It's provoked a bit of a shitstorm (the ILO seems to be especially unhappy with him), and if you knew Sylvain, you'd know that that's absolutely the last thing he wanted; he's a serious scholar who cares very deeply about these matters. He was on The Current the other day; you can listen to his interview over here. And before you get all indignant about some insensitive rich professor in his ivory tower, I want you to listen to the whole segment. His story is an incredible one, and I'm proud to be working in an office 7 doors down from his.

[ 10 February 2005: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]

But it isn't just a question of economic models. Its a political question. And so yes I can see a shitstorm by the folks at the ILO and numerous other organizations.

1. Eliminating child-labour without additional measures is harmful to LIC economies.
2. The measures necessary to alleviate these reprecussions are impractical and interfere with other IMF dictates.
3. Therefore, those measures that would eliminate child labour must not be implemented.
4. Child labour, however unfortunate, cannot be eliminated.

quote:

---

Its point is that a ban on child labour that is not accompanied by any other measures to alleviate poverty can only make a bad situation worse.

---

This thesis sounds remarkably like the view that remedies to social problems should be complete, from the start, and have no flaws or problems, etc., etc.

The best additional remedy is to ensure that the parents of child labourers, themselves likely child labourers as well, are able to form unions and negotiate the terms and conditions of work such that they can afford to send their little darlings to school and get a better life than mum and dad.

Of course the main point of banning child labour is to ensure the right of children to an education and a childhood. Childhood is a window of opportunity of learning: close that window too soon and the child is doomed to a life of ignorance. The value of childhood itself is, of course, priceless.

This paper seems to relate mainly or even exclusively to developing countries and I can't help but notice that that detail was "accidently" left out of your summary, OC. Or does your colleage also feel that there should be no ban on child labour in Canada? After all, as John Swift once noted, since the parents are so rapaciously exploited why not do the same to the kids?

The reality is that most child labourers are in fact children of adults who had to work when they were children, and the parents of most working children are either unemployed or in unprotected and exploitative work themselves. The vast majority of companies that actively employ child labourers do so at the expense of adults and often simply because children are cheaper, un-unionised and easier to exploit. Such practices are unjustifiable.

There are some observers who promote the idea of companies (usually subcontractors) employing children and giving them some schooling as well. Evidence shows, however, that such part-time education is no substitute for quality basic education and that anything more than a few hours' work each week has a significant effect on children's learning achievement. Companies should employ adults and allow them to form unions, if they choose, so that they can negotiate decent local wages and conditions. The incomes of families would thus be sufficient to allow them to send their children to school (the evidence shows that usually any income from working children makes only a marginal impact on overall household income).

Child labour hampers the economic growth of a nation. The base and driving force behind economic growth today is knowledge and information, which can only be obtained by having access to good quality education. Child labour is the biggest obstacle in the path of children getting an education. It causes and perpetuates adult unemployment, and is detrimental to the development of human capital since it does not provide them with the scope for education and upgrading their skills, thereby churning out generations of unskilled adult labourers. It also damages their health to such an extent that often they find themselves invalid by the time they have reached 30. Therefore it regresses the growth pattern of the economy to a great extent.

His main point in the interview was that the only way to reduce child labour was to reduce poverty, and that passing feel good conventions isn't going to do squat. Can't argue with him there.

The problem, though, is that international capital likes its labour cheap and flexible. You keep labour that way by making sure there are lots of desperate people willing to do anything, so you'd better keep the parents poor. And the children... hell, who makes a cheaper and more flexible worker than a child?

[ 11 February 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

It's provoked a bit of a shitstorm (the ILO seems to be especially unhappy with him), and if you knew Sylvain, you'd know that that's absolutely the last thing he wanted; he's a serious scholar who cares very deeply about these matters.

---

quote:

---

In the present paper, we argue that altruistic parents may in fact voluntarily choose the worst forms of child labour, such as prostitution and deep-sea fishing over other non-harmful jobs for their children. The reasons are simple, they are poor and these activities pay well...

---

Oh well, that makes it OK.

quote:

---

We develop a simple theory of the worst forms of child labour based upon three essential premises. ...(including that ) parents are altruistic toward their children and make decisions on their behalf. (Further that) child labour, if it takes place, is a well-informed choice of parents...

