Improvement vs. closure

The Globe and Mail points out that Canada is almost alone among Western countries in not calling for the closure of the Guantanamo gulag:

British, French, German and Italian leaders have all pushed for Guantanamo's closing in recent weeks after a damning UN report that found it falling far short of meeting international standards of justice...

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan says close it. So does Louise Arbour, a former Canadian Supreme Court judge who heads the UN Human Rights Commission. The Bush administration's policy of holding detainees in secret and offshore prisons and shipping them to third countries has "an acutely corrosive effect on the global ban on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment," she said.

In Ottawa, Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Marie-Christine Lilkoff said the government understands the need for Guantanamo. "Canada is sensitive to the need to ensure that persons who are a danger to international peace and security not be provided with the opportunity to resume a direct part in hostilities or re-engage in terrorist activity," she said in a written response to questions.

I'll readily join the crowd demanding changes, particularly in light of the recent reports of abuse. But it seems that there should be room for a more effective form of pressure which Canada should be well-positioned to initiate.

While Guantanamo may now operate as one of the best-known symbols of Bushco's excesses in the war on terror, it's far from the only example. And there'd be no point to closing Guantanamo if the effect will simply be to have the current prisoners pushed further underground.

Moreover, to the extent that the U.S. is able to make a reasonable case that a given detainee is in fact a danger to international peace and security, there's certainly a basis for continued detention, whether at Guantanamo or elsewhere. But that doesn't mean that the U.S. is entitled to treat those detainees as it sees fit with no regard for even the most basic human rights or its own anti-torture obligations - and that's a fact that even a good chunk of Congress has acknowledged.

The problem is that nobody has yet stepped up to press for a compromise providing for the sorely-needed oversight and respect for human rights. And with the current debate focusing merely on whether or not to close the centre, Canada may be able to play peacemaker by demanding more meaningful changes.

It seems highly likely that those now calling for Gitmo's closure would be agreeable to a revamped centre with proper controls in place. And a consensus that places the focus on the U.S.' arbitrary treatment of the detainees rather than the mere place of their detention is one that Bushco would have a much more difficult time ignoring.

Of course, it appears all too likely that Canada will instead stay out of the fray, offering its tacit support for even the worst of the U.S.' abuses. But if Harper really wanted to make the best possible use of Canada's ability to build consensus, this is one debate where a slight change of focus could lead to far better results.