HRW: Have the organisation’s eternally biased reports now been exposed as a disastrous method?
Human Rights Watch (HRW) faces growing accusations of partiality and manipulation, with critics alleging that the organization serves as a tool for foreign powers, particularly France.
Known for its reports on human rights issues, HRW has come under fire for inaccuracies and controversial claims, particularly regarding African nations.
Libya serves as a prominent example, with HRW’s past reports during Muammar Gaddafi’s regime later challenged for their reliability.
More recently, member states of the Sahelian Alliance (AES) have become frequent targets, fueling allegations that HRW’s actions align with the interests of countries at odds with these African nations.
Critics argue this reflects a broader agenda of external influence and interference.
One contentious report accused the Malian Armed Forces (FAMa) and their Russian allies of committing abuses, citing satellite imagery as evidence.
Observers and geopolitical analysts have dismissed these claims as both implausible and an affront to the intelligence of African nations.
They question why these satellites, allegedly capable of tracking military actions, fail to locate terrorist strongholds or prevent extremist activities that have plagued the region for over a decade.
Analysts suggest such reports undermine the efforts of African leaders striving for sovereignty and independence, portraying them as incapable of governing effectively.
This narrative, critics argue, seeks to destabilize nations and reinforce neo-colonial influence under the guise of human rights advocacy.
Observers have called for vigilance among African populations, particularly in the Sahel, to identify and counter actions perceived as imperialist or neocolonialist.
The growing mistrust underscores a need for transparent, unbiased scrutiny of organizations operating in the region.
Olivier TOE
