DIPLOMATIC ASSURANCES: WORTHLESS
by William Fisher
American Reporter Correspondent
CHATHAM, NY -- Countries that rely on "diplomatic assurances" that other countries won't torture transferred prisoners "are either engaging in wishful thinking or using the assurances as a figleaf to cover their complicity," a new report from Human Rights Watch charges.
"There is substantial evidence that in the course of the global "war on terrorism," an increasing number of governments have transferred, or proposed sending, alleged terrorist suspects to countries where they know the suspects will be at risk of torture or ill-treatment" the human rights group said.
The report, "Still at Risk," said that in countries with "a serious and persistent" history of prisoner abuse, "diplomatic assurances do not and cannot prevent torture. The practice should stop."
Recipient countries have included Egypt, Syria, Uzbekistan, and Yemen, where torture is a systemic human rights problem. Transfers have also been carried out or proposed to Algeria, Morocco, Russia, Tunisia, and Turkey, "where members of particular groups - Islamists, Chechens, Kurds - are routinely singled out for the worst forms of abuse."
The HRW report comes on the heels of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's proposal, following the London underground bombings, to deport people who advocate violence against Britons.
"The use of diplomatic assurances against torture is a global phenomenon, with sending countries in North America and Europe leading the charge." HRW said. "The issue of diplomatic assurances against torture gained notoriety recently when U.S. officials acknowledged a large number of transfers of suspects to countries where torture is a serious human rights problem, claiming that U.S. authorities regularly sought and received diplomatic assurances of humane treatment from receiving governments prior to the transfers. In an increasing number of those cases, the suspects have credibly alleged that they were tortured."
According to Dr. Beau Grosscup, professor of international relations at California State University and an expert on terrorism, "Diplomatic assurances are trumped by the military, police and intelligence 'counter-insurgency' programs that the two Cold War superpowers instituted and still run in many of these countries that train police and military personnel in torture." Grosscup says, "The real attitude driving the 'rendition' efforts is: 'Having paid to train them in torture, why not get our monies worth?'"
In a separate statement, HRW criticized the August 10 "memorandum of understanding' reached between the United Kingdom and Jordan. It said the U.K. "cannot deport security suspects to Jordan without violating the international prohibition against sending persons to countries where they face a serious risk of torture."
The agreement "does nothing to reduce that risk or to change the obligation not to expose people to torture," , HRW said. "There is still torture in Jordan, especially with regard to security suspects," said Joe Stork, deputy director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East division. "All the good reasons that prevented the U.K. from deporting people to Jordan before August 10 remain unchanged by this agreement."
The U.K. and Jordan are both parties to the Convention against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. "Under international law, the prohibition against torture is absolute and cannot be waived under any circumstances," HRW said.
Britain recently detained several foreign residents who may now face deportation. Jordan's State Security Court, composed of two military and one civilian judge, had sentenced two of the men in absentia to 15-year and life sentences respectively for involvement in terrorist activities in 2000 and 2001.
The agency pointed out that "criminals convicted in absentia have the right to a full retrial once they come into Jordanian custody."
The U.K.-Jordan agreement "represents an effort to get around the Convention against Torture's strict non-refoulement obligation and has no mechanism for accountability," HRW said.
"Jordan stands to gain custody of criminal suspects while Britain rids itself of unwelcome persons, and neither country has any incentive to monitor treatment or investigate allegations of abuse," it said.
"Jordan's General Intelligence Department, prisons and ordinary police stations all have known records of abuse. By seeking Jordanian promises to treat these returned persons differently, the U.K. is confirming that the risk of torture continues."
In September 2004, the National Human Rights Center, an official body, announced that Abdullah al-Mushaqaba had died in Juwaida Prison as a result of torture. Detainees of that same prison told the Arab Organization for Human Rights in Jordan, a local non-governmental organization, in August 2005 that that they were severely beaten.
Last year, the Center received 250 allegations of torture or ill-treatment in Jordanian detentions. These numbers do not include the General Intelligence Directorate, which did not allow any visits by non-governmental human rights monitors. The Intelligence Directorate is often the first place of detention= for security detainees.
Human Rights Watch said that the U.K. plans to conclude similar agreements with other countries across the region, including Egypt and Algeria.
"Jordan, Egypt and Algeria all have a documented history of torture," said Stork. "Neither Britain nor any other country should consider returning people to such countries where they face the risk of torture."
The past two years have seen widespread exposure of the once-secret practic e of "rendition' - sending or taking prisoners to third countries.
The December 2001 expulsions of two Egyptian asylum seekers from Sweden based on assurances against torture caused a national scandal after the men= alleged that they had been tortured and ill-treated in Egyptian custody. It has been reliably reported that the men were kidnapped from Sweden by the CIA and flown to Egypt n the agency's leased Gulfstream jet.
The U.S. is also faulted for its pervasive use of diplomatic assurances in rendition and immigration cases, and to effect returns of detainees from Guantanamo Bay.
HRW also says that in Europe there is "an alarming and growing trend toward securing diplomatic assurances against torture and ill-treatment to effect extraditions, deportations, and expulsions, despite Europe's claim to having the most advanced human rights protection system in the world."
Elisa C. Massimino, Washington Director for Human Rights First (HRF), points out that the United Nations Subcommission on the Promotion and Prote= ction of Human Rights, "alarmed at the erosion of the principle of non-refoulement (the ban on transfer to torture), passed a resolution on August 4 to try to= stem the backsliding." She adds, "The resolution passed 19 to 1. The only no vote? Lee Casey, of the United States."
This sorry saga again raises serious questions about President George W. Bush's credibility when he insists "the U.S. doesn't engage in torture." We now know, thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, human rights organizations, and a few diligent journalists and whistleblowers, that this simply is not true. The evidence is just too overwhelming.
But even if it were true, is torture that much better when it's outsourced?