|
William
Schulz's book, published in 2001 by Beacon Press, grew out
of the need to answer the question: "Why should I care
about human rights?"
|
DFN: Hi! Welcome
to DFN's online chat with William Schulz, director of Amnesty
USA and author of In Our Own Best Interest: How Defending Human
Rights Benefits Us All. He is on hand to answer questions
about his book and the current state and future of human rights.
I am Robert, your moderator.
Jacqueline:
Hi Robert! Hi Dr. Schulz!
DFN: Welcome,
Dr. Schulz!
Bill_Schulz:
Hi. I am happy to be here.
DFN: Your book
was published in April of last year. After September 11, many
have said that Americans have been made acutely aware of how human
rights abuses in the Middle East can have a tragic effect upon
us Americans. Do you think September 11 caused a permanent shift
in our interest beyond our own borders, or is it a passing interest
that is already subsiding?
|
"[September
11] is a perfect example of how by ignoring human
rights issues we put our own national interest in
jeopardy."
|
|
Bill_Schulz:
DFN, my hope surely is that the interest will be ongoing. Sept.
11 dramatically illustrated the fundamental thesis of my book.
To take Saudi Arabia, for example, 60 percent of the nation is
young men under the age of 25, many of them alienated from their
corrupt government. There is an extremely great differential between
rich and poor. There is no democracy for people to change their
government or make their voices known. Absent such democratic
channels, those young men turn to the hate-filled messages of
religious extremism. The U.S. has ignored this for many years
in the interest of keeping the flow of oil going. Here is a perfect
example of how by ignoring human rights issues we put our own
national interest in jeopardy. I hope this is a lesson we have
learned and that will not be repeated. But I am not entirely sanguine
about Americans' capacity to remember.
DFN: Thank you.
Any questions you have for Mr. Schulz, please submit them at any
time. Given that human rights abuses the world over affect us,
what should be our course of action? Can't a person spread him
or herself too thin if he or she gets upset and involved with
human rights violations? What should a person take an interest
in and what can he or she—with a good conscience—tune
out?
Bill_Schulz:
It is certainly true that humans only have so much energy or so
much power. That is why organizations like Amnesty exist. They
allow a person to multiply his or her reach or power. Amnesty
has a program for example through our Web site (www.amnestyusa.org)
that allows individuals to send a message electronically to a
government holding prisoners unjustly. That program has freed
6 of the first 8 cases it has adopted. This is a concrete example
of how individuals can deeply affect others.
Clearly, we can't care
about every human soul, but we CAN build structures of accountability
for governments to affect human rights. I am referring to the
UNHRC or the International Court which allow us to increase the
likelihood that human rights will be respected throughout the
world. So we work to save individuals, but we create a structure
that can save tens of thousands.
DFN: What cases
are you referring to when you say you saved 6 specifically?
Bill_Schulz:
Let me give you an example of a young man named Ngawang Choephel
who was a musicologist specializing in traditional Tibetan music
and who traveled to Tibet in July, 1995 to make a video. He was
arrested by the Chinese authorities and sentenced to 18 years,
and was imprisoned until just a few weeks ago. Thanks to thousands
or messages both through e-mail and snail mail, Shoephel was freed.
That is just one example of thousands of prisoners of conscience
freed since 1961 when Amnesty was founded.
DFN: Please
feel free to ask Mr. Schulz what is on your mind. The Internet
has put Americans in touch with people and places the world over
as never before in history. You speak in your book about its effect
upon economic globalization, but has it had a profound effect
as well in raising peoples' conscientiousness, or has it deadened
them to the suffering of others like so much other mass media?
|
"There
is probably no more important development in the human
rights struggle in the last ten years than the spread
of electronic communication."
|
|
Bill_Schulz:
DFN, There is probably no development more important in the human
rights struggle in the last ten years than the spread of electronic
communication. It is practically impossible today for anyone to
be tortured or abused without others knowing about it instantaneously.
Amnesty uses the Internet
regularly to protect citizens of countries whose rights are denied
with information about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR). It is certainly true that the Amnesty Web site is blocked
in a place like China, but there are more creative ways made by
experts that will allow us to create a revolution in the human
rights struggle.
Olivia: Dear
Dr. Schulz, Would you care to comment on Amnesty's new mandate
and how affect what Amnesty does?
Bill_Schulz:
Olivia, traditionally, Amnesty has worked on a very narrow segment
of civil and political rights such as the right not to be tortured,
or the right for a fair trial. But these account for only a small
portion of all the abuses of human rights since the UDHR was adopted
in 1948. These other human rights include the right to food, to
housing, to education. The civil/political rights and social/economic/cultural
rights are interdependent.
One recent dramatic
example: As Afghanistan is being rebuilt, it is important to Amnesty
that those committing human rights injustice must be brought to
justice, that Afghanistan has a functioning judiciary, etc. All
of these civil and political rights are very important. BUT if
the people of Afghanistan don't have enough food or shelter it
is highly unlikely that they will create a functioning judiciary
or train their army in respecting human rights. Amnesty is thus
trying to rebuild the social/economic structures of Afghanistan
because we recognize that without social/economic rights being
there, there is no hope that civil/political rights will ever
be fully instituted. This change in Amnesty's mandate is a profound
one, and it will take place gradually as we work more with social/economic
rights, but it is essential if human rights are ever to made fully
realized in the developing world.
