Since the 50’s, France has often appeared to be America’s “best enemy”. Several French leaders have stood against the US hegemony. In 1958, General de Gaulle protested against the American dominion over the NATO as well as against its “special relationship” with the United Kingdom. Soon after, France withdrew completely from NATO’s integrated military commands, forcing all foreign forces to leave the country. In 2003, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin addressed the UN Security Council and aroused the admiration of the world by opposing the war in Iraq. More generally, Europe as a whole, the “old continent”, has sometimes had the image of being one of the voices trying to temper the wild American “new world”. This year, few days before the 9/11 anniversary, Cecilia Malmström (European Commissioner for Home Affairs) stated that the fact that Guantanamo Bay was still open and that men were still held without trial was a disgrace. She said that she was voicing the opinion of the European Union and all the country members and institutions who had repeatedly reminded this to the United States in their contacts. One can only salute such a stance. However, a review of diplomatic cables on this issue shows that this statement does not reflect the reality. On the opposite hand, it reveals that leading European countries such as France, far from having lobbying for the closure of Guantanamo, have actually aligned their diplomatic efforts with the American policy.
France might have condemned formally the lawlessness in Guantanamo. However, behind closed doors, French officials have not really been worried with the unacceptable and unlawful situation there. In 2005, the American embassy in Paris commented:
“Government of France interest in Guantanamo has been largely confined to the presence of French citizens. With the already completed transfer in 2005 of all French citizens from Guantanamo, we anticipate little official reaction from the GOF on this issue”.
The French “interest” in Guantanamo or rather in the detention of French citizens there should not be taken as an official concern for the rights of those nationals. This is clearly shown by the (non)-reaction of a French official after he was informed that a French citizen had been found to be an “enemy combatant” by the Combatant Status Review Tribunal in 2005 again.
“Poloff informed Jean-Charles Bou, US desk officer at the MFA, of the final determination of enemy combatant status of Khaled ben Mustafa by the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, as per reftel A. Poloff drew from talking points in reftel B to explain the Tribunal process and the ramifications of the enemy combatant status determination. Bou had no immediate substantive response or specific concerns”.
From the very beginning, CSRTs have been described by all human rights advocates as nothing but a “kangaroo courts”. In 2008, the US Supreme Court deemed them as unconstitutional. How can somebody be explained the modus operandi of these “tribunals” and have “no immediate substantive response or specific concerns”?
The American embassy has chosen its words carefully. French did not have a concern but only an interest in Guantanamo. This was the feeling of Khaled Ben Mustapha himself, commenting on the facts that French agents came to interrogate the French citizens while they were illegally detained in the Cuban island. Interestingly enough, those interrogations were then used against them after their repatriation, causing them to be sentenced from a year to a year and a half of prison. Those sentences were actually not real condemnations but merely an a posteriori legal justification for the time they had spent in pre-trial custody. But for the Parisian American embassy, those low sentences had also another aim: to cover the interrogations conducted by French agents in Guantanamo as well as to spare the French government the accusation of being complicit of the situation in GITMO camps:
“The meager sentences requested by the prosecutor also suggest that the GOF sought to balance its desire to convict the defendants with concern that more significant sentences could draw increased attention to the revelations of French intelligence agents' visit to Guantanamo and more public criticism of the intelligence agents' visit to Guantanamo as de-facto GOF approval of the facility”.
All of this simply suggests that France was silently complicit and took advantage of the situation in Guantanamo to interrogate detainees. That would be shameful enough for many. However, France did not only restrict its involvement to this “opportunistic” posture. Discussions between American and French diplomats show that France has clearly not reminded the US that the situation in Guantanamo was a shame as stated by European Commissioner for Home Affairs and actually have even avoided any criticism against GITMO.
The apologetic tune used by the French in 2005 is simply amazing and shows their non-condemnation of the American prison.
“Fraper du Hellen reiterated that the French agreed with us about avoiding no action motions, but asked whether we would honour the principle should a Guantanamo (GTMO)-related resolution be introduced (which she had heard was a possibility). The French felt they were addressing their concerns through a thematic resolution on arbitrary detention rather than a specific one and would not support a resolution on GTMO; however, they had been approached by Egypt about doing so”.
Just in case the American diplomats were not satisfied with France’s position on the issue, it was important to reinsure them and explain them that France targets certain countries when it comes to forced disappearances but in no case does it target the US.
“Fraper du Hellen underlined that the French resolution on forced disappearances was not pointed at the U.S. Rather, it was drafted with the political disappearances in Algeria and Latin America in mind and was an attempt to improve relations with those countries”.
