Why Does the Government Continue to Defend Arbitrary Exercise of Authority and Violations of International Law?

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

Why Does the Government Continue to Defend Arbitrary Exercise of Authority and Violations of International Law?

For Your Reference: Two Early Day Motions

Stop the War Coalition Condemns Continued US Bombing and Deplores Barbarous Treatment of Prisoners

Protest to Be Held outside Israeli Embassy

Bloody Sunday Thirty Years On – 1972-2002

Letter to the Editor:
Left on Trolley for Three Days

Three British men are among the captives who have been taken to the US Guantanamo Air Base on the island of Cuba.

The US has declared that, along with the other captives being held in open-air cages at the Base, these men are not "prisoners of war", but defined them as "unlawful combatants". The purpose of this self-serving definition is to supposedly remove the US from the obligation of observing the norms of the Geneva Convention. Furthermore, not being on US soil, the captives are not protected by the laws of the USA. They have not been formally charged since being flown, hooded, sedated, shackled and manacled, to the Base.

The British government is uneasy about having to speak in defence of the rights of the British citizens. It prefers to side with the US, for which it has been acting as unofficial foreign spokesman and agent in its "war against terrorism". It has been the apologist for the tearing up of international norms and legality since September 11, using the justification that the "terrorist network" belongs to no state and presenting an exceptional danger for which national and international legality must be suspended or at least modified. In the present case, it is clearly even prepared to suspend the presumption that an accused is innocent until proved guilty.

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, in an interview on BBC Radio 4 on Tuesday, while holding that, "of course", the prisoners "have rights", nevertheless said that they were assumed of have been "members of the most dangerous terrorist organisation which the world has ever seen". He said that many of "these people’s associates are assumed to have been those who have gone in for suicide bombings" and so they are "potentially dangerous". He cast doubt or whether "technically" they have rights under the Geneva Convention, but had to admit that the government had obligations towards them, though was reluctant in this because "it will be some time before we’re finally sure that they are British citizens". There was no formal charge against them, but the "assumption behind their being detained" was of "being involved in the Al Qa’ida organisation".

The interviewer pointedly put it to Jack Straw: "And if human rights are worth anything at all then obviously they have to apply when governments are most tempted to violate them and in that context surely we ought to be saying to the United States very clearly you mustn't deal with these people in this way. They are British citizens. They have rights. You mustn't hood them. You mustn't, possibly, drug them. You mustn't shave off their beards. You mustn't hold them in cages where they're exposed to the elements." Jack Straw was not prepared to agree with the interviewer beyond the formal "of course we accept our obligations".

The Prime Minister’s spokesman also underlined that Britain has always accepted the US’s "right to bring suspects to justice". That "right" has, of course, involved the wholesale destruction and slaughter in Afghanistan, besides the treatment of the captives.

Writing in The Guardian, Michael Byers, who teaches international law at Duke University, North Carolina, and is currently a visiting fellow at Keble College, Oxford, said:

"This unilateral determination of the detainees' status is highly convenient, since the 1949 Geneva convention on the treatment of prisoners of war stipulates that PoWs can only be tried by ‘the same courts according to the same procedure as in the case of members of the armed forces of the detaining power’."

He went on to say: "The Geneva convention also makes it clear that it isn't for Rumsfeld to decide whether the detainees are ordinary criminal suspects rather than PoWs. Anyone detained in the course of an armed conflict is presumed to be a PoW until a competent court or tribunal determines otherwise."

Michael Byers said that "the convention has to be interpreted in the context of modern international conflicts, which share many of the aspects of civil wars and tend not to involve professional soldiers on both sides. Since the convention is designed to protect persons, not states, the guiding principle has to be the furtherance of that protection. This principle is manifest in the presumption that every detainee is a PoW until a competent court or tribunal determines otherwise.

"This too is the position of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which plays a supervisory role over the convention. The Red Cross and Amnesty International have both expressed concerns over the treatment of the detainees."

He went on: "Even if the detainees were not PoWs, they remain human beings with human rights. Hooding, even temporarily, constitutes a violation of the 1984 convention against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Apart from causing unnecessary mental anguish, it prevents a detainee from identifying anyone causing them harm. Forcefully shaving off their beards constitutes a violation of the right to human dignity under the 1966 international covenant on civil and political rights. Forcefully sedating even one detainee for non-medical reasons violates international law.

