【Jamaica Observer】 What did Bermuda get for taking Guantanamo detainees?

rlsrls08

What did Bermuda get for taking Guantanamo detainees?
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/html/20090620T210000-0500_153824_OBS_WHAT_DID_BERMUDA_GET_FOR_TAKING_GUANTANAMO_DETAINEES_.asp

SIR Ronald Sanders
Sunday, June 21, 2009

I had to read the words of the letter three times because I could not believe my eyes on either of the two previous readings.




This is what the chairman of the US Congress, Bill Delahunt, wrote to Bermuda Premier Ewart Brown when his Government controversially agreed to give refuge to four Chinese Muslims, known as Uighurs, who had been detained by the US Government at Guantanamo: "We commend you for your political courage for taking these men into your nation and providing them with a new start in life. It is our hope that the American people will come to learn of your humanitarian decency and the great service you have done our country. You as a moral leader have made the right decision and we applaud you for it."

Imagine the brazenness of Delahunt in commending Brown for his "political courage in taking these men" into his nation. It is political courage that neither Delahunt nor any of his fellow US congressmen showed. Not one of them wanted any of the Guantanamo detainees on their soil, even though it is the US Government that snatched them and detained them.
Delahunt went on to describe Brown's action as "humanitarian decency". He's right about that, and it is clear that it is "humanitarian decency" that neither Delahunt nor any of his fellow US congressmen can remotely claim, for they were adamant that none of the Guantanamo detainees would be taken into the US.

Staggeringly, Delahunt then tells Brown that he is "a moral leader" who has made "the right decision" and that the US Congress applauds him for it. What a shameless statement. If we were to turn that statement around, Delahunt and his fellow congressmen who have refused to take these detainees on US soil are not "moral" leaders; have not made "the right decision" and deserve to be jeered.

This characterisation would be especially true against the background of what Delahunt's patronising letter goes on to say. It reads: "Justice for the Uighur detainees is years overdue. Their right to remedy has been denied them for too long... It is incumbent on all parties to ensure that neither diplomatic friction nor domestic party politics - whether in the USA, Bermuda, or elsewhere - interfere with the ability of the men to rebuild their lives peacefully and with all the support mechanisms they need to adapt to life after Guantanamo."

Everything Delahunt said about the four Uighurs is right. Since he knows it - and presumably so do the others in the US Congress on whose behalf he wrote - why did he not insist on their entry and settlement in the US, which is responsible for them being detained in the first place?

Undoubtedly, some of the detainees at Guantanamo harbour ill-will toward the US because of perceived injuries by successive governments. Undoubtedly, some of them have committed hostile actions against the United States, and undoubtedly some of them would continue to take such actions if they could. As suspected terrorists under international law, they should be tried under international law and dealt with appropriately.

But other innocent countries and peoples ought not to be dragged into this.

And, if they are dragged in as Bermuda has been, gratitude to them should not be an afterthought. Witness US President Barack Obama at a press conference at which he thanked Silvio Berlusconi, the prime minister of Italy, for agreeing to take Guantanamo detainees. He adds to his Berlusconi thanks: "I have to say, by the way, that Bermuda has done us a great service, as well, on that front, and I'm grateful to them."

By the way? By the way, thanks to a little island that has risked the anger of the People's Republic of China, done the "moral" thing, showed "humanitarian decency" and made "the right decision"? Surely, Bermuda deserved better than that?

And they deserve better, more particularly because the reason that the US State Department gave for not involving the British Government in its discussions with Bermuda (a British Overseas Territory) is that it wanted to spare Britain the anger of the Chinese Government. It should be recalled that the Chinese wanted the Uighurs sent to China, and that the US Government had actually allowed Chinese intelligence personnel to question the Uighurs while they were in detention at Guantanamo. So the US saves Britain from Chinese anger, but leaves Bermuda exposed.

In all this, it is very puzzling that the US State Department had what amounts to secret discussions with the Government of Bermuda without informing the British Government.

It is certainly within the knowledge of the US State Department that Bermuda is not a sovereign state; that it is a British Overseas Territory; and that the British Government retains full responsibility for its external affairs, security and defence. Taking in the Uighurs is not simply a domestic immigration matter; it has significant foreign policy implications.

Are we to assume that the US State Department deliberately and intentionally ignored the authority of its closest ally in the "war against terror" in arranging the transfer of the four Guantanamo detainees to Bermuda? This simply does not make sense. We are, after all, talking about two countries with a long history of international diplomacy and, more especially, a long history of collaboration and co-operation.

The British Government has certainly been adamant that Brown did not have the right to negotiate the transfer of the Uighurs from US custody without consulting Britain. Reportedly, there have been "angry telephone exchanges" with Brown. Significantly, there have been no reports of similar angry exchanges with the US State Department.

One British newspaper has reported that "Britain's foreign secretary, David Miliband, is understood to have had an uneasy telephone conversation with the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, about why London was not told. Clinton reportedly said the US had assumed that Bermuda had agreed the move with Britain before agreeing to host the Uighurs.

In the fullness of time, who knew what and when about this entire episode will make interesting reading.

In any event, the British governor of Bermuda has said that, despite protests within Bermuda and calls for the resignation of Ewart Brown as premier, the Uighurs will remain in Bermuda and they will not be returned either to Guantanamo or to China. The deal, then, has been sealed.

What has to be asked about this now is: what will Bermuda get for taking in the Uighurs?

Whatever it is, it should be more than just a verbal expression of thanks. Premier Brown should demand more on behalf of all Bermudians.

ronaldsanders@msn.com

Sir Ronald Sanders is a consultant and former Caribbean diplomat