HRW -A Partisan Hypocrisy

HRW, the Soros operation Human Rights Watch, is being criticized for hypocrisy by its unpaid interns, and for gross bias and political partisanship by activists and scholars:

The interns claim which they have brought to the attention of President of HRW, Kenneth Roth, on numerous occasions, their plight as being unfairly classified as volunteers when in fact they are interns subject to different laws and regulations under FLSA.  Despite being hired as interns, they are categorized as ‘volunteers’ on the books in order to bypass regulations regarding stipends and remuneration laws that would classify them as employees. HRW says they have no intention of changing this manipulative practice because their funding and revenue does not support making such changes.  They say – they can’t afford it and will ask for universities to ante the cost of the intern.

HRW Financial Statements as of 6/2015:

~The organization shows assets of over $240 million including over $97 million in liquid assets such as cash.

~Annual revenue reported was $68.5 million against expenses of $74.3 million

~Expenses: Salaries, and salary support, and consultants absorbed $46 million or about 62% of expenses. Professional fees (normally accounting for legal and accounting services) were $1.8 million or 2 ½% and travel was roughly $6.4 million or 8 ½%.

~New offices were opened in Sydney and San Paolo despite funding shortfalls in 2014.

~CEO Kenneth Roth – compensation for 2014 amounted to just under $450,000 with additional compensation amounting to $67,000 bringing his total to $517,000. The organization has been criticized for years concerning the abnormally high level of compensation paid to its executives which only exacerbates the interns financial concerns.

~Executive Salaries: Compensation paid to the other 11 top executives ranged from $210,000 to $324,000 far exceeding other non-profits.

~HRW does not list specific names of organizations to which it gives grants and funds, nor does it list specific names of individuals, governments or corporations that contribute to them.

Roth has been accused of using photos and bylines to support false narratives about Syrian destruction. On a number of occasions the photos were depictions of different events and the bylines were completely fabricated and incorrect creating a bias and partisanship in violation of their 501(c)(3) tax status.

HRW has been heavily criticized for past agendas including the Goldstone Report which attempted to vilify Israel by accusing them of deliberately targeting civilians during Operation Cast Lead between December 2008 and January 2009. Roth and HRW are now making similar claims against Assad and Putin. The conflict of interest is the fact that Roth does the bidding of George Soros who has a personal vendetta against Israel, Russia and Syria.

In June 2014, Democracy Now published an interview between HRW’s attorney, Reed Brody, and Keane Bhatt, a representative for a number of scholars and activists who claim that HRW is biased. In the interview, Bhatt noted that a fair number of advisors, staff, and executives have held governmental positions prior to or after their tenure at HRW. Among those most notable include:

  1. Tom Malinowski – served as special assistant to President Bill Clinton and speechwriter for Madelaine Albright. Then became an Advocacy Director at HRW before being hand-picked as John Kerry’s Assistant Secretary of State.
  2. Miguel Diaz – worked in the CIA as well as another very profitable DC bipartisan NGO ‘think tank’, CSIS, which advises the government on international issues and basically calls the shots on foreign policy (it’s funding sources include Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, as well as the Japanese, German, Norwegian and Chinese governments and has a Board of Trustees that spans from Henry Kissinger to USAID, to The Council on Foreign Relations, to Harvard, Coca-cola, Exxon, etc…), sat on HRW’s advisory committee before being called to work at the US State Department.
  3. Javier Solana – NATO former Secretary General

The interview is meant to address the concerns that HRW is by no means bipartisan and holds to agendas that actually uphold and support international war crimes when the US and it’s allies want/demand action. The report decries discrimination, bias, anti-Semitism, political affiliation, a blind eye to atrocities, and grossly unprofessional research at a level that would embarrass a high school student. But it also highlights how HRW actually supports coups and bombings.

Why is this important? Because the entire purpose of the NGO is neutrality. To have no agenda toward any one group, organization, individual or country. The entire credibility of HRW is balanced on it’s bipartisanship – which is essential for it to remain classified as a non-profit under the protection of IRS laws and regulations. And it would certainly appear it may have violated that tenet.

IRS TAX LAW 501(c)(3):

  1.  “…for their organizations to remain tax exempt under section 501(c)(3), organization leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official functions.”
  2. An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for purposes of proposing, supporting or opposing legislation, or advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.”


As for the test to whether a person is a volunteer or an intern under the rules of FLSA, #4 states:

The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees or students, and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded.

According to the objection filed by 10 of HRW’s interns, they provided extensive advantage from their activities.

One thought on “HRW -A Partisan Hypocrisy

  1. Helena, thank you for your post. Soros seems to have his hands in many things of chaotic counterproductive nature. I looked up information on the #Blacklivesmatters movement, another organization Soros is deemed to be fueling and found the “leaders”, were not Black at all. This is not to say people from various nationalities cannot move to aid individuals acquiring their rights, however, I feel this movement is unproductive due to the lack of many of the participants are people who have never even voted, attended a council meeting, or have never contacted their representatives. It is disappointing his money could be used to bring about a positive impact, however, he chooses ways to manipulate chaos in communities.

Leave a Reply