Individuals at Risk

Today is my penultimate day as an intern in the Urgent Action Network. Which means this is my last blog entry as an official member of the UA team, although I'll continue to post when the fancy strikes.

I've been writing every day for this blog since June, and in the process I've learned a lot about human rights activism: what interests people, what doesn't, and what Amnesty means as an organization. I'm certainly not in a position to be imputing any real words of wisdom, but for what it's worth, here are a few of the lessons I've learned from blogging and interning at the Urgent Action Network, complete with cute puns and tweaked truisms.

• Play to Your Strengths: I'm a literature major and an avid reader, so when given responsibility over a human rights blog, I made a beeline for books. Not the world's most intuitive connection, perhaps, but the entries I wrote for the Human Rights Summer Reading Series were some of my most popular posts, and hopefully provided a new way to think about some current issues in human rights. Even if you think books are in the same family as, say, Kryptonite, your most effective activism will somehow make use of what you're passionate about, whether it's traveling or out-of-print anime books from the late 1990s. (And no, I'm not sure how that one would work, but be creative!)
• It's Just Not That Big a Deal: Reading every UA that comes through the Urgent Action Network is a good antidote to a bad day. Not because it's enjoyable to read about the journalists under fire in Guinea-Bissau for their reporting on the drug trade there (UA 211/07), or about Mexican Fortunato Prisciliano, who has been attacked repeatedly for reporting his wife's rape (UA 209/07). But hearing what some people go through on a daily basis makes it suddenly seem a lot less devastating that the Red Line of the Metro was experiencing delays or that Starbucks was out of low-fat bran muffins.
• It Takes All Kinds to Save the World: Fellow UA intern Jessica and I liked to laugh about how much time we spend stuffing envelopes. After all, hours spent with a mail machine is the hallmark of a bad internship, and every Wednesday and Friday afternoon found the UA office waist-deep in Urgent Actions that were waiting to be shipped off to cities from Silver Spring to Seattle. But the fact is that getting actions to our volunteers is a key part of what we do here. While it isn't particularly exciting or intellectually challenging, the grunt work of running an office and organizing a network of activists is necessary for Amnesty to function. Making signs for a rally on Darfur may not be as glamorous or high-profile as a fact-finding mission to Sudan, but a truly effective movement takes all kinds of action.
• I Don't Really Matter: As a bottom-of-the-totem-pole intern, I arrived at Amnesty with few illusions that I would personally be doing anything particularly important. Coffee runs, hours at the photocopier — I was pretty much ready for anything, as long as I got to be a part of one of the most influential human-rights advocacy groups in the world. And while I've gotten to be far more involved in Amnesty and the Urgent Action Network than I could ever have hoped, my expectations of insignificance were confirmed in one important respect.  Amnesty is a true grassroots organization, in that it depends entirely on its volunteers — not only for funding, but also as letter-writers, advocates, and a source for ideas. Our activists are the organization, and the primary function of everyone who works here (whether they're paid in money or paid in pizza) is to make sure regular people have as many resources as possible to influence human rights around the world.
• You Do Really Matter: The Urgent Action Network, and Amnesty's work in general is about the power of individuals to make a difference. As trite as it is, we get truly inspiring UAs every day about people who have stood up for their rights and the rights of others in the face of incredible risk to themselves. Some of these people are strikingly ordinary — like Amir Yaghoub-Ali, an Iranian college student arrested for collecting signatures on a petition against legalized discrimination against women. And the best part? When these ordinary crusaders are persecuted, more ordinary people come to their rescue: you, and anyone who picks up a pen to write a letter on their behalf.

Many thanks to everyone who's been reading and writing for the Individuals at Risk blog. My stint as the semi-official blogmaster has been one of the highlights of my experience at Amnesty. And while I'm going into semi-retirement (read: back to school), the Individuals at Risk blog will keep going strong. Stay tuned. I know I will!

Rachel Dempsey

There are a lot of ways to help make a difference in human rights issues, and I've tried to outline a few of them this summer. Writing letters helps, of course, but so does less obvious action, like thinking twice about investments and participating in local and national elections.

I realized yesterday, though, that I haven't really written about FAPP, or the First Appeal Pledge Program, which is one of the easiest and most effective ways to speak out on human rights abuses. In what Ellen Moore, co-founder of the Urgent Action Network in the U.S., called "Amnesty's best-kept secret," you can pledge $10 or $20 a message to attach your name to an e-mail, fax or telegram to a government official in a country known to be committing human rights abuses, serving as the first warning that the abuses aren't going to be tolerated.