---

Uh huh. Nice theory. I've got some property, as the saying goes, in Florida with an ocean view that I think you'd be interested in...

The author seems to have nothing to say about "the other measures to alleviate poverty", to quote OC's initial posting. I guess we taxpayers can count on those "other measures' in a forthcoming paper? Or isn't that his "area of expertise"? Oh well, let 'em starve.

There's nothing here about the uneven development so typical for the world economy today, that seems to condemn poor people to remain poor, forever. Unless, of course, they're clever enough to sell their children into prostitution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
This controversy reminds me a little of this piece: How Economists Kill People.

---

The first comment is simply an invention. They want to understand how and why children end up working in dangerous jobs. There's no way an honest reading of the paper could lead anyone to believe that they think that child labour is a good thing. The worst you can say is that they think that children working in hazardous conditions may be better than children starving to death. If you want to disagree with them on that point, then I'd appreciate if you could explain why you think poor children should die rather than work.

If you'll recall, the ILO spokesman made a similar comment in that clip from The Current, and Sylvain's reaction was rather mild: 'He hasn't read the paper.' He chose not to mention that he had in fact visited the ILO in Geneva, and had explained the paper in person to that very same man. The fact that he could then go on record and wilfully distort Sylvain and Stéphane's argument is quite simply outrageous. It's not Sylvain's style, but to my mind, he would have been more than justified in saying 'He's a hack bureaucrat who's more interested in keeping his pet project going than in doing anything that will actually help poor children.'

I know I'm ranting a bit here, but any suggestion that Sylvain thinks that child labour is a good thing is a monstrously insulting distortion.

The second comment is about parents' involvement. It is certainly the case that kidnapping, coerced labour, bondage and abusive parenting exists. But those activities are already treated as crimes, so there's no particular reason to make them the subject of new legislation. If you want to beef up enforcement of those laws, we'd all agree with that.

But not all child labour is the result of bad parenting or of predators. Sylvain's point is that many parents would prefer that their children not work, but they can't see any alternative. He's got a lot of experience in this area, both personally and professionally, so I'm inclined to take his word on it. If all you have is snarky remarks about Florida swampland, then I'd ask you to kindly STFU.

You apparently skipped the part in the conclusion where they discuss food-for-education plans.

[ 11 February 2005: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
This controversy reminds me a little of this piece: How Economists Kill People.

I am sure, Oliver, that your friend is not a monster who likes to see eight-year-olds put out to work as prostitutes and deep-sea fishers. To the contrary, I expect your friend is an intelligent and well-meaning scholar who would really like to believe he is doing useful and helpful work. The problem is with your whole discipline: by focusing on the narrow questions you often define out of your inquiry the real heart of the social problems we face, and indeed, may end up legitimizing the worst parts of it.

---

Yes, I'd seen that piece as well. The cynic in me says: 'Here's a self-serving anecdote that is almost entirely stripped of context, written by someone with a book to sell.'

[edited to add:] Actually, if you want to take that anecdote to heart, it's the ILO that is playing the role of the World Bank here. It seems to have started its campaign without taking the time to ask itself the question: 'What happens after our ban on child labour is implemented?'

As for the other part of that post, it's off-topic, so I'm taking the liberty of reviving this old thread to reply there.

[ 11 February 2005: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]

One point I would like to make is that he seems to misrepresent the history of how child labour was reduced in first world countries.Legislationwas a huge part of that effort.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
This controversy reminds me a little of this piece: How Economists Kill People.

I am sure, Oliver, that your friend is not a monster who likes to see eight-year-olds put out to work as prostitutes and deep-sea fishers. To the contrary, I expect your friend is an intelligent and well-meaning scholar who would really like to believe he is doing useful and helpful work. The problem is with your whole discipline: by focusing on the narrow questions you often define out of your inquiry the real heart of the social problems we face, and indeed, may end up legitimizing the worst parts of it.

---

robbieeeeeeee_deeeeeeee, it is always so nice to discuss or debate issues with you. You obviously do a good literature research and share those sources with others.

robie_dee, Do you think that making child labour illegal without other measures taken in place, simultaneously would eliminate child labour? Do you think it would eliminate poverty and hunger which is the reason for child labour?

