Tuesday
Mar102009
United Nations: US Tortured, Britain Followed
Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 13:29
Related Post: The BBC and the UN Report on Torture - Shhhh, Don’t Tell Anyone
Related Post: Text - UN Report on Counter-Terrorism, Human Rights, and Torture
The United Nations report released yesterday is clear and concise: Britain was complicit with a US-created system which violated basic human rights and condoned the torture of detainees.
The Special Rapporteur remains deeply troubled that the United States has created a comprehensive system of extraordinary renditions, prolonged and secret detention, and practices that violate the prohibition against torture and other forms of ill-treatment. This system required an international web of exchange of information and has created a corrupted body of information which was shared systematically with partners in the war on terror through intelligence cooperation, thereby corrupting the institutional culture of the legal and institutional systems of recipient States.
The report continues:
Two specific cases are cited by the Special Rapporteur: "Evidence proves that Australian, British and United States intelligence personnel have themselves interviewed detainees who were held incommunicado by the Pakistani [intelligence service] ISI in so-called safe houses, where they were being tortured. Many countries (Bahrain, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan) have sent interrogators to Guantanamo Bay as
well."
This is not "enhanced interrogation". Not "aggressive questioning". Not any other euphemism. Torture.
This isn't breaking news. Allegations of British participation in interrogation of tortured prisoners have been about for several years. Only last month, Human Rights Watch documented at least 10 cases at Guantanamo Bay where British residents were interrogated, after beatings and other techniques violating human rights, by UK intelligence services. Representatives of Binyam Mohamed, recently released from the US base in Cuba, have provided further details.
So why is this report special? Simply because it doesn't come from an organisation like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International which are dismissed by Government authorities as politically biased. It comes from the UN, the international body to which the US and UK belong. (No doubt various media outlets, if this story gets traction, will offer the image of the United Nations as hostile to the American and British Governments, but the UN still has an international legal standing that has to be recognised.)
More importantly, this statement exposes the lie (and the liars) at the heart of the British Government. The UK was far from alone in propping up the US-sanctioned torture. It was the Blair Government, however, that stood side-by-side for years alongside the US proclaiming that they were protecting human rights in the War on Terror, indeed extending those rights by taking that war from Afghanistan to Iraq. It was Tony Blair who lay down the doctrine for moral intervention in 1999:
Ten years later, it is Blair's successors who have upheld "the values of liberty, the rule, [and] human rights" through evasion, deceit, and denial. Nine days ago, Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith declared:
Maybe it's best, given this economy with the truth, to return to the UN report:
Related Post: Text - UN Report on Counter-Terrorism, Human Rights, and Torture
The United Nations report released yesterday is clear and concise: Britain was complicit with a US-created system which violated basic human rights and condoned the torture of detainees.The Special Rapporteur remains deeply troubled that the United States has created a comprehensive system of extraordinary renditions, prolonged and secret detention, and practices that violate the prohibition against torture and other forms of ill-treatment. This system required an international web of exchange of information and has created a corrupted body of information which was shared systematically with partners in the war on terror through intelligence cooperation, thereby corrupting the institutional culture of the legal and institutional systems of recipient States.
The report continues:
While this system was devised and put in place by the United States, it was only possible through collaboration from many other States. There exist consistent, credible reports suggesting that at least until May 2007 a number of States facilitated extraordinary renditions in various ways. States such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Georgia, Indonesia, Kenya, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Pakistan and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have provided intelligence or have conducted the initial seizure of an individual before he was transferred to (mostly unacknowledged) detention centres in Afghanistan, Egypt, Ethiopia, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Thailand, Uzbekistan, or to one of the CIA covert detention centres, often referred to as “black sites”. In many cases, the receiving States reportedly engaged in torture and other forms of ill-treatment of these detainees.
Two specific cases are cited by the Special Rapporteur: "Evidence proves that Australian, British and United States intelligence personnel have themselves interviewed detainees who were held incommunicado by the Pakistani [intelligence service] ISI in so-called safe houses, where they were being tortured. Many countries (Bahrain, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan) have sent interrogators to Guantanamo Bay as
well."
This is not "enhanced interrogation". Not "aggressive questioning". Not any other euphemism. Torture.
This isn't breaking news. Allegations of British participation in interrogation of tortured prisoners have been about for several years. Only last month, Human Rights Watch documented at least 10 cases at Guantanamo Bay where British residents were interrogated, after beatings and other techniques violating human rights, by UK intelligence services. Representatives of Binyam Mohamed, recently released from the US base in Cuba, have provided further details.
So why is this report special? Simply because it doesn't come from an organisation like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International which are dismissed by Government authorities as politically biased. It comes from the UN, the international body to which the US and UK belong. (No doubt various media outlets, if this story gets traction, will offer the image of the United Nations as hostile to the American and British Governments, but the UN still has an international legal standing that has to be recognised.)
More importantly, this statement exposes the lie (and the liars) at the heart of the British Government. The UK was far from alone in propping up the US-sanctioned torture. It was the Blair Government, however, that stood side-by-side for years alongside the US proclaiming that they were protecting human rights in the War on Terror, indeed extending those rights by taking that war from Afghanistan to Iraq. It was Tony Blair who lay down the doctrine for moral intervention in 1999:
No longer is our existence as states under threat. Now our actions are guided by a more subtle blend of mutual self interest and moral purpose in defending the values we cherish. In the end values and interests merge. If we can establish and spread the values of liberty, the rule of law, human rights and an open society then that is in our national interests too. The spread of our values makes us safer.