The way it works is pretty simple. Whenever we get an Urgent Action here at the office, the very first thing we do — even before we send it out to our activists — is to write out what we call a FAPP message on the case. In three sentences or so, we summarize the key facts of the Urgent Action case and lay out what we think should be done to remedy it. Then, the same day the action is issued we send these messages to the officials it lists.

The purpose of FAPP messages is twofold. They serve as an early warning of the deluge of letters that are about to come from Amnesty activists on a particular case of human rights abuses, and they lay out the facts in simple terms that even the busiest official will understand at a glance. Here's an example of a FAPP message, which I wrote yesterday on an Urgent Action we received on conscientous objectors in Turkmenistan (an update to UA 174/07).

Profoundly upset that the disgraceful persecution of conscientious objectors Bayram Ashirgeldiev, Nuryagdy Gairov, Aleksandr Zuev and Suleiman Udaev has been allowed to continue. Urging you to act responsibly by revoking the suspended sentences handed down to Bayram Ashirgeldiev, Nuryagdy Gairov, and Aleksandr Zuev and releasing Suleiman Udaev from prison at once. Insisting you provide a non-punitive alternative to military service to those whose religion keeps them from serving.

I love writing FAPP messages, because they're a way to take quick action on the human rights horrors we read about and because I like trying to figure out what's really going to stand out about a given case to the official who receives the message. The key to FAPP messages, though, isn't us as writers, but the people who pay to have their names attached to them. Appeals are always more effective when they're addressed from an individual rather than Amnesty as an organization, so the permission (and the funds) to send a FAPP message from a volunteer is what makes the system work.

The actual mechanism of FAPP is a little bit mysterious, even to us. After we've written the messages, we enter them into a moody computer program, which provided it doesn't crash assigns each of the messages to a volunteer. Then we send the documet to a volunteer named Bill, who gets the appeals out by e-mail, fax, or telegram, depending on how the government official we're trying to access can best be reached. The messages get to their destination the same day the Urgent Action they concern is released. 

So for those of you who just don't have time to read every Urgent Action you come across and write a full letter on it, FAPP is a great way to make a really important contribution to our work with a minimal time commitment. Follow this link to sign up for the program, or just to find out more about how it works.

Rachel Dempsey

genocide — /jennsid/; noun the deliberate killing of a very large number of people from a particular ethnic group or nation.

The dictionary definiton of the word "genocide" is pretty clear, at least at first glance. Mass murder isn't exacly ambiguous or nuanced. It's blunt, bloody and single-minded.

But then you look closer. First of all, this definition of genocide is carefully structured to be in the passive voice. Who, exactly, is doing this deliberate killing? And for that matter, what does "deliberate" even mean? Is it possible to accidentally kill a very large number of people from a particular ethnic group or nation? What constitutes a "very large" number? How do you who belongs to any given ethnic group or nation? Is it skin color? Religious views? Cultural practices? Maternal lineage?

These questions are more than semantics. They are the reason why the word "genocide" is at once so powerful and so dangerous.

In an e-mail Sunday to the Associated Press, senior Sunni politician Adnan al-Dulaimi wrote that Iranian Shiites are about to gain total of Iraq, and pose a serious threat to both Sunni Arabs and Americans in the area. Shiite militias, al-Dulaimi said, are embarking on an "unprecedented genocide campaign" to gain control of the Middle East and establish their dominance through Iraq and beyond.

The decidedly sectarian violence tearing through the Middle East certainly seems to fit the definition of genocide above, taken from the online version of the Oxford English Dictionary. But genocide is a slippery concept — and even if the word works here, what does it really mean for the citizens of Iraq who are being targeted for their religious and ethnic affiliations?

The symbolic weight of "genocide" as a word and a concept dates back to the Holocaust, when it was coined. In 1948, in the wake of the mass murders under Hitler and his fellow Facist dictators, genocide was officially forbidden under international law. The UN adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, stating that those who participate in genocide will be punished.

Since then, genocide has become an important, if controversial, word in the political vocabulary. Many people agree that of all the conflicts since the CPPCG was enacted, the three that constitute genocide are Pol Pot's agenda of ethnic cleansing in Cambodia, the slaughter of ethnic Bosnians by Serb forces in Bosnia, and the conflict between the Hutus and the Tutsis in Rwanda. Still, some governments have been reluctant to use the word because of the obligations it implies under international law. Notably, the U.S. government referred to the events in Rwanda as "acts of genocide" for years. President Clinton later said he regretted the inaction caused by his administration's determined hedging.

Now the word genocide is being applied to Darfur, although Amnesty refuses to call the slaughter in Sudan by that name. It's easy to break down the conflict into black and white, Arab and African, but in fact the killing is far more indiscriminate. People are being attacked, murdered, and raped regardless of their ethnic group or nation.