Is it safe to assume that the article that you made a link to (How Economists Kill People), was meant to question the credibility of the study, 'A theory of the worst forms of child labour', or contradict it?

Outsourcing hits workers in the North very badly, and ultimately delivers offers the opportunity for employment and advancement to workers in the South only under conditions that make their position highly insecure. Economists tell us that this is too bad - without outsourcing the workers of the South will be even poorer and they are so poor already that you are a bad person for wanting to deny them even the meagre benefits outsourced work provides, even though it comes at the expense of your own job.

Child labour is a moral outrage and we want to abolish it. But once again, the economists come and tell us we can't do it because it will deprive their parents of needed income.

Well I don't want children to have to work and I want every adult in the world to have safe, meaningful work that is remunerated on such a level that they can support a family. I want strong laws and policies that guarantee this. Rather than having the economists tell us what we can't do, why don't they tell us what we can do?

I don't want to drag this discussion too far off topic, since Oliver has already revived another thread for discussion of "economics" itself. But I will just say that in my opinion, the reason why the economists don't tell us what we can do, or at least, don't tell us the whole truth about it, is because ultimately mainstream economics is beholden to a system called capitalism - a system which is built on the entrenchment of inequality rather than its amelioration. As I see it, the path to deeper change requires an attack on this system itself.

[ 12 February 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

Let’s say family A has a piece of land and family B comes in and bully family A and demand that A give up their land to them. Finally B uses its inhuman senses that comes from its inflated sense of entitlement that gives him the power to kill others and engage in murder of some members of Family A and makes other members to flea.
Family B takes over the land and proceed in growing crops on this land (land of A) and A lives in poverty and hunger. Finally family A receives a pebble of the mountain that belongs to them. The pebble is the bottom line quality with very little nutritional value.
What would be the analysis of this?
Lets say family B analyse it this way: This would pit people against one another and this solution not only doesn’t solve the problem it also comes at the expense of giving away “our” crop? Is it really rightfully “theirs”. Do you think this approach and attitude is a contributing factor in prevention of redistribution of wealth amongst countries? It is “mine” and you can’t give it “away”? or is it that it rightfully belong to them and it should be returned. Would you in this situation rally around B to keep “their” crop for “them”? or perhaps take an approach that would brign light to this situation and perhaps some willingliness to battle thissituation from an angle that doesn't further pit workers agianst one another.
You are given "my" crop and I don't want to give up "my" crop or is it that we both are toys in the hand of economists and capitalists? I won't resent you for this, I will work in solidarity with you to brign down this system.

Would you say this approach may move us toward eliminating child povery and huger and ultimately child labour?

Would you see the act of taking away the land from its original owner which created poverty and hunger is the one which is the original cause of pitting human being against one another or the hungry people accepting the bottom line pebble as the cause for the pitting human being against one another?

Outsourcing jobs is not going to return the wealth of southern countries back to them but I don’t believe stopping outsourcing is going to make the situation any better except that it keeps the job for western countries instead of south or other parts.

From where the western activist sitting they only see the anger and condition of workers here but never the condition of people in south. This is how they see this action as an act of pitting workers against each other and not the rest of story. This is why they can’t offer a comprehensive solution that would be fair.

In terms of economists, as I said it in the other thread as well, they would need to come up with formulas that include people as important and primary part of it (by people, I mean all people).

Child labourers: I wholeheartedly agree with you that child labour of any shape would need to be eliminated. However the solutions offered by western activists is not going to eliminate it at all. I think again we are going back to looking at the reality of people’s lives and finding a solution together with those oppressed to deal with these issues.

robbii_dee, I don’t think at all that you are alone in your feeling about child labourer and I think there are more people in this world who agree with you than those disagree with you. On the top of that list would be the parents of the child labourers.

There has to be systematic solution to this and part of it may be that those of us in western countries have to return what is rightfully not ours and that is not even a scarifies it is the right thing to do. Giving back what belongs to others is not a scarifies or an act of kindness, it is justice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Rather than having the economists tell us what we can't do, why don't they tell us what we can do?

