Focus 580; In Our Own Best Interest: How Defending Human Rights Benefits Us All

Good morning and welcome to focus 580 This is our telephone talk program. My name is David Inge and we are glad to have you listening this morning in the first part of the program. Today we'll be talking about human rights around the world. I think that a lot of people would make the argument that it's important for us to be concerned about human rights and fight for human rights on moral grounds perhaps also on legal grounds but often when the subject comes up people raise the question is it in our national interest here in the United States to be concerned about human rights. This morning our guest I think would say yes indeed that is the answer to that question if it is indeed in our national interest. Our guest is William Schulz. He is executive director of Amnesty International USA and was appointed to that position in March of 1994. He is an ordained Unitarian Universalist minister. He came amnesty after serving for 15 years with the Unitarian Universalist Association of congregations. The last eight as president of that. And he's authored a book that

explores this. Very question what exactly what sort of interest we have here in this country and human rights. The title of his book is in our own best interest in the subtitle How defending human rights benefits us all. It's published by the Beacon Press. And as we talk this morning with Dr. SCHULTZ your questions and comments are certainly welcome the number here in Champaign Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 we also have a toll free line that's good anywhere that you can hear us and that is 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5 so locally 3 3 3 W I L L or 9 4 5 5 that's for Champaign-Urbana folks. And then anywhere else that you might be listening around the Illinois Indiana any place the signal travel if you're interested in joining the conversation you may do that and we'll pay for the call. That's 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5 all we ask. Caller says that people just try to be brave so that we can accommodate as many different callers as possible but anyone is welcome

to be a part of the conversation. Dr. SCHULTZ Hello. Good morning David. Thank you very much for talking with us. My pleasure and you appreciate it. Just initially I think I'd like to get your reaction to a recent news development. And it certainly bears on this subject that this was just a couple of weeks ago at the beginning of May the United States was voted off the U.N. Human Rights Commission. That's right and that's the first time that has happened since this panel was set up under American leadership in 1947. And the response of some people in Congress was to withhold support from the United Nations because they felt snubbed. I now wonder what your reaction was both to the both to the action that is the United States being voted off the panel and then the response from some people in the U.S. government. There are two reasons that the United States was voted off the Human Rights Commission the first.

Is that the United States has been critical of a good many countries around the world for their human rights records and quite justifiably critical through our annual State Department human rights reports and through resolutions that we had introduced in the Human Rights Commission criticizing countries like Cuba and China and naturally those countries were not happy with that kind of criticism and were all too willing to join together to vote the U.S. off the commission. But the other reason is probably even more important and that is that many countries around the world including our European allies resent what I call American exceptionalism the notion that is widespread that the United States because it is a superpower because it is a beacon of moral righteousness as many American leaders would put it doesn't have to play by the same rules that apply to the rest of the world and so for example the United States has resisted being a part of the creation of a new international criminal court not because we think it's a bad

idea to bring tyrants to justice. But because we don't want American military servicemen and women themselves to potentially subjected to the jurisdiction of the court. That plus our withdrawal from the Kyoto environmental treaty agreement for example our resistance to the landmines treaty has created a good deal of resentment among many of our allies and they too were sending I think a shot across the bow here and I suspect that the reaction of the House of Representatives which you just mentioned in voting to withhold the last third of our pledged dues to ignited nations simply reinforce that sense of American arrogance the sense that the U.S. if it doesn't win a vote in the U.N. is going to take up its marbles in this case it's significant financial marbles and go home and I think that's an unfortunate signal to say. Then I might say that it appears as if President Bush agrees he has disapproved of the House action and my expectation

is that he to the Senate will not confirm the House action where the president will take action as he can to make sure that those final ONE-THIRD dues payments are paid. Perhaps he could talk a little bit about and this is I know it's difficult it's a large question but something you can say something about their record of the United States in supporting human rights around the world. I think it's the case. Certainly we wouldn't say that the United States has failed completely. However some people I think would say that there are there have been lapses or perhaps there have been instances in which that we have we have decided that it was in our interest to support a particular regime in spite of the fact that their human rights record was poor and so some people would say are our record in supporting human rights has been checkered at best. Can you say something. Make some overall kind of statement about it. I think that your characterization of the record as checkered or mixed is an accurate one. Certainly it's true that the United States has been forthright in many

