The following post, "A Solution for Saleh," by UUSC President William F. Schulz, was published in the Huffington Post on December 30, 2011.

The recent decision of the U.S. government to admit the embattled President of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, to the country for medical treatment presents a classic human rights conundrum. Though a friend of Saddam Hussein and conciliatory toward Iran, Saleh has been an ally of the United States against al Qaeda. But according to human rights groups, he and his security forces have been responsible for hundreds of deaths since the Yemeni opposition took to the streets last spring to demand his ouster. By rights, his opponents claim, Saleh should be brought to trial, not provided top-notch medical care and, presumably, a comfortable retirement. At the same time, there is much to be said for removing him from the scene in Yemen — something Saleh has repeatedly agreed to and then reneged upon — and letting Yemen get on with its future, however fraught it may be.

If we lived in an ideal world, all those who are alleged to have committed crimes of whatever stripe would be brought before a bar of justice and, if convicted, sentenced. But just as prosecutors sometimes decide to plea-bargain a case or even not to prosecute an obviously guilty party because of extenuating circumstances such as an overriding state interest, so nations often have to decide whether it makes sense to offer a human rights offender safe haven in exchange for a chance at peace. The most recent dramatic example of that dilemma presented itself, at least theoretically, in the case of Muammar Qaddafi. Had Qaddafi been willing to flee Libya early in the conflict, thus no doubt saving scores of lives, a reasonable argument could have been made that offering him immunity might have been the better option than insisting upon justice, despite his decades of human rights violations.

One solution to this quandary is to establish a reliable system of international accountability. Were the International Criminal Court (ICC) the universally recognized arbiter of the guilt or innocence of the world's tyrants, supported by all nations, its indictments enforced, human rights offenders would know that the odds of their finding a country willing to host them and hence of their escaping punishment for their crimes were minimal. But of course major powers, including the United States, are not parties to the ICC; even some of its member states refuse to honor its indictments; and the Court has not yet succeeded in convicting anyone.

In the absence of consistent enforcement of international law, therefore, the burden of holding human rights violators to account often falls to individual victims of those crimes. Fortunately, in the United States, we have not only statutes (the Alien Tort Claims Act and the Torture Victim Protection Act) that allow for civil suits against alleged perpetrators but also an organization, the Center for Justice and Accountability (CJA), founded in 1998, that facilitates such litigation. CJA and its clients have successfully won judgments against wrong-doers from China to Haiti, El Salvador to Peru.

So one option with regard to Saleh, following his admittance to the US, may be to bring civil suit against him on behalf of some of those he has harmed. On February 21, 2012, when the transfer of power in Yemen is finalized, Saleh will no longer be a head of state and hence protected by sovereign immunity. At that point legal action becomes at least theoretically tenable. Of course, the US may have made guarantees of immunity to Saleh and may seek to intervene to stop such a suit but that would put the government in the uncomfortable position of defending an alleged human rights criminal. If the Administration is intent on admitting Saleh and, for whatever reasons, unwilling to return him to Yemen for trial, let it at least refuse to shield him from civil suits, thereby preserving at least one clean hand in the dirty business of dealing with despots.

The sudden death of North Korea's Kim Jong-il presents the world with a new conundrum regarding the most secretive nation on the globe: will Kim's son, Kim Jong-un, in his 20s, be able to hold onto power and perpetuate the repressive regimes of his father and grandfather or will some combination of circumstances or new leadership present an opportunity for a ratcheting down of hostilities and tension? In the short run, North Korea's anxiety about the transition is likely to be accompanied by even more belligerent talk, if not actions, as the younger Kim tries to consolidate his power and burnish his credentials as a strongman. But, as we are seeing right now in Myanmar, even the most authoritarian societies can sometimes modify their ways.

UUSC has not been active on the Korean Peninsula since the early 1950s when our predecessor organization was instrumental in introducing social-work education there. But what our work around the world for more than 70 years has taught us is two things: First, that the existence of repressive regimes anywhere reinforces the need to redouble our work for justice and human rights wherever we have an opening to do that. That is why we have been so active in Myanmar, for example, creating a revolving-loan fund to help women and communities at large develop sustainable livelihoods. And second, that those opportunities for change can arise in the most unexpected places.

