Letters: Jun. 27, 2005

• Share

(3 of 4)

Of Freedom and Fear

In TIME's Interview with former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky [June 6], he criticized Amnesty International for lacking "moral clarity" and not differentiating between human-rights abuses committed by dictatorial "fear societies" and those carried out by democratic "free societies." Sharansky implied that the latter are more tolerable, but the distinction is meaningless to the victims. When asked about Israel's abuses of Palestinians' human rights, Sharansky accused Amnesty International of ignoring violations by terrorist organizations. Well, two wrongs don't make a right.

RAYMOND TOTAH -- Fallbrook, Calif.

Sharansky's ideas on human rights may seem simplistic, but they aren't. So long as people live in a fear society, there is no hope for peace or democracy.

HELEN W. JOFFE -- Hamilton, Ohio

Where is mankind supposed to turn to find the noble concept of moral clarity that Sharansky says Amnesty International lacks? The Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo scandals have spoiled whatever claim the U.S. had to moral values. Israel and America are not champions of moral clarity. Both have been attacked, and both have retaliated. Sharansky also complained of the moral equivalence that Amnesty's reports seem to confer on both terrorist regimes and democratic societies. There may be no moral equivalence between a terrorist attack and a retaliation, but let's at least be honest about it. Both are atrocities.

SIMON HYTTEN -- Rome

Schröder's Political Future

I am a German and an avid supporter of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder [June 6]. Schröder has been a stellar head of government from the day he took office. Always aware of Germany's past and its responsibility to the future yet never losing sight of the social and economic challenges his country faces, Schröder has followed in the footsteps of the greatest statesman Germany ever had, Willy Brandt. In my view, he is a pretty difficult act to follow!

MARTIN SAUTER -- Paris

Schröder's idea of calling early elections is illogical. He hopes they will end the gridlock created by the opposition-controlled Bundesrat (upper house) and the government-controlled Bundestag (lower house). But if his Social Democrats win, the situation is likely to remain the same. What he should do is form a grand coalition with the opposition Christian Democrats until the constitutional end of the Social Democrats' term, in 2006. That would help break the legislative gridlock.

ALFRED JUNG -- Gau-Bischofsheim, Germany

Normally, Germans are a sedate and patient people. It took 16 years to get sick of Chancellor Helmut Kohl, but here we are, already tired of Schröder after seven years. Kohl's shoes were simply too big for Schröder to fill. If there had been no catastrophic flooding in August 2002 and if Bush had not gone to war in Iraq, Schröder's term would have ended after four years, in 2002. It's time for him to go. No one will miss him.

THOMAS KANTHAK -- Braunfels, Germany

There are two possible outcomes to Schröder's gambit of calling early elections. Either he will be re-elected, or he will discover, like King Canute, that even he cannot turn back an incoming tide.

JOSHUA SELIG -- Dorset, England

Referendums in the Dark