situations in supporting dissidents around the world. I think for example of on song Suchi who is the leading proponent. Point of democracy in Burma Burma is one of the most repressive countries the United States has supported unsung Suchi has encouraged U.S. companies to withdraw from investments in Burma. The United States has as I said been the sponsor of resolutions condemning China's human rights record and quite justifiably so for that. But in other instances of course the United States has unfortunately been a partner with regimes. We go back for example to the Pinochet regime in Chile in the 1970s where we certainly aligned ourselves with that regime. We're in part I suspect responsible for the overthrow of a democratically elected government there and of course the same is true in some of our ventures in Central America as well. So there is no question but what the U.S. has a mixed record and a mixed record of course here at home as well which

affects our credibility when we criticize countries overseas when the United States for example allows police. Doctor when we allow for prison conditions that include in some cases systemic rape of women in prison by guards or with the connivance of guards when we are the leading export or of torture equipment equipment used for torture electroshock but the ones say aerated some costs and separated handcuffs and leg chains. The U.S. says some 60 day time companies manufacturing and exporting this material. When we continue to practice the death penalty which is a violation of international human rights norms when we put asylum seekers political asylum seekers who come here because they've been persecuted for standing up for American values in their own country and instead of welcoming them and adjudicating their quick cases quickly we throw them into county jails with the regular criminal population. So in some of these ways unfortunately our own domestic wreck. It has also diminished our credibility as a

critic of human rights elsewhere around the world. I'm sure that we can discuss this question in some detail but let me ask the big question and it's my understanding though interestingly enough that this book had it's had its beginnings in a radio interview that you were doing where the host of the show said put it to you and I'm sure that other people have asked the same question. They've said well you know yes it's on one level think we have to say respect for human rights is very important but what really is it to me here living and then all this. This guy was in Knoxville right now here. We did we could say the same thing for us you know here in Urbana Illinois in downstate Illinois really what is it to us if we respect human rights in Indonesia or in Latin America having Africa or any place outside the United States. That's right. The interviewer had a very good question I thought he said. I'm sure we all agree that these violations you've been talking about torture political killings disappearances these are

morally repugnant of course but to someone living here in east Tennessee or in Central Illinois who's scratching out a living worried about paying a mortgage or sending a kid to college what difference do these violations make to to him or to her and I thought that was a very good question and moreover a question that we in the human rights movement really stop to answer because we are so convinced of the moral righteousness of our cause and of course I think it is a morally righteous cause but that alone is not enough to build a movement with mainstream America. And so I set out in this book to try to answer that question systematically dealing with the ways in which human rights violations negatively affect our national security arm our military interest for example negatively affect our jobs and our economic investments negatively affect our environmental and public health negatively affect population control and many other things and. More than happy to explore it whichever of those you're interested in or let me introduce again.

Our guest for anyone who's tuned in in the last few minutes we're speaking with Dr. William Schulz. He is the executive director of Amnesty International USA and has authored a book that explores this topic. A subject we're talking about here so if you'd like to read more you can look for the book it's titled in our own best interest how defending human rights benefits us all it's published by the Beacon Press in Boston and questions are welcome here 2 3 3 3 0 or 9 4 5 5. We also have toll free line good anywhere that you can hear us and that is eight hundred to 2 2 9 4 5 5 perhaps before going on to specifically talking about some of the dimensions of this question why it is in our interest. Perhaps you should talk a little bit about what when we talk about human rights what is it we're really talking about what do we mean when we use that phrase. Well human rights fundamentally derives from the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was created by the UN Human Rights Commission at the behest of the United

States I want to Roosevelt was chair of that commission when the document was passed and. And then it was passed by the United Nations and every country that joins the United Nations implicitly agrees to support the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration and those include such things as the right to a fair trial the right not to be tortured. The right to express one's political nonviolent political and religious beliefs the right to free press and free speech other rights though in the social Necronomicon arena the right to health care the right to housing that sort of thing. Those are the fundamental human rights that every human being compelled can claim you know. Of course there had throughout history been many other statements from the time of the modern a card to the US Bill of Rights during the French Revolution the declaration on the Rights of Man and the citizen. But all of those. Had applied only to one particular nation or nationality or group of people and the genius

