Guantanamo Bay closure

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States established a high-security facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba where terrorist suspects were detained.

A total of 759 prisoners have been held at Guantánamo, of whom 525 prisoners were released, five died in custody and about 250 inmates remain there to date. The US authorities claim that 61 former inmates were involved in terrorism since their release.

It is widely known that prisoners at Guantánamo were denied their fundamental human rights, notably the right to a fair trial, and subjected to harsh interrogation techniques, amounting to torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. This is why the Guantánamo prison camp has been the source of much controversy.

So the decision by the new US President, Barack Obama, to order the closure of this camp is greatly welcomed. Last week, in the European Parliament, we adopted a resolution on Guantánamo welcoming Mr Obama's decision, hailing it as an important change in the policy of the US towards respect for humanitarian and international law.

Needless to say, the question as to what happens to the remaining detainees was also raised.

On this point, the resolution rightly states that the main responsibility for closing the Guantánamo Bay detention facility and for the future of its inmates rests with the US. It adds that any detainees against whom the US has sufficient evidence should be tried without delay in a fair and public hearing and, if convicted, imprisoned in the US. Detainees who are not to be charged and who choose voluntarily to be repatriated should be returned to their home countries as quickly as possible. And detainees who are not to be charged but cannot be repatriated because of a real risk of persecution in their home countries should be given the opportunity to be admitted to the US and afforded redress.

Fine. So there was absolutely no need to go further and to call on EU countries to "be prepared to accept Guantánamo inmates in the EU". But this is exactly what happened and a statement to this effect was inserted into the resolution largely on the insistence and support of the Socialist, Green and Communist groups in Parliament.

In line with the EPP-ED group, my colleague David Casa and I voted in favour of the resolution because we welcome President Obama's decision to close the controversial Guantánamo camp.

But we specifically voted against the call on EU countries to consider accepting inmates from Guantánamo because we do not agree that our country should host persons who are suspected terrorists.

This would present an unnecessary security risk we can ill-afford. In addition, our country has no capacity to deal with this kind of situation. More so at a time when our security forces are overstretched beyond all reasonable limits.

Not only. I also disagree that suspected terrorists should be hosted by other EU countries, especially those in the Schengen area, since this could pose a security risk for all Schengen countries, including us.

So it would be foolhardy on our part to wade into this clumsily.

This is why I was appalled that Labour MEPs voted (as did the Greens) to call on EU countries, including Malta, to "be prepared to accept Guantánamo inmates in the EU" and I hoped that this was just another mistaken vote on their part.

Yet, in a comment to The Times, MEP Louis Grech denied that his delegation had made a gaffe, insisting that "Malta has nothing to do with this".

He added that "the EU could not shirk from its responsibility, especially since some of the prisoners were European citizens or were arrested in EU territory. To relate this resolution in any way to Malta would be misleading and misrepresenting the main thrust of the debate, missing the whole point in the process."

Really? I am not sure I missed the point because you cannot, at one and the same time, ask EU countries to "be prepared to accept Guantánamo inmates in the EU" and then claim that "Malta has nothing to do with this". Unless you do not really mean what you say.

I will not stand in front of my voters and tell them to accept to host in our country suspected terrorists whom even the US itself kept safely away from its mainland. This is not about being insensitive, selfish or incoherent with our calls for solidarity on immigration. It is about keeping a sense of proportion as to whether we are in a position to help, how we can help and when we can help.

Yes, the US deserves our support for deciding to close down this camp. And, yes, we should be ready to help our friends. But no, Malta should not host inmates. The US is well able to sort this out itself. There will be other opportunities for us to demonstrate our friendship.

People rely on us MEPs to represent them and to vote on the basis of their interests and concerns. It is for them to decide which of the five Maltese MEPs have best represented them on this occasion.

Ask your MEP on www.simonbusuttil.eu. Visit the new site www.stopthedust.org.

Dr Busuttil is a Nationalist member of the European Parliament.