More reasons

UN body criticises US on rights
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5223586.stm

Help was slow in reaching many in New Orleans after Katrina
The US should immediately shut all secret detention facilities used in its campaign against terror groups, the UN Human Rights Committee has said.
The UN report also covered the domestic human rights situation in the US.

It urged the government to ensure the rights of poor people and blacks were respected in relief efforts.

Lawyers for the US State Department said they were disappointed by the report, which they said was not a full analysis of the situation.

Treaty's scope

The UN panel said that both poor people and black people were "disadvantaged" in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

It said the US should increase its efforts "to ensure the rights of poor people and in particular African-Americans are fully taken into consideration in the reconstruction plans with regard to access to housing, education and health care".

There should also be a moratorium on the death penalty, which appears to be imposed disproportionately on minority groups and poor people, the report concluded.

The committee's findings came after it held a two-day hearing in Geneva last week into US compliance with the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In its hearing before the panel, the American delegation said that issues relating to terrorism were largely beyond the treaty's scope.

But the committee on Friday said the US should review that approach and interpret the treaty in good faith.

The report is nonetheless expected to add pressure on Washington to change the way it is waging the war on terror.

Closure calls

The committee said it was concerned by "credible and uncontested" information that the US had detained people "secretly and in secret places for months and years".


Calls have grown for the US to shut the Guantanamo camp

The US "should only detain persons in places in which they can enjoy the full protection of the law," the report said.

The US authorities should also allow members of the International Committee of the Red Cross to those it is holding in such facilities.

The committee's call comes two months after a separate UN body, the UN Committee against Torture, urged Washington to close its detention camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Earlier this month, the Bush administration announced that all detainees held by the US military, including those at Guantanamo, were to be treated in line with the minimum standards of the Geneva Conventions.

The shift in policy came after the US Supreme Court ruled that the conventions applied to detainees.

Originally Posted by Curious girl2

Neither. Try fair trade and a government that doesnt spend every penny it has on weapons.

Curious

indeed!

Originally Posted by scentsofjannah

strange ..when almost every other human on earth knows of the fact that there is a North-South divide and trading inequalities..some people on this forum like Mr Heigou etc think everythings perfect and couldnt be better

I do not think that everything is perfect and could not be better. Why do you feel the need to distort my words in that way? I will notice that those places with good credit ratings and low interest rates are wealthy. Those places with no interest rates are if they have oil. Those with poor credit histories and high interest rates are poor. I suggest if the South wishes to be rich they work harder at making their interest rates lower.

I reject the idea of trading inequalities.

Originally Posted by Curious girl2

Neither. Try fair trade and a government that doesnt spend every penny it has on weapons.

Curious

The West trades more fairly than any government or system in history.

And what is so striking about the West is how little governments spend on weapons. The Mughal Empire for instance took half the crop from the peasants and spent roughly all of it on the military.

America spends what? Four percent of GDP?

Originally Posted by Curious girl2

Neither. Try fair trade and a government that doesnt spend every penny it has on weapons.

Curious

I suggest you look up per capita defence spending:
Source: World Factbook 2006

Of the first 20 highest spenders GDP-wise 13 are Muslim countries. The US isn't even in the top 20!

On trade: interestingly all countries that manage to develop themselves have strong trade relationships with the West. Heck, China is counting on export to the West for its development. I agree, though, that there are still way too many unfair trade barriers.

Originally Posted by HeiGou

The West trades more fairly than any government or system in history.

And what is so striking about the West is how little governments spend on weapons. The Mughal Empire for instance took half the crop from the peasants and spent roughly all of it on the military.

America spends what? Four percent of GDP?

Its not the Western governments that I was referring to, though I do think that all governments in the world today spend far too much on weapons, no matter what percentage of GDP they spend. I am referring to states that seem to be perpetually in a state of war, certain African states for example. The West is no innocent here either, its the West that is supplying these states that are killing each other rather than feeding the people.

As for my referal to fair trade, how can it be right that people in 3rd world countries are paid a pittance to produce foods and goods that we in the West consume and never think about the work involved in producing them? In our ever consuming attitude to find a *bargain*, we are condemning the farmers and producers to life of poverty from which they can never get out of. Half of the world's population live on less than £1.50 a day, how can that be right?

CG

Originally Posted by Curious girl2

Its not the Western governments that I was referring to, though I do think that all governments in the world today spend far too much on weapons, no matter what percentage of GDP they spend. I am referring to states that seem to be perpetually in a state of war, certain African states for example. The West is no innocent here either, its the West that is supplying these states that are killing each other rather than feeding the people.

I doubt that the West supplies many such people with weapons - there are laws against it. Most wars are fought with Soviet weapons (like the AK-47) or Chinese or Egyptian knock offs.

As for my referal to fair trade, how can it be right that people in 3rd world countries are paid a pittance to produce foods and goods that we in the West consume and never think about the work involved in producing them? In our ever consuming attitude to find a *bargain*, we are condemning the farmers and producers to life of poverty from which they can never get out of. Half of the world's population live on less than £1.50 a day, how can that be right?

I think it can be justified - they need to improve their skills and their technical base. They need to earn money to save money to invest in factories. They benefit by trading with the West. What is wrong with paying what the market will bear?