Opinion - News Analysis   

Guantanamo Bay: whose mess is it anyway? out of london

Finally, it seems, the American government is serious about closing its notorious detention centre at Guantanamo Bay which has become a shorthand for all the excesses of the Bush administration’s war on terror. Barack Obama, the incoming President, has said that shutting the camp down “in a responsible way” would be a major priority of his government.

Some sort of a process has already been set in motion but, typically, Americans want others to clean up their mess for them. For once, though, even their loyal allies such as Britain appear reluctant to oblige. The issue is: what to do with about 60 prisoners who have been cleared for release but cannot be sent back to their own countries either because their governments are reluctant to accept them (for reasons best known to them) or for fear that they may be persecuted on their return (again the reason for such fears is not clear)?

The logical answer, of course, is: that this is America’s problem and what it does with these people is its lookout: it should either take them itself or use its influence to make sure that they are accepted by their own governments. But, instead, America wants its allies to share the “burden.”

Apparently, the State Department has already approached some 100 countries but most, including Sweden, Australia, Denmark, Spain and the Netherlands among others, have either imposed too many riders or flatly rejected the idea: no, they don’t want unwanted aliens on their soil, especially as many of the prisoners have extremist tendencies though they may not have been involved in terrorism. (Poland’s Foreign Minister is reported to have said that his country doesn’t want foreigners who speak “exotic languages.”)

Britain, which is in discussions with Washington, is in two minds. While the Foreign Office is said to be in favour of taking some of these prisoners as a gesture towards Mr. Obama, the Home Office and security agencies appear to have reservations. There are also fears of a public backlash over allowing alleged extremists to settle in their neighbourhoods. As one British journalist who attended the pre-trial hearings of some of the Guantanamo Bay inmates pointed out a “lack of evidence of serious crimes doesn’t mean that the accused are all charming people...” But even those who support the idea acknowledge that it would mean that these men would be “jumping” the immigration queue and that could breed resentment.

The more fundamental argument, however, is that Guantanamo Bay is America’s creation and there is no reason why it should now try and pass the buck to others, especially when the camp’s closure is in America’s own interest as it prepares to change its world image under new management.

“This is ridiculous,” wrote The Times foreign affairs commentator Bronwen Maddox arguing that it is America’s responsibility to settle those it cannot charge for lack of evidence or deport them.

“There are many fronts....where the U.S. can claim that it is pouring resources into a struggle that will help other countries, too; battles it cannot fight alone. But Guantanamo is its own mess, of its own elaborate construction and it should clear it up alone,” she said.

The Left-wing Independent was equally scathing. “This is a problem made in America, and America must deal with its consequences,” it commented editorially, adding that providing home to these people was the “minimum price America must pay for Guantanamo.”

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said that his government has not yet received any formal request from Washington. But the conventional wisdom is that once such a request is received, Barkis would be found willing. After all, what’s a few prisoners between “special” friends.

* * *

Is shoe-hurling, “inspired” by Iraqi journalist Muntather Zaidi who became famous after throwing shoes at the U.S. President George W. Bush in Baghdad recently, going to be the new form of public protest? No more mere good old-fashioned picketing and the quiet sit-ins but a direct assault on the “enemy”—shoes and all?

Last week, organisers of a march in London in support of the people of Gaza were pointedly instructed to bring old footwear and lay them out at the gates of Downing Street as a show of contempt for Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s belated and (until then) half-hearted response to Israel’s invasion of Gaza. In the event, thanks to heavy-handed police reaction, they ended up doing something even more dramatic: actually flinging the smelly shoes at No. 10.

This was unprecedented for a peaceful London rally: nothing of this sort had happened even at the height of public anger over the then Prime Minister Tony Blair’s support for Iraq invasion. Effigy-burning, egg-pelting yes; but shoe-hurling? And, to be honest, it looked so tacky and in such bad taste, one almost felt like screaming: no, not in my name!

The Iraqi journalist’s action made sense: he was protesting against American occupation of his country and what could be a more dramatic way of shaming President Bush than greeting him with shoes?

But when imitated by protesters in London, it looked absurdly out of place. And, meanwhile, a shoe protest of some sort was apparently taking place across the Atlantic—in Miami. According to an Associated Press report “thousands of shoes” appeared “mysteriously on a busy road in Miami, disrupting traffic for hours.” A charity, Soles4Souls, was reported as saying that it would “redistribute” them.

So, what is it about shoes and protests?

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Test cricket’s changing balance
Kasab and Pakistan’s honour
Why the caste system is on its last legs
The ride to Kilinochchi and beyond
Guantanamo Bay: whose mess is it anyway? out of london
Gaza: medics find ‘unbelievable’ horror
Corrections and clarifications
Shocking disclosure
On accounting
Give him a chance

Copyright © 2009, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu