Here are some excerpts from its executive summary and introduction:
Given the importance of women’s rights and their contribution to the development of society, the promotion of liberal democracy, and the strengthening of other human rights, they should be a primary focus of the most prominent human rights NGOs, specifically Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (HRW). And as noted above, given that women’s rights are the least protected within MENA countries, it would seem to follow that these organizations should direct significant resources and sustained campaigning toward promoting women’s rights within the MENA region.
As NGOs with huge budgets rivaling those of multinational corporations, and with tremendous influence among policy makers and in UN frameworks, Amnesty and HRW have a distinct advantage in championing women’s rights. Research and advocacy by these organizations can give women’s issues international prominence. Conversely, violations ignored by Amnesty and HRW may lead the media, academics, and policy makers to conclude that these problems are not serious enough to warrant attention.
Despite the advantages of being well-funded, highly organized, and powerful actors, campaigning on women’s rights in the MENA region leading up to the Arab Spring was not a priority for Amnesty and HRW. While these NGOs project an image of prioritizing women’s rights, both quantitative and qualitative analyses of their activities demonstrate that this is not, in fact, an accurate assessment. Amnesty’s and HRW’s campaigning was sporadic and impressionistic, without sustained advocacy, and not aimed at achieving concrete objectives.
Instead, these groups chose to focus on issues related to criminal detention, armed conflict, and counter-terrorism. Often, the NGO agenda appeared to be driven by media interest and prominent world events, or as a foil to U.S. policy.
Because of the core agenda drivers for these NGOs, there was relatively little campaigning on women’s issues in the MENA region from 1990 through 2011. There was no reporting at all for some MENA countries; in other instances, the minimal reporting soft-peddled abuses by repressive governments. As a result, these NGOs were ill-prepared to deal with the Arab Spring upheavals.
In the aftermath of the Arab Spring, sustained campaigning by these NGOs has been all the more important given the ascendancy of Islamist parties and the backlash against women throughout the region. There is a sense of urgency among women activists for the need to “create a strong body to lobby and advocate for rights” in order to prevent further deterioration. This period of tremendous uncertainty, however, has not seen Amnesty and HRW step in to fill the vacuum.
...With regards to Amnesty, for example, external consultants hired by the NGO to evaluate its women’s rights program found that “there is little evidence that Amnesty International was able to use its ‘might’ (name and reputation, resources, research and campaign work) to ‘change the global conversation’, ”12 and further concluded that “Women’s rights are not yet part of Amnesty International’s DNA.”13 The evaluators noted many problems, including that new campaigns “lack any explicit analysis of or com- mitment to women’s rights, despite a commitment to gender being explicit in [Amnesty’s strategic plan],”14 “Some staff do not see the need to learn about or work on women’s rights; it is still seen as optional,”15 and “with the ending of [the Violence Against Women (VAW) program] the number of staff employed to work on VAW and women’s rights has declined.”16 The main recommendation in the evaluation was that “a clear plan for ensuring that Amnesty International takes women’s rights seriously is needed urgently.”17
For HRW, no case better illustrates the NGOs soft-peddling approach on women’s issues in the MENA region than its activities relating to Saudi Arabia. HRW acknowledges that the situation for women in Saudi Arabia is untenable.18 Yet, despite this recognition, the organization has undertaken little substantive and sustained campaigning on the fundamental issues relating to women in the Kingdom. Instead, it has chosen to focus on relatively minor concerns that may garner media attention, but have had little to no impact on eliminating systemic abuse.
HRW’s reporting on Saudi Arabia has also included analyses of whether its repressive guardianship system is required under Islamic law – a discussion that would be unthinkable, for instance, in HRW reports on gay rights and abortion in Catholic countries. Moreover, HRW’s reporting on Saudi Arabia is hesitant and often lacks the language of demand, certainty, urgency, and immediacy, and offers praise for the most minor and illusory of rights reforms. In contrast to recommendations in reports on the U.S., Israel, and other countries, there is no call for external intervention by other nations and international institutions, no demand for the establishment of international investigations or fact-finding inquiries, no call for the imposition of international sanctions and embargoes, and no demand for international prosecutions or other hard-hitting measures.
This approach has also been coupled with offensive statements by HRW’s leadership such as Executive Director Ken Roth who has written “Of new #Saudi reforms for women municipal voting, Olympics a greater work role, even if segregated, will matter most.” It is inconceivable that Roth would have made similar statements relating to African-Americans or other minority groups.
The most troubling aspect of HRW’s soft approach is that it appears to coincide with a new strategy by the organization to intensify fundraising from Gulf elites. This financing plan raises numerous ques- tions regarding the impact of such funding on HRW’s priorities and agenda setting, as well as HRW’s commitment to moral and ethical principles.
...The research also demonstrates that Amnesty and HRW officials’ attitudes towards rights abuses against women in the Middle East is largely motivated by post-colonial ideology and a fear of being labeled “Western” or “Islamophobic.” The failure to report and the “soft-peddling” of abuses also appears to be driven by a desire not to be seen as supporting the policies of the U.S. government.
Additionally, in discussing abuses against women, Amnesty and HRW often employ language that is much softer than that used to describe alleged violations committed by Western countries, reflecting a tendency by these groups to opine on politics, promote specific regimes, and justify religious strictures. In many cases, as will be described in the report, rather than documenting and condemning offenses, Amnesty and HRW gave praise and encouragement to abusive regimes. In several instances, these NGOs marketed a façade of regime reforms that were mostly illusory, as in Saudi Arabia, and even false, as in the case of Libya. In other examples, and in contrast to the approach towards Western or non- Muslim countries, these NGOs relied on Islamic precepts for their analyses, rather than the standards established by international human rights law. And in still other cases, these organizations actively promoted those who oppose true political and social freedom for women such as Amnesty’s embrace of a Taliban supporter and HRW’s stance towards the Muslim Brotherhood. In essence, these organizations have chosen a “kid-gloves” approach to promote change in dictatorial societies rather than engaging in hard-hitting advocacy, tough “naming and shaming,” and application of universal, internationally-adopted human rights standards.
As will be shown in this report, HRW and Amnesty have allowed ideology and politics to prevail at the expense of true freedom for women. Doing so has compromised the role of these organizations as independent “non-governmental” actors that monitor and report on universal human rights. Had a different, more sustained, hardline approach been adopted or even just attempted by these organizations, perhaps women’s rights would be far more advanced in the MENA region, and the Arab Spring would have truly led to positive change for women.