"Although strict security arrangements are important in dealing with potentially dangerous individuals, none of these measures are necessary to achieving that goal. If human rights are worth anything, they have to apply when governments are most tempted to violate them. There are many reasons why these and other violations are unacceptable. The rights of the detainees are our rights as well. Yet international law can be modified as a result of state behaviour. If we stand by while the rights of the detainees are undermined, we, as individuals, could lose."

The government is prepared to defend the arbitrary exercise of authority by the US and the violation of international norms because this is the logical outcome of its stand in declaring the eradication of "mass terrorism" the overriding priority to which all else must be subordinated. It has made this declaration because it is not prepared to accept any values other than those which are summed up in the term "neo-liberal globalisation". It openly asserts that these values, painted in the colours of "human rights" and "democracy", are universal. In fact, the government’s stand exposes its own exercise of arbitrary authority and contempt of the rule of law domestically also.

WDIE condemns this stand of the British government. It is necessary that the voice of workers and democratic people is heard in opposition to the government’s self-serving manipulation of the concepts of "rights" and "international norms". The arbitrary exercise of authority by US imperialism with the support of the British government is nothing but medievalism in international affairs. The British working class and people cannot accept such violations and must prepare themselves to take up the banner of enlightenment and civilisation since it is clear that the government has irredeemably abandoned these ideals.

A resolution on Afghan Prisoners was tabled in the House of Commons on January 14 by Jeremy Corbyn, and has so far been signed by 16 other MPs. Last month, a resolution on Iraq was tabled by Alan Simpson and has been signed by a total of 16 MPs. We reproduce both Motions in full below.

EARLY DAY MOTION 649: AFGHAN PRISONERS, 14.01.02

That this House believes that all detainees and prisoners taken in the course of the conflict in Afghanistan should be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention; notes that the hooding and chaining of prisoners prior to their removal to a US base in Guantanamo Bay to face special military tribunals has no basis in international law; and calls on the UK Government to dissociate itself from this process and reiterate the principle of the primacy of the Geneva Convention.

Tabled by Jeremy Corbyn

Signed by Ronnie Campbell, Alistair Carmichael, Harry Cohen, Tam Dalyell, Valerie Davey, Annabelle Ewing, Lynne Jones, John McDonnell, Kevin McNamara, Nick Palmer, Angus Robertson, Alan Simpson, David Taylor, Simon Thomas, Jenny Tonge, Robert N Wareing

EARLY DAY MOTION 611: IRAQ, 18.12.01

That this House believes it is now time for the international community to end the 10 year war and sanctions against Iraq; notes that UN Humanitarian co-ordinator Hans von Sponeck has directly attributed over 350 civilian deaths and 1,000 civilian casualties to US and UK bombing of Iraq over the last two years; recognises that security and stability in the region will be found through inclusion and negotiations rather than by bombing; and calls on the UN to launch a new diplomatic initiative on Iraq based on openness, tolerance and reconstruction.

Tabled by Alan Simpson

Signed by Harry Barnes, Harold Best, Michael Clapham, Jeremy Corbyn, Ann Cryer, John Cummings, Sue Doughty, George Galloway, Neil Gerrard, Kelvin Hopkins, Alice Mahon, Rob Marris, John McDonnell, Kevin McNamara, Robert N Wareing

The Stop the War Coalition on January 15 condemned the continued bombardment of Afghanistan by US warplanes and pledged to sustain its campaign against the bogus, brutal and unjust war. It also deplored the US's barbarous treatment of prisoners of war.

A spokesperson for the Coalition said:

"Despite the premature declarations of triumph issued by the US and British government at the end of last year, the US is continuing it savage hi-tech bombardment of Afghanistan, killing more civilians every day. Meanwhile, untold numbers of Afghanis struggle for survival against famine, freezing temperatures and lawlessness.

"There is no justification whatsoever for what is being done in our names in Afghanistan. The bombing must cease immediately.

"Like the rest of the world, the Stop the War Coalition is appalled by the barbarous spectacle of the most powerful nation on earth transporting prisoners of war hooded and in shackles.

