HRW's reports are subjective and selective

Yet again, Human Rights Watch goes after the UAE continuing its sweeping generalisations

There is no doubt that Human Rights Watch (HRW) is an important group that tries to spotlight human-rights abuses and influence decision makers to stop those abuses. But over the past few years, the group has focused on the UAE, home to a thriving community of millions of expatriate workers and an important member of the global network of humanitarian aid donors.

With sweeping generalisations and the omitting of important factors, including recent progressive legislations, the group has again concluded, in its annual report that was released in Dubai yesterday, “the UAE’s human-rights situation worsened, particularly for migrant workers, against the backdrop of a worsening economy.”

The report says “tens of thousands” of workers returned to their home countries. Firstly, there is no clear indication of how the HRW got the number of “tens of thousands.” Is the number 10,000 or 90,000? Is this the way by which the group tries to build its credibility in the region?

Secondly, even if we assume the number, which the report doesn’t specify, is correct, one cannot see the abuse of human rights here.

The UAE is not different from any other country that has been impacted by the global financial crisis. Naturally, the businesses affected had to either downsize or, in some cases, put projects on hold, which would affect the workforce. Other angles of the report were relevant to the judicial system. But yet again, it has taken one case to make a generalised statement about justice in this country. On the labour issue, the report has completely ignored all recent legislation that drastically improves the conditions of workers — most recently the Wage Protection System, for example.

Finally, the report is one of several written on the situation in the Middle East. One subject has curiously not been addressed though: the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza due to the Israeli blockade and daily attacks. Is this because HRW doesn’t want to jeopardise its funding in the US? We are just wondering.