Starvation vs. Detention

Image by Casmaron

The strongest prisoner rebellion at the United States’ detention camp only serves a reminder of the truly horrific side effects of the War on Terror. Having accepted that the prison is too much to bear, over one hundred of the one hundred and sixty six prisoners are taking part in a hunger strike with many now being force-fed. The strike has grown over the previous month to become the biggest prisoner protest since the detention camp’s establishment in 2002 and it is rightly capturing the attention of citizens across the globe.

It is far from the first time that we have heard of the alleged human rights abuses of prisoners at the camp. Yet, unfortunately, the fluid world easily disposes of the many stories that make our hearts ache; just think of how long it was until you forgot about Kony 2012 and you’ll realise that it won’t be long before this story disappears from the mainstream media and we return to our blissful lives, unaware of any further developments at the prison.

The protesting prisoners, whether intentionally or not, are highlighting the alleged injustices that are being committed; detention without trial, torture, poor living conditions and now being force-fed against their will. To these people, it would appear that a slow death is far better than living in the arrangements given to them; I don’t blame them. To be isolated from your life for over a decade without having been called guilty or innocent is a life of torture. Some have already committed or attempted to commit suicide.

But when the camp will close is unknown. Despite Obama’s 2009 inauguration pledge to close the camp within a year, four years on, the camp remains open, the prisoners remain detained and the politicians remain reluctant. Congress has voted again and again against closing it in. Yet, this week, Obama has been coerced into releasing a fresh statement of his determination to close the prison even though his power to do so is essentially non-existent without the backing of the two political houses.

Perhaps most shocking of all is the profile of the detainees. Too large a number were teenagers when captured and have spent their transformation into adults in the horrible conditions of the camp, held despite no court declaring them guilty. Barack Obama claims it “is inefficient, it hurts us in terms of our international standing, it lessens co-operation with our allies on counter-terrorism efforts, it is a recruitment tool for extremists, it needs to be closed.” I call it inhumane, abusive and unjustified; it should never have been opened.

The Human Rights Act that we take for granted in the United Kingdom is unfortunately not global. The extradition agreements in place between the United Kingdom and the United States are luxurious compared to the forceful abduction of these terrorist suspects. Our prisoners don’t have the vote; these prisoners don’t have lives.

Mainstream media continues their focus on the War on Terror with the atrocities committed in Iraq and Afghanistan whilst Guantanamo Bay continues to be ignored. With little pressure on their backs, Guantanamo Bay will continue operating, the United States congress will ignore their consciences and the torture will not cease.

There’s a reason the camp is in Cuba and not on United States mainland.

Using Rockets as Diplomacy

Photo by dombook11 on Flickr

At what point did the use of dangerous weaponry become diplomacy? It’s only distressing that the military fire and air raids from both sides of the Israeli-Palestine conflict is the chosen way forward, causing unnecessary civilian casualties from arbitrary attacks on mix and match locations. War simply isn’t necessary nor acceptable, and full retaliation is never the first form of response, regardless of the provocation; that’s what diplomacy is for. But that’s the only ceasefire we’ve seen.

The Israeli-Palestine conflict has, in some form, been occurring since the earliest 20th century. Maybe that makes it understandable as to why violence is always the first call of duty, but at what point, and why, did they give up on the much more passive diplomatic route? And what seems most absurd to me is that this is essentially a religious conflict! Surely the ultimate method for peacekeeping is anti-war in essence? This conflict poses so many questions that simply should not be questions.

Whether you are pro-Israel or pro-Gaza, it is agreeable that murder, torture and loss of innocent lives is the least desirable of all options available there? And we definitely don’t want to escalate this into a major war with international intervention. The actions of Israel and Gaza are not acceptable; too many lives have already been lost, and no more blood should be shed.

And yet I can’t help but notice the media’s portrayal of the crisis. Almost one-sided, yesterday, the BBC news page had a tiny article on the attack on Gaza and the death of the Hamas leader, yet today, there was breaking news as Gaza responded. A huge lack of neutrality. If we don’t take a neutral stand, there will forever be bias, and hatred over one of the sides. If there’s hatred, there’s less likely to be peaceful resolutions. It seems self-perpetuating.

Aside from this, UK officials met today to discuss the Syria crisis also and the appropriate action to take, perhaps a stepping stone towards military intervention to bring the year and a half long conflict to an end. Understandably, UN resolutions and agreed ceasefires have ended, but it’s still not right to send in the army. I know there will be many arguments as to why we should intervene; the view point that are many innocent lives at risk and being lost that should be defended. Yet, that resolution would still involve some dying, and the prioritisation of some lives over others is not a justification for me. There’s got to be a better alternative, but the world is so apparently trigger-happy, we haven’t found it yet.

Perhaps the saddest part for me is that the turmoil in our country is political and economic, yet in many places across the world there is the tragic loss of life due to a militant attitude. If only we lived in a universal society where the former was the highest complaint anyone made.

Answer me one question; why is the nature of humans to fight?

What's next for Syria?

The Syrian crisis continues to worsen and any improvement to the situation seems an all too distant possibility. The announcement of the UN's special envoy to Syria, Kofi Annan's resignation from the role highlights the difficulty of the task; and aside from that, revelations from Obama's administration and talks between Russia's Putin and David Cameron  clearly demonstrate the absolute lack of international unity.

But what is the real heart of the problem? Is it a lack of unity between all members of the United Nations, with China and Russia vetoing any proposed action on Assad's regime, or is it the fact that neither the regime or the 'rebels' are adhering to the six-point plan that Annan attempted to implement? Every side blames the other, so no clarity is apparent. Regardless, the crisis is infuriating, and despite it's similarities to the Libyan uprising last year, it is also very different. Cynics might say it's to do with oil, others to say with key alliances; either way, there are civilians being killed left, right and centre here, and it's not something that should occur no matter the situation.

The situation is vastly different to Libya for a number of reasons; essentially, the sides of the oppositions and the length of time this conflict has spanned define the sensitivity of the situation. Comparatively, Libya appeared to have an almost everyone-against-Gaddafi situation, where the majority of citizens were in favour of his deposition, whereas within Syria, there is an obvious divide of opinion, and to favour one side over another would be to ignore the rights and opinions of a large sector of society, regardless of what the rest of the country and, indeed, the world thinks. Secondly, the conflict in Libya lasted only a couple of months before there was international intervention, whereas this conflict has lasted over a year now. The common opinion now is that Syria is militarised; citizens are used to conflict and there is danger for any person within the country. To arm the citizens would not simply result in the overthrow of the Government, but rather in the massacre of a vast number of citizens who disagree with the most armed side. These two points put us in a very difficult situation.

What's the correct way forward? I'm no expert on international relations, and I would hate to advocate war in any form, but it's obvious that some kind of action needs to be taken to depose Assad, or the country needs to be sorted and split, like with Sudan. But first, diplomacy needs to ensure that there is peaceful transition and implementation of whatever strategy is agreed upon. Unfortunately, diplomacy appears to be the first hurdle that cannot be overcome, forcing Annan's resignation today. And Obama appears to have decided that also, signing the document for approval in helping the rebels a few months ago, in a covert operation, just falling short of agreeing to arm them. We are yet to see the backlash on this, and a resolution that China and Russia agree appears too distant.

The strangest part of the situation; Syria have still been able to enter a team into the London 2012 Olympics, and they are competing alongside international athletes peacefully. How can a country that is killing its own citizens be able to peacefully enter an international sports competition is beyond me, but apparently it's possible.