of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which of course came into being just a few years after the Holocaust was that it guaranteed rights to everybody including my enemies. So it was not just like the US Bill of rights that apply only to Americans it is applied to every single human being simply by virtue of their being human. And there have over the years gradually been a great many covenants treaties conventions dealing with issues like genocide or the rights of women with the rights of prisoners and so on which have grown up over the years. But the fundamental human rights that everyone can claim are the ones that articulated in the Universal Declaration. We have two callers So let's bring them into the conversation we'll start first with someone in Lafayette in Indiana line number four. Hello. Caller. For well maybe to change their mind let's go here to southern Illinois. Line 1. Hello how you doing. I can't understand what you're talking about but

what I don't understand is you know we we're concerned with human rights and stuff like that but those human rights are invaded by single individuals I mean name a group upper somewhat. But but I don't understand how I mean it's these people within these other like we're a China for example. The people that's in the army that inflict that that persecution. They they are being pushed by some kind of invisible really non-existing so-called government. But but I mean it's just one or. Or people around a round table that actually have that control where is that power that causes that individual to inflict that stuff upon his own race's own people and that it makes no sense to me. I would think that if the people were educated by their parents or somewhat morally instilled they would have some kind of say and to know that's not right I'm not going to do that to my own people. And they would eventually be their own free will governmental person you know. I don't know how to say it but

I'm sure you understand talking about following up on this. Yeah well I think that it raises a very important question and one that I'm sure is very difficult. Yes we can talk about the importance of a policy and an attitude toward. Human rights as far as governments are concerned but individuals have to carry out the will of the government and. And when you get down to it I guess you do end up with a question of how is it that one individual finds it possible acceptable to torture another fellow human being. And isn't that will ultimately where the responsibility lies with the people who carry out the wishes of their governments. Well I think it applies in both places. That is it lies both with the government and with the individuals. Certainly governments are preeminently responsible for enforcing human rights because it is after all the governments that have agreed to affirm the Universal Declaration. Or it is a government that has signed on to the convention against torture for example and has agreed that

it will not have a government as a society to condone torture or participate in torture or allow torture within its own within its own boundaries. Now it is certainly true and the gentleman has asked a very profound philosophical. Some might say a religious question is indeed. At what point does any individual stand up and say in the face of great pressure from the government and no doubt the FRAP of imprisonment or punishment knows this that you are what you are asking me to do is morally wrong. And I think that that is always a profoundly difficult question. The fact is that that we know how torturers are made in large measure of the way that you get a police officer or military officer or anyone else to inflict cruelty on another person is to be cruel to him or her in the first place. And that's one reason that the training of torturers involves a lot of physical and emotional abuse against the torturer him or

herself. Long before there they are asked to inflict torture on a victim. And it is very difficult for any individual in the face of that kind of training and that kind of abuse particularly if there are no other social supports no other people or organizations in that society that are saying to the individual stop this don't do this. The government is wrong. Well we're talking in many cases. China is a good example about a government that prohibits political opposition prohibits independent non-governmental organizations like Amnesty or any other organization prohibits independent church or temple organizations from saying to individual Chinese citizens this is wrong you should not cooperate. That I think makes for an explosive context in which these kinds of violations do take place.

We have someone on a cell phone will go there next. Number one oh yeah there's a number of things I could say but what I would guess I was going to bring up was. With respect to how you see how people interact engage in such actions. I would require I would remind everyone of these infamous or famous Stanley Milgram experiments in which Milgram demonstrated that very normal everyday people off the street can in fact be. Coerced I suppose although it was very subtle coersion into doing very very very very horrible things. And in fact the this this was the infamous learner teacher experiment where the experiment was really on the teachers. And to see whether they would administer this electro shock therapy to improve learning rates or something like that under the sort of

when when they're subject to what they perceive as we're going of authority very large amount of people will crack and they just do and and I I don't know what to say about that. But it you know if you if you are willing to isolate someone. Inner strength you know in sort of a structure that sort of lets them off the hook as it were and says well I was following orders. Well no they'll do all sorts of things even if they would never contemplate doing that themselves. As I said there's a lot of other things I could say but I don't want to talk to oxer. Well I appreciate the comment doctor. You want to react to that. Well the gentleman has cited what is probably the most famous experiments in these areas. That's absolutely right essentially what happened is that subjects were told that they were administering electric shocks to victims. They were told that the shocks were getting greater and greater and even at

some point they were told that the victim was crying out they were told at one point that the victim had slumped over and a certain number of people a very significant percentage I don't remember the exact number but a certain very significant percentage of people continued. To administer this electric shock even to the point at which it was obvious that they had and were imposing extraordinary pain now of course in fact this was not happening. But but they certainly thought it was and I think that the gentleman correctly points out that that it is very hard for most people to resist the kind of authority in this case with the authority simply of a professor or a test administrator telling them to do something. In the case of a government where you have huge pressure and the possibility that you yourself will be severely punished if you don't agree well I'm not sure it's all that surprising that the vast majority of people go ahead and inflict the pain will continue we have another caller here the next person in line is in Aurora and it's all a lie number four.

