In the aftermath of the Afghanistan war, the treatment of the prisoners transported to Guantanamo Bay has become a tense issue between the US and its allies, writes Deaglán de Bréadún
A picture paints a thousand words, and the photographs of the al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects transported to Guantanamo Bay have caused serious upset throughout Europe and led to the first serious rift between the US and its western allies since the campaign against terrorism began in the wake of September 11th.
It has been an illustration of the power of television, in particular, in the international political debate. In almost Pavlovian fashion, public opinion alternates between horrified reaction to the appalling attack on the World Trade Centre and severe nausea at the sight of blindfolded prisoners in Camp X-Ray. No doubt if there were another al-Qaeda attack somewhere in the West, the spotlight would move away from the prisoners and that issue would be swamped by a renewed wave of horror over the latest act of terrorism.
For the moment, the prisoners are the hot topic. A wide range of issues have been raised by the manner in which the US authorities appear to be treating their captives at the remote Cuban outpost. The Geneva Convention, little discussed in recent years, has suddenly become a focus of attention as controversy rages over its provisions and whether the US is adhering to them in a proper manner.
The Foreign Affairs Committee of the Oireachtas saw the debate being played out in microcosm yesterday. Labour's Michael D. Higgins and Senator David Norris predictably took a strong liberal stance. They were supported by the former minister for justice, Mrs Nora Owen, but her Fine Gael colleague Mr Austin Deasy took an unapologetically pro-American position while Mr Alan Shatter, from the same party, adopted a cautious approach. Whatever else, nobody can say the main Opposition party is not pluralist.
In Winston Churchill's phrase: "The future, though imminent, is obscure . . ." It is not clear at this stage where the issue of the prisoners is leading. The intentions of the US authorities are not entirely apparent. The treatment of the prisoners may be a major issue in Europe but it has not "taken off" to the same extent on US home ground. Observers explain this as a cultural difference: there is a tougher attitude generally towards prisoners in the US, whether or not they are suspected terrorists.
But there are also major issues of international law arising from the debate. A strong current of public opinion in the US appears to regard itself as having a special status outside the international mainstream. In such circles there is a strong antipathy towards participation in international legal and judicial procedures: the same rules just do not apply as far as they are concerned.
This may help to explain why there has been such muted reaction in the US to the prisoners' issue, which has been so prominent in the political debate in Europe.
Here, the Government has come in for some criticism for initially taking such a low-key public stance on the issue. The Taoiseach said he agreed with the position of the UN Human Rights Commissioner, Mrs Mary Robinson; the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Cowen, said he agreed with the Taoiseach, who agreed with Mrs Robinson . . .
Forthright was not the term that came immediately to mind. Was this how the head of a sovereign government expressed his view on a major international issue - by appearing to hide behind the skirt of Mrs Robinson? That's not how the shapers of Irish policy see it. Ireland is a friend of the US and its influence is best exercised quietly and privately. Grabbing a cheap headline is all very well but it does not cut any ice with Uncle Sam. Thus the Government raised the issue of the prisoners last week with the US special envoy, Mr Richard Haass, who was visiting Dublin. This was before the prisoners came to be a prominent topic in the international media.
That's the way to do business with powerful people like the Americans, according to our policymakers. Eventually, in response to Opposition comments, Mr Cowen felt obliged to come out and call publicly on the US to implement the recommendations of the Red Cross which had sent a delegation to inspect the prisoners' conditions.
The issue has also been bubbling over in Britain which was one of the strongest supporters of the US during the Afghanistan war. Like other debates, e.g. the Kyoto Protocol, it reflected a cultural disparity between the two major geographical areas of the West: Europe with its long tradition of respect, even for the human rights of people you despise, and the more gung-ho US approach of taking these people, in Mr Bush's words, "dead or alive".
The Oireachtas Foreign Affairs Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr Des O'Malley, is due to return to the matter next week. By that time, the heat may have gone out of it. There may be persuasive indications that the prisoners are being treated better or, alternatively, the divisive issue of the death penalty may bring renewed passion to the debate.
Judicial execution is an issue on which there is little or no meeting of minds between the US and Europe. Even the EU, which has sent varying signals on the prisoners' issue, would be likely to take a united stance against prisoners being put to death. President Bush, on the other hand, has shown no great difficulties with the issue in the past. One thing both sides are agreed on is that the events of September 11th were appalling and inexcusable. But because it did not happen on their own doorstep, perhaps the Europeans do not fully understand the traumatic impact of that day on the American psyche. All sides accept that the war on terrorism will be protracted.
The prisoner issue at least makes clear that important issues of principle must be sorted out if the West is to develop an effective alliance against its unseen, fanatical foe.
Deaglán de Bréadún is Foreign Affairs Correspondent of The Irish Times.