---

We do, and we have, repeatedly, and at great length.

quote:

---

in my opinion, the reason why the economists don't tell us what we can do, or at least, don't tell us the whole truth about it, is because ultimately mainstream economics is beholden to a system called capitalism - a system which is built on the entrenchment of inequality rather than its amelioration. As I see it, the path to deeper change requires an attack on this system itself.

---

'beholden'? 'don't tell us the whole truth'?

You're going to have to do much better than an unsupported claim combined with the well-known SPP/LVV gambit:

quote:

---

The Special Powers Ploy (SPP)

If your stock of arguments is exhausted, you can make use of the Special Powers Ploy. Just before your opponent claims victory, announce that you have Special Powers of Insight, and that these Special Powers permit you to see the Big Picture, and in the Big Picture, your point is self-evident and need not be justified. Demands for evidence of your Special Powers are met with a patronising smile.

A version of the SPP that is especially popular in the Gamma Quadrant is the ‘Limited Vision Variation’ (LVV). Make the claim that your opponent’s powers of perception are fatally flawed (favourite terms include ‘ideologically blinkered’ and ‘narrow focus’). This has the same effect as the SPP, and has the added advantage of putting your opponent on the defensive. Again, demands for proof are met with a patronising smile.

Warning: The SPP and the LVV are to be used sparingly. Repeated use of the SPP/LVV may result in incredulous laugher and a complete loss of credibility.

[Taken from Debating Tips from the Gamma Quadrant]

---

And as you may or may not know, Samuelson-Stolper can be used to show that free trade can ultimately benefit only the owners of capital while harming the wages of labor in both the exporting and importing country, depending on how the gains from trade are distributed - and as we've seen, the gains from productivity are clearly not accruing to labor; else how to explain the more or less static picture of the national income wherein about 55% of it goes to labor and the remainder to capital, unincorporated businesses (the grab-bag of interest, rent, wages, etc that can't be well-differentiated), capital consumption and so on.

[ 12 February 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]

And it's also true that rich country workers (along with poor country owners of capital, but they can take care of themselves) lose out, but economists always recommend that programmes for helping displaced workers be incorporated as an integral part of any trade liberalisation package. The point is that it's possible to make everyone better off.

That said, we have enough experience with these things to know that if the policy is poorly-structured, the transition costs can be catastrophic.

[ 12 February 2005: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliver Cromwell:
It's possible that it didn't. It looks as though the first-world legislation was phased in over a long time, so it's possible (econ history isn't my field, so I can't offer that as anything more than a possibility) that the legislation followed economic development. I'll ask Sylvain about that.

---

Stephen/Oliver, you are far too reasonable - to the point of being wrong.

1. The child labour issue. The proper comparison is a poor American family with a seriously ill mother requiring expensive medical treatment. The family's nine-year child has a beautiful face and voice and an advertising agency wants to hire the child for $200,000 for a campaign. This will require absence from school and from normal life during six months but it will pay for the mother's medical treatment. The father wants to say yes. (This in fact is the moral dilemma faced by parents in poor countries.)

2. Stolper-Samulelson? The only way to answer radiorahim is to refer to new technology. Should a society forbid the introduction of new technology because it will mean owners of capital will benefit but labour will not? There is no difference between opening to trade and introducing new technology. Trade, in fact, is a new technology.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliver Cromwell:

And it's also true that rich country workers (along with poor country owners of capital, but they can take care of themselves) lose out, but economists always recommend that programmes for helping displaced workers be incorporated as an integral part of any trade liberalisation package. The point is that it's possible to make everyone better off.

---

My grandfather was in the coal mines when he was a mere boy.Supposedly child labour laws in Britain did not allow child labour, but that doesn't change the fact he was in the mines when he should have been in school, or playing soccer. He was a strong unionist, a Wobbly, and one of the organizers of the coal union on Vancouver Island. And here we are, and my grand children will have to fight my grandfather's fight all over again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliver Cromwell:
Yes, it's true that the original conditions don't hold, but what's remarkable is that it doesn't matter. The gains from trade result stands up anyway, regardless of how you structure the model. Capital mobile, labour mobile, neither mobile, both mobile, what have you: you get the gains-from-trade result...