Yes good morning. Two questions. Would anything be done about China and their slaughtering killing of 500 people in about four months because they want to lower their crime rate. And why doesn't the United Nations get involved in the problem between Palestine and Israel. Well first with regard to the question about China our caller is certainly correct that the Chinese execute more people than any other country on earth. Indeed Amnesty has documented that the Chinese execute between 1000 and 4000 people every year often often for quite what we would consider I think quite modest crimes such as stealing a bicycle or selling a faulty product or

even in one case pinching someone's bottom as they rode by on a bicycle. So it is it is certainly one of the most shocking aspects of Chinese practice. And in addition to that one of the motivations that the Chinese have for keeping the execution rate so high is that they then sell the internal organs body parts and body organs of those executed. Open market and they make a considerable profit from it. So it's a gruesome business and it's certainly one that you know that amnesty and many other human rights groups have criticized over the years very severely as to the motivation the United Nations with regard to the Middle East I can't speak for the United Nations. Amnesty is of course an entirely independent organization. We ourselves have been critical of very critical of the role of the Israeli military and government over the last few months of the intifada there the renewed intifada. We have also over the years to criticize the Palestinian Authority

for its torture of its own dissidents as well as for allowing the killing of Israeli citizens. But certainly at the moment there's no question but what the real reaction of the Israeli government includes a good many violations of Palestinian human rights. Thank you. Well thank you. I think probably it's also worth making the point that often people talk about the United Nations and what it is. Or is not doing. It's worth remembering that after all the United Nations is is no stronger no better no more effective than its member nations wish it to be. Sure it's just a it's just an organization made up of delegations from various countries often places where the governments of those countries cannot agree on what they want to do. It's an organization that admittedly perhaps has but had some administrative difficulties but probably is

underfunded and it doesn't help that from time to time that countries like the United States decide that because the United Nations has done something that the USA disagrees with the US then says well we're not going to pay our dues and if the organization doesn't have money to do its work then it won't be doing its work so sometimes I think it's not suggesting the caller was doing this but I sometimes I think it's unfair that people criticize the United Nations as if it was something more than that. Group of nations including ours. That's certainly unfair. We're at our little bit past our midpoint here just to mention again that our guest is Dr. William Schultz. He's executive director of Amnesty International USA and was appointed that post in March of 1994 he's an ordained you 10 Unitarian Universalist minister and came to amnesty after serving for 15 years with the Unitarian Universalist Association of congregations and has certainly been involved in human rights work many places around the world he's also by the way just

for you to take note of this is a graduate of the University of Chicago has a master's degree in philosophy from University of Chicago and master's degree in theology and doctor of ministry from the mead velt Lombard theological school at University of Chicago. And this subject by the way is the topic of a book that he's written. And if you're interested in reading more on the subject. The book is titled in our own best interest how defending human rights benefits us all that's published by the Beacon Press. And the questions are welcome three three three. W I L L or 9 4 5 5. That's what Champaign Urbana listeners toll free 800 1:58 wy I. Will go next. To back you locally to champagne and line number two. Hello good morning. Yes I have a kind of a question kind of a statement or something. I'm on the international. Commerce to group. Oh 10 15 years ago I don't know. And it sounded like a wonderful organization and everything and I always like to help you know people that are

in us. Well they wrote to me and said Would you write to such and such a government on behalf of such and such a person. Who's in prison there and being mistreated and everything they didn't tell me why it was in there or anything. And then right at the last It said he's a communist. And that threw up a red flag. Well maybe he was doing something that was against that government maybe that's the reason he's in prison. What kind of an organization am I am. Anyway I backed off and got out of it. And I just wonder. I guess communists need to be helped as much as other but. Well it's kind of shocking to me. But the first request that been made now what do you have to say about that. Well of course I don't know the details of the case that you're talking about but this is what this is what I will explain about amnesty. Amnesty believes in universal human rights