I don't honestly know if the situation in Iraq could be called a genocide. Perhaps a better word would be disaster. There's so much violence it's hard to know who's targeting who, and why. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on Middle Eastern politics, and I'm not even going to begin to pass judgment on what constitutes a genocide.

But it shouldn't matter what it's called, in Iraq, in Darfur, or anywhere. The important part is that people are dying, and we can't just stand by and watch. 

Rachel Dempsey

(New Perspectives in Human Rights - 5, the final communique)

Although this is probably my last post as the sfc intern (but not as an alumnAI), it is prompting an important segway into the last NPHR entry. After taking about 6 weeks off to fight the good fight from a beach chair at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, I will be hopping over to London for grad school at LSE to study fish & chips, pub culture, and human rights. In fact, that's my dissertation... An Anthropological Understanding of Beer, Trout, and Social Justice. Can't wait. -segway-

TRAVEL!!! Please do it.  If not for yourself, then for all of us.  With the exception of a weekend trip to New Orleans, I had never left the East Coast until the summer of 2005. But, then I decided to embark on a study abroad summer through Georgia Tech's Office of Internation Education. First, I spent a month in Gorizia, Italy on the border of Slovenia. It was a film studies program and we made documentaries, plus read about and watched a bunch of Italian neorealism films. Next, I took Georgia Tech faculty-taught courses at Oxford University, Worcester College with several weekend trips over the five week period (Dublin, London, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Bath). That summer changed my life. I'm sure it changed the lives of everyone on the trip. Each and every one of us came back with new perspectives, attitudes, goals, dreams, etc. Seeing a different part of our world changed it all.

Please do yourself the favor of extending your borders. It'll make you appreciate your fellow man that much more, and inspire a greater sense of empathy for all the struggle endured beyond our cozy United States. Look into study abroad programs at your school. If they don't have any ones you like, look at other schools programs or non-school specific ones that you can participate in. Another good option is also to apply for an easy PURA grant. Just write a paper or make poster, then the government will give you money to travel abroad to a conference or something similar to present your work. Easy, and sometimes free, travel.

More tips.  Don't study too hard or take real difficult classes.  Unless you are going on a major-specific program, you can usually just burn a few humanities/electives for your course load.  Also, try to pick classes that are in the morning.  You're not traveling to sleep.  Early classes will let you have the rest of the day to explore and not be tied down.  Plus, most study abroad programs have three-day weekends, so it's nice to be able to take an early afternoon train/plane to your weekend destination and have an extra night out once you get there.  Next, be friendly and respectful, obviously.  This best part about taking in another culture is to make nice with the people.  Among all the people in my group, we probably met at least one person in every city we went to who took us around, and even sometimes even invited us to their homes for food.  Nothing better than a free, homemade meal in a distant land.  More importantly, locals know where the best places to spend your time are.  Bars, clubs, restaurants, attractions, entertainment are all better when chosen with native insight.  Almost lastly, don't take pictures of things if you or your friends aren't in them.  If something looks so awesome... buy a postcard of it.  No one (including yourself) wants to look at stuff they could easily find on google.  Seriously, it's a waste of film/megapixels.  And most importantly... travel when traveling.  This ultimately means wearing yourself out because chances are it won't be soon enough before you go back.  Take in everything you can, eat anything you want, and regularly spend a little more than you thought you would.

Alright?  Alright.

This is Chris Garrigues signing off.  Take care everybody.

The United States government has made much of the possibility of closing the military detentention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which has become a lightning rod of criticism of how the War on Terror is handled. Although we still don't know what's going to happen to Guantanamo itself, the U.S. has recently been stepping up efforts to transfer detainees out in order to reduce the number of prisoners kept there.

Sounds good, right? Unfortunately, as spotty as the United States' record has been in its treatment of military detainees, many of the people being released from Guantanamo are at risk of deportation to countries where they face far worse.

Our most recent Guantanamo-related action is on Ahmed Belbacha (UA 201/07), one of five Algerian nationals who are at risk of forced repatriation upon their release from U.S. custody. Belbacha, was living in the United Kingdom before his arrest while seeking asylum on the grounds of persecution by the government and an armed rebel group in Algeria. He was recently determined to pose no threat to the United States, but only after being held without charge in U.S. custody — for five years.

So now that we've decided maybe Belbacha isn't a terrorist after all, we're going to release him. The only problem? People who have been labeled "enemy combatants" by the United States and held in Guantanamo tend to be stigmatized. (Funny, isn't it, how being accused of terrorism does that to people.) This means that Belbacha, according to Amnesty, "faces a real risk of secret detention and torture at the hands of Algerian military intelligence agency the Department for Information and Security."

