Executive Director Amnesty International

Clear facts. Black and white. Unambiguous choice. These are the terms President Bush used in the letter he sent to more than 450 college and university newspapers.

The subject was Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. The object was to prepare young people for military confrontation in the Persian Gulf.

The letter cited Amnesty International’s recent report on Iraq as evidence to support the administration’s position. Perhaps presidential advisers know Amnesty volunteer groups are now active on more than 2,600 campuses in this country.

I hope the administration will soon learn that Amnesty members and other student activists cannot be misled by opportunistic manipulation of the international human rights movement.

Amnesty published its report on the Iraqi Government’s gross human rights violations for one purpose: to advance the protection of human rights.

By publicizing such abuses, the movement generates public pressure and international protest. Governments through the years have channeled particular portions of Amnesty’s findings into their political agendas, and government authorities undoubtedly will continue to do so in the future.

But the U.S. public should not tolerate selective indignation by its own government. We can teach our political leaders people’s human rights are not convenient issues for rhetorical arsenals.

When taken at face value, President Bush’s condemnation of torture and political killings by Iraqi authorities appears laudable. Violations of basic human rights should arouse indignation and inspire action to stop them.

The matter becomes less “clear” and “unambiguous,” however, in the light of two questions: Why did our President remain mute on the subject of the Iraqi Government’s patterns of severe human rights abuses prior to August 1990?

Why does he remain mute about abuses committed by other governments, our so-called coalition partners in the region?

Iraqi soldiers’ behavior in Kuwait does not constitute a sudden shift to the brutal side.

Iraqi civilians have suffered such cruel and degrading treatment by government personnel for more than a decade, as detailed in numerous Amnesty International reports.

There was no presidential indignation, for example, in 1989, when Amnesty released its findings about the torture of Iraqi children.

And just a few weeks before the invasion of Kuwait, the Bush administration refused to conclude that Iraq had engaged in a consistent pattern of gross human rights violations.

If U.S. policies before August 1990 had reflected concern about the Iraqi Government’s human rights record, our country might not be digging in war today.

Tomorrow’s tensions in the region may well be mapped by the human rights records of our long-term “friends,” such as the Syrian government.

We’ve heard little from the U.S. government in recent years about the appalling tactics of repression used in Saudi Arabia and Syria.

Torture is reportedly a common practice in Saudi Arabia, and political detainees have been jailed there for prolonged periods without charge or trial.

Syrian prisoners are routinely tortured. A majority of the thousands of political prisoners held in Syria have been denied their right to trial.

Incommunicado detention and torture are routine in Morocco, and that country’s government persists in responding to “disappearances” with secrecy and silence.

Our government fails to act with determination against the torture suffered by tens of thousands of prisoners held in Turkish jails.

The Egyptian government has subjected many thousands of political prisoners to detention without charge or trial. The torture of political prisoners, especially supporters of Islamic groups opposing the government, is reportedly common in Egypt.

In the Israeli occupied territories, thousands of Palestinians have been detained without charge or trial. Many of the detainees committed the “offense” of peacefully exercising their rights to free expression and association.

Israeli troops, often engaging in excessive use of force, have killed hundreds of Palestinian civilians.

President Bush’s selective indignation over Iraq’s abuses in Kuwait undermines the norms of “human decency” he touts in his letter to campus newspapers.

All people in all countries are entitled to human rights protection: international humanitarian standards rest upon this principle.

The standards are unequivocally practical, because human rights protection establishes a foundation for just, peaceful, stable order. Exploiting human rights to justify violent confrontation is itself indecent.

Amnesty International takes no position on the territorial disputes now raging in the Persian Gulf. But we do support international coalition building to prevent all egregious human rights violators from conducting business as usual.

If President Bush is sincere about “desperately want(ing) peace” and if he wishes to remove ambiguity from his invocation of “moral obligation,” then let him be consistent in his concern for human rights.

Editor’s note: John G. Healey writes a response to President Bush’s letter to college campuses on the Persian Gulf.