we believe that no human being regardless of their political or their religious beliefs if they have not practiced violence shouldn't that no human being should be subjected to unfair imprisonment that everyone who is charged with a crime should be given a fair trial and that no one whether they're a communist or any thing else should be tortured. Those are basic human rights that apply to someone who regards him or herself as a communist as much as they are applied to someone who is the most ardent capitalist. So. I don't again know the details of your particular case. It is certainly true that in the cases of those people who call themselves communists who were not involved in nonviolence they may well have been declared prisoners of conscience by amnesty that is people who violently advocated a political or religious point of view and were imprisoned for it. It's also true of course that Amnesty has always advocated for anti communists who have been thrown into

jail by communist governments So for example some of our major work during the years of the Soviet Union was to attempt to free Soviet dissident people who had opposed the Soviet government. Today for example we are among the most ardent critics of Fidel Castro and his holding of journalists and religious leaders and others who disagree with his regime and who do so nonviolently so. Amnesty protect everybody ma'am. Communist or not because we believe just as the U.S. Constitution assures American citizens that whether they are communist politically or not they cannot sacrifice certain rights to a fair trial and the right not to be tortured. So we believe that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees every human being the same rights as well. All right let's go on. Next caller is Belgium. Lie number three. Hello hello. Early in your discussion your jest suggested that he was going to show reasons why

and I meant International and its practices were going to be good for economic reasons. Well it seems to me that all the way through history and even going on today the native peoples of the world always been maligned seriously. For the economic advantage of those who are maligning them we on we do that not only to people but we do it to various species in our world. The animal and I and the vegetable of course flora and fauna. And it seems to me that we're all very very guilty of this in an economic sense because capitalism will just extort people easily every day whether it's in a foreign country or even in our own country where we try to push the wages down as far as we can and maximize the profits for the shareholders. Do you deal with any kind of that aspect of torture to the human spirit.

Well let me say that amnesty does not take a position. On economic systems again our job is to try to enforce civil and political rights under whatever system a country may adopt. But I certainly agree with the gentleman that for example the exploitation of labor is one of the ways in which Americans do suffer from human rights violations in 1999. Half a million Americans who were working in the manufacturing sector lost their jobs because U.S. companies moved to countries that deny workers in those countries the right to organize labor unions and hence denied them the right to campaign for a living wage and for better working conditions. It costs about eight dollars and thirty one cents an hour to make a T-shirt in New York with unionized workers in Bangladesh with non-unionized workers It costs about one cent an hour. Where does one suspect textile. Companies are going to prefer to do business. Of course they prefer to do the business in the developing countries

and that is just one example of part of my argument which is indeed that by allowing for the violation of indigenous people in this case Bangladeshis we not only of course harm them and their human rights but we also harm ourselves if we have any interest in keeping American jobs in in the manufacturing sector. The point I'm making sir though is that we even do it to our own citizenry. We do it to individuals. How long did we castigate the blacks and we made them slaves for two three hundred years and we still do it to everybody. Any incoming group that comes into the United States and immigrate to United State Well that's why Amnesty is one of the major defenders of the rights of political asylum seekers and and certainly as I said earlier on the program amnesty is one of the major opponents of police misconduct which is primarily aimed at people of color. One of the major opponents of injustice in

U.S. prisons which is primarily applicable to people of color are all of these issues. So I'm not pointing out the fact that the police do it. I'm pointing out the fact that you and I do it by economic reasons we say. I understand your point. All that I'm saying is I have outlined for you what Amnesty's job is. If you're interested as many people are in addressing economic rights issues and the impact of globalization on our economy there are many other organizations that work on those and we would encourage you to be part of them. Thank you. It will continue let's go to southern Illinois. Line number one. Hello. Yes I'm here yes going OK I don't want to refer to one specific thing. And I agree with you and we but dissipated with the Chilean government you know has to come out with a military system of being a champ weekend shame. That country and I visited there exactly the place where Kissinger a

man with the Chilean people. You know that you are playing there. That's a nation in and the crew. I mean I was private. I mean I was shown exactly by a person that was of they are this bad that was sort of the side asked the delayed start because that is the idea that to be out so that he was a very impartial that person and the one thing also is very right in suggesting that even in our best interest to five human rights and then you know the only one saying when are we going to do since he keeps on happening he happens. He happened what a couple of years ago with in Europe it happened in today with Hispanic people coming from Mexico. I mean we it's a new form of slavery. I was with the spammy tried to defame

