Buried in the Bay
Testing the soil on which it was built, Tulica Bhattacharya reporting from the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ), writes about the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp and its relation to terrorism.
As states struggle to arrive upon a common definition of terrorism, United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/49/60 (49/60) Article I declares the following statement: “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable...” [1]. The Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism defines terrorism as “any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger…” [2]. Despite differing in minute details and interpretations, there exists a consistency in most documents aiming to approach a definition—terrorist activities invoke fear in the public. With primary intentions of instilling terror and imposing a sense of uncontrollable authority, terrorist organisations proliferate as they climb the ladder of fright.
In the year 2002, the then President of the United States of America (USA) George W. Bush established the infamous Guantanamo Bay detention camp (Guantanamo Bay) while the nation was battling the ‘War on Terror’. This prison is an exception since it detains its inmates indefinitely without trial. The detainees are considered “extraordinarily dangerous” who have committed (or tried to commit) grave crimes that are threats to the sovereignty of the USA. Catering solely for enemy combatants, the Government withholds the right to arrest any person whom they believe have connections to terrorist organisations or have been involved in means of its proliferation. With primary intentions of instilling terror and imposing a sense of uncontrollable authority, the Government of USA mercilessly operates the Guantanamo Bay as they climb the ladder of fright.
The Guantanamo Bay is essentially a torture camp. The first proof of the same are the leaked reports of the International Committee of the Red Cross in June 2004. According to these reports, “the American military has intentionally used psychological and sometimes physical coercion ‘tantamount to torture’ on prisoners at Guantánamo Bay.” [3] The second are statements made by former detainees who were proven to have been wrongly imprisoned. These men alleged extreme torture, sexual degradation, forced drugging, and religious persecution [4]. Thus, the inmates are abused physically, mentally, and sexually—all while being unaware of their crime. Many being innocent (without the consideration of being proven guilty) were subjected to personalised forms of torture.
It is imperative to realise that such unconstitutional acts encompass fear and hatred among sections of society. Many reports stated that the detainees were often trafficked into the detention camp because of their Islamic beliefs. This form of acute discrimination also instigates hate against the USA and the latency of the international community in addressing the same. What the government overlooks is the possibility of holding the Guantanamo Bay as a proof of threat to the Muslim community. This allows many organisations to rebel (or even take to arms) against the government, citing reasons of self-defence.
Another emphasis should be placed on “indefinitely without trial”. Essentially, a person present in the wrong place and the wrong time can face harsher consequences than someone who commits grave crimes such as rape or murder. Thus, the Bay revokes its inmates of basic human rights. In 2006, the United Nations (UN) demanded for the Guantanamo Bay to be closed as the detainees were not provided with entitlements of protection listed in the Geneva Convention. In January 2018, President Donald Trump allowed the prison camp to be open indefinitely.
In order to address conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism (one of the four pillars of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy [5]), it is imperative to recognise various factors that instigate deeds categorised as terroristic in nature. The establishment of the Guantanamo Bay made a controversial statement by the USA—“We have the power”. Presuming that their judgement transcends the understanding of international and humanitarian law, the camp provides adequate reason for opposition. It aims at invoking fear among the public; it attempts to reduce the spread of terrorism by exploiting this fear. Yet, it does neither. Despite being condoned on an international platform, the Guantanamo Bay stands well-protected, gleaming in self-pride. The reporter thus wonders—what sets the detention apart from an act of terrorism?
Sources:
[1] http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/49/a49r060.htm
[2] https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/3de5e4984.pdf
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/politics/red-cross-finds-detainee-abuse-in-guantanamo.html
[4] https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/assets/files/report_FacesOfGuantanamo.pdf
[5] https://www.un.org/counterterrorism/ctitf/en/un-global-counter-terrorism-strategy
(Edited by Shruthi Subramanian.)
As states struggle to arrive upon a common definition of terrorism, United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/49/60 (49/60) Article I declares the following statement: “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable...” [1]. The Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism defines terrorism as “any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger…” [2]. Despite differing in minute details and interpretations, there exists a consistency in most documents aiming to approach a definition—terrorist activities invoke fear in the public. With primary intentions of instilling terror and imposing a sense of uncontrollable authority, terrorist organisations proliferate as they climb the ladder of fright.