In a similar recent case, Jordanian national Jamil el-Banna (UA 196/07) was cleared for release from Guantanamo in March and given permission to return to the United Kingdom, where his family lives. Again, sounds like good news, but el-Banna had fled Jordan and been recognized as a refugee in the UK in 1997, and it was unclear whether the British authorities would allow him to maintain his refugee status and re-enter the country after his stint in Gitmo. 

Fortunately, a few days after we received el-Banna's case, we received a follow-up saying the UK had released a statement that it would allow el-Banna to regain refugee status in Britain and rejoin his family at their home. Finally, after years of denention and months of suspense, a happy ending.

Now it's the United States' turn to remedy the mistakes we've made at Guantanamo. Closing the dentention center alone isn't enough to make up for the grave violations of human rights that have taken place there. We also have to make sure we're not responsible for sending people into worse situations, where they face torture or even death.

Write an appeal urging the U.S. government to follow our British allies and make sure detainees released from Guantanamo have somewhere to go. We have a responsibility to the lives our government has put on hold with years of imprisonment without charge. Gitmo isn't a problem we can solve by just walking away.

Rachel Dempsey

Israeli news sources report Egyptian soldiers killed at least two Sudanese refugees attempting to illegally cross the border into Israel. One of the refugees, according to these reports, attempted to climb the border fence. An Israeli soldier tried to help him, but an Egyptian soldier grabbed the refugee and started pulling back. The struggle ended with the Egyptian soldier winning and dragging the Sudanese man away. The Israeli soldier told reporters he heard screams of agony as Egyptians beat the man.

Amnesty International has not confirmed the beating or the status of the refugee, but it is acting on the reports that two refugees were killed (some news reports put the total at four.) The incident comes at a time of rising violence on part of Egyptian security officials against Sudanese refugees. In July a Sudanese woman died after allegedly being shot by Egyptian security forces while she was attempting to cross the border with Israel. Other Sudanese, including an 11-year old girl, and a woman from the Ivory Coast were also injured at the scene.

Conditions for Sudanese refugees in Egypt are getting worse. Economic and educational opportunities for them are limited and police are increasingly using violence against them. In December 2005, more than two-dozen Sudanese refugees were killed and dozens more injured as police assaulted protesting refugees living in Cairo.

Sudanese are reacting by attempting to flee into Israel in increasing numbers. The Egyptian government, in turn, has reacted by pressuring Israel to take steps to reduce the flow of refugees crossing the border. This combination make for a tragic mix, as the events of this past week show, and make it likely that more such incidents will occur again.

Amnesty International recognizes that governments such as Egypt and Israel have the right to maintain the security of their borders; but international law is clear that the use of force must be proportional to the threat and that security officials can use lethal force only if lives are in danger. Unless Egyptian officials change their policies, more individuals will be put at risk. This week's Urgent Action calls on Egyptian officials to follow those rules and conduct an independent investigation into the reports of deaths at the border crossing. Click here to take action.

It's the height of the summer movie season. That means Hollywood is cranking out blockbusters as if its yearly take depended on it (which it does) and that three (as in Shrek, Pirates of the Caribbean, Spider-man...) has replaced seven as the go-to lucky number. It means respite from the 100-degree heat in a 30-degree movie theater. But does it mean anything for human rights?

Actually, yes. Or sort of. The kinds of movies that deal with serious issues are few and far between in the hottest months of the summer, forced out in favor of flicks about flying dogs and superheroes.

But, as I can't stress enough, human rights enter into all parts of our daily lives, and this summer they've popped up in some unlikely places. Here's a rundown of some movies that tie into Amnesty campaigns, along with links to something you can do about the issues they raise.

LGBT: There may be something a little queasy about a plug for equality at the end of 90 minutes of gay jokes, but here's hoping the inevitable gay-rights message at the end of the almost-homophobic "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" gets across to Adam Sandler fans.

Civil Rights: While we no longer segregate lunch counters or condone openly racist policies, race is at the root of a lot of domestic human rights problems. The main issue at the center of the movie "Hairspray" is obviously John Travolta in a fat suit, but as a subplot it also deals with race relations — and just because it's set in the 1960s doesn't mean the problems it deals with don't continue today.

ESCR: Here's a secret about the well-guarded plot to "The Simpsons Movie:" Homer screws something up. Badly. And then he fixes it. Also pretty badly. Anyone who's watched even an episode of "The Simpsons" is probably unsurprised. Also unsurprising to true "Simpsons" fans is that alongside jokes about pig poop and private parts, "The Simpsons Movie" conveys a message, in this case about the obligation and the right to a healthy environment.