and their right hand when they're buying a home and I'm there to help not abuse. And I needed and they tried that American company tried to keep this panicked when they're buying the little one. Have A Special Ops Special Ops are over the world in violation of human rights and invited by the Harrar I mean especially by the power. Well well are we going to stop that. That's my big question. What are we doing I know that you are. You are working on it. But besides you have a new groove that anymore in the past and I have a question. Well certainly you raise many important questions there are of course a lot of organizations that do work on the issues that you're addressing. There are

organizations devoted to protecting the rights and liberties of Hispanic people and many other groups as well. So. I don't I don't know that I have much more to add to what the lady is saying except to confirm that indeed U.S. alliances with countries that are involved with human rights continue and they continue to work against our own interests and perhaps one of the best recent examples it was the shooting down of the American missionaries in Peru. I think that that was an instance in which the US government over the last six or eight years had aligned itself very closely not only with President Fujimori of Peru who has subsequently sought exile in Japan because he is under very significant charges of corruption in Peru but also with his chief intelligence officer. Mr. Ma Pacino's who we utilize despite charges that he had been responsible for massacres in that country and who was one of

the preeminent sponsors of the the airplane military airplane. Activities that ultimately caused the death of of the missionary family in Peru so I think that we have not learned our lessons in this respect and we would do well to be far more cautious about those with whom we align ourselves. Americans were killed by a killer in my previous country and I DO have been alive for that part of my country and America where can our continuing but absolutely in fact Amnesty has worked hard to try to get the government the U.S. government to disclose documents under the Freedom of Information Act that made them government didn't want to have anything to do with a gun. They they they they said they didn't have anything to do with a dino getting involved. Well I understand but there are documents that I think would show that the U.S. was involved not just in the deaths of Chileans But as you say of the deaths of

Americans in Latin America as well. Well I thank you for you are. Thanks for the call. We just have about 10 minutes left I think in the past I think that people who are concerned about the United States supporting regimes that did not respect human rights that when we ask the question why did that happen in the past I think the number one. Reason would have been the Cold War. Sure now although it seems that it has now the Cold War is gone it seems that if we look at the reasons why this government might support other regimes that don't respect human rights it does seem that economic reasons come to the fore and that it's our desire to maintain those countries as markets. That that's the reason why do you think that that's that's true. Yes you're absolutely right but let me give you a couple examples of how shortsighted that is. Exxon Mobil just announced a couple weeks ago that it was having to withdraw from its investment multimillion dollars investment in natural gas

fields in the province of AHCI Indonesia because of the political violence there. That violence has been caused by years and years of political repression and denial of basic human rights which the United States turned a blind eye to during all the years of the Suharto regime in Indonesia. Another example we are currently building a pipeline through the through cosmic stand then attempting to bring oil from the Central Asian republics into Turkey. Almost all of those countries are ones that have abysmal human rights records. That means that they are politically unstable. We may invest millions if not billions of dollars to build a pipeline that may eventually fall into the hands of others who don't have our best interests at stake in each of these cases and in every other case where the U.S. has aligned itself with a human rights disdainful regime. We need to take human rights is seriously in our relationship with a Suharto or with

the presidents of the Central Asian republics as we do our economic interests because the two are intimately tied and not just for the U.S. government but for private business as well because business in order to do business successfully in that country requires political stability it requires a free flow of accurate financial information. Well you don't get that if you don't have a free business press. It requires the fair enforcement of laws and contracts where you don't get that if you don't have an independent judiciary. And it requires as well. Well corruption is possible. Well you almost always get corruption in a country that has no independent monitoring groups no free press no political opposition parties. So in all these ways our economic interests whether it be corporate interests or whether big government interests or whether it be individual economic interests because 10 percent of Americans pensions are invested overseas in all these ways human rights have a very profound impact on our economic and financial interests. We have about seven or eight minutes left our guest is Dr. William Schulz. He's executive

director of Amnesty International USA. And we're talking about some of the thoughts that you will find in his book in our own best interest how defending human rights benefits us all. We have a couple of other calls we'll try to get to both in the time remains will go next to Bloomington. Indiana line number four. Hello. Hi Has his amnesty made any criticism of any of the cruel forms of abortion. We have very clear Sunnah grams of abortion would show that babies recoil and they arrive in pain while they're being dismembered during abortion. And almost everyone now knows and is aware of the partial birth abortion which late late term healthy babies these are healthy babies if they're viable and they're almost fully delivered but but when they're just about fully delivered then stab him into the brain into the back of the neck into their brain. No anesthesia they're stabbed in the back of their brain a canyon is inserted into the stab a hole. And their brain is sucked out by the way