In the year 2002, the then President of the United States of America (USA) George W. Bush established the infamous Guantanamo Bay detention camp (Guantanamo Bay) while the nation was battling the ‘War on Terror’. This prison is an exception since it detains its inmates indefinitely without trial. The detainees are considered “extraordinarily dangerous” who have committed (or tried to commit) grave crimes that are threats to the sovereignty of the USA. Catering solely for enemy combatants, the Government withholds the right to arrest any person whom they believe have connections to terrorist organisations or have been involved in means of its proliferation. With primary intentions of instilling terror and imposing a sense of uncontrollable authority, the Government of USA mercilessly operates the Guantanamo Bay as they climb the ladder of fright.
The Guantanamo Bay is essentially a torture camp. The first proof of the same are the leaked reports of the International Committee of the Red Cross in June 2004. According to these reports, “the American military has intentionally used psychological and sometimes physical coercion ‘tantamount to torture’ on prisoners at Guantánamo Bay.” [3] The second are statements made by former detainees who were proven to have been wrongly imprisoned. These men alleged extreme torture, sexual degradation, forced drugging, and religious persecution [4]. Thus, the inmates are abused physically, mentally, and sexually—all while being unaware of their crime. Many being innocent (without the consideration of being proven guilty) were subjected to personalised forms of torture.
It is imperative to realise that such unconstitutional acts encompass fear and hatred among sections of society. Many reports stated that the detainees were often trafficked into the detention camp because of their Islamic beliefs. This form of acute discrimination also instigates hate against the USA and the latency of the international community in addressing the same. What the government overlooks is the possibility of holding the Guantanamo Bay as a proof of threat to the Muslim community. This allows many organisations to rebel (or even take to arms) against the government, citing reasons of self-defence.
Another emphasis should be placed on “indefinitely without trial”. Essentially, a person present in the wrong place and the wrong time can face harsher consequences than someone who commits grave crimes such as rape or murder. Thus, the Bay revokes its inmates of basic human rights. In 2006, the United Nations (UN) demanded for the Guantanamo Bay to be closed as the detainees were not provided with entitlements of protection listed in the Geneva Convention. In January 2018, President Donald Trump allowed the prison camp to be open indefinitely.
In order to address conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism (one of the four pillars of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy [5]), it is imperative to recognise various factors that instigate deeds categorised as terroristic in nature. The establishment of the Guantanamo Bay made a controversial statement by the USA—“We have the power”. Presuming that their judgement transcends the understanding of international and humanitarian law, the camp provides adequate reason for opposition. It aims at invoking fear among the public; it attempts to reduce the spread of terrorism by exploiting this fear. Yet, it does neither. Despite being condoned on an international platform, the Guantanamo Bay stands well-protected, gleaming in self-pride. The reporter thus wonders—what sets the detention apart from an act of terrorism?
Sources:
[1] http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/49/a49r060.htm
[2] https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/3de5e4984.pdf
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/politics/red-cross-finds-detainee-abuse-in-guantanamo.html
[4] https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/assets/files/report_FacesOfGuantanamo.pdf
[5] https://www.un.org/counterterrorism/ctitf/en/un-global-counter-terrorism-strategy
(Edited by Shruthi Subramanian.)
Pillars of (Terrorism) Support
Analysing the Strategy from ‘Global’ to ‘Counter’ and finally to ‘Terrorism’, Tulica Bhattacharya reports from the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ).
The Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy was one that was adopted in 2006 by the United Nations General Assembly. “A unique global instrument to enhance national, regional and international efforts to counter terrorism” [1], it was accepted by all Member States—a mark of true unison. Yet reality is far from so. Even though the Member States fully agree and acknowledge the grave threat that terrorism poses, each nation adopts methodologies keeping their personal motives as a priority. The Strategy weighs on four pillars that constitute the stepping stones of the eradication of terrorism; yet, to each pillar there exists cases of exceptions (read: defiance).
