The following post, "Human Rights Day 2011: Signals of Hope [4]," 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.

Everything is fresh and new in springtime. Whether it's the first stirrings of green after a long winter or a fledgling democracy after decades of authoritarian rule, spring has only unrealized potential. Summer, on the other hand, bears the fruit. What fruit has the Arab Spring born after its initial forays into democracy earlier this year? Are we headed for feast or famine?

In Libya, rebel forces have taken over Tripoli [8] and are advancing on Gaddafi's compound, bringing an end to the months-long battle between pro-government forces and NATO-supported rebel fighters. Many are expecting the announcement of Gaddafi's death or capture at any second, though others are still cautious, fearing a second "Mission Accomplished" scenario. Libya's National Transitional Council [9] has declared an end to Gaddafi's rule and will take over responsibility for governing the country in the interim, though it is still unclear how successful they will be in uniting the different tribes and factions that comprise the fractured Libyan populace.

Egypt and Tunisia — where anti-government protesters successfully, and peacefully, forced decades-long dictators from power — continue on their bumpy road towards full democracy. Both countries have their first round of parliamentary elections scheduled for later this fall in October (Tunisia) and November (Egypt). Despite advances, the challenges to these revolutions are numerous; continued detention of activists, tense negotiations between political parties, and the exclusion of women and religious minorities from the transition process are all barriers that stand in the way of full democratic participation.

UUSC partner the American Islamic Congress (AIC) is hard at work training young people [10] to reach out to their communities and families to educate them on voting rights and election participation. According to a recent statement by AIC's Dalia Ziada [11], the youth working with the campaign have successfully trained over 10,000 citizens so far, and the campaign — called Fahem Haqi (or "I know my rights") — was named the number-one civic-education campaign in all of Egypt by Egyptian local television. These parliamentary elections will set the tone for the rest of the process; it is imperative that people are allowed to freely engage and that the results are fair, truthful, and respected by all parties.

Syria remains a heartbreaking and frustrating quandary. The Assad regime continually meets protesters' demands with brutal force: the death toll so far has topped 2,200 [12] and is expected to rise so long as Assad remains in power. What is remarkable about Syria is that despite the horrendous and violent crackdown, the vast majority of protesters have remained true to their nonviolent strategy. Many of the Arab countries on the U.N. Human Rights Council are demanding that Syria open its borders for an investigation into war crimes and mass atrocities, and the international pressure on Assad to step down is growing by the day. [13] In addition to the deaths already reported, thousands of protesters remain in custody, with little access to recourse and release. Reports of widespread abuse and torture of detainees continue with the most gruesome and appalling example being that of Hamza al-Khatib [14], a 13-year-old boy who was detained, tortured, and murdered by the regime. 

Things also remain grim in Bahrain, a situation compounded by a relative lack of continued media coverage of the protests and subsequent crackdown. King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa has offered some concessions, but the country's largest Shia opposition group, Wefaq, walked out of talks [15], calling into question the sincerity of the concessions. Over 30 people were killed during the initial uprisings in March, and activists continue to be jailed and unfairly tried by the government. All of this is further complicated by the presence of the U.S. Fifth Naval Fleet, which makes the likelihood of the United States speaking out against the regime's actions unlikely. 

It's a mixed bag of modest gains and numerous barriers for the Arab Spring. It's easy to be cynical and expect the worst for these fledgling democratic movements — and the worst may yet come to some of these countries. But I remain hopeful. The youth of the region have lived for too long without freedom and self-determination — now that they've had a glimpse of what could be, they will never go back to what was.

Torture was immoral when the United States first started looking for Osama bin Laden, and it remains immoral now. 

Torture also had little, if anything, to do with tracking down Bin Laden. Since the news broke on Sunday night of Bin Laden's capture and subsequent death, architects of the Bush torture program have been quick to point out that were it not for the "tough decisions [20]" made by the Bush administration, Obama would not have succeeded in finally locating Bin Laden. They claim that Khalid Sheik Mohamed — who was waterboarded 183 times [21] — gave up the name of the courier that eventually led U.S. forces to the compound where Bin Laden was hiding. They also argue that were it not for the authorization of these "enhanced interrogation" techniques, we would not have had the necessary information to locate Bin Laden.

There are serious discrepancies in this argument:

1. The courier's full identity was found by a phone call intercepted by the National Security Administration [22].
2. Khalid Sheik Mohamed claimed not to know the courier [23] and gave conflicting testimony about him, including fake names.

