Why is Guantanamo Still Open?

On the 22^nd of January 2009, only one day into his presidency, Obama signed an Executive Order to close the controversial military camp in Guantanamo Bay. Five years on, the prison is still running despite fervent objection from other States Non-Governmental Organizations and the like.

Opposition has come about due to the questionable morality and legality of an institution that detains such a large number of prisoners without ever charging them with a crime.

Furthermore, disturbing stories of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’, such as water-boarding and other forms of mental and physical torture have aided in tainting the United States image and increasing the push for its closure. Recently, detainees have expressed their anger and frustration over being left in limbo for such an extended period of time by undertaking hunger strikes. This has resulted in controversial force feeding of the detainees.

An animation by the Guardian depicting force feeding in Guantanamo can be seen below. 

The United Nations human rights chief, Navi Pillay, joined the chorus of opposition to the detention centre, describing it as in ‘clear breach of international law’ and calling for its closure. So the question needs to be asked why, if the President of the US himself, along with other prominent officials, have called for its closure, does it still remain open?

There is obviously a vast array of internal bureaucratic procedures within the US system that has prevented the closure of Guantanamo. However, I shall pass over the internal administrative obstacles and use Critical Theory to focus on why the international community has failed to ensure Guantanamo’s closure.  

The prevailing world order perpetuates a structure that gives the US unilateral hegemonic power. The relative power of the US compared to other states has resulted in the actions of US being seemingly exempt from that expected of others. An example of the American exception can be seen in regards to the use of torture described above on detainees in Guantanamo Bay. This is happening despite the US being signatories of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Under the Bush Administration, the US worked on reclassifying what constituted torture, as opposed to just stopping the practice all together. This resulted in new labels, such as ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’, being applied to questionable practices so as to lessen public scrutiny.

The justification for the use of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ has followed a rhetoric based on fear. It was vehemently claimed by US diplomats that such actions are necessary in the US ‘global war on terrorism’ so as to protect the citizens of the US and its allies. The discourse from US diplomats has focused on creating an ‘us vs them’ mentality. This results in the alienation and ‘othering’ of the perceived enemy. The detainees in Guantanamo were portrayed as fanatical extremists who are beyond reason.

Mitt Romney, a strong supporter of Guantanamo said;

"The base at Guantanamo is designed to hold and question enemy combatants who pose a threat to the nation or have intelligence value”. He went on to claim that closing or relocating Guantanamo Bay “would pose an undue risk to innocent Americans”.

The needs of American citizens take absolute priority over the rights of those who have been detained in Guantanamo for years without charge. There are currently 86 detainees in Guantanamo who have been cleared as safe for release, but still remain in Guantanamo for nothing more than bureaucratic reasons.

This links in with a concern highlighted by Andrew Linklater surrounding the issue of modern political thought that “constantly differentiates ethical obligations due to co-citizens from those due to the rest of humanity”. The rights of so called “others” are always secondary to the particularistic ones. Linklater goes on to say that this tension has been exploited for the purpose of devaluing the ‘suffering of distance strangers’.

Guantanamo Bay detainees.
URL: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01793/guan_1793306c.jpg  

The prevailing hegemonic world order perpetuates an unequal system in which the rights of those in power are held above those lower in the power structure. The international community needs to establish a dialogical approach that increases discourse regarding the prevailing world order. Increased communication paves the way for increased global public scrutiny before actions can be legitimized. As Karin Fierke states, we need to focus on the ‘denaturalization’ of the dominant assumptions of the prevailing political thought. According to Neufeld, denaturalization gives us an ‘instrument for the delegitimisation of established power and privilege’. A change in the international structure from one that is currently based on power, to that based on truth and ethics via increase accountability and discourse, will put increasing pressure on US to close Guantanamo Bay.

Protesters against Guantanamo Bay wearing the symbolic orange jumpsuits.
URL: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Guantanamo-Bay-protest-via-AFP.jpg