Military

DATE=01/17/02

TYPE=WORLD OPINION ROUNDUP

TITLE=AFGHANS IN CUBA

NUMBER=6-125535

BYLINE=ANDREW GUTHRIE

DATELINE=Washington

EDITOR=Assignments

TELEPHONE=619-3335

CONTENT=

INTRO: The United States is beginning to get criticism from some corners of the world for its treatment of Taleban and al-Qaida prisoners. The movement of roughly one-hundred of the most violent fighters to the U-S Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba is drawing complaints in the editorial columns of European and other papers.

At the base, the Marine general in command defends their treatment. Brigadier General Michael Lehnert says although they are temporarily housed in outdoor wooden pens, the men get regular food including bagels, sleeping mats like the Marines themselves use, and have had their heads shaved to counter head lice. He also said that several of them have called out to their guards that they hope to kill some Americans before they leave. Meanwhile, a group of International Red Cross inspectors toured the prisoners compound at the naval base Thursday [1-17] to check conditions.

Nevertheless, papers in some normally staunch U-S allies, such as England and Canada are not convinced this treatment conforms to the Geneva Convention on treatment of prisoners. And there is some concern that even flying the men to the base in Cuba violates parts of the agreement. We get a sampling now from V-O-A's ______________ in this week's World Opinion Roundup.

TEXT: We begin in London, where the Guardian scoffs:

VOICE: Just as significant as America's treatment of ... prisoners held at its Guantanamo base ... is the gulf this is opening up between two cultures that imagine ...they have everything in common. ... When U-S Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, said he had 'not the slightest interest' in the camp's conditions, he signaled simultaneously contempt for the prisoners and bilious disdain for any critics who might dare to speak.

TEXT: Taking a more U-S friendly view, across town, is The [London] Times which reminds:

VOICE: These men ...are considered the most dangerous, and potentially the most knowledgeable, of the hundreds so far captured in Afghanistan... Justice will wait -- as indeed it must inevitably do until it can be ascertained just who these men are... and what charges, if any, should be brought against them. ... They are not, the United States insists, prisoners of war but 'unlawful combatants.' That is a valid reading of the Geneva conventions, under which POWs must be part of an identifiable military group that abides by the laws of war...

TEXT: The Financial Times points out:

VOICE: The aggrieved may feel some satisfaction if prisoners are treated harshly and denied basic rights but in the longer run it is U-S interests that will suffer.

TEXT: In France, the complaints were a bit stronger. For instance, in France Soir, which reported that a few of the detainees claim to be French, the paper commented:

VOICE: The U-S is trying to deal with 'their' prisoners in the same way it handled the war in Afghanistan: alone. Inside French diplomatic circles some are swaying that 'the Americans are embarrassed with the status to be given to these prisoners...'

TEXT: However the world famous Le Monde says in part:

VOICE: We must rejoice in the fact that men who are inhabited by a frenzy of destruction will have to answer for their crimes. But justice must be just.

TEXT: In Germany, the Frankfurter Rundschau suggests that the mixed nationality of some of the prisoners, not yet flown to Cuba, is privately worrying Washington.

VOICE: Even the most loyal U-S ally has concerns about the treatment of the detainees. The six or more British citizens who allegedly fought for the Taleban or al-Qaida are still British citizens, and they cannot be deprived of their rights, said British Foreign Minister [Jack] Straw.

TEXT: In an earlier editorial, The Rundschau voiced surprise at the Castro government's calm reaction to the prisoner's arrival. Meanwhile, in Munich, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung points out that:

VOICE: The Taleban and al-Qaida ... captured by the United States do not have a clearly defined legal status. They are neither prisoners of war nor criminals, and no charges have been filed against them up to now.

TEXT: Strong concern also comes from northern Italy, where Turin's La Stampa fumes:

VOICE: Humanitarian organizations are on the warpath. The most critical towards Camp 'X-Ray' has been the American organization 'Human Rights Watch,' which accused U-S Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld of having built cells that are, indeed, 'cages.'

TEXT: In Belgium the daily Het Belang van Limburg suggests:

VOICE: Criticism on the conditions in Camp X-Ray ... is increasing. Even the most loyal ally of the Americans, the British government, wants guarantees about the treatment of three British citizens. ...According to Amnesty International the regime in the camp does not meet minimum requirements for ... humane treatment.

TEXT: For a Czech perspective, we check in with MF Dnes in Prague where an editorial related that:

VOICE: According to [Secretary of Defense] Rumsfeld, the captives are not POWs and therefore the Geneva Convention does not relate to their cases... However, neither American law nor international law knows of such ... [other] category.

TEXT: In the north, Iceland's Morgunbladid from the capital Reykjavik points out that:

VOICE: The nations of the world have supported the United States since the terrorist attacks... These allies have a moral responsibility to ... among other things, make sure that the Americans will not mistreat their prisoners according to international agreements...

TEXT: In the Middle East, there was a clear presumption of guilt on the part of America, in Egypt's Al-Akhbar published in Cairo.

VOICE: The question is: Do these inhumane measures tally with the image of the United States as a leader of the free world? War criminals ... undergo investigation before charges are brought against them. ... Even if, for the sake of argument ... the men detained by the U-S forces cannot be considered POWs, they are still entitled to fair trial.

TEXT: More editorial anger from the Saudi Arabian publication, Al-Hayat, based in London:

VOICE: There is no excuse for shipping the al-Qaida fighter to the American base in Guantanamo even if, hypothetically, the American theory of their status as non-POWs is correct.

TEXT: In Bahrain, the Manama daily Akhbar Al-Khalij had an especially sharp retort:

VOICE: Who did not recall the [U-S] era of slavery while watching the Afghan prisoners dragged in chains to Cuba?

TEXT: Quickly to the South Pacific, where an usually supportive Australian press is in a fury. The Sydney Morning Herald holds that:

VOICE: The Geneva Convention of 1949 has stood as a monumental protection for the most wretched of prisoners ... Many of the lives it has saved in the past half-century have been ... American soldiers and airmen who surrendered in Korea and Vietnam. This makes it ironic, as well as deplorable, that the United State should now attempt to evade the convention by denying prisoner-of-war status to the Taleban and al-Qaida fighters it has corralled in Cuba...

TEXT: The national paper the Australian, also from Sydney, sees it differently, suggesting:

VOICE: Critics of the [U-S] military ... want to proceed as though there has been a bank robbery instead of a political act of aggression waged by international terrorists with the substantial involvement of foreign governments.

TEXT: Lastly from our northern neighbor, Canada, we read this angry question in Toronto's famous Globe and Mail.

VOICE: ... on what authority please, is the U-S arresting people in a foreign country and bringing them to a U-S base half a world away? What are they charged with? The United States does pride itself on being a nation of laws, and we presume people to be innocent until convicted - - or maybe we don'' in this case...

TEXT: That sharp retort from a big, neighboring paper in Ontario, Canada concludes this World Opinion Roundup sampling of comment on the Afghan prisoners move to a U-S naval base in Cuba.

NEB/ANG/RH