National Security: And then there are the action flicks. Whether you prefer Bruce Willis in "Live Free or Die Hard" or Matt Damon in "The Bourne Ultimatum," it's pretty much impossible to get away from the faux-political bombs-and-car-chase movies that have long been a staple of the summer season. But the evil CIA in "Bourne" hits a little close to home for those of us concerned that government agencies know things they're not telling us. "Die Hard," with its Fourth of July terrorist attack, plays into the nation's deepest fears — and mine. Although I enjoy a good explosion as much as the next girl, I can't help worrying that the whatever-it-takes attitude such movies take towards defeating terrorism help shape the public's perception of the real War on Terror.

As for the message behind "Transformers?" Sorry, couldn't tell you — I haven't seen it. And sometimes a popcorn flick really is just that. But Hollywood loves heartwarming messages. And no matter what you watch this month, try to take its message with you beyond the movie theater. After all, writing Urgent Action letters is a great way to cool off.

Rachel Dempsey

Amnesty became a subject of controversy late last month when the news spread that the organization had adopted a policy taking a more liberal stance on abortion rights than the neutral position it had held previously. Although we still don't pass judgment one way or another on abortion as a moral matter, the organization now opposes the criminalization of abortion and supports women who seek an abortion in the case of rape, incest, or grave health risk.

The policy, which emerged from work done by Amnesty's Stop Violence Against Women campaign, is carefully worded. Amnesty certainly knew it was bound to be controversial, and the nuances are very well thought-out. Somebody clearly knew the change would be controversial and worked hard to articulate the new position as precisely as possible.

But who? How does Amnesty go about amending old policies and creating new ones?

Turns out it's a long process — and you, as Amnesty activists, play a big role.

Step 1: Raising the Issue

For a change in Amnesty policy to be instituted, the first step is for someone to point out a flaw in the old policy. In the case of Amnesty's policies on sexual and reproductive rights, the issue of abortion rights emerged in 2003, around the same time as the Stop Violence Against Women campaign was inagurated. It was becoming clear that the organization's old stance of pure neutrality presented some serious problems for human rights; according to the UN Millennium Project, more than 7,000 women are dying each year from unsafe, illegal abortions.

Step 2: International Council (IC) Meeting

As you may already know, Amnesty is a democratically-run organization. Every two years, at the meeting of the International Council, activists and representatives from sections and structures all across the globe convene to vote on Amnesty policies and priorities. Following increased attention to sexual and reproductive rights as a part of the SVAW campaign, a consensus emerged at the 2005 IC meeting to undertake a consultation on Amnesty's abortion policy with its 2.2 million members wordwide.

Step 3: Consultation with Members

Member input is an integral part of how Amnesty is run. Over the two years following the 2005 IC meeting, Amnesty embarked on a campaign to speak with members and branches all over the globe about abortion policies, to try and decide a next step.

Step 4: International Executive Committee (IEC) Meeting

The IEC is a committee elected by the IC that meets biannually to make decisions about how Amnesty is run, ensuring the organization is acting in accordance with its mandate and adopting or rejecting changes to its policy. At the July 2006 meeting of the IEC, Amnesty adopted a policy on sexual and reproductive rights that included the controversial shift in stance on abortion.

Step 5: Implementation

Once an issue becomes a part of Amnesty policy, we decide what to do about it. At the next meeting of the IC, members from around the world will discuss how to implement Amnesty's new policy on sexual and reproductive rights to save the lives of rape survivors and other women in danger around the globe.

As you can see, Amnesty doesn't take changes to its policy lightly. Every decision is the result of a long, careful process that involves a lot of input from the organization's many members. I can't say this enough, but what makes Amnesty unique is that its commitment to activism at a grassroots level has persisted even as it has become one of the leading voices in human rights advocacy worldwide.

See a human rights issue that you think isn't getting enough attention? Contact your local Amnesty chapter to find out how you can bring it up at the next Annual General Meeting or IC meeting. 

Rachel Dempsey

For citizens of the United States, the date September 11 means a nation under attack. It means husbands, mothers and sons missing, presumed dead, and it means a legacy of human rights abuses in the name of national security. It means no one who lived through it  will ever again see the number 9/11 on a calendar without wondering how things could have been different.

September 11 also means all these things to Chileans. But for them, the September 11 in question wasn't in 2001, but rather 1973 — the year General Augusto Pinochet overthrew Socialist President Salvador Allende in a bloody coup.

