The question of whether or not the members of the al-Qaeda terrorist network taken prisoner by the US in the war in Afghanistan should count as prisoners of war has led to widespread discussion in the international community. The reason for the US refusal to give them POW status is to avoid the regulations in the Geneva Convention guaranteeing the rights of POWs. This move is being questioned by the EU and other international organizations. As long as their status as POWs is not established, these al-Qaeda members will not have the right to humane treatment.
The US is trying to play both sides of the fence. On the one hand, the White House says that the prisoners are being treated humanely -- they not only receive three meals a day, but also have freedom of religion and movement. On the other hand, the US Department of Defense repeatedly emphasizes that the prisoners don't meet the requirements for POW status. This means that the US doesn't need to look to the Geneva Convention and its implications for the rights of POWs. As long as the US maintains that all treatment follows the "spirit of humanitarianism," other nations have no say in the matter.
A new category, "unlawful combatants," is used by the US to refer to these detainees, causing many international legal scholars to blink their eyes in astonishment. Since it is a new term, there are no standards in international legislation regarding their treatment. The US has declared that since these "unlawful comba-tants" have no uniforms, don't represent a national army and have attacked civilians, there is no way they can meet the definition of a POW.
In the eyes of the US, the detained al-Qaeda members do not even have the right to be called POWs, much less receive the treatment due POWs. Even so, the US still emphasizes that the treatment of the detainees is in full accordance with the humanitarian spirit of the Geneva Convention.
The US also has an explanation for the photos of al-Qaeda prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that were distributed recently: "unlawful combatants" are hard-core terrorists, they are dangerous and combative, and the treatment accorded them is "acceptable." The question is what kind of treatment is hidden behind this "acceptable."
In fact, even if these "unlawful combatants" don't meet the definition of POWs, then the regulations of the Geneva Convention should still be rigorously applied. The four conventions signed in 1949 clearly state that any person placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds or detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, their physical and mental health shall be respected, and when necessary, they shall receive fair assistance and treatment.
Apart from this, POWs only have to submit basic information such as their name, rank and number.
The 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of Aug. 12 1949 and the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1) expanded the scope of the Geneva Conventions to all armed conflicts. If the US could define the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 as war and persuade the international
community to wage war in Afghanistan, but today can refuse to give the detained al-Qaeda members POW status, then it will be difficult for the US, with its constantly changing standards, not to arouse hatred and thoughts of revenge from external forces.
Secretary of State Colin Powell has requested that President George W. Bush treat the detained al-Qaeda members as POWs, despite opposition from the National Security Council. Under pressure of the international community, however, the US has already decided to define the legal status of the detainees in the near future. Whether or not the over 100 detainees held at Guantanamo Bay and the more than 300 al-Qaeda members that are about to be sent there will be able to avoid the "non-POW" status will depend on US willingness to give up its almost imperialist and autocratic style and once again accept monitoring and control by the international community.
Chien Hsi-chieh is a DPP legislator and executive director of the Peacetime Foundation of Taiwan (
Translated by Perry Svensson
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
RSS