Ten years later, it is Blair's successors who have upheld "the values of liberty, the rule, [and] human rights" through evasion, deceit, and denial. Nine days ago, Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith declared:
We will continue to ensure that our co-operation with other countries and partners does not undermine the very principles and values that are the best long-term guarantee of our future security. Central to those values is an abhorrence of torture, and the determination that when allegations of torture are made they are properly investigated. That has been, and will remain, the government's approach.
Maybe it's best, given this economy with the truth, to return to the UN report:
[The Special Rapporteur is] worried by the increasing use of State secrecy provisions and public interest immunities for instance by Germany, Italy, Poland, Romania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the United Kingdom or the United States to conceal illegal acts from oversight bodies or judicial authorities, or to protect itself from criticism, embarrassment and - most importantly - liability.
Reader Comments (7)
Why is the concept of human rights always treated with such a duplicity by the UN, as well as well-heeled, liberal commentators? The concept seems to be applied only when convenient, and only against certain players. There are machinations and systems of far more egregious torture, and moral irreverence, by the very people that are claiming victimhood - yet, they are never given any credence.
For shame.
@E.T. Cook- As a UK-based US foreign policy website with British and American authors I don't see any hypocrisy or duplicity in calling-out our own governments on torture.
As for the UN, I can see where you're coming from but surely brushing this off as 'not as bad' as China, Zimbabwe et al is a bit disingenuous?
It is a distracting myth to argue that the UN is focused only on the misdeeds of the "good guys" like the US, UK, and Israel. It has, for example, highlighted cases from the Balkans to Liberia to Sudan to Indonesia in recent years.
The speed of dealing with these cases can be glacial, given the national politics and geopolitics involved, whether that obstruction comes from China, Russia, Cuba, the US, or another country. Yet the fact that not only UN bodies but also the ICC and the International Court on Human Rights are trying to pursue these cases should not be dismissed for political point-scoring. The sweeping claim of the UN (and "liberals") as duplicitous is more often an attempt to divert attention rather than to deal with the frustrating complexities of pursuing and ensuring universal human rights.
@Mike
I'm not making any moral declaration on who is worse, or better. Both you and Scott are putting words in my mouth that were not spoken, nor contemplated. I don't brush off ANY human rights violations, but frankly - there is a large moral disparity between extradition/torture, and organ harvesting.
@Scott
I never said "good guys", nor did I imply that the US should get a pass with regards to their actions. Your own word choice substantiates my point further. The UN has "highlighted" certain acts in different regions, but never has the UN obsessed over one particular countries misdeeds like it does Israel and the US.
I just find it annoying that any thinking man would ever equate a particular act like waterboarding (which I am not defending), with other far more egregious acts and policies. Not even considering the despicable acts perpetrated by many Middle Eastern countries against their own people.
You yourself have mentioned a multitude of cases, all of which are far more egregious than the US' violations - yet I rarely hear a peep regarding them from the UN, or from sites like this, for that matter.
As stated prior, I don't intend to give anyone a pass, but your own conscious decisions on coverage show your intentions, and bias. You can make all the "sweeping" accusations you want regarding my intentions, but by doing that, you are the one being dismissive.
We reference Gitmo, in exclusivity, as if it is the only torture center worldwide, as if there aren't a system of torture centers, and prisons around the world, including the middle east that are far more egregious. Frankly, I'd rather spend a year in Gitmo than under the care of ANY of the home countries whose nationals are being held within its walls.
I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth, that's not what I intended to do. From your first comment I assumed your mention of 'liberal commentators' and the concept only being applied 'when convenient' were in response to Scott's post.
Re the difference between extradition/ torture and organ harvesting, this comes back to my original point- my government colluded in extradition and torture on my behalf- for me moral disparities with regards to other governments' human rights records aren't the issue.
You also say that you 'rarely hear a peep regarding them from the UN, or from sites like this, for that matter'. As I mentioned in my first comment, EA is a UK-based US foreign policy blog so I don't have any difficulty in justifying the inclusion of this story on sites like this. We could move into covering human rights in the rest of the world but where would we stop? We don't have the resources or the time to blog about every potential issue.
I guess I should have been a bit more clear. This was a comment reflecting my perception in general, not just of this particular blog.
I do understand your point, if the violations are intrinsic to the government that represents you. But, my perspective was in the general sense, ie. UN.
I understand, and accept, your points regarding the purpose of the blog, and you guys do a fantastic job, even if I don't agree with the tone at times.
Much appreciated. I'd be pleased for a full discussion on UN's approach to human rights, as I think it is an important issue that deserves attention both to the hierarchy of high-profile "human rights" cases (we're posting soon on Durban II conference) and to what I think is overlooked dimension of UN activity in areas such as children's rights, women's rights, labour rights, economic rights re housing, sanitation, and health, etc.
I also take point re blog coverage. We encourage readers to raise any case that they think deserves/requires attention. Personally, I tend to follow the priorities set by US Government: if it paid as much attention (in policy, not rhetoric) to Sudan and Zimbabwe as it does to Afghanistan, I'd post much more on Africa. If Bush and Co. had focused on climate change rather than "enhanced interrogation", I'd be retraining in global environmental issues.....