they react in pain. We we have testimony of nurses that have witnessed this procedure. The babies react in pain they're in pain when this occurs. They're they're stabbed in the back the neck their brains are sucked out. I think we take your point Dr. SCHULTZ You want to respond. Amnesty takes no position one way or the other on the issue of abortion and I'll explain to you why Amnesty formulates its positions based not upon our own judgments as an organization or as individuals or as leaders within the organization one way or the other on any human rights issue we formulate our positions based upon a consensus of opinion as it has emerged among international human rights organizations and groups that determine what is or is not an accepted violation of human rights So for example the UN Human Rights Commission the entire American Court for Human Rights the inner European Commission on Human Rights there are many international human rights bodies that make judgments on

cases and they are the ones who determine the can fences at the international level with regard to all of these issues and decide what does or does not constitute a violation of human rights to give. An example 20 years ago there was no consensus among such organizations and bodies that the death penalty was a violation of human rights and 20 years ago amnesty took no position on the death penalty. Well the fact is for better or for worse obviously this gentleman will think it's for a great deal worse. But for better or for worse there is no consensus at the international human rights level with regard to issues of abortion and therefore amnesty which has among its members people who feel very strongly on all sides of that issue. Amnesty takes no position one way or the other on the issue of abortion. May I say that that consensus might change if the baby's got a vote. I've answered your question and I think so.

Let's go to Champagne one more person here line number two. Hello. Oh yes. Good morning. I am belong to a group of very informal group. I'm sorry I did that. We dumped the caller my mistake my apologies to the caller if you want to call back well we'll get him on the air. Three three three W. while toll free 800 1:58 WLM just to go back to the. Don't mean to belabor the point of the last caller but I guess there are some people that would say there was some kind of inconsistency involved in on the one hand not taking a position on abortion but on the other hand taking a position on capital punishment. Well I understand that and what I can tell you is solely that this is the position that has emerged with regard to these various international human rights bodies and for better or for worse. The other has not emerged at this point. If it were to emerge then obviously at fault if it fell within amnesties mandate then we would of course take a position on it. Let's get back here to to our caller in Champaign my apologies that that was my mistake in cutting you off

from Go ahead. OK. My question is I belong to a group of friends here in Champaign we get together and write amnesty honors each week. And despite my commitment to human rights and to my belief in amnesty as an organization in general I can't help sometimes but have the feeling that or sort of question what the ultimate. Fate of each of these letters is that I write like in particular if I am writing to someone let's say the head of the Taliban government in Afghanistan for example. I can't help but think well it's just sort of gets tossed onto a pile and I was just wondering if you might be able to address you know sort of the ultimate fate and what actually happens on a practical level to letters that are written in them fams International and I'd be very happy to and thank you thank you. OK thanks for the go. Thank you for your work in the work of all the other people who work on behalf of amnesty anyone else is interested in doing so can check out our website at Amnesty USA dot org. And there will be a whole variety of ways from community local groups to

network cyberspace and so on that one can be involved. Let me just say about the messages we are we are. Able to confirm that we are able to help people in about 40 percent of the cases even where we are not able to free someone or stop them from being tortured. The letters do make a significant difference you know in a vast majority of cases and I'll give you an example waging Chang who is called the father of Chinese Democracy who was in prison for 17 years when he was freed I said to him. Wait did you ever get any of the amnesty letters tens of thousands sent to you over those 17 years and he said No I never got a single one but I'll tell you what Billy said. I always knew when the letters were coming because the guards treated me more kindly they would put out the light in my cell at night they would give me better food they would stop the beatings. And when the letters tailed off the exact opposite happened. And the reason is that even in that very repressive situation where the prisoners may not get the letters the fact that the government and the military officials or the prison officials know that the world is watching. They do not want to be

perceived as pariahs even the Taliban is concerned now that it is only recognized by two other countries in the world. Keep those those letters going you may feel of course that because you don't get any answer you can't tell for sure that they're having an impact in the vast majority of cases I assure you they are all right there will have to stop just because we're out of time. Dr. SCHULTZ We want to say thank you very much leisure. We appreciate it our guest Dr. William Schulz. He's executive director of Amnesty International USA. And his book if you'd like to read it is titled in our own best interest defending human rights benefits us all. It's published by the Beacon Press.