepers to try to put the lid on and to stop the slaughter. We then ultimately were able to convince the U.N. Security Council, overcoming financial objections, really, by the U.S. government. And they have now authorized the deployment of 12,000 peacekeepers. 

What leverage do you have? We're talking about the leverage that you have with respect to states. What kind of leverage do you have on nonstate actors? And I'm thinking of ISIS, ISIL, to document what they're doing, and to maybe coalesce opinion around the atrocities being committed by organizations like that. Do you have leverage there?

ISIS is probably the toughest nut to crack. But when you have armed groups, they almost always are striving for legitimacy.

Really?

Absolutely. I mean, just to give a recent example, we did a report on the Syrian Kurdish rebels in northeastern Syria. We looked at their use of child soldiers. They immediately responded. They said, "We're stopping this. We're releasing kids. We're not going to recruit them any further," because they want to be seen as a legitimate governance entity. You find that in many, many occasions. ISIS is the exception to that, but most rebel groups are looking for legitimacy.

Help us with a working definition that we can all grasp and handle of "human rights."

Well, in terms of what are human rights, there is an instinctive definition that many of us just know. But there's also a legal definition. There are treaties describing what human rights are. In the classic realm of, say, dictatorship, there's something known as the international covenant on civil and political rights, which defines rights such as the right to free press, the right to free association, the right to a fair trial, the right not to be tortured or summarily executed. And also a parallel treaty gives things like the right to health care or to education. In a war context are the Geneva Conventions, which we discussed, which basically say you've got to do everything you can to spare civilians the hazards of armed conflict. So those standards are enshrined in treaties which virtually every government in the world has ratified. There's no real question about the standards; the question is about compliance.

How has the rise of China made Western powers less willing to take a tough, strong stand in favor of human rights?

Well, first of all, we have to understand that China usually opposes efforts to defend human rights because it's very worried about its own human rights record. That's not universally true. We've been able to get China to do the right thing occasionally in Darfur, in Libya. It's even acquiesced in the Security Council taking a proper stand a few times in Syria. So China is not a lost cause, but its reflexive position is to oppose efforts to defend human rights.

Now, because Western governments are also often vying for the Chinese market, or are competing with Chinese enterprises for business in Africa or Asia or Latin America, there is a tendency to downplay human rights in favor of commercial or strategic interests. That's something we just have to fight against. You're seeing this right now with Europe with respect to Russia, where European countries are saying, "Well, I don't know. We get all our gas from Russia, and they're a big customer. Do we really want to push Putin too hard as he cracks down on civil society in Russia?" And we have to fight back, often by enlisting public opinion within Europe, to give their governments a more principled backbone.

So, Ken, this is perfect. Are we at a moment in time — well, maybe it just feels to me that we're at a moment in time where, on the one hand, you have people like you and your good offices, and other rights organizations as well, who are fighting for basic dignity and human rights for everyone globally. And then you have these states and these governments that are trying to weigh economic concerns.

You are, but what I want to stress is that this is nothing new. Governments have always had a range of interests, only one of which occasionally is human rights.

Have we ever been as interdependent, globally connected, economically, as we are in this particular realm, space and time?

Yeah. Well, that is true, we are becoming a more unified world, which is good and bad. I mean, it's complicated because there are more and more commercial reasons to ignore human rights. It's good in the sense that it's much easier for us to find out what's happening on the other side of the world, which is actually critical for human rights enforcement. But even if you go back to the Cold War, you know, governments at that point always had their own reasons. You know, "It may be a bastard, but they're our bastard, so we're going to support them," you know. And so there's always a reason to ignore human rights. That's why you need groups like Human Rights Watch. Our job is to put the facts on the table and then enlist the public to pressure governments to respect rights that, ostensibly, they subscribe to but in reality they find ways to avoid.

We know that there are active talks right now over Iran's nuclear program. Do you have concerns that, because those talks have taken precedent right now, that Iran's human rights record over the years is being put to the side, ignored, neglected?

I have precisely that concern. And I think aside from the principal point that you should be concerned about human rights — besides what else is going on, I think it's actually counterproductive to be ignoring human rights. Because if there were more pressure on Iran to respect the rights of its people, you would actually find more popular pressure supporting President Rouhani and the reformists who are trying to get a deal. There's a big split within Iran right now, even in governmental circles, between the supreme leader, Khamenei, and the president, Rouhani. Rouhani representing the more reformist segment, Khamenei being the old-fashioned hard-liners. And if there were more pressure on human rights, you might find the Iranian people better able to express their views. And I think the majority of people want out from these sanctions and want a freer existence.