The first Plan of Action of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy is “to consistently, unequivocally and strongly condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes” [2]. However, the ambiguity of the sentence relies on two words— ‘condemn’ and ‘terrorism’. First, term ‘terrorism’ implies different meanings in different parts of the world. As inconsistencies between the domestic and international laws continue to vary, terrorism for one may be a rebellion for another. An example of the same is the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) which is a Eurasian alliance. The 2009 SCO Convention on Counter-Terrorism (supplementary to the 2001 Shanghai Convention focusing on terrorism) defines terrorism as an “ideology of violence”. Not only does this provide influential members of the organisation (read: People’s Republic of China) to accuse numerous deeds as terroristic acts, but also empowers them with right to “combat” such acts. This has led to several instances of blatant violation of human rights such as ones in the Xinjiang region and the infamous Tiananmen Square incident of 1999. Secondly, the dictionary defines ‘condemn’ as expressing complete disapproval. This could vary from simple reprimanding and expression of grief to trade sanctions and military inventions. In what capacity does the international platform ‘condemn’ is entirely up to the discretion of states involved (both explicit and implicit).
The first pillar deals with “measures to address the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism”. [1] The President of the United States of America (USA) believes that one such measure is building a wall around the USA-Mexico border, despite exceeding the nation’s budget by over 4 billion dollars. Another measure is imposition of a travel ban (also referred to as the Muslim ban) on citizens of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Republic of Iraq, Libya, the Federal Republic of Somalia, the Republic of Sudan (Sudan), the Syrian Arab Republic, and the Republic of Yemen. With justifications that he calls facts (read: racism), the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism is left to the whims and fancies of one man who is ironically leading a democratic nation.
The second pillar deals with “measures to prevent and combat terrorism”, while the third pillar states “measures to build States' capacity to prevent and combat terrorism and to strengthen the role of the United Nations system in this regard”. [1] This includes “refraining from organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities” [1]. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Saudi Arabia), on the other hand, has been accused of financing terrorist activities numerous times. In fact, the Council on Foreign Relations published reports saying “…for years, individuals and charities based in Saudi Arabia have been the most important source of funds for al-Qaeda. For years, Saudi officials have turned a blind eye to this problem”. [3] The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) alleged that the nation “does not confiscate processing of crimes” in a report published in September 2018. [4] Such deeds empower terrorist organisations, let alone combat them. Moreover, the blatant disobedience in adhering to the norms and thresholds set by the United Nations (UN) questions the level of authority that the body imposes.
The last pillar, being virtually absent, still holds what the reporter believes is the most essential element of the Strategy. This includes “measures to ensure respect for human rights for all and the rule of law as the fundamental basis of the fight against terrorism” [1]. The Rohingya Muslims are a faction of the Burmese demography who reside in the Rakhine State of Myanmar. Since 2016, the government of the nation has been conducting ethnic cleansing of the region while denying them basic rights such as the right to the freedom of movement, and the right to education; they are not recognised as citizens of Myanmar. Another example is the situation in the newest country of the world—the Republic of South Sudan. Despite separating from Sudan citing oppression as the cause, the eight-year old nation has been subjected to a Civil War since 2013 due to the diverse ethnic communities being unable to live in harmony. While the residents live in severe conditions of poverty and hunger, the government has been accused of corruption and direct involvement in the ethnic cleansing of the group of minorities. Further examples are human rights violations in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and the Abu Ghraib Prison where the detainees are arrested and tortured indefinitely without a trial.
Terrorism cannot be combatted overnight. The step-by-step process requires perseverance and discipline. As explained above, loopholes in documentation enable nations to undertake any action that they deem fit. However, even if the nation commits an obvious crime, they simply deny all charges and refute allegations citing domestic laws to take precedence over international frameworks. What is lost in the process is the essence of combatting and prevention. At the root of it, terrorism is acceptable in one form or another; in one region or another; in one regime or another. The reporter thus wonders—do terrorists fear the governments as much as governments fear the terrorists?
Sources:
[1] https://www.un.org/counterterrorism/ctitf/en/un-global-counter-terrorism-strategy
[2] https://www.un.org/counterterrorism/ctitf/en/un-global-counter-terrorism-strategy#plan
[3] https://www.cfr.org/report/terrorist-financing
[4] http://www.fatf-gafi.org/publications/mutualevaluations/documents/mer-saudi-arabia-2018.html
(Edited by Shruthi Subramanian.)