In the first few months after the September 11 coup, over a thousand suspected leftists were killed or disappeared. Through what Amnesty has called "a program of repression," Pinochet's government would go on to remain in power for two decades, using techniques like political persecution, mass arrests, summary trial, torture, secret executions, and detention to silence detractors. The military dictatorship was cruel, abusive — and backed by the U.S. government.

At the height of the Cold War, several Latin American countries, including Chile, elected socialist leaders who threatened to bring Communist influences a little too close to the U.S. mainland for comfort. In an effort to keep Communism out of the Americas, the U.S. encouraged coups in several of these countries to remove socialists from power.

In Chile, that encouragement came in the form of money, political support, and CIA intervention. The U.S. supplied funds to pay for anti-Allende advertisements in the early 1970s, and while chances are the United States didn't play a direct role in the successful 1973 coup, a declassified CIA document from 1970 states, "It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup." While Pinochet was in power, the U.S. provided monetary support to his government long after it became clear that he had no respect for human rights.

But all this happened 30 years ago, making it old news. Yes, the U.S. government messed up, but why continue to harp on its old mistakes?

The obvious answer is that we're making them again. Our very own September 11 showed that we're vulnerable to attack just like any other country — and its aftermath showed that a democracy doesn't necessarily mean a government that respects human rights.

The other reason is that the very secrecy that led to the United States' complicity in human rights abuses in Chile is becoming generally accepted again, following bills like the Patriot Act that allow government agencies greater freedom to spy on U.S. citizens and fewer mechanisms for oversight.

One of the best things to come out of the United States' role in the coup in Chile is that, in the late 1990s, hundreds of formerly classified CIA documents were opened to the public. These documents showed that U.S. officials had a chilling level of knowledge about the abuses they were funding in the Pinochet government. The papers serve as an unequivocal condemnation of U.S. involvement in Latin America.

The fact that the U.S. government was able to get away with funding Pinochet and his human rights abuses shows how important it is to have transparency in the government, and the declassification of the documents detailing their actions points to the role accountability needs to play in shaping U.S. policy decisions. We need to apply the lessons of the first September 11 to the aftermath of the second. Keeping the government accountable for its actions is the only way to make sure it stops there.

Rachel Dempsey

Mornings are not my best thinking time, so I try to keep things light until about ten or eleven. But this morning I was watching The Today Show in an effort to get some news using as few brain cells as possible, when a segment on the 2008 Olympics in Beijing came on that made me wish desperately for some depth.

The segment showed Meredith Viera in Beijing, cheerfully talking about restrictions on Chinese media — for years, no reporters at all were allowed in Tiannamen Square, although the rules for foreign journalists there have recently been loosened — and bubbling about the progress being made on the Olympic stadium. She chatted with a taxicab driver who spoke in amusingly clumsy English, and one clip had her eating bull testicles with exaggerated disgust.

It was all very cute and fluffy, and obviously The Today Show isn't known for its political commentary, but it still irritated me that the segment made no mention of China's human rights issues. As the 2008 Olympics approaches, China is going to be getting more and more attention, and officials there are going to be working hard to present an image of a forward-thinking country shedding its Communist past.

But the Olympic stadium that Viera so cheerfully praised is being built on land that belongs to Chinese citizens who were forcibly evicted from their homes, and the persecution of anyone who dares speak out against the government has been increasing in an effort to clear the country of dissenters before the 2008 Games.

The rest of the world needs to use the opportunity presented by these Games to embarass China into compliance with international human rights norms. And the best way to do this is to call attention to the country's extremely poor human rights record — whenever possible. That means fewer bull testicles and more questions about why China executed over 1,000 people in 2006. (And that's only according to public record; it could be as many as 8,000).

To do your part, you can act on several Urgent Actions we have for China. And if you're in the DC area, be sure to come to our rally outside the Chinese embassy this Wednesday, August 8, from 5-6:30. Exercise the right to voice your protest without fear of reprisal and punishment, because if you were in China, you wouldn't be able to.

These Olympics are a really important opportunity to get China to be more compliant on human rights. We need to use it.

 Rachel Dempsey

We all noticed last fall when the American Voters decidely threw out an Incompetent Republican Congress and replaced them with the Democrats. But it is becoming clear that if WE expected a change in how things are run in Washington we were sadly mistaken.

Like in the last Republican controlled Congress A Bill that was designed to address the internal climate in an African Country that is an ally was introduced. Sadly it appears that it is travelling down the same road. If certain people have their way this legislation will not see the floor to be voted on.

The Current Government in Ethiopia has a serious image problem. Its actions were recently criticized in a report by Human Rights Watch. It released 38 political prisoners that were mainly members of the Political Opposition after an unfair trial. And the Red Cross was asked to leave the Ogaden region of the country. Also the country faces increasing scrutiny after its US Backed Incursion in to Somalia.

