Why has Guantanamo not been closed?

The image of Guantanamo Bay detention facility is one of men being caged like animals, of men convicted of no crime being subjected to interrogation – and it has been suggested more harsh methods have been used although there is no concrete evidence of this.

For years now there has been fairly consistant pressure on the US government to close the facility yet there remain no public plans to do so. Why is this, despite it being a dark stain on the reputation of the United States?

Firstly there is of course the idea that the closing of the facility would not mean that all men kept there would simply be allowed to walk free. They would be re-homed in other institutions and to what extent is it likely that their situation would change? It could in-fact make things worse for them – if they were absorbed into the general American detention schemes much of their attention they recieved from the media which has led to several releases would decline. So perhaps it is not even in those held’s interests for Guantanamo to close.

This is of course not how the US government is thinking however. Guantanamo has come to be accepted by us all, however much we say we are against it. Nothing can surprise us now that occurs in Guantanamo, and thus the US government perhaps thinks that while they will have to deal with ever constant pressure and criticism, they can get away with it slightly more at Guantanamo as we have got so used to the idea of the place.

The Realist World

Perhaps i should begin by introducing myself and explaining the purpose of this blog and what I will be writing about.

My name is Jamie Azzopardi (the surname being Maltese in origin – Malta being a beautiful place i encourage everyone to visit!), and my specific area of interest and expertise is contemporary politics, with a particular emphasis on international relations and terrorism.

I am also an amateur Historian. That is to say, I research historical events whose effects are still being felt today. For example the ‘Rape of Nanking’ still affecting Sino-Japanese relations to this day, or the portrayal of Western involvement in the Middle East as a continuation of the Crusades hundreds of years on. I write articles on some of these subjects which I will publish on this blog.

The title of this first blog is ‘The Realist World’. A realist is someone who believes that due to the naturally selfish nature of mankind, on the international field, a state will only agree to do something or abide by a law if there is something in it for them. Realists therefore argue that International Organizations like the UN are really rather powerless – they cannot force states to follow their directions and if they do manage, it is not out of respect for the UN (or said IO), but simply because the state itself will benefit somehow. Realists therefore promote a rational distrust of other states – they are simply realistic, acknowledging that a perfect world where everyone helps each other out and abides by international law however much it may damage their own interests is an irrational prospect. An example which would back up the Realist approach would be of the American invasion of Iraq in 2004 – the UN was powerless to prevent it.

For now I will leave it there, but as you have probably recognized, I myself am of the realist train of thought and this will be reflected in some of my articles particularly those that deal with International Organizations.