DFN: Thank you.
Olivia: The
United States has historically been reluctant to embrace economic,
social and cultural rights. Do you think the popular mood is changing?
Bill_Schulz:
Olivia, it is certainly true that the U.S. has always worried
that if it recognizes the right to housing or employment it will
somehow be committing its government to subsidize housing and
employment. This is a misunderstanding of social and economic
rights. To recognize an economic right to housing is not to say
the government itself should provide that housing, but it is to
say that the government must make every good faith effort to see
that housing is made available in an equitable fashion whether
through public subsidy or private investment or through some co-op
status.
As we become more sophisticated
about explaining social rights then those who have been hesitant
in implementing them, then we will realize it is in our own best
interest to implement them. My guess then is that in the next
ten years that these rights will be more accepted in the U.S.
and the larger world than they are today.
DFN: Thank
you.
Olivia: You
mention private investment. Does Amnesty lobby non-state actors?
Bill_Schulz:
Olivia, yes indeed. Amnesty recognizes that corporations for example
are a major player both negatively and potentially positively
in the struggle for human rights. Though Amnesty never calls for
economic sanctions against companies (simply because as an international
movement we could never get agreement on who to boycott), nonetheless,
we do publicize which companies may be responsible for human rights
violations.
We work also with
companies to be partners in the struggle for businesses to have
greater respect for human rights. We also work with other non-state
actors such as tribal leaders in countries where female circumcision
is practiced. Because Amnesty is international, we have members
in other countries where our members try to encourage those tribal
leaders to accept women's rights. It is not just governments by
any means who are recipients of our pressure.
DFN: Thank you.
A pause for station identification. We are speaking with Bill
Schulz, Director of Amnesty USA and author of In Our Own Best
Interest. Feel free to submit your questions.
Amy: FGM [female
genaital mutilation] seems to be more of a civil or political
right. Can you give examples of concrete steps to implement the
right to food and housing in the US?
Bill_Schulz:
As I said a moment ago, Amnesty has just moved into the area of
social and economic rights, so we have not yet been involved ourselves
for the struggle for adequate food and housing in the U.S. We
recognize that organizations like Second Harvest and Habitat for
Humanity have worked very hard for food and harvesting respectively.
We have long recognized that the rights to food and housing are
bona fide rights, which the U.S. had often tried to deny. But
our work in the U.S. has been forced upon issues such as the death
penalty, police brutality, and the rights of political asylum
seekers.
Olivia: Has
Amnesty engaged in the recent debate over international humanitarian
law?
Bill_Schulz:
Olivia, I need to know which aspect of the debate you are referring
to.
DFN: Olivia,
can you be more specific?
Olivia: I'm
thinking about Guantanamo Bay and the treatment of the detainees
there, whether or not they are PoWs.
|
We
should follow the Geneva Conventions now with prisoners
in Guantanamo Bay so others might employ them with
American prisoners later on, argues Schulz.
|
|
Bill_Schulz:
Olivia, yes, Amnesty has been one of the leading spokespersons
for the prisoners to be treated in accordance with the Geneva
Conventions. Indeed, I published an op-ed in the NY Times saying
that the prisoners should have rights. If there are any questions
about the status of their rights, that status is to be resolved
by a "competent tribunal." In this case, that should
be a competent civilian court. Every case should be brought before
that court, and that court should decide whether those prisoners
are bona fide prisoners of war.
The U.S. has been resistant
to make a court make that decision; this is a violation of the
Geneva Conventions. This is a problem when you think that President
Bush said this will be a long war with American servicemen stationed
throughout the world. It means that some of these servicemen will
be captured. The best hope we will have then to prevent their
torture or execution will be the Geneva Convention. If we have
not been living up to this in Guantanamo, the likelihood WE will
be given that respect is greatly diminished.
DFN: Thank
you. We have twenty more minutes. Feel free ot ask.
DFN: This is
from an e-mail we received: I am a conservative, church-attending
student from a relatively liberal college campus in the East Coast
where there is a lot of talk of respect for other peoples' lifestyles.
I read with interest the section in your book where you discuss
different approaches to coming up with a universal code of ethics.
I personally find it very hard. I mean, if you discount the Bible,
eventually it does seem to come down to one group's vision of
morality onto another people. Okay, so we say that clitorectomy
is wrong, but Africans say it is part of the culture. Is circumcision
wrong then as well? And if so, why then do we allow it? Is it
because WE as a people do it?
Bill_Schulz:
It is the genius of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
that it was voted into creation by a unanimous vote of the U.N.
with only 2 abstentions. Since that time every country has implicitly
agreed to abide by the strictures of the UDHR, even though many
countries fail to make their practices conform to those ideals.
Nonetheless, the UDHR refers to "customary international
law" which maens that all countries in the world are expected
to conform to its provisions. This is therefore not a case of
one group of people lording their values over everybody else.
These are values affirmed over every country in the world.