What did this African country do to try and shore up its image? It has retained one of the most powerful lobbyist groups in Washington DLA Piper. Already the group has sent two former members of Congress Dick Armey and Richard Gephardt to lobby the Speaker in an effort to prevent this bill from being voted on. The Government in Addis Ababa could lose substantial Economic and Military Aid if this bill passes.

While looking over the many questions and comments on the survey the UAN sent out this Spring, one question that kept popping up had to do with Iran.  Many people were concerned with the number of UAs issued about the country, and whether they did any good or not.

Many have reason to worry.  Iran has one of the highest numbers of documented executions of any country, including executions of those who committed crimes as minors. 

In the past several months, a number of human rights abuses--including large-scale arrests, incommunicado detention and torture--have taken place in the context of recent unrest among the country's Arab and Kurdish and Azeris ethnic minorities. Demonstrations held to protest violations have been met with indiscriminate use of violence; several of the victims have been children. Religious minority communities--including Bahais and Muslims practicing Sufism, have also been faced increased persecution in recent months. Hundreds of trade union activists--in particular activists from the Union of Workers of the Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company were arrested as part of measures to prevent planned strikes. Lawyers, journalists, web loggers and others who have spoken out against human rights violations have themselves been targeted for abuse.

Currently there are 13 active UAs on Iran, more than for any other country.  With all this going on, why do we have any reason to believe that appeals of our activists have any effect?  Because sometimes they do work.

There is an enforced silence in Iran about issues of political freedom or activism, and Amnesty is helping to break that silence. 

This article talks about Amnesty's successes in Iran. 

Amnesty actions have helped free a prisoner of conscience, improved conditions in jail, and possibly even halted an execution.  So even when countries seem at their worst, don't give up.  Even if UAs serve only to shed light on a dark situation, they serve their purpose.

If you want to help human rights defenders in Iran, here are some actions you can use:

Urgent Action 113/07 - Several students at Amir Kabir University in Tehran were arrested for protesting.  They have reportedly started a hunger strike and are being tortured.

Urgent Action 195/07 - Amir Yaghoub-Ali, an active member of the men's committee of the Campaign for Equality, was arrested on 11 July in Tehran. He had been collecting signatures in support of the Campaign, which aims to collect one million signatures from Iranians in support of an end to legalized discrimination against women. Amnesty International considers him a prisoner of conscience, detained solely for the peaceful exercise of his right to freedom of expression.

Urgent Action 194/07 - 15 people were arrested on 9 July, the eighth anniversary of student demonstrations in 1999 which were violently suppressed by the security forces. They are believed to be held in solitary confinement in Section 209 of Evin Prison in Tehran, which is run by the Ministry of Intelligence. Amnesty International believes they are prisoners of conscience.

So keep up those appeals.  Human rights defenders in Iran deserve our attention, our efforts, and any protection we can provide.  They face dire conditions, and we can't abandon them.

~Jessica Beardsley

Before I go any farther, I need to warn any unsuspecting readers that I will be discussing specific plot points from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows in this post. I will not talk about the ending, but if you haven't read the book yet and want to be surprised, STOP READING HERE. THIS BLOG ENTRY CONTAINS SPOILERS.

Okay, that's out of the way. I actually wasn't even going to blog about J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows for fear of ruining the book for those four people in the country who haven't gotten around to reading it yet, but the human rights themes that run through the novel are way too good to pass up.

A lot of the ideas in this book — about freedom of education, freedom of the press, and minority and indigenous rights — are similar to those in Book 5. Once again, the Ministry of Magic is controlling the curriculum at Hogwarts, Wizarding newspaper The Daily Prophet is functioning as a propaganda machine, and magical minorities are overlooked and disrespected by even decent people.

Some long-running plotlines come to a satisfying close. While Rowling has been poking gentle fun at activists for a while, in the form of the S.P.E.W. (Society to Promote Elvish Welfare) campaign, in Book 7 Hermione's clumsy efforts to raise the status of house-elves are vindicated. When Harry starts to treat house-elf Kreacher with respect, the formerly angry and vindictive creature warms to his new master. And Lord Voldemort's refusal to acknowledge elves' magical powers of elves proves his downfall when he fails to protect himself against the magic of non-wizards.

But the real human-rights core of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows emerges in its treatment of ethnic cleansing. The difference between pure-blood Wizards and Muggle-borns has been a constant theme throughout the entire Harry Potter series, but until Book 7 it was one undercurrent of many. I didn't even think of the Dark emphasis on Wizarding ancestry as a human rights issue until Daniel's comment on my entry on Book 5. 