This is not the only example of the French “selective indignation” and political hypocrisy. In April 2004, the US sponsored a resolution pointing out Human rights violation in Cuba. The day after, Cuba drafted a resolution calling on the United Nations' Human Rights Commission to investigate conditions at Guantanamo Bay. Another cable sent by the American embassy in France relates a French-American exchange on the adoption of a strategy to block the Guantanamo resolution, with an emphasis on French lobbying within the EU.
“Poloff delivered reftel points to Donatienne Hissard in the Human Rights office of the MFA's United Nations and International Organizations bureau on April 19.Hissard noted that France agreed completely with our view that the Cuban resolution was a retaliatory measure. While there were no technical problems with the resolution, she continued, the source and reasons for its introduction completely undermined its legitimacy. Hissard stated France's desire to see the EU vote against the resolution as a bloc, but said that discussions were ongoing and no consensus had yet been reached. Hissard specifically mentioned that Germany "didn't know where it was going" on the resolution.
Hissard sought additional information about negotiations between the USG and the UN Special Rapporteurs regarding their request to visit Guantanamo, remarking that a positive response to the request would be detrimental to the success of the Cuban resolution. Hissard also asked if we were considering any procedural means to defeat the vote, underlining that, in the eyes of some within the EU, a postponement vote was akin to a no-action vote.
Action Request: Action Request: Post seeks information on USG views on the UN Special Rapporteurs' request that could be shared with the French to assist their lobbying efforts within the EU”.
Cuba eventually withdrew its resolution...
This unconditional support, as we have already glimpsed with forced disappearances, was not limited to GITMO only but was rather extended to all aspects of the war on terror. This is proven by the French response (given by IO DAS equivalent for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affaires, Jacques Pellet, and desk officer, Emanuel Pineda) to an American solicitation.
“On November 9, Poloff delivered demarches seeking French support for defeating any procedural moves that could prevent voting on the substance of any resolution before the Third Committee, and defeating retaliatory resolutions brought by Iran and Belarus against Canada and the United States. (...)
France will vote against the Belarusian resolution condemning U.S. human rights violations.
Concerning the second Belarusian resolution condemning the use of secret detention site, Pellet related that France was discussing the resolution with EU member states and would either vote against or abstain.”
After this cynical discussion disregarding entirely the values these two countries claim to stand for, it is ironic to read in conclusion of the very same cable that:
“Pellet took advantage of the meeting to reiterate France's hope that the United States would join, and take a leadership role in, the United Nations Human Rights Council, contending that the United States' absence weakens the authority of the body.”
Since then, a lot of water has passed under the bridge. Barack Obama has been elected. He has promised to close Guantanamo within a year (three years ago) and the US are now desperately trying to resettle dozens of detainees whom have been cleared for release. As a loyal ally, France has also reviewed her position. In 2009, the American diplomats met the same Jacques Pellet:
“Pellet stated France wants to help the U.S. close down the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and detainee Lakhdar Boumediene arrived in Paris on May 15. In return, France also requests the U.S. first review any cases of detainees who were captured when they were children. The GOF also hopes we sign the UNICEF Paris Commitment on Child Soldier”
France has recovered her humanism, hosts former detainees and cares for children...
France has been highly solicited by the US and has been among the first countries to accept GITMO detainees on its soil. In 2009, a meeting between Eric Chevallier (French Special Advisor to the Foreign Affairs Minister), and Ambassador Dan Fried (Special Envoy for Closure of the Guantanamo Detention Facility) took place to negotiate the resettlement of six detainees. French “good faith” was again proven.
“Chevallier stressed that France would review the cases in a positive light (...) and confirmed that France would not intervene negatively in U.S. discussions with other countries, for example, Spain, Italy, and Portugal, that are moving ahead with resettlement”
In order to reduce French apprehensions, the US envoy issued them an invitation:
“In closing discussions on the files, Fried suggested French officials visit Guantanamo to interview the detainees and talk to the defense lawyers to inform their decision and aid in the selection of future candidates and to make any requests for further information through intelligence liaison.”
Even though the idea of officials or intelligence members visiting a place such as Guantanamo Bay is always disturbing, one can only hope for a swift release of those detainees, by any means. We also hope that France will show a bit of independence after all these years and will not restrict herself to review the cases proposed to her by the US administration. We would like to think that France will actively seek the return of Nabil Hadjarab who has been illegally detained in GITMO for nearly ten years and cleared for release by the Bush administration in 2007. Algerian citizen and French resident, he has expressed his wish to join his closest family in France. However, until this day, French authorities have not answered his call.
RSS Feed
Please wait...