[Africa] Committee on UN treaty requesting account of human rights compliance from Sudan

An independent committee monitoring a United Nations civil rights covenant has asked the Government of Sudan to submit a special report on its compliance with six covenant articles, including the right to life and the illegality of torture and slavery, the committee chairperson said today.

Sudan's deadline would be the end of this year, French lawyer Christine Chanet told a news conference at UN Headquarters in New York, as the 18-member Human Rights Committee wrapped up the first of its three meetings this year on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols.

The committee previously asked the United States for a special report on its detention policies and on aspects of the Patriot Act approved after the attacks of 11 September 2001, she said, and that report was expected before the panel met again in July.

The 1966 Covenant came into force in 1976 and binds its States Parties, numbering 154 so far, to recognize that "in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights."

Under one Optional Protocol to the Covenant, 104 States parties allow the Committee to consider communications from individuals alleging treaty-based rights violations. The second Optional Protocol, to which 54 States are party, seeks to abolish the death penalty.

During this session, the committee considered reports submitted by the Governments of Greece, Iceland, Kenya, Mauritius and Uzbekistan, as well as testimony on those countries from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and intergovernmental organizations, she said.

The Geneva-based committee meets twice a year at the UN complex there and once in New York, Ms. Chanet said.

April 1, UN News Centre

[US Domestic Policy] Social Security Is the Country’s Most Important Anti-Poverty

WASHINGTON -- March 29 -- During the Social Security debates, proponents of privatization often focus on the need for a “secure retirement system for future generations” and “saving Social Security for sake of our children”. However, the current Social Security system is already the country’s most important anti-poverty program for the nation’s children. A new study by CEPR economist Heather Boushey, using data from the Survey on Income and Program Participation (SIPP), found that more low-income children live in families that receive a Social Security check than in families that receive a check from the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program. In 2003, 12.1 percent of children living in families with an income below the 150 percent of the poverty line ($28,736 in 2004 for a family of four) lived with a family member receiving a Social Security check. By comparison, 11.3 percent of children living in poverty lived with a family member receiving a TANF check, making Social Security a more important program for children in low-income families. When looking at families below poverty, TANF is slightly more common: 15.5 percent of poor children live in families receiving a TANF check, while 12.2 percent live in families receiving a Social Security check. While TANF is somewhat more important for the poorest families, Social Security becomes relatively more important at slightly higher levels of income, because few low-income families are eligible for TANF once their income exceeds the poverty level.Social Security is an important source of income support for the low income families who receive it, accounting for nearly half of the income for families with children living below 150 percent of the poverty level and receiving a Social Security check. While it is common knowledge that Social Security is essential to the welfare of the nation’s retirees, Congress must recognize the fact that it is also an extremely important program for the nation’s children and in particular, the poorest children. Any changes to the system must take this into account, as well as the effects of restructuring of Social Security on disability and survivors benefits, which also affect the well-being of low-income children. The debates over the future of this system must address the potential political and economic implications to all of its beneficiaries.

(source Common Dreams)

[Military Spending] We spend money to wage war that could be used to feed children

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." -- President Dwight D. Eisenhower/ April 16, 1953

By Hank Mattimore

I am not a pacifist. If I am under attack, I will fight back.

If my country is attacked, I believe that we, as a nation, must defend our homeland. That being said, I believe that war is a last resort, almost always a mistake and ultimately a wasteful and ineffective way to solve the issues that divide us.

That is why President Eisenhower, by no stretch of the imagination a pacifist, found himself questioning the wisdom of our country or any country wasting precious resources on weapons of war when we could be spending those resources on growing crops, developing medicines, purchasing school books and making our world a more peaceful place to raise our families.

War is a kind of madness. We equip our youth with sophisticated weaponry and send them abroad to kill and destroy young men and women from a distant country. In the process civilians die, the innocent suffer, children are orphaned. Ultimately, someone declares a victory but there are no real winners, only different kinds of victims. Waging war diminishes victor and vanquished alike.

There is a story told about an old Cherokee grandpa who is teaching his grandson about life. He says, "A fight is going on inside me and you and every other person. It is a terrible fight between two wolves. One wolf is evil. He is anger, envy, greed, arrogance, guilt, resentment and self-pity. The other is good. He is joy, peace, love, kindness, generosity and empathy."

The young boy thought for a minute then said to his grandpa, "Which wolf will win?" The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."

It seems to me that when we go to war, we are feeding the wrong wolf. And in doing so, we are destroying the goodness within each of us. We are not bringing peace to the world but fostering hatred.

We are not feeding the hungry or clothing the naked. We are killing not only our own soldiers but also the lives of innocent civilians. More importantly, we are starving the good wolf within ourselves, the wolf that wants peace for ourselves and our children.

The March 14 issue of Time magazine has a cover story about the number of people (more than 1 billion) who are living in extreme poverty in our world today.

According to a United Nations' report entitled "Children Under Threat", more than half of the world's children suffer "extreme poverty." That means families that live on less than a dollar a day, families that don't have safe drinking water or enough food to ward off starvation. It means children die because of sickness that could be prevented.

This year we will be spending approximately $500 billion to support our military operations and $16 billion in aid to those who live in extreme poverty throughout the world. Where have we gone wrong?

This is not a Democrat vs. Republican thing or blue vs. red. Letting children starve to death in a world of plenty transcends all that. It's time we revisited Eisenhower's words and paid attention to the truth that he utters.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."