---

Do you have any empirical evidence to back that up? It seems quite clear to me now that capital has simply used its increased mobility to pressure (blackmail?) national and regional governments into lower corporate taxation, labour standards and wages, and I see no real signs that the basic dynamic driving this will change. Unless you're just talking about trade per se which is another issue that should be treated seperately.

quote:

---

And it's also true that rich country workers (along with poor country owners of capital, but they can take care of themselves) lose out, but economists always recommend that programmes for helping displaced workers be incorporated as an integral part of any trade liberalisation package. The point is that it's possible to make everyone better off.

That said, we have enough experience with these things to know that if the policy is poorly-structured, the transition costs can be catastrophic.

---

Transition to what exactly? These kind of ideas have been promolgated by mainstream economists (the ones who make the news anyhow) for three decades now, and there is little real world evidence to suggest that anything will get any better for most people. There's even less evidence that most economists really object to the mistakes that have been made under their advice, as they continue to support the same. If we're just talking technological replacement of workers here, then this is either going to A) continue on (and therefore need to be addressed from a more inclusive perspective) or B) collapse into a huge mess which the survivors will have to crawl out from again.

Re child labour, outlawing child labour worldwide (being that we Are in a global economy now, of a corporate-command kind of mode) would simply mean that multinationals would have to hire adults again to take their place. Ones who have at least Some capacity to demand better conditions and returns, allowing them to take care of their own kids adequately and send them back to school where they belong, with the added bonuses of gaining more income to support this infrastructure and creating more local markets to buy back the products of their own labour.

It might perhaps have to be done gradually now, and with certain exceptions in mind (family stores and restaurants etc) but I assume most economists would now oppose that option straightup, if they even admit to its possibilities.

[ 16 September 2005: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik the Red:
Do you have any empirical evidence to back that up?

---

Well, yes. This paper - one of the 500+ studies listed on the World Bank's page of research reports on the effects of trade - starts with the following passage:

quote:

---

There is a preponderance of cross-country evidence that trade liberalization and openness to trade increases the growth rate of income and output.¹ In addition, numerous individual country studies over the past three decades suggest that "trade does seem to create, even sustain higher growth" (Bhagwati and Srinivasan 1999).

[That footnote 1 provides references to a few well-known survey articles.]

---

And that's just what the WB has. If you want to look up the academic literature, a good place to start would be the articles cited in the footnote in the above passage.

quote:

---

Re child labour, outlawing child labour worldwide (being that we Are in a global economy now, of a corporate-command kind of mode) would simply mean that multinationals would have to hire adults again to take their place.

---

The supply of unskilled labour is effectively infinite in the countries we're talking about, so removing children from the labour force won't have any significant effect on adults' wages. All they'd see would be the loss in total family income.

[ 17 September 2005: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

quote:

---

OC or SG: Its point is that a ban on child labour that is not accompanied by any other measures to alleviate poverty can only make a bad situation worse.

---

The thesis is just as banal now as it was last February, Stephen. Who would support a simple ban and then NOT support further measures to improve the situation of children in developing countries? Or is this just a trick question the purpose of which is to "trip up" people opposed to child labour?

Let's turn the question around. Who would gain advantage by using the argument of your colleage, and other arguments like it, to justify doing nothing about child poverty in developing countries on the grounds that a simple ban on child labour won't improve things and all other measures are blocked by the World Bank, the IMF and other institutions of global capitalism ?

"Child labour hampers the economic growth of a nation. The base and driving force behind economic growth today is knowledge and information, which can only be obtained by having access to good quality education. Child labour is the biggest obstacle in the path of children getting an education. It causes and perpetuates adult unemployment, and is detrimental to the development of human capital since it does not provide them with the scope for education and upgrading their skills, thereby churning out generations of unskilled adult labourers. It also damages their health to such an extent that often they find themselves invalid by the time they have reached 30. Therefore it regresses the growth pattern of the economy to a great extent."

Edited to add: It's especially disappointing to see an argument like this, from people like yourself with an expensive and lengthy higher education, to the effect that people in other parts of the world should be effectively prevented from getting such a higher education for themselves and, especially, for their children.

