OCR Text |
Show MONDAY • JULY 10 • 2006 Globalization Third-world globalization: harming or helping out? Bush administration's handling of alledged terroists declared illegal by su- ; v^ preme court >r^M^:SB. Justin Ritter Opinions Writer John Diteler ; Opinions Writer ••i >• " . . - . i v . . in a 5-3 decision the US Supreme Court, on June 29th, ruled that the Bush adminisration's handling of many alleged terrorists in such locations as Guantanamo Bay has been illegal. / Since the ruling, Bush has been quick to try to recover political clout by pointing out that although the Supreme Court has rejected his administration's prosecution (or indefinite lack thereof) of detainees captured in the course of the war on terror, the Supreme Court did not object to the actual army base at Guantanamo Bay being used as a place of detention while suspected terrorists await trial. • > Take the spin away from the administrar lion's defense and Bush is basically claiming that although the way he directed the treatment and prosecution of alleged terrorists was inhumane and illegal, he didn't necessarily choose a bad place to deprive them of their universal human rights. Not only is this claim superfluous grasping at straws, it also seems to be contradictory for the President to stand by the actual institution of Guantanamo Bay and its detention center for prisoners held without formal charge when in recent weeks even the President himself has bent to international pressure to denounce the location. On several occasions Bush has been quoted by the press as expressing sentiments similar to these from a June joint press conference with Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel: '"I'd like to end Guantanamo. I'd like it to be over with," ' said Bush, "One of the things we will do is we'll send people back to their home countries." Chancellor Schuessel standing at the President's side added, that the war on terror could only be won if we don't in the process "undermine our common values" of honor, rule of law and humane treatment of those we would even call our enemies. Although more than 750 alleged persons with ties to terrorism have been incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay since January [ o f 2002, only 10-14 have been officially ^.charged and given tentative court dates. ^ jkNot a single case has been decided in the £ prison's four and a half year history. This |; year a New Jersey law school released findl ings which claim 90 percent of detainees ^ at Guanlanamo Bay have no demonstrable # link to terrorism. i: Of those detainees awarded lawyers, <• many have been allowed absolutely no ac£• cess to their attorneys. Under the current % form of military tribunals employed by the £>"' Bush administration and recently declared Fv illegal by the Supreme Court, suspects can |-be given the death penalty even though f,:. they are not guaranteed the right to be pres%t ent for their own case against them or al| lowed to see all the evidence against them. | The burden of proof is significantly differ\ ent in these courts where suspects are not f- presumed innocent until proven guilty. fRenowned internal human rights groups such as the Red Cross, Human Rights j. Watch, and Amnesty International have all hh criticized the handling of suspects at Guan£ tanamo Bay as claims are pouring in (when .detainees are even allowed to be inspected fc by reporters and third party objective hujf inan rights groups at all) that inmates are |v routinely tortured into confessions of guilt. £, The Bush administration is guilty of ^'treating alleged terrorists illegally and ini^ humanely and has, by disobeying the Gej&neva Convention's Code, now endangered "our captured soldiers around the world by ; inviting other countries to do the same to : our brave men and women. \ ' •; >; ' . _ ' • • . • • • : . • • ' • • • " . - ' • O ver the past several years, globalization has opened up countless developing countries to the global market, sparking controversy everywhere. Does globalizing developing countries actually help the thirdworld economies, or does it harm them? The answer is, it does both. Anti-globalists argue that thirdworld economies are not boosted by free international trade, but rather bogged down by it. They claim globalization widens the gap between the rich and the poor; making the rich richer and the poor poorer. They are right about the growth of the income gap, but wrong about its effect. In reality, many developing countries are growing at the same economic rate as the rich countries. This means that even though the income gap is widening, the third world countries are becoming wealthier. Consider the following example: A young doctor makes $200,000 a year, while a general laborer makes a dismal $35,000. Over the course of their careers, they both manage to double their income. When the time comes for retirement, the doctor is making a whopping $400,000 a year, but even though its still a smaller amount,; the laborer is making a decent $70,000. The gap between the two incomes is larger than ever, but the laborer is still much better off than he was before. This is what happens on an international scale between the wealthier and poorer nations of the world. Pro-globalists often claim that globalization does wonders for the third-world countries. While it is true that globalization has significantly improved the economy of many countries, it also has failed to help the economies of others. The reason can be summed up in one word: preparation. Some countries simply are not ready to enter the global market. To join the global economy, a country needs to have both a good economic plan and a favorable government situation; small countries with few natural resources - such as Hong Kong and Taiwan - have seen stagger- i n g economic success for these reasons. Other, larger countries - even some with plentiful natural resources - have failed in the global market because of poor economic planning and government corruption. Russia and Mexico both fall into this category. Globalization is not a cure-all, but under the right conditions it boosts thirdworld economies, sometimes even dramatically. Globalization has produced a host of countries with economies based around manufacturing foreign consumer goods. Despite the controversy surrounding sweatshops and other mass-production factories, the fact remains that they provide literally millions of people living in developing countries with a way to put food on the table. Developing countries need the jobs provided by foreign businesses. They need to see how capitalism and free enterprise can improve their lives - but they also need to understand that mass production is only a step on the road to economic success - a way for them to get started. They should not settle for Letters to the * E-Mail letters to uyscopinion5@hotmail. - ;: * The NetXNews.rpom is located on campus * All letters become property of NetXNew^ and may be edited for content, specifically clarity, length or other concerns at the discre-. tion of the Opinions Editor. ; ^ ^< -x. x * Letters between 50-250 words are encouraged and those letters marked by their suc-i:?:;: cinctness are more likely to be published. ' ' * Letters must be accompanied by full name, address, and phone number for verification ; purposes (contact information will not be^ -M published). - : ^ ^ v bei n eternal sweatshop societies - places where richer countries can build their factories and harvest their merchandise for cheap. They must set their sights beyond industrialization and work to become post-industrial nations. This is easier said than done, but globalization makes it possible. While a free global market does have drawbacks and even dangers, it enables developing nations to build their economies and progress into industrialization and beyond. As long as the countries are prepared, the pros of globalization far outweigh its cons. While globalization without a plan can bring economic ruin, globalization with preparation brings the third-world a far different thine. It brings them a future. |