I'm not predicting that North Korea will be one of them. But I am assuring you that whenever opportunities present themselves to bring greater openness, justice, and human rights to the world, UUSC will be there. 

What an irony — that the great Czech democrat Vaclav Havel and the great North Korean tyrant Kim Jong-il would die within days of one another. But what a source of hope that UUSC exists to help advance Havel's values — and yours — and to do all we can to see that there are fewer and fewer regimes like Kim Jong-il's spreading their repression across the earth.

We can only do that with your continuing support. Won't you join us then in this season of hope and promise to spread your values wherever the opportunity arises?

The following post, "Human Rights Day 2011: Signals of Hope," by UUSC President William F. Schulz, was published in the Huffington Post on December 8, 2011.

The year 2011 has been momentous for human rights. The Arab Spring alone promises to reshape the human rights landscape for generations to come. Add to that the independence of South Sudan, the apparent opening in Myanmar and, domestically, Occupy Wall Street, with its plea for a new era in economic rights for the 99 percent, and you have the makings of a watershed year.

Behind these headline developments are a variety of important markers worth noting as we celebrate Human Rights Day on December 10, 2011, because they carry the potential for long-lasting change in the very way we think about human rights.

The emergence of the Arab League, for example, as a broker in the efforts to stop deadly violence in Libya and now Syria signals not just a newfound potency for the league itself. It also reflects an emerging international consensus that sovereignty no longer bestows immunity when it comes to mass atrocities. The fact that the international community, à la the Obama Doctrine on humanitarian intervention, treats different countries differently when it comes to military action, does not mean that the norm — "Thou shalt not kill your own people" — is not well on its way to being established.

Or take the growing role that Turkey is claiming for itself in the larger community of Muslim states. It was not too long ago that Turkey would have been included in anyone's list of serious human-rights offenders and its treatment of its Kurdish population still leaves much to be desired. But the fact that Turkey, a vibrant democracy with an Islamic ruling party, is seeking to export its model of governance to others in the Islamic world reinforces the fact that Islam need not equate to autocracy when it comes to the use of political power. The vote in Tunisia has already proven that and, though the Islamists may well claim victory in Egypt, they will find, like others before them who have taken the reins of power, that governing requires pragmatism more than purity. That is particularly true in as raucous a society as Egypt's.

Or, finally, consider the little-noticed transfer of Laurent Gbagbo, former Ivory Coast strongman, to The Hague following his indictment by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity committed following his refusal to step down after he had lost reelection. Three things make this case far more important than the fate of Gbagbo himself: first, that the failure to honor the results of clean, fair democratic elections prompted outrage sufficient to reverse the theft — until recent years something all too rare in Africa; second, that Gbagbo, unlike Muammar Qaddaffi, was not killed by his adversaries once they had him in his clutches but turned over to international authorities; and third, that the ICC has established its credibility sufficiently that virtually all parties involved, including the United States, which has pointedly refused to join the court, saw it as an appropriate vehicle for helping Ivory Coast address its demons.

All this is not to say that China does not continue to defy virtually all standards of civil and political rights or that rape does not continue to plague Congo or that Belarus does not continue to imagine itself still living in Soviet times. There is still plenty about the current state of human rights to cloud even the rosiest-colored glasses. But it is to say that, though the struggle for human rights be long, it is headed in the right direction. And that would make the authors of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ratified 63 years ago on December 10, inordinately proud.

The following post, "Famine in East Africa: It's Not Over Yet," by UUSC President William F. Schulz, was published in the Huffington Post on November 30, 2011.

Ten days ago the New York Times carried the headline, "Somalia Famine Eases with Rainfall and Aid" and quoted UN officials as saying that the number of people facing imminent starvation in Somalia had dropped by half a million to 250,000. To those of us who have been trying to get assistance to the region for the past six months, this is of course good news.