In the final installment of the Harry Potter series, though, Voldemort takes control of the Ministry of Magic and embarks on a campaign to eliminate and punish "disloyal" Wizards. All Muggle-born Wizards are rounded up for questioning, and their names are put on a national register so they can be easily tracked.

I was particularly moved by the scene where Harry and Hermione stumble into the interrogation of a Muggle-born during a break-in at the Ministry of Magic. The allusions to real-life ethnic cleansing campaigns, from Cambodia to the Holocaust, couldn't be clearer. 

Any epic of good-versus-evil is bound to elicit historical comparisons, and any historical insights drawn from a children's book are bound to be on the shallow side. Voldemort-as-Hitler is something of a cliche. Both of them have come to represent evil, as an abstract easy-to-hate concept, and drawing parallels is almost too easy.

But the novel part of what Rowling has managed to do, and whay she truly deserves credit for, is making the problems of genocide and ethnic cleansing accessible for children too young to understand or care about the racial, religious and cultural persecution that, unfortunately, exists outside the world of fiction as well.

Attempting to explain Darfur to a child is no easy task. Using the Death Eaters as a parallel to the Janjawid is a gross oversimplification of an extremely complicated situation, but ironically, placing genocide in the fictonal world of Harry Potter can help make it more real. So if you have a kid, or know a kid, who is reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, try to engage them in a discussion of the human rights themes in the book.

And the best part? You get to read it, too. 

Rachel Dempsey

As much as I hate to admit it, the summer is winding to a close — and as it comes to an end, so will the opportunity to spend a lazy Sunday afternoon reading.

But now it's only the beginning of August, and as you head to the beach, the country, or wherever you plan on going to escape the city heat, there's still time to get sucked into a good book. In the second-to-last installment of the Human Rights Summer Reading series, I've put together one more list of a few novels that can change your perspective on human rights even as they draw you into a compelling story. Tomorrow, I'll end with an entry on ethnic cleansing in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

The Book of Laughter and Forgetting (1979), Milan Kundera — This book opens with the story of a Communist leader who falls out of favor with his party and is erased from history. Every trace of him is removed, even from photographs, except for one image that contains his hat, which he had placed on the head of a comrade for the moment the snapshot was taken. The opening vignette sets the tone for the rest of the book, a novel in stories, each of which deals with the way the consequences of political repression and persecution continue to shape people long after the events that precipitated them are over.

Invitation to a Beheading (1938), Vladimir Nabokov — Lolita fans, be warned: this surrealist little novel bears minimal resemblance to Nabokov's more famous later work. Published first in serial form, Invitation to a Beheading tells of Cincinnatus, a man condemned to death for the mysterious crime of "gnostical turpitude," following him through his imprisonment to the day of his execution. While the story is sometimes confusing and deliberately vague, it brings up questions of what constitutes a crime worthy of execution and illustrates the emotional turmoil of a prisoner on death row.

The Fortress of Solitude (2003), Jonathan Lethem — Part traditional bildungsroman, part cautionary tale, and part superhero story, this novel is hard to classify. Dylan Ebdus is the only white kid growing up in a neighborhood defined by race, and his friendship with black neighbor Mingus Rude both reinforces racial boundaries and breaks them down. Dylan's struggle with defining his own cultural identity and Mingus' descent into drug-dealing and jail time illustrate how race can define people's images and their selves, and a fantastical subplot about a magic ring raises issues about how to deal with the responsibility to enforce justice and punish crime.

Maus (1986), Art Spiegelman — Spiegelman's famed graphic memoir tells of how his father, Vladek Spiegelman, survived the Holocaust, combining scenes from Vladek's memory with a second storyline about the father and son's present-day relationship. While Maus is most famous as one of the few graphic novels to be accepted into the literary mainstream, don't let the cartoon cats and mice that represent the Nazis and Jews overshadow the book's true feat, which is to show how unthinkable human rights abuses like genocide continue to haunt their victims throughout their lives and into the next generation.

Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress (2001) Dai Sijie — This slight novel is set in China in the early 1970s, during the height of the re-education component of Mao's Cultural Revolution. The two main characters are the sons of urban doctors sent to the countryside to learn the value of hard work, and find their escape from drudgery and anti-intellectualism through literature. The central message, which is focused on the power of words and stories to transcend political oppression, is bound to speak to any Urgent Activist, and the loving nods to the books they read are bound to ignite a spark in any word lover.

That's it for today, but stay tuned tomorow for the follow-up to the Human Rights Summer Reading Series: Harry Potter Edition! 

Rachel Dempsey