Torture extracts unreliable and untrustworthy information. Careful and skilled interrogation that relies on other methods — persuasion, trust building, research, and critical analysis — leads to reliable, long-term results. According to former senior military interrogator Matthew Alexander [24], it is critical to understand the "social science behind interrogations, which tells us that torture has an extremely negative effect on memory. An interrogator needs timely and accurate intelligence information, not just made-up babble."

The capture and death of Bin Laden have brought all of these issues back into the national discourse. Not only is it important to make sure that we as a country never use torture again, but it's equally important to ensure that those who authorized and created the program responsible for what happened at Abu Ghraib and other detention centers are held accountable for their decisions. A first step in that process is to call for a Commission of Inquiry [25]. We need to know the full extent of our actions before we can take the appropriate steps for accountability.

UPDATE: Deadline extended until March 27! [31]

Are you 25 or younger, living in the United States or the Middle East? The Hands Across the Mideast Support Alliance (HAMSA) [32], a UUSC partner that works with Muslim youth and young people by building bridges with their U.S. counterparts, is running its annual "Dream Deferred" essay contest [33]. Inspired by the 1951 Langston Hughes poem that begins "What happens to a dream deferred? [34]" — which helped propel the civil-rights movement in the United States — the HAMSA contest focuses on civil rights in the Mideast.

Craft a response to questions like "What is your ‘dream deferred': a vision of your society with civil rights for all?" or "What can the future look like if Americans — like you — partner with Middle Eastern reformers?" — and you might win part of the $10,000 in total prize money available! And you'll be contributing your voice to the essential dialogue on civil liberties in the Middle East, an area the United Nations calls the "world's least free region."

I think this is a really exciting project — youth have the power to change the world (among others, the youth activists that have been part of the ongoing protests in Egypt have proven that). It's so important that we hear what they have to say. And I can't wait to see what the winners put into words. I only wish I wasn't over the age limit for entering! If you're under 25, check out the essay questions [35], get typing, and submit your essay before February 20 March 27 [36], 2011. And don't forget to review the full rules and guidelines [37]. Write on!

The following post, "Revelations from the Revolution: Tough Lessons for Human Rights [43]," by UUSC President William F. Schulz, was published in the Huffington Post on February 17, 2011. 

The human-rights community has been applauding the news from Cairo as vigorously as everyone else. Cause alone for celebration is the prospect that the 30-year-old emergency decree under which so many Egyptian were detained without trial might be a thing of the past. No one knows for sure that human rights will flourish under a new government, which is why Ken Roth, head of Human Rights Watch, appropriately warned, "It's not enough for the Egyptian authorities to remove the dictator while maintaining the dictatorship." Early signs are promising, however, that the military has gotten the message.

But the euphoria ought not blind us to a number of important lessons for human rights that the revolution signaled. Some of these are obvious. Despite Malcolm Gladwell's desperate effort in the New Yorker to downplay the importance of social networking to breathtaking political change, the revolution would have been a lot more difficult without Facebook, Twitter, and texting. The Mubarak government proved this point decisively when it shut down the Internet. For all its drawbacks, as described, for example, in Evgeny Morosov's new book The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom, online communications are making it harder and harder for authoritarian governments to maintain control over a disillusioned population. True, those same governments can also turn social networking to their advantage, as Iran did by using it to identify and then silence dissenters. But that is no more testimony to the "evils" or limitations of Internet connections than the fact that the genocidiares in Rwanda in 1994 used the airwaves to rally Hutus to mass murder is an indictment of the radio. Those who care about democracy and human rights could do much worse than to redouble their efforts to spread online technology and protect internet freedom.

Other lessons may be more difficult for human-rights advocates to stomach, however. Here are five of them:

George W. Bush was half right. Though Iraq was in no way the inspiration for the Egyptian revolt, Tunisia certainly was. To the extent that Bush theorized that a democratic foothold in the Middle East might spark other countries to follow suit, he was right. He just failed to realize that genuine revolutions are homegrown, not foreign-imposed.

Democracy is necessary, if not sufficient, to safeguard human rights. Sounds obvious, but no doubt because freedom was Bush's mantra and because democracy is no guarantee that a government will respect human rights, human-rights organizations have resisted jumping in bed with the democracy-promotion mavens. But it's hard to imagine that Egypt, or anywhere else for that matter, has a shot at a reputable human-rights record without getting democracy in place at the same time.