In the first place, it is good just to get the famine mentioned in the mainstream press. Between mid-October and mid-November, CNN had cited the famine fewer than 10 times while referencing Kim Kardashian's mini-marriage almost 70 and Herman Cain's alleged sexual escapades nearly 200. And it is good news because fewer people are dying. But the true story is far more complex than it appears.

Aid agencies are often accused of exaggerating the direness of humanitarian crises for their own mercenary reasons. When people are thought not to be in jeopardy, funds dry up; success breeds indifference. In the case of Somalia, NGOs and the UN have done a remarkable job of getting aid to the needy under extraordinarily difficult circumstances — a failed government in Mogadishu; threats from the terrorist group Al Shabab; a military incursion by Kenya; and an utterly inadequate infrastructure for the delivery of supplies. The international community can take some justifiable pride in its accomplishments. But equally justified are the worries.

I live in Gloucester, Mass., home of The Perfect Storm, Sebastian Junger's famous account of the sword fishing boat Andrea Gail and the perfect conjunction of low pressure, high pressure and tropical moisture that sunk her near Sable Island in the north Atlantic in the fall of 1991. I have frequently thought of the applicability of that metaphor to Somalia the past six months as it experienced its own perfect storm through a combination of drought, governmental incompetence and violence — first internal violence prompted largely by Al Shabab, and then violence wrought by Kenyan (and, potentially, Ethiopian) intervention. The result was as many as 13 million people across the Horn of Africa in need of emergency assistance.

That number is now down to 4 million — better but still about the population of Los Angeles. Three of the six zones in Somalia, the worst of the affected areas being the ones controlled by Al Shabab, still face famine and Al Shabab continues to threaten and harass aid workers. What has been little noticed, moreover, is that drought knows no borders. The crisis is not confined to Somalia but has spilled over into Kenya and Ethiopia, both relatively stable countries until now, where it could have long-term drastic consequences.

Among other things, tens of thousands of Kenyans and Ethiopians have been internally displaced by the famine and the conflict. Because refugee complexes take only those who have crossed borders, tensions between the internally displaced and Somali refugees remain high. In addition, Somalia is a vortex that has already drawn Kenya into the fighting and threatens to do the same with Ethiopia, thus destabilizing the region further and putting more children are at increased risk of forced conscription and sexual appropriation. Perhaps most damaging in the long run is the destruction to the pastoral lifestyles that so many worked so hard to establish. With the loss of their herds to drought, men have abandoned their families, leaving women and children even more vulnerable than usual, and providing a potential source of fresh recruits for the militias that have so plagued the region.

The famine is, in other words, just one of the lenses through which to view this tragedy. And that makes sense because the famine was but a symptom of far deeper underlying fissures. Not only can the partial alleviation of the food emergency be quickly reversed if the international community lets down its guard but those fissures will only get worse if Kenya and Ethiopia get drawn into a long-running war.

So, reasonable as it may be to pause for a moment to celebrate progress, it is critically important to keep in mind that that perfect storm has far from abated and now threatens to sweep up two more countries in its tumultuous wake. Somalia itself will not soon be righted but ongoing attention to the region's misery will help contain the contagion. And while that may not be as immediately intriguing as Kim or Herman's relational woes, it is in the last analysis far more morally and strategically compelling.

UUSC President William F. Schulz (Photo by David Vita)

The following post, "Why the Left Is Often Late to Tea," by UUSC President William F. Schulz, was published in the Huffington Post on October 14, 2011.

The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) phenomenon, as nascent as it is long overdue, represents an opportunity unparalleled in recent American history for a grassroots movement motivated by progressive sentiments to change American political culture. But in order to do so, it must learn some lessons from the Left's own history, from the Arab Spring and, ironically enough, from the Tea Party with which it is so often compared.

I went to Oberlin College at the height of the anti-Vietnam War movement. At Oberlin the principal focus of that movement was the military recruiters who came to campus to seek candidates for ROTC. One morning as the recruiter drove into town his car was surrounded by a group of 40 to 50 students. For more than four hours the recruiter sat in his car in his crisp uniform; the students chanted anti-war slogans; the recruiter would occasionally inch his car forward; the students would re-position themselves frantically to stop his movement; and the cries of "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids have you killed today?" would echo across the campus.

