The Rule of Law versus the “War on Terror”

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

The Rule of Law versus the “War on Terror”

Cuba:
Interview with Basilio Guiterrez, a Vice President of ICAP

Puerto Rico – April Designated Freedom Month:
Release All Puerto Rican Political Prisoners!

In recent days, the former judge Lord Steyn and the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson have both spoken on the need to re-assert the rule of law nationally and internationally in the face of the Anglo-American assertion that the rules of the game have changed.

            On April 11, Lord Steyn, delivering a lecture at the Royal Over-Seas League in London, criticised the US concentration camp set up in Guantanamo Bay as "a stain on American justice" and said that Prime Minister Tony Blair's refusal to condemn it was "shaming for our country".

            Lord Steyn, who retired from Britain's highest court last year, said, “As a lawyer brought up to admire American democratic values, I feel compelled to say that Guantanamo Bay is a stain on American justice. Only the present administration of the United States tries to defend the utterly indefensible.

            "Unfortunately, our prime minister is not prepared to go further than to say that Guantanamo Bay is an understandable anomaly. In its feebleness this response to a flagrant breach of the rule of law, reminiscent of the worst actions of totalitarian states, is shaming for our country.

            "While our government condones Guantanamo Bay the world is perplexed about our approach to the rule of law. But I hope the world also knows that if the matter was within the jurisdiction of British courts, our judges would unanimously condemn Guantanamo Bay.

            "You may ask: how will it help in regard to the continuing outrage at Guantanamo Bay for our government now to condemn it? The answer is that it would at last be a powerful signal to the world that Britain supports the international rule of law."

            Lord Steyn, who now chairs the civil rights group Justice, made international headlines in 2003 when he described the indefinite detention of terror suspects without charge or trial at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba as "a legal black hole", was delivering the Attlee Foundation lecture, Democracy, the Rule of Law and the Role of Judges.

            He said that in an era since 9/11, “international institutions and international law have been damaged, particularly by the actions of the United States and the United Kingdom”. Lord Steyn accused Blair's government of being prone to authoritarianism, saying it had become a "creeping phenomenon" encouraged by absolute power. He said the government had introduced "wholly oppressive" legislation such as the 2004 Asylum and Immigration Act, seeking to oust the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts in all but limited cases. This was "an astonishing measure" which attempted to "immunise manifest illegality". He asked, "If such legislation is effective in this corner of the law – not even involving the endless war against terrorism – what are the portents for our democracy?"

            Lord Steyn warned the government that Britain had arrived at the position where a fundamental "disturbance of the building blocks of our constitution" would not be permitted. The judges would be likely to step in if ministers tried to use the Parliament Act to "tamper with the fundamental principles of our constitutional democracy, such as five-year parliaments, the role of the ordinary courts, the rule of law, and other such fundamentals". He added, "In such exceptional cases the rule of law may trump parliamentary supremacy."

            He said ministers did not always understand the principle of the separation of powers as it affected the judiciary. The home secretary, Charles Clarke, had complained in a recent interview that he was "frustrated" that the law lords would not meet him for discussions "because of their sense of propriety".

            Mr Clarke "apparently fails to understand that the law lords and cabinet ministers are not on the same side” said Lord Steyn. "A cosy relationship between ministers and law lords would be a worrying development."

            In her International Rule of Law Lecture 2006, “Five Years on from 9/11 – Time to Re-Assert the Rule of Law”, Mary Robinson said that she feared that the authority of law has already been undermined in many important ways. Speaking at the Middle Temple Hall, London, in the lecture organised by Justice, Mary Robinson said that in the aftermath of 9/11, “Despite efforts to frame the response to terrorism within the framework of crimes under national and international law, an alternative language dominated. That language, which has shaped to a much larger extent the response at all levels, has spoken of a war on terrorism. As such, it has brought a subtle change in emphasis in many parts of the world; order and security have become the over-riding priorities. As in the past, the world has learned that emphasis on national order and security often involved curtailment of democracy and human rights. Misuse of language has also led to Orwellian euphemisms, so that ‘coercive interrogation’ is used instead of torture, or cruel and inhuman treatment; kidnapping becomes ‘extraordinary rendition’ ..”

