Advertisement

The two ex-Gitmo detainees

The Gitmo 2: Facts, opinions and the politics

The apparent anxiety and suspicions surrounding Ghana's admission of two Guantanamo Bay detainees should have been anticipated. We are in an election year where contesting ideas are flooding the media market and seeking attention to favour one political party or the other.

Here we are in a period where even the countries with much more superior intelligence apparatus (USA, France, UK etc) are outwitted by young brainwashed 'ideologues' chasing enemies considered 'infidels'.

We live in a world where these ‘Jihad’ religious militants are turning on their own Muslim kin (Indonesia, Mali, Burkina Faso, Northern Nigeria) and causing mayhem. Worse than the Cold War where pro-Soviet or pro-West could mark you out, now the open attacks are on 'infidels' who are against establishing an Islamic State everywhere and targeting particularly Western ideas.

On the other hand, there is this religious anxiety over 'the rapid spread of Islam' around the world, not least in Ghana and Africa.

It is understandable that anxieties are deepened as more details about the ex-Gitmo detainees come out. But the issue is that the elected President of the Republic of Ghana has taken a decision on behalf of Ghana. The agreement, we are told, cannot be reversed.

There are some fundamental facts : All over the world, chief executives take decisions. All decisions carry risks. Critics, analysts, workers, citizens may subject the decisions to discussions, but a chief executive should be well informed to stand by his decision.

Another fact is that security decisions normally do not tell all the ‘secrets’ behind them to the public. This is evident even in the biggest democracies round the world.

Now the Gitmo 2:
Despite the fact that Republicans in America would prefer to keep their detainees (criminals) far away in Guantanamo Naval Base near Cuba, it is on record that President

Bush started releasing 'detainees' and sending them to third countries years ago. President Obama vowed to end inflamed hostilities to America by promising, not only to ease tension in relations between the USA and Cuba, Iran and others, but also to 'empty' the Naval Base. Question : does he have to send them necessarily back to their home countries ? My information is that this can only happen depending on current conditions in the refugee’s home country. Those now in Ghana, for example, do not find the situation at home friendly enough.The current government in Yemen is not ‘friendly’ to the USA and therefore will have to take some time to trust ex-Yemeni jihadists.

But here is the catch : The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) of the USA has it, in earlier report in 2008, that 116 former Gitmo detainees released by the

Bush Administration 'returned to terrorism' and are still fighting against the USA and other Western nations. Twenty three got back into custody, 68 are at large and 25 dead.

More than 20 per cent of those released by the Bush Administration are still considered 'enemy combatants' in the war on terror.

But the same office, in its report in 2014, says that the number of 'enemy combatants' out of released detainees has reduced considerably to barely five per cent . (Well, let’s assume that the Gitmo 2 could be part of the five per cent whatever their risk level)).

However, here is something reassuring from a retired US military intelligence officer telling the Daily Mail : " No one gets out of Guantanamo, goes back on the front lines, and winds up in the same week' as a combatant. 'It can take months or years for them to feel confident enough to start waging jihad again, out in the open, with the US and their host government keeping tabs on them'.

More re-assuring, he says :"These guys don't rejoin al-Qaeda overnight'.

Incidentally, Ghana is not the only country receiving Gitmo detainees. Available reliable sources, not least the New York Times, name some of the countries as follows:
Afghanistan (203), Saudi Arabia (124), Pakistan (63), Yemen ( 22), Algeria (17), Great Britain (15), Morocco (13), Sudan (12), Kuwait (12), Tajikistan (11), Albania (11), Oman (10), France (9), Kazakstan (9), Slovakia (9), Russia (8), Iraq (7), Palau (6), Georgia (6), Qatar (6), Uruguay (6), Jordan (5), Bahrain (5), Spain (5), Oman (4), Bosnia-Herzegovina (4), Turkey (4), Germany (3), Somalia (3), Belgium (3), Switzerland (3), Libya (2), Ghana (2), Portugal (2), El Salvador (2) , Iran (2), United States (2), Ireland (2), Australia (2), Tunisia(2), Italy (2), Mauritania (2), Uganda(1), Cape Verde (1), Bangladesh (1), Canada (1), Egypt (1), Denmark (1).

Of course, a few years ago, some countries would not be on this list. Which confirms that US approached Ghana because of the status of the country’s relationship with her, and also on the basis of Ghana’s global humanitarian contributions. So, clearly, it would be an error, a serious political one, to even think about sending back the Gitmo two.

Ghana's 'humanitarian' and 'hospitality' credentials are known the world over, about which we should be proud, and will be called to question if the reverse occurs.

Also, Ghana joins the group of Allies that can freely share intelligence information among themselves and act swiftly together in case of any ‘’terrorist’ movements.

So what are the other facts?
Firstly, US Foreign Policy since President Obama has favoured reducing tensions all around the world to give America a new image, and hence the release of GITMO detainees.

Secondly, Ghana, with its various contributions to world humanitarian crisis is not the only friendly country to be asked a favour in this new world order. There are many others.

Thirdly, no religious considerations so far have been mentioned anywhere. Check the countries receiving the former detainees; they have different faiths.

Fourthly, no monetary favours have been published so far with all the countries receiving former detainees from Guantanamo Bay.

Fifthly, there is abundant information on relevant portals that adequate checks are made by security experts from host-nations and the United States before any detainee is released.

Also, there are verifiable clear guidelines and enforcement of transfer conditions made known to the released detainees. For example, released detainees are not to 'plan terrorist operations, conduct a terrorist attack against the Coalition or host-nation forces or civilians, finance terrorist operations, recruit others for terrorist operations' among others.

All these are considered under a humanitarian gesture, coordinated with 'appropriate security and humane treatment measures'. Would any refugee want to abuse their host’s hospitality ? If so, that would be at their own risk.


The writer is a journalist and communication consultant .

To be continued.

Connect With Us : 0242202447 | 0551484843 | 0266361755 | 059 199 7513 |