[ 17 September 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Hugo Chavez: One million four hundred and six thousand Venezuelans learned to read and write. We are 25 million total. And the country will-in a few days- be declared illiteracy-free territory. And three million Venezuelans, who had always been excluded because of poverty, are now part of primary, secondary and higher studies.

---

It's nice to see a politician that boasts about such things as eliminating illiteracy and so on as Hugo Chavez did recently in his speech to the UN.

quote:

---

Chavez: It is unpractical and unethical to sacrifice the human race by appealing in an insane manner the validity of a socioeconomic model that has a galloping destructive capacity. It would be suicidal to spread it and impose it as an infallible remedy for the evils which are caused precisely by them.

Not too long ago the President of the United States went to an Organization of American States’ meeting to propose Latin America and the Caribbean to increase market-oriented policies, open market policies-that is neoliberalism- when it is precisely the fundamental cause of the great evils and the great tragedies currently suffered by our people. : The neoliberal capitalism, the Washington Consensus. All this has generated is a high degree of misery, inequality and infinite tragedy for all the peoples on his continent.

---

quote:

---

...we are bringing a proposal made by Simón Bolívar, the great Liberator of the South, in 1815. Bolívar proposed then the creation of an international city that would host the idea of unity.

We believe it is time to think about the creation of an international city with its own sovereignty, with its own strength and morality to represent all nations of the world. Such international city has to balance five centuries of unbalance. The headquarters of the United Nations must be in the South.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

The supply of unskilled labour is effectively infinite in the countries we're talking about, so removing children from the labour force won't have any significant effect on adults' wages. All they'd see would be the loss in total family income.

---

Actually the oversupply of underemployed and underpaid labour is just another argument in favour of imposing twentieth-century labour standard minimums democratically. Market enfored "supply and demand" will clearly perpetuate this trend until citizens of both Asia and the West say enough. The number of voting citizens needed to achieve this only needs a finite majority. If multinationals and national chains threaten to move elsewhere that too can be dealt with at our end of the corporate pipeline, theres no reason that some members of a Western based company should make more everytime they inhale than others do in a whole year. (slight exaggeration but only slight) Either way this basic short circuit in worldwide markets has to be dealt with straight on. I'll Re to your fwded article ASA I have more time again.

PS: I wasn't saying you *support* child labour -of course not- but denying the possibility of doing much of anything about it until...what, the markets are ready to provide the proper conditions (??) amount to pretty much the same thing as Accepting it IMV. The "markets" themselves are clearly defined by what the largest players want now - another area where Adam Smith's ideal market scenarios no longer apply. If they ever really did, outside of some particularly positive circumstances in 18th century England.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
I've said nothing that could be remotely construed as saying that I believe that child labour is a good thing, because I don't believe it. I fully subscribe to those reasons you cite for wanting to get rid of it.

I also happen to think that the statement "a ban on child labour that is not accompanied by any other measures to alleviate poverty can only make a bad situation worse" is a pretty banal point, but it seems to have escaped the ILO.

---

People probably made the same excuses for why you shouldn't ban child labor in England in the 17th century, but they ended up doing it and now no self-respecting individual in an industrial nation thinks children should be used as cheap labor.

quote:

---

[A] ban on child labour that is not accompanied by any other measures to alleviate poverty can only make a bad situation worse.

---

That's an extremely discouraging statistic, and I'm certainly not advocating complacency. In case people missed it earlier, I think that it's hard to think of an aid program more deserving than the food-for-education proposal mentioned in Sylvain and Stéphane's paper.

quote:

---

Then we agree, for example, that kids should go to school, wherever they live, in the rich North or the poorer South.

---

As you probably know, economic theory is about choice and the choice here is not between perfect and good. It is between better and good. You have probably heard the expression: the perfect is the enemy of the good. It applies now.

Parents around the world desperately want their kids to go to school. They can't because they are poor. Poverty is the problem. And what is your solution?

Toddlers in poor countries travel without car seats and children sit in the front without seat belts. As solution, you want poor countries to pass laws requiring all cars to have air-bags and children to have car-seats. But will this solve their problem of poverty?

Why can't children in oil and mineral-rich Angola or El Salvador, a country situated so close to the richest and freest trading nation on earth, have the same basic human rights as agreed to by 80 some odd UN member nations ?.

[ 22 September 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]