"These prisoners now face trial before a military commission, without normal rules of evidence or right of appeal. These trials may result in the execution of prisoners.

"The continuing bombing and the treatment of prisoners confirms our worst fears about the dangerously open-ended nature of the US-led 'war against terrorism'. Because neither the enemy nor the aims of this war have been coherently defined, the US can use it as a cover to impose its will anywhere by force of arms – without regard to human rights or the democratic wishes of the rest of humanity.

"Already, the US-led military action has sparked an increase in violence and instability in the Middle East and threatens now to detonate an unthinkable holocaust in south Asia.

"The Stop the War Coalition will continue to oppose and expose this bogus, brutal and unjust war."

Future Stop the War Coalition events include:

· 26 January: picket of the Israeli Embassy, London

· 9 February: national teach-in, London

· 20 April: day-conference on war and peace in south Asia, with novelist Arundhati Roy.

Under the slogan "Stop Israel’s War on Palestine", the Stop the War Coalition has called a mass protest outside the Israeli embassy in London on Saturday, January 26.

The action is highlight Ariel Sharon’s intensification of Israel’s brutal war against the Palestinian people.

Assemble 12 noon, Israeli embassy, High Street Kensington, London W8 (High Street Kensington tube)

The Bloody Sunday Organising Committee are organising a public meeting "One world – many struggles" to commemorate the 30th anniversary of Bloody Sunday. It will take place in Central London on Sunday, January 27, 2002.

The Committee has released the following statement:

"In April 2000 the Saville inquiry opened into the murder of 14 innocent civil rights marchers who were shot dead by the British Army Parachute Regiment on 30th January 1972 in Derry. The inquiry was the outcome of an intense international campaign led by the relatives of the victims, which lasted almost three decades.

"The British Army’s role in Derry and throughout Northern Ireland has come under scrutiny as the truth about Bloody Sunday unfolds. The inquiry has clearly touched a raw nerve within the British establishment. The same tactics of lies, slander and deception used by the British government to justify the shootings and organise the cover-up at the time are still being used today.

"For the relatives of those who died on Bloody Sunday the inquiry promises the hope of publicly finding the truth about the dreadful events of Bloody Sunday. But almost two years into the inquiry the families have encountered more duplicity and shady dealings from the Whitehall machine.

"Vital evidence – the rifles used on the day – have been destroyed due to ‘computer error’; and after being dragged around the courts for months, the British soldiers have been granted permission to testify in London on spurious safety grounds. This means the families will have to stay in London for several months – requiring support and assistance from supporters of the campaign here in Britain.

"Thirty years on from Bloody Sunday, the relatives of those murdered are still being denied the truth and justice promised by the inquiry."

Public meeting

Sunday, January 27, 2002

1pm – 5.30pm

at Hammersmith Irish Centre,

Blacks Road, London W6 (nearest tube: Hammersmith)

Speakers include:

Michael McKinney Bloody Sunday Relative, Eamonn McCann, Gerry O’Hara Sinn Fein Derry MLA, John McDonnell MP, Jeremy Corbyn MP

Invited speakers:

SDLP, Michael Farrell

Plus:

Videos, books and food stalls.

A 93-year-old woman was on a trolley in the A&E corridor of the Kent and Canterbury Hospital from Saturday evening until being moved to a ward on Tuesday morning last week. She was among a number of people caught up in the chaos at the hospital during the busiest weekend in the department for a year. At one point over the weekend, more than 30 people were being nursed in beds or trolleys in corridors and makeshift wards off the casualty department. And earlier this month, the children’s ward was closed for admissions for a while because of staff shortages.

This treatment of patients is deplorable. But the blame for this should be laid on the lack of necessary resources. It is no fault of the hospital staff, who do all in their power, while the conditions are so bad. The department is not well designed and the hospital staff are all overworked.

It cannot be claimed that exceptional circumstances were to blame because of the cold weather or delayed discharges. Beds and other resources are not there so that this diabolical situation keeps recurring, which is so degrading to the patients’ dignity. The answer lies in the health workers and patients in the community stepping up their struggle to ensure that society meets the claims of all to the health care which is their right.

Canterbury readers