But not all democracies are the same. We in the West tend to have a pretty rigid template for what constitutes democracy: competitive elections, surely, but also a variety of other conditions from religious pluralism to virtually unlimited speech. Egyptian democracy may not look like that, particularly if it incorporates both Islamic and secularist interests, and yet it may still be worthy of the name "democratic." Good to remember that making cookies requires both cookie cutters and mixers.

The military makes the difference. It takes nothing away from the courage and persistence of the protestors to acknowledge that in both Tunisia and Egypt, it was the military's refusal to turn on the people that ultimately guaranteed the success of the revolution. Just the opposite happened in Iran. With the exception of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard, most human-rights institutions have tended to keep their distance from militaries, foreign or domestic. (After all, militaries have historically been among the worst human-rights violators.) But that view is shortsighted. We may never know whether the extensive U.S. contact with the Egyptian military played a decisive role in its moderation, but interaction between human-rights defenders and security officials ought to be elevated to a higher place in the human-rights agenda.

Much is beyond our control. To the extent that the recent revolutions were a result of demographics (lots of young people), economics (lots of unemployment), and the weather (lots of warmth that allowed for protracted demonstrations), those factors are beyond the control of human-rights defenders. The best we can do is nurture the soil in the form of things like training in nonviolent social change and the maintenance of international pressure. But, as the little bird said to the farmer who found him lying with his feet straight up in the air and asked what he was doing, "I've heard the sky is falling." "If it is," said the farmer, "what good will your two little measly feet do?" "Well," replied the bird, "one does what one can. One does what we can." Every once in awhile with a lot of help from a lot of people, that's enough to make a revolution.   

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

February 11 is truly an auspicious day. After nearly three weeks of nonviolent pro-democracy protests, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has resigned today, bringing a peaceful end to his repressive 30-year reign. The announcement has led to jubilant celebrations throughout Cairo and sent a powerful message to oppressive rulers across the globe. 

This is not the first time such transformative events have happened on February 11 — it was on this day in 1990 that anti-apartheid leader Nelson Mandela walked out of the Victor Verster Prison in South Africa as a free man [51]. On that day, after 27 years of unjust imprisonment, Mandela delivered a speech to his jubilant supporters [52] that began with these simple words: "I greet you all in the name of peace, democracy, and freedom for all." He closed his speech by reiterating his cherished belief in "the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.'"

Today, I hope Nelson Mandela, now in his nineties and in faltering health, is smiling as he watches the live streaming video from Egypt on this auspicious anniversary. 

Well, you got one. 

Now is the time to celebrate. The most well-organized, committed, passionate, and pro-rights movement in recent history just accomplished what a mere month ago would have seemed impossible — Mubarak is gone. He was forced out by people who were tired of living in fear, tired of not being able to speak out, tired of being denied the human rights they're entitled to.

It's easy to be hyperbolic at a time like this, but it's also true that we're witnessing history. We're entering a new era — a new era of global politics, of activism, of civil rights, and of the Internet. In the coming days, we're going to hear a lot about the impact of the events in Egypt, the role of social media, and the mountain of work that still remains for the Egyptian people to do. But when something of this magnitude happens, it's important to take the time to celebrate. This is a monumental accomplishment and the people involved deserve to take a moment to bask in the glory of accomplishment. 

Not only did the protesters force a brutal and out-of-touch dictator from office, but they did it with nonviolent civil action, an unimaginable amount of passion, and sheer guts. If that's not revolutionary, I don't know what is.

Watch the celebration in Tahrir (Liberation) Square live on Al Jazeera English. [59]
Read more about the uprising and Mubarak's resignation. [60]

Last night, in a symbolic gesture of support for the people of Egypt, the Senate passed a resolution [67] put forth by John Kerry and John McCain that "ensures that the United States assistance to the Egyptian Government, military, and people will advance the goal of ensuring the respect for the universal rights of the Egyptian people."

In support of the millions of peaceful protesters calling for new government leadership, the Senate's resolution, among other things, calls for President Mubarak to begin transitioning immediately and for the government and the military to protect the rights of its citizens. 