            She continued, “New laws and detention practices were introduced in a significant number of countries, all broadly justified by the new international war on terrorism. The extension of security policies in many countries has been used to suppress political dissent and to stifle expression of opinion of many who have no link to terrorism and are not associated with political violence. I will never forget how one Ambassador put it to me bluntly in 2002: ‘Don’t you see High Commissioner? The standards have changed.’”

            Mary Robinson pointed out that political decisions which are taken by Britain about pre-trial detention or restrictions on demonstrations under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act will be scrutinised globally for their adherence to international law. She said that where Britain intervenes, as it has done in a case now before the European Court of Human Rights, “to challenge the absolute nature of the European Convention prohibition against return where there is a risk of torture, it sends a powerful and negative signal to other states”.

            These lectures underline how the British and US administrations are utilising the concept of a “war on terror” in a self-serving manner to undermine the rule of law. They confirm how such pretexts are being used to justify the unjustifiable and to target dissent and legitimate political activity that has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. While the speeches emphasise the role of the judiciary in opposing the tearing up of the old arrangements by these administrations, it is also important to stress that the working class and people must work for a rule of law that serves their own peace and security in the face of the repression carried out under the signboard of the “war on terror”.

(with files from The Guardian and IRNA)

The following interview with Basilio A Guiterrez, Vice President, Insituto Cubano Amistad con los Pueblos [ICAP], is taken from the website of the African and Caribbean Progressive Study Group (ACPSG), 1 April, 2006

Basilio Guiterrez, a Vice President of the Cuban International Friendship Association, Insituto Cubano Amistad con los Pueblos [ICAP], spent a week meeting with Cuba Solidarity Campaign Groups in London, Manchester, Blackpool and Leeds at the end of March. Here's what he said in an interview with freelance journalist Shaun Hutchinson about solidarity work, Cuba's internationalist assistance, the current situation in his country, the Caribbean and Latin America, as well as his views on the complicated international situation. The interview has been edited for publication.

 

SNH: What changes have you seen in the relations between Cuba and the international community over the past two decades?

BG: I started at ICAP in the last period of the Soviet Union and the socialist bloc countries. At that time the life in Cuba was quite different from the life we have today. At that time the solidarity work in many [Eastern] European countries had backing from the State and in western countries Communist Parties were huge, and could provide financial resources and other support such as Friendship Associations with Cuba. Cuba was also a part of the socialist bloc and for this reason the situation around Cuba's security was [quite] safe and in many aspects the standard of living was remarkable in contrast with neighbouring countries.

            In the 1990s with the collapse of Soviet Union everything changed. Cuba lost 70% of foreign trade and political support from the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc and the USA tried to destroy the Revolution by tightening the blockade and intensifying its pressures and aggressive policies against Cuba.

            These days of course marked a tremendous glory of the solidarity movement in order to defend the right of the Cuban to decide by itself its future and against the blockade – and that developed in the 1990s.

            The period of the Elian Gonzales episode, and the current situation with the Five Cubans imprisoned in the United States for fighting terrorism, has marked a new period in solidarity with Cuba. It's a period where there is still a big threat but at the same time Cuba has a better capacity, from an economic and political point of view, to confront the challenge and the permanent aggressive policies of the United States. For example in the 1990s material aid was a priority, the main task now is the political support which demands an end to the blockade and also to confront all the campaigns about so-called violations of human rights in Cuba.

            The freedom of the Five Heroes is very important for Cuba and all progressive forces and this question cannot be isolated from the whole context of bilateral relations between the United States and Cuba.

 

SNH: What, if any, improvements and advances have been made – in respect of people-to-people contact – between the United States and Cuba since the Elian Gonzales episode?

BG: After the Elian Gonzales episode there was curiosity to visit and know more about Cuba. It even started before – just after visit of the Pope – an important event.  In the past years the Clinton administration conducted “people to people exchange” and that was based on the idea that they could reverse the Revolution by imposing “American” values and influences. That is the Track Two policy of the United States.  Track One is blockade, isolation and aggression.

            “People to people” has been tested and the result was that the Revolution was strengthened and many people in the United States started to have positive, or at least constructive, positions.

That's a reason why President Bush and the current Administration changed policy and now we are witnessing Track One [which is blockade, isolation and aggression.]

 

SNH: What impact have the International Solidarity Brigades had over the years – on Cuban society, on the Cuban people and also on the people who attend?