Iran still has hundreds of political prisoners. The highest per capita rate of executions in the world.  And to your point — there needs to be more pressure put on Iran on the human rights front. And then you wonder if these other concerns, as we were just talking about just a moment ago, overshadow that. What are the clear violations?

Yes. A basic principle for diplomacy is you've got to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. You can deal with two things; governments are sophisticated. At Human Rights Watch, we have to do this all the time. We may be criticizing a government for its own conduct, but enlisting that government at the same time to help with a problem elsewhere. If we can do that, the U.S. government and the Western governments can do that.

And what's the best example, I think there are several, that you can point to of how counterterrorism efforts in this post-9/11 world — for the sake of this discussion, let's talk about America. Those counterterrorism efforts have compromised America's moral standing in the world.

There unfortunately are a series of those. There was the torture that Bush initiated. There's Obama's refusal to prosecute the torturers. There's Guantánamo and the military commissions. There's the use of drones without abiding by the appropriate legal standards. There's the NSA's extensive oversurveillance of all of our private communications. There are a series of things done in the name of protecting us that are actually, you know, violating all of our rights.

In the case of privacy and the NSA, we hear it more and more, the government is saying, "We need to do these things to protect you." And what's your response to that?

You got to push a little bit because —

This is true.

For example, one of their claims was the so-called metadata, which is not the content of your email but to whom you sent the email, who it was from, yourself. Basically all of the details around it, including where you were with your mobile phone, where you traveled, who you called on the phone. All this basic — these elements of your life, none of them are private because you shared them with the phone company. That's their argument for just sweeping this all up. And they said, "We need to do this to protect you." You're then sort of pushing them and saying, "Well, give us a terrorist plot that would not have been broken but for the massive collection of that metadata." And at first they said, "Oh, there are a couple dozen of them, no problem." And then you start probing and it turns out there's not one. The best they could come up with was some guy in San Diego who wired money to the Al-Shabab in Somalia, as if they weren't, you know, monitoring the Al-Shabab's bank accounts.

So it's just they have no track record of using this mass surveillance to protect us. Targeted surveillance is fine; we all recognize the importance of identifying particular suspects. And then you can listen in with a court order. But this mass surveillance of all of us, just to have a haystack in which to find the needle, is a massive invasion of our privacy without a security justification to it.

Tell me about the reporting that was just released, talking about the work of the FBI, what the FBI has been doing, in essence, in targeting the very group — we're talking about Muslims that need to be enlisted in its counterterrorism efforts.

Yes. If you read FBI press releases, which we do sometimes, they frequently announce, "We just, you know, broke this huge terrorist plot here. Terrible terrorist plot there." You start scratching the surface and you see that, in a huge number of these so-called terrorist plots, there was nothing until the FBI got involved. They found a group of people and they convinced them to pursue a plot. They provided the means. And they then arrested them and prosecuted them and sentenced them to a gazillion years.

There are two problems with this. One is that they are wasting resources, frankly. They must have better things to do than to concoct terrorist plots, because there certainly are some real ones out there they should be pursuing. But second, the targets of these plots are almost uniformly Muslim Americans.  And this is the community that the U.S. government should be enlisting to try to find, "Are there any actual terrorist plots out there?" Instead, they're alienating them by really unfairly entrapping people who just happen to be dumb schmucks who happen to be entrapped by the FBI to do one of these stupid plots.

I want you to talk about your father. I want you to talk about how you came to this work.

Well, you know, there's never a single reason. But a big part, as you mention, is my father, who grew up in Nazi Germany as a young Jewish boy. I then in turn grew up with stories of what it was like. You know, worrying about would he be arrested if he rode his bicycle down the sidewalk, you know? How was the family going to get out of Germany? Which was extremely difficult. And he finally in July 1938, as a 12-year-old boy, was able to escape to New York. By my growing up and hearing these stories, I was very aware of the ultimate evil which governments are capable of. And it was a big part of what drove me to want to devote my life to trying to prevent atrocities of that sort.

When you start talking to victims, you can't help but feel empathy. My father's story got me launched in it, but once you're in the human rights effort and you talk to people over and over again and hear what they've had to suffer, you can't help but feel empathy, first of all. And what really drives me is I want to do something about it. And what keeps me going day in and day out, and I've been doing this for 25 years, is knowing that I can do something about it. That we can take their stories, deploy that information and generate pressure to make life better for them. And that's a hugely motivating force that keeps me very much energized and motivated in this work.

This interview has been edited and condensed.