A family affair: First Lady Michelle Obama, President Barack Obama, French First Lady Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy at Palais Rohan, where the two presidents met and held a press conference. (Photo by Saul Loeb / AFP / Getty Images.)
by Mark Silva
In the modern annals of Franco-American relations, this probably is progress:
Those detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?
France may take one.
"I believe democracy makes it incumbent upon heads of state to speak the truth and to live up to what they say,'' French President Nicolas Sarkozy said today in a brief press conference with President Barack Obama - with the French leader managing to take a shot at the American saga of Guantanamo while offering help in fixing it.
"I am a longstanding friend of the United States,'' Sarkozy said. "But Guantanamo was not in keeping with U.S. values-- at least with my perception of what American values were and are. And I was proud and happy that the United States should have taken the decision that we were hoping for, which was to close down that base. We all were, here in Europe....
"You don't combat terrorists with terrorist methods,'' he said. "You combat them with the methods and the weapons of democracy.
"Having said that -- and I have said that -- if then the president of the United States says, 'I'm going to close down Guantanamo, but I need my allies to take -- in this particular instance, this one person -- into our prisons, because this is going to help me, the U.S. president, to shut down this base,' if we are consistent, then we say, yes.
"We can't condemn the United States to have this camp and then simply wash our hands of the whole business when they close it down,'' he said.
That's not all the two talked about today at Palais Rohan in Strasbourg, on the eve of a summit marking the 60th anniversary of NATO.
"We have a hell of a lot of work ahead of us, because there's a hell of a lot of problems we need to deal with,'' Sarkozy said.
"But for us this is a source of optimism to be able to work with an American administration that is clearly determined to listen to its friends and allies and to solve the problems, buckle down and solve the problems.''
Have the French gained any assurances from the United States with France's agreement to take a stepped up role in NATO's European defenses?
"I've always been convinced that France and the United States belong to the same family,'' Sarkozy said. "Now, I don't need this kind of ruffle with President Obama. I trust him. I don't need guarantees. I trust him.
"He doesn't need me in order to understand that a strong Europe -- a strong Europe of defense -- is the best guarantee for the USA,'' he said. "President Obama's America doesn't want weak allies. They want strong allies who face up to their responsibilities...
"It's extraordinary, you know, for years now we've been sending soldiers to fight under the NATO flag -- and yet we have not had anyone participating in those committees that actually laid down the strategy,'' he said. "NATO has been around for 60 years. And if there is peace and peace has prevailed, it is no coincidence -- it is because we have worked together with our allies, and the first and foremost being the United States.''
NATO, Obama said on the eve of the summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, "is the most successful alliance in modern history. And the basic premise of NATO was that Europe's security was the United States' security, and vice versa...
"We want strong allies,'' he said. "We would like to see Europe have much more robust defense capabilities. That's not something we discourage. We're not looking to be the patron of Europe. We're looking to be partners with Europe. And the more capable they are defensively, the more we can act in concert on the shared challenges that we face.''
"President Sarkozy has been honest, has been consistent,'' said Obama, acknowledging the French offer of help with his promise to shutter Guantanamo within a year.
"I made the decision to close Guantanamo because I do not think it makes America safer,'' Obama said. "In doing so, I've been very clear that we're going to do it carefully, we're going to do it thoughtfully.
"And in order to do it carefully and thoughtfully we are going to consult with our allies and, in certain cases, we're going to need help with detainees that may still pose a risk but we may not be able to repatriate to their countries of origin,'' he said. "And so we have had this discussion.''
Comments
More nonsense about Gitmo. Gitmo is being closed because the SCOTUS held last year that given the level of autonomy the US exerts over it, Gitmo is de facto American soil. Therefore, the inmates have the right to challenge their detention in American courts through habeas corpus proceedings. Given this, even Bush supported the closing of Gitmo, although he didn't want to deal with the messy situation of what to do with the detainees and punted it to Obama.
As I understand it, the primary objections to Gitmo were the US detaining individuals and holding them indefinitely without charge, and denying them access to courts. What people don't understand is that this still goes on under Obama, most notably in Afghanistan. Neither the SCOTUS opinion nor closing Gitmo changes this policy. Does it make anyone feel better that detainees are held indefinitely without charge or access to courts in Afghanistan instead of Gitmo?
A federal district court judge recently ruled that some of the detainees held at the Bagram detention facility in Afghanistan may have rights to challenge their detention in court through writs of habeas corpus, similar to Gitmo. In so ruling, the judge dismissed arguments from the Obama Administration that the detainees do not have rights to habeas corpus. No word has come from the Obama Administration yet, but there is a good chance it will appeal the decision to the DC Circuit.
Given the Administration’s position in this case, the closing of Gitmo is more form over substance from Obama. The critical issue is how to define/detain enemy fighters - whether to treat them more like POWs where they have no access to courts, or to treat them more like a law enforcement issue, where they have access to civilian courts. Obama's order to close Gitmo appears to favor the latter, but when you consider his conduct toward detainees held in other off shore prisons, he appears to be quietly favoring the former. I’m not suggesting that the way to deal with these enemy fighters is an easy one, but lauding the closure of Gitmo as if it is some kind of policy shift is simply not accurate, and only serves to appease the stupid (e.g., Sarkozy).
Posted by: Herbie H. | April 3, 2009 2:46 PM