While this is not binding legislation, it is a power gesture of support to the crowds of protesters amassing in Cairo today for what they are calling the "Friday of Departure," which marks the 11th day of demonstrations in Egypt. This resolution recognizes the right of the people of Egypt to have a "representative and responsive democratic government" that protects their civil liberties. It also condemns any violent actions made against protesters.   

Many activists in the United States have wondered how their actions can make a difference for the people of Egypt — this is one way. The support that you have shown for the people of Egypt made it necessary for our Senate to act. We urge you to continue to show your support and stand eye to eye with the people of Egypt [68].

Read more about the resolution on the Library of Congress website. [69]

Along with so many others, I've been riveted by the coverage of the mass protests in Egypt and horrified by the crackdown on human rights exhibited there even over the past week. But to be honest, I haven't been quite sure why it is all happening. I've had a vague idea that the people of Egypt have been oppressed and denied their full measure of rights, but if you asked me for specific examples, I might only be able to name what I've seen of the lack of free speech and open communication channels.

This morning on my way to work, though, I got the Egypt 101 course courtesy of the Breakdown, a weekly podcast with Chris Hayes from the Nation. In the most recent special edition of the Breakdown, "Why Is Egypt in Revolt?" [76] Hayes speaks with professor of twentieth-century Egyptian history Noor Khan from Colgate University about the context of the protests in Egypt.

It looks like you don't have Adobe Flash Player installed. Get it now. [77]

Khan has also written a short — and incredibly informative — primer on Egypt now [79]. It lays out clearly the modern historical background and the many manifestations of oppression that the people of Egypt have endured.

So, why are the people protesting? As Khan lays it out:

• "Democracy" has been just a word
• Police torture (see "We are all Khaled Said" [80] on Facebook for more)
• Corruption
• Bureaucratic inefficiency
• Poverty

There is so much background, detail, and nuance to each of these — but it's good to have a first step toward understanding on a new level why the people of Egypt are out on the streets, raising their voices and asserting their rights. 

Further background:

• "'Work on Him Until He Confesses': Impunity for Torture in Egypt [81]," a Human Rights Watch report
• "It's More Than Mubarak: The Legacy of Torture in Egypt [82]," by Carolyn Barnett, Policymic.com

"What would you do if someone hit you, kicked you, or spit on you?" 

This was one of the questions that trainers asked protesters as they prepared for protests in Selma, Ala., on March 7, 1965 — "Bloody Sunday [90]." They had to ask this because they knew what they would be facing — billy clubs, beatings, and tear gas — as they marched from Selma to Montgomery to demand the right to vote. 

As I watched a video of anti-Mubarak protesters in Egypt [91] praying as water cannons and tear gas were shot at them, I could not help but think of the iconic footage of the civil-rights movement — 600 marchers trying to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge, confronted by the brutality of local lawmen.

The practice of nonviolent resistance was not used because it is easy; it was used because it is an effective tactic. The organizers of the civil-rights movement in the United States knew that violence would divert them from their political goal and that their non-retaliatory actions would accrue support from participants and the society at large. The organizers also knew that the effectiveness of their nonviolent actions would incite more violence by those in power as they began to see the inevitability of political change in this country.

Those protesting the current political structure in Egypt are standing at a similar precipice. Mubarak supporters have begun throwing Molotov cocktails and riding through crowds on horse- and camelback armed with whips and sticks. They know that the political tide is turning against them and that the world is standing in solidarity with the peaceful protesters.

So the question again is, "What will you do in the face of violence?" Honestly, I am not sure what I would do. What I do know is that nonviolence is an effective tactic for political change — political change that the people of Egypt deserve.

With funding and support from UUSC, Hands Across the Mideast Support Alliance [92] (HAMSA) translated into Arabic The Montgomery Story [PDF], a 1958 comic book about the U.S. civil-rights movement and nonviolence [93]. Referring to the protests in Egypt, Nasser Weddady of HAMSA recently told UUSC, "This is their Birmingham; this is their own civil-rights movement." As this struggle continues to escalate, we know that it will not be won without sacrifice and loss — but it is a fight that they will win.

To the protestors in Egypt: please do not let those who do seek to oppress you steer you from your path of nonviolent protest. 

"Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals." —Martin Luther King Jr.

واللاعنف هي قوى وعادلة دون قطع السلاح الذي جرح رجل كان وجودا حيث. فمن يداوي سيفا.  —Martin Luther King Jr.

As you stand strong, we stand in solidarity with you [94].