In the case of female
circumcision, in the countries where the practices are found the
laws actually outlaw female circumcision. Far too frequently,
however, because the victims of it have little power and they
can't affect the power of their own laws. What the international
organizations then say is: "You agreed to the UDHR, so you
need to effect those laws, particularly for those who don't have
power." While I respect anyone who draws their source for
human rights from the Bible or Natural Law, I don't believe we
need to turn to those sources for a description of human rights
because that description has already been agreed to by almost
all the countries in the world through the UDHR.
DFN: Interesting.
Follow ups? We have 15 more minutes with Dr. Schulz.
Are all human rights
abuses equally significant in their impact upon Americans? Can't
I say what goes on in the Middle East is more important to me—from
the viewpoint of pure self-interest— than what goes on in
Africa?
Bill_Schulz:
DFN, it is certainly true that some human rights violations have
a greater impact on Americans' self-interest than others. If someone
is tortured in Papua, New Guinea, for example, (which is a place
with little impact in the US) then that victim's fate will have
lesser impact than say a suicide bomber in the Middle East. Thus,
as I say in my book, the primary reason for human rights is a
moral one. On the other hand, it is far too easy for Americans
to recognize how the failure of human rights do indeed impact
our fate.
So to take the example
of AIDS, the dictator of Uganda, Idi Amin, engaged in a vicious
military action that resulted in massive refugee camps and widespread
prostitution. What seemed like a remote event had worldwide consequences.
Another example: the
Russian neglect of prisoners has resulted in a virulent form of
tuberculosis and has spread throughout the world. Today, that
strain of TB is found in the U.S. Although it is difficult to
say which human rights abuses will "come back haunt us,"
it is the better part of wisdom to try and stamp them out, even
in the most remote corners of the globe.
Amy: So, how
do you argue that it's in the U.S.'s own best interest to provide
AIDS drugs (at low cost) to African countries.
Olivia: I agree
with your point about the UDHR representing a global consensus,
though there is usually a reluctance to attempt revision of international
treaties (e.g Refugee Convention) for fear we will lose ground.
Bill_Schulz:
Olivia, the UDHR is not the only human rights document. It has
been expanded and covered by others. Some other forces in the
world, who would like to dilute the power of human rights conventions,
make it essential for groups like Amnesty to respect the human
rights that have been hard-fought and hard-won. Those include
the refugee protections, of course.
Amy: Mr. Schulz—can
you talk about the effect of the rampant nature of HIV/AIDS in
Africa on the U.S.?
Bill_Schulz:
Amy, that's a fairly simple one in that disease knows no continental
boundaries. HIV-AIDS—which can be transmitted simply through
the exchange of bodily liquids—is ripe for further explosions
if it is not adequately contained. Millions of people travel from
the U.S. to Africa and vice versa. There is no way to isolate
Americans from the health impact of HIV-AIDS's spreading. So it
makes sense—aside from the moral reasons—to recognize
that our own health and our own fate is linked to the African
continent. If one looks at this from a mercenary viewpoint, then
it makes sense that one will not drum up business from a ravaged
people. Those Americans who have an interest in economic issues
should be among the loudest advocates to treat HIV-AIDS in Africa.
DFN: One more
question for Dr. Schulz?
Billy: Thanks
Mr. Schulz. Your work is very important in the world, now more
than ever!
Amy: Thanks
for taking the time to chat with such a small group!
Bill_Schulz:
It's my pleasure.
DFN: One more
question, please, from the mailbag? This person writes: "I
come from a Christian social justice background and I was wondering
if he could elaborate more on his view of the link between spirituality
and justice. In addition, how did he discover for himself the
link between his spiritual background and working for human rights.
It has often been a discussion between myself and others if there
is a "chicken and the egg" relation, i.e.: did your
views on justice arise from Christianity or were they separate
and then attached? I hope that is clear!"
Bill_Schulz:
Okay, well, I apppreciate the interest in my book. Let me say
first. I was raised as a Universalist and was a minister. For
me, faith and justice are intimately intertwined. I am not sure
which comes first, because one affects another. No one can, for
example, work in the slums of Calcutta and then choose to follow
that any spiritual path that neglects to speak of the immensity
of human suffering. To feel at one with God or the universe or
however one conceives of a world larger than ourselves, gives
one the understanding that the privileges we might have are not
given to many people. Any understanding of spirituality that fails
to give that feeling of empathy is a vapid and desiccated form
of spirituality. Religion and justice can never part hands.
Olivia: I'm
glad to hear you discussing 'higher' motives. I am saddened when
we have to resort to self-interested arguments to defend human
rights.
Bill_Schulz:
Yes. Well, thank you all for coming. I appreciate all your thoughtful
questions.
DFN: Thank you,
Dr. Schulz. DFN's next chats will be announced on our home page.
*** Bill_Schulz has
quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
Billy: Will
a transcript of this chat appear on DFN's site?
DFN: Yes. The
transcript will appear tomorrow on our Web Site, www.dfn.org.
Feel free to stay and chat amongst yourselves. How did everyone
like the chat?
Olivia: Good!
Let's do it again sometime.
|
