Aryeh Neier is president emeritus of the Open Society Foundations (OSF). From 1993 to 2012 he was president of George Soros’s Open Society Institute, and before that served for 12 years as executive director of Human Rights Watch, which he co-founded in 1978. He spent 15 years at the American Civil Liberties Union, including eight years as national executive director. He served as an adjunct professor of law at New York University for more than a decade, and has also taught at Georgetown University Law School and the University of Siena (Italy). Since 2012, he has served as distinguished visiting professor at the Paris School of International Affairs of Sciences Po. He has published widely and is the author of seven books. We spoke to Aryeh about human rights violations in today’s world and about measures governments and organizations should take to protect humanity.
А.Y.: You have tremendous experience in the world of human rights advocacy. Which human rights violations pose the greatest risk in the world today?
A.N.: Unfortunately there are quite a lot of armed conflicts in the world. Obviously, the conflict in Syria, now underway way for six years, has had the most devastating impact. There are other conflicts that have been going on for a long time in Afghanistan, in Pakistan (not so much of an out-and-out conflict, but certainly a lot of abuses of conflict-related variety), in Africa, i.e. South Sudan, the Central African Republic, the conflict with Boko Haram in Nigeria, the conflict with Al-Shabaab in Somalia and nearby countries. We have a lot of issues to deal with in all parts of the world.
А.Y.: Could you talk about human rights violations and the responsibilities and accountability of governments? Will the situation change if governments take more responsibility, and what kind of steps should be taken?
A.N.: Eleven years ago the UN Security Council adopted something called “responsibility to protect.” This requires governments to protect their citizens. It also provided for extraordinary circumstances in which the international community ought to intervene. Unfortunately, today there is general cynicism about this concept. A number of countries did intervene in Libya a few years ago and the situation there deteriorated since then. Now countries are concerned that intervention can make matters worse.
That’s one of the difficulties in Syria. Certainly, the United States’s reluctance to intervene in the conflict reflects its very bad experience in Libya. Today it’s extremely difficult to develop an international consensus on what has to be done to deal with various conflicts, and it makes it almost impossible for the international community to do anything effective.
We have made certain advances, albeit limited, in the past 100 years. Before, people could argue they did not know what was going on with regard to crimes against humanity and Genocide. That’s no longer the case. Now there is far more information available through journalists, human rights organizations and different international institutions.
At the time of the Armenian Genocide, it was individuals who reported what was happening – for example, the U.S. Ambassador in Turkey Henry Morgenthau sent information to Washington. But there was no press coverage, no human rights organizations, only a couple of ad hoc groups. During World War II there was some information available on what happened in the death camps, but most people would say they didn’t know. And today it’s unfortunate that even with the knowledge and institutions we have, we still seem unable to act effectively in some situations.
А.Y.: How did you arrive at the idea of establishing Human Rights Watch?
A.N.: We started on a very small scale in 1975, when 35 nations from Europe and North America signed the Helsinki Accords and a group was established in Moscow to monitor the Soviet Union’s compliance with the accords’ human rights provisions. The men who organized that were soon sent to prison in the Soviet Union. A few of us in the United States decided to undertake efforts and protect people who were fighting for human rights. Gradually, we expanded. The most important thing Human Rights Watch did was to extend its work to armed conflicts. Before that our efforts had focused on political imprisonment and torture.
А.Y.: Open Society Foundations work worldwide, concentrating on youth, education, freedom of speech, government and accountability, health issues, rights and justice. Can you highlight a project that is particularly important to you?
A.N.: I became president of OSF during the war in Bosnia. One of the things we tried to do was to save civilians. We allocated $50 million for it. We undertook humanitarian and human rights projects. One of the projects was in Sarajevo, which was besieged and the water supply to the city was cut off. We managed to build a new water supply system, saving the lives of many people who risked being shot at by snipers while carrying gallons of water home from the wells.
On the human rights side, we advocated for the creation of what was to become an international tribunal for former Yugoslavia. Other campaigns I would mention are early childhood education and public health projects that had a significant impact, and scholarships. For example, in Myanmar, university education almost disappeared under the dictatorship. Students led the rebellion against the military regime in 1988 and the authorities closed the universities. We provided thousands of scholarships for young people to study outside Burma. Today, Burma is transitioning to democracy.