BG: Well I think in this case that everything is connected. No doubt for the Cuban people it is very important to feel that they are not alone in this struggle, in this battle; and probably one of the best manifestations of solidarity with the Cuban people is the International Brigades because the Brigades are people from different sectors and countries going to Cuba and sharing with our people the effort of building a new society. They are working in the countryside and have direct contact with Cuban reality – and you see you see the reality from this angle.  In that sense the Brigades, historically speaking, have had a tremendous impact.  There are many people who visit and now they are in key positions in their countries and are trying to promote a more constructive approach to the Revolution – and in many cases they are promoting solidarity and friendly ties.  I would say that the Brigade is a good opportunity for Solidarity Committees and Friendship Associations to strengthen solidarity work; to work with those who have been in Cuba in order to make even more solid the work. We in Cuba are working for the continuation of the Revolution and we are used to working with young people because they are future and from this end it's the same situation. Young people are important – it's important to involve the young people in the solidarity work.

 

SNH: Cuba gives assistance to the region and internationally; recently seen in Pakistan following the recent disaster; and the assistance offered to the people of New Orleans by the Henry Reeve Brigade after Hurricane Katrina. How is it that Cuba – a poor country, with its own problems – can maintain this level of support; how does Cuba maintain this level of internationalist assistance?

BG: First of all the Revolution has put a lot of efforts in developing a national health system and education system; of course the first targets are the Cuban people and Cuba has reached quite good results in these two social development areas. For example Cuba has infant mortality rate approximately less then 6 deaths per 1000 births and life expectancy is between 78-78 years of age – this is remarkable for a Third World or developing country. This is one aspect.  Cuba has developed very good human resources in these two specific fields [education and health].

            On the other hand we think that the Cuban Revolution is not only the result of the tremendous struggle and the historic struggle of the Cubans but also is – to a great extent – a result of international solidarity. In correspondence with this perspective if we have the capacity to provide assistance to some of our neighbouring countries – they are very poor from a social point of view – it's normal. And there is no doubt – the assistance is also a help to fight the policy of isolation and restrictions that is coming from the government of the United States on a permanent basis.

 

SNH: Talking about the region. Venezuela is very important – the process underway in that country, the solidarity and diplomatic work is important for both countries in terms of defending sovereignty and independence. The US is stepping up provocations against both countries – what do you think the future holds in that respect?

BG: Well I think that there is a very close connection between the Revolutions in both countries. There is a process in Latin America in favour of more independence from the USA. And no doubt Venezuela is going to play a key role in this very specific and peculiar historical moment – taking into consideration that Venezuela is one of the richest countries in the area – from its economic resources. I think it's the fifth main producer of oil in the world and that of course puts that country in good position to head the integration of Latin America. 

            Cuba for its part is making a contribution to this process with its own resources, which is manly human resources that the Revolution has in science, in health and education and so on. Two years ago we signed an agreement – it's a comprehensive agreement of collaboration between our countries. It's a new type of agreement; it could be a model of the future when every country is able to make a contribution according to its possibilities. Cuba may offer to Venezuela – all its social gains – and Venezuela has the capacity to provide for Cuba support [and also part of an agreement Venezuela has signed with Caribbean some Caribbean countries].

 

SNH: In respect of Bolivia there is a transformation underway in that country – although it's at n early different stage – are there similar prospects for collaboration, solidarity and integration?

BG: Well in the case of Bolivia the process is starting there and Cuba is making a contribution at this point mainly in two directions –  firstly, sending doctors; and secondly to assist in organising a campaign to eliminate illiteracy – which is very important – where the overwhelming majority of the population cannot write or read.  It's a turning point that people can read and write in order to make a real change in the society.  I see good prospects for relations with Bolivia and for the integration of the Latin American countries.

 

SNH: Could you speak about Cuba's relations with the English-speaking Caribbean; have you seen development and advance over the years?

BG: First of all we feel tremendous respect for these countries which have the same history of colonialism as we have. During these years they have taken an outstanding position confronting the blockade and they were amongst the first countries to recognise the Cuban Revolution. We see tremendous potential for bilateral collaboration between our countries. For example, there are thousands of students now in Cuban universities; that is the first direction; a second direction is that Cuba is supporting these islands in specific economic fields such as the production of sugar, in medical research and also Cuba has made exports of some basic commodities such as cement and other commodities.

