The West Speaks With A Forked Tongue

• Us Fails To Take Action Against Torture

Barack Obama and Tony Blair

By Faraz Shauketaly

Torture is defined as, “the act of inflicting excruciating pain, for revenge or punishment, as a means of getting information or a confession or for sheer cruelty”. That is the definition. Yet, in the United States of America, the self-appointed global regulator of good governance and democratic ideals, the Supreme Court nevertheless appears to have a problem in understanding the notion.

In April 2009, four former Guantanamo detainees, sought to initiate legal action against Donald Rumsfield, the former US Defence Secretary and others, holding them responsible for the torture the detainees said they suffered whilst in captivity in Guantanamo Bay. It is significant to note that these four British detainees were never charged with any offence. At the time, the United States Court of Appeal in the District of Columbia, held that Rumsfield and the senior military officers named in the charges, could not be held liable for the treatment the plaintiffs suffered, because – and you better sit upright whilst you read this bit — “…during that period (2002-2004) it was not clearly established that torture was illegal.”

That US Court was clearly singing off the President Bush hymn sheets: torture was not torture if the US President said it was not. The whole world is at one when it understands the nature and meaning of the word torture.  The former Guantanamo detainees, took their case the next step up; to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, disallowed the application by refusing to look into the lower courts’ ruling. It is not as though the act of permitting the case to be heard was a guilty verdict against Rumsfield, others and the US government. The case would have to be heard and the claims proven.

Yet by the very act of refusing leave to proceed, the Supreme Court in the United States has given a quasi, de-facto, inter-alia nod to torture. There is no other way to look at this ruling. My 12-year old daughter knows full well the meaning of the word torture – it is beyond comprehension that the United States Supreme Court could not understand the meaning. Certainly it appears that the US Supreme Court chose the path of political expediency as opposed to upholding legalities and pure and simple common sense.

President Barack Obama, of course has supported the anti-torture brigade. However, politicians come and politicians go; matters such as the fundamental human rights of the people cannot be left to the vagaries of politics and politicians. To do so would be to indulge in a form of Russian Roulette – with the precedents being created being even more dangerous for society at large.

Be that as it may, what is absolutely galling is the sheer hypocrisy and double-standards being employed by the United States and the United Kingdom in these matters.
The United States – before putting its own house in order – shamelessly calls for investigations of human rights violations in this country. The British government is at the forefront of attempts in the European parliament to punish Sri Lanka by withdrawing the GSP+ concession.

Sri Lanka has a very detailed constitution —  which many Sri Lankans do not like and say that President Jayewardene created purely to suit his political agenda. There is some merit in that — however, those very Sri Lankans must be proud of the fact that the Constitution of Sri Lanka, by way of Article 11, specifically addresses torture. Article  11  states, “No person shall be subjected to torture or to cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.

Whilst this country is in possession of such an unambiguous constitution, when it comes to the matter of torture and indeed on a whole plethora of human rights under Chapter III collectively called Fundamental Rights, there really is little need for a foreign sovereign nation, to dictate terms to another — however lower down the economic ladder it may. It may well pay the Americans and the British too, to remember that once you lead some into democracy how that democracy manifests itself is beyond their control.

In Britain, we have former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has openly admitted that he would have found a way – in any event – to launch an invasion of Iraq, the public are coming to terms painfully, that their popular Prime Minister essentially misled – lied to – the parliament and the population about the need to go to war in Iraq. That he acted in concert with President George Bush only lends credence to the claim made at the time, that Tony Blair was not the Prime Minister of Great Britain but rather President Bush’s Foreign Secretary.

Blair is expected to give evidence before the Chilcott Commission in the fortnight beginning January 25th and its is an appointment with his former parliamentary colleagues that will be watched with the greatest of interest. For the Labour Party, however, the timing could possibly not be worse, with a general election expected by May this year. For the public at large wishing to see Blair possibly squirm, there are approximately 40 seats in the public gallery (20 of the 60 are reserved for families of Iraq war victims) and those will be given away employing a “ballot”.

It is not only in Sri Lankan politics that leaders do a “U” turn once out of office. Sir John Major, former prime minister now says that Blair has to answer serious concerns in light of the “new evidence”. Politicians simply cannot get round to using the word lie: Major, will of course be long remembered as the prime minister who after leaving office was forced to admit to the world that he had an extra-marital relationship with Edwina Currie, a fellow conservative politician who later became Minister of Health. Major’s famous call, as prime minister, for Britain to “return to basics” in public life was taken to mean that he supported the notion of a return to a “traditional” view on morality.

One of the dominant reasons that John Major’s government lost re-election was due to the number of sex and sleaze allegations that engulfed them at the time and for his lack of firm leadership during those troublesome times. Lady Archer, the wife of the award-winning novelist Lord Archer, herself at the centre of media attention over her husband’s activities, famously said after the Major revelations, that she was “surprised – not at Edwina Currie’s revelations but at Major’s temporary poor taste!”

For all President Barack Obama’s support and inclination to rid the law of torture, the proof of the pudding is, they say, in the eating. The agency that opposed the Supreme Court action initiated by the Guantanamo Bay Four, was none other than President Obama’s Department of Justice. Like we said, democracy cannot find comfort in the whims and fancies of politicians. It must be enshrined in law. The US Supreme Court has failed in its duty to uphold its position as the last bastion of hope for those whose fundamental rights have been violated. (faraz@thesundayleader.lk)