А.Y.: Having worked with human rights organizations for over 40 years, where do you see the international human rights movement going?
A.N.: In the early years of the Cold War, the conflict between the Soviet Union and the West was often portrayed in economic terms: capitalism vs. communism. The human rights movement helped bring about a shift in which the emphasis was on the conflict between liberty and repression.
Western countries, the United States among them, supported military dictatorships in different parts of the world because they were anti-communist. The human rights movement managed to embarrass the West, pointing out the inconsistency. As a result, Western countries began withdrawing their support for military dictatorships, thus allowing homegrown movements in these countries to overthrow military dictatorships.
We thought the 1990s would be a golden period for human rights, but it did not work that way – war in Yugoslavia, Genocide in Rwanda, other problems in Africa, terrorism becoming an international factor. Today we see less willingness on the part of governments to lead the effort to promote human rights. It is the non-governmental human rights movement that must be the leading force, even though now it has less capacity to influence the policies of governments than before. There are advances, but also serious setbacks.
A.Y. What do you expect from the next generation?
A.N.: Today there is a large number of professionally trained young people. Whenever things going on in the world make me unhappy, I am consoled by the fact that today there are people with professional training who are committed to the cause. I hope they will have the skills and imagination to make a difference. Back in my early career we made mistakes, we did not do what we could have done because we did not have professional skills and we had to learn on the job. Our colleagues today can be more effective than we were.
A.Y.: Who inspired your work over the years?
A.N.: In 1950s there was a man in the United States named Norman Thomas. He ran for president six times as the candidate of a small socialist party, a very anti-Communist party. He spoke about human rights abuses in the Soviet Union and civil rights issues in the United States. In 1956 there was the Hungarian Revolution and the government was led by Imre Nagy, who chose Anna Kéthly as foreign minister. She flew to New York in November 1956 to ask the United Nations for protection against the Soviet Union. When Anna arrived, she went directly to Norman Thomas, whom she regarded as her supporter. At that time, Norman was due to speak at Cornell University where 2,000 people attended his speech. After that he went to one of the college houses and spent all night speaking to the students about Hungary and what was going on there, and how the world should support the Hungarian revolution. That was a very meaningful occasion for me and I got involved in student activism.
Martin Luther King also had a big influence on me. The first article I wrote for the student newspaper was on the Montgomery Bus Boycott. And then I had the opportunity to invite Martin Luther King to an event I had helped to organize. He and Norman Thomas inspired me to devote my efforts to protecting human rights.
A.Y.: On April 24, 2016, the first Laureate of the Aurora Prize for Awakening Humanity will be announced. What are your thoughts on this new award in the humanitarian field?
A.N.: When I first spoke to Ruben Vardanyan, I wondered how many people there might be who would deserve the Aurora Prize. But after reviewing all nominations I actually found quite a few people who seemed to be deserving of such a prize. I was very pleased to have the opportunity to review the nominations, though it was extremely difficult.
The conflict in the Central African Republic has divided Muslims and Christians. One of the nominees was Father Bernard Kinvi, a young Catholic priest whom I have met and who was bringing Muslims from other districts into his church for protection. It seems almost certain to me that had he not done that, putting his own life and the lives of his colleagues at the church at great risk, those people would have died. The prize is designed for people like that. This prize is likely to draw attention to people who saved lives in this fashion.
A.Y. What would you say to the world about awakening humanity?
A.N.: Since the 1915 Genocide against the Armenians and the World War II Genocide against the Jews and the Roma, the world has adopted many international agreements and created many international institutions to try stop history from repeating itself. Also, we know more about such crimes much sooner and in much greater detail than ever before. Yet, as current events in Syria indicate, it is not enough. Large-scale slaughter continues. To prevent these crimes, or to stop them when they start, it is necessary for people everywhere to insist on stopping them and to hold those responsible accountable. Those who risk their own lives to save others, like physicians in Syria who care for the wounded, play an especially important role in awakening humanity.