            Cubana Airlines is also making a connection with some of the islands, which is good because as a result of colonialism one would have go to somewhere in Europe before you could visit your neighbouring country.

            There is also a process of integration and also the Operation Miracle in which thousands of people are receiving eye treatment – a young project carried out with support of Venezuela.

 

SNH: the current US government, led by Neoconservatives, have a definite Transition Plan [for Cuba] which involves isolation and aggression.  Annually there is the United Nations debate on the human rights question.  Can you talk about the relations between Cuba and the world and the efforts to counteract such provocations and to prevent Cuba's isolation?

BG: Cuba has diplomatic and cultural relations with 180 countries.  We keep official relations with the majority of the international community. We have 25,000 health workers in 68 countries and during the revolutionary period about 45,000 young people from Third World and developing countries have graduated in Cuba.

            These are some of the figures that show you that Cuba has a very active international life. No doubt the main area of conflict is with the so-called highly developed countries, including the European Union, and in the last few years whilst it [EU] has voted in favour of the annual resolution to lift the blockade against Cuba at same time they [EU] are supporting the United States in that country's campaign to condemn Cuba as a violator of human rights.

            I think we would like to see an active position from the European Union in order to condemn the illegal prisons that the USA has organised globally – such as that in the territory of Guantanamo Bay.

            We appreciate very highly the solidarity we are receiving from the people of Great Britain and we prize highly the work carried out by Cuba Solidarity Campaign and all of its efforts in order to build a real solidarity movement to support the social gains of Cuba and to support the sovereignty of our people.

 

SNH: Thank you very much Senor Gutierrez.

In response to the ongoing campaign of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) against the Puerto Rican people's movement for independence, April has been dedicated to the Puerto Rican political prisoners and is being called Freedom Month. April marks the 26th anniversary of a series of arrests that began on April 4, 1980, against the Puerto Rican independence movement. The month will be full of activities and events to raise awareness about the five Puerto Rican political prisoners being held in US jails, Oscar Lopez Rivera, Carlos Alberto Torres, Haydee Beltran, Jose Perez Gonzalez and the most recent, Antonio Camacho Negron. The majority of the prisoners have spent more than 18 years in federal prison for their activities in the Puerto Rican independence movement. Activities will also raise awareness about the cases of other political prisoners being held in US jails, including the five Cuban patriots held despite having their charges overturned.

            On March 28, the first day of the National Congress for Decolonisation that is taking place in several universities and colleges throughout Puerto Rico, long-time independence leader Antonio Camacho Negron was arrested by the FBI. Camacho has been instrumental in the growing movement for the independence and de-colonisation of Puerto Rico. Just prior to his arrest, Camacho had dedicated the National Congress to the Puerto Rican political prisoners.

            Camacho's arrest – under the pretext that he missed a meeting with his parole officer – took place at a time once again the aspiration of the Puerto Rican people for independence is coming to the fore. It also took place as congressional briefings were being held into the FBI's assassination of Puerto Rican independence fighter Filiberto Ojeda Rã­os last September and the ensuing campaign of repression against the growing independence movement.

            Camacho had spent 10 years in US prison as a result of charges of conspiracy to transport stolen money from the Wells Fargo robbery in 1983 carried out by Los Matcheteros, the Puerto Rican independence organisation. He was released on parole in August 2004. It is speculated that US authorities may seek to imprison him for the remainder of his 15-year sentence.

            Latest reports indicate that Camacho is being held in solitary confinement in a flooded cell and is not receiving his medicines or items such as toilet paper. According to his lawyer, Linda Backiel, despite these conditions his spirits are high and he is refusing to answer questions asked to new prisoners.

            From prison, Camacho expressed the spirit of defiance of the Puerto Rican people and the reasons why he does not recognise the parole conditions imposed on him by the federal court. "The federal court is not in Puerto Rico to mete out justice, but to kidnap the sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico and to impose the expansionist imperialist policies of the United States. What is good for the hunter is not good for the hunted," he said. Linking his arrest to the FBI assassination of Filiberto, Camacho emphasised the fact that just before his arrest at the Congress, he had asked all those present not for a minute of silence, but a minute of applause for Filiberto.

            Pickets are being held to demand Comacho's release every Saturday outside the Metro Detention Centre in San Juan, Puerto Rico where he is being held.

Release All Puerto Rican Political Prisoners!
Support Puerto Rico's Right to Self-Determination!