And then, after four hours, something very human happened. The recruiter said that he had to go to the bathroom. This was not something the students had planned on. It threw them into a quandary. Finally, this being the era of "participatory democracy," the students took a vote. By a close margin it was decided that they would allow the officer to get out of the car and go to the bathroom provided that he promised to return to captivity immediately after he had flushed. The recruiter readily agreed; the students set him free; and ten minutes later the devastating news was transmitted by word of mouth to the students surrounding the now-empty car: "The recruiter has broken his word!" He had gone straight from the bathroom to the administration building and had set up his recruiting table just as he'd planned to do four hours earlier.

I have always found this one of the most telling examples of why the left wing often fails at political change. In the first place, the students had no plan--not only no plan for a full bladder but no coordinated plan for what to do with the recruiter and the car other than hold them both indefinitely. This small incident of theater was not integrated into a larger strategy. And in the second place, the students had no adequate understanding of power. Here was a military officer trained in the ways of war who represented what the students regarded as a morally bankrupt government that would stop at nothing, including killing children, to achieve its ends. And yet a majority of students thought that this officer would for some reason feel himself morally compelled to keep a promise! The students had obviously never learned or had forgotten Frederick Douglas's famous words, "Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did and it never will."

CNN's Don Lemon recently said to the media spokesperson for Occupy Wall Street: "The Tea Party's message is 'No new taxes' and 'Smaller government.' What's yours?" The answer: "Active democracy and every voice counts." But those are instrumental messages. What OWS and its potential allies need is a demand--"Tax the 1%," perhaps. The Tea Party knows that demands can be rejected but they cannot be ignored. Vague stirrings of discontent, even rage, can be dismissed unless they are either channeled into political change within the system or grow so massive that they threaten to bring down the whole political infrastructure.

The latter is what happened in Tunis and Cairo. So many people took to the streets that they brought down the rulers themselves. But note two things. First, that they had very concrete demands: "Mubarak out!" and "Yes to human rights!" And second, that they succeeded because the police and military ultimately turned, at least temporarily, against the ruling elite. That is hardly a possibility in this country so it leaves the option of political transformation.

The Occupy Wall Street movement has gotten hold of profound truths: that after nearly destroying the economic underpinnings of the society, for example, corporations have managed largely to avoid meaningful new regulations and are now holding onto more than $2 trillion in cash and liquid assets--assets that could be used to put people back to work but are instead being hoarded by the already wealthy.

It ought to be a slam dunk to exploit such a situation for political change. And it will be if the Left learns what the Tea Party already knows. As one of its chief financiers, Charles Koch, put it: "To bring about social change [requires] a strategy that is vertically and horizontally integrated, [spanning everything] from idea creation to policy development to education to grassroots organizations to lobbying to litigation to political action." Or, as an old Zen saying has it, "After ecstasy, the laundry." Occupy Wall Street has tapped into the hope and the energy. Now it needs to channel that enthusiasm into strategies that can change the country.

William F. Schulz is president of the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee and former executive director of Amnesty International USA.

Each Friday throughout the summer, a UUSC staff member will recommend books or articles about human rights. Today UUSC President and CEO William F. Schulz recommends the book The Honor Code: How Moral Revolutions Happen, by Kwame Anthony Appiah.

A superb description of the power of shaming. Appiah describes how dueling, foot-binding in China, and slavery were ended by collective action and how, in our own day, honor killings might be, too.

I set the bar high for UUSC's 2011 Annual Fund Campaign because I knew people would want to help us advance human rights and to do so in as robust a way as possible.

Some people thought we were asking too much of our supporters. But they proved the skeptics wrong — UUSC members' dedication to protecting human rights and promoting social justice is simply astounding.

Between April 1 and June 30, over 5,500 individual supporters and 190 Unitarian Universalist congregations donated $655,407 to help UUSC stand with those fighting injustice here in the United States and in more than 20 countries.

The generosity of these supporters helped us surpass our goal — I could not be more grateful. Please accept my warmest wishes for an enjoyable summer as we continue working for the inherent worth and dignity of every person and lifting up the voices of those confronting injustice.