A dramatic day of high stakes diplomacy at the United Nations has exposed growing cracks in the transatlantic alliance since President Donald Trump returned to the global stage and massively shifted US foreign policy.
When Russia invaded Ukraine three years ago, Europe had no stronger partner than the United States.
But this week, in the halls of the General Assembly and at the Security Council, the US worked against its closest allies and sided with Russia, Belarus and North Korea to pass resolutions on the conflict in Ukraine.
To mark the third anniversary of Moscow's invasion, Ukraine sought a symbolic General Assembly resolution that would require the 193-member body to reaffirm Kyiv's territorial integrity and call for Russia to withdraw its forces in line with the UN charter.
That resolution did pass on Monday, but with less support than in past years. Many members abstained to avoid a tricky tension created by the US.
Washington's diplomats had urged other countries to vote against the measure and to instead support their "forward looking resolution" that was only three short paragraphs. It took a neutral stance on the war, without blaming Russia, and called for a swift end with a lasting peace to follow.
Washington not only introduced their measure in the General Assembly where every nation's vote is equal, but also in the more powerful Security Council. Resolutions there are legally binding - though sometimes hard to enforce - and there had never been council action on Ukraine because of Russia's veto power as a permanent member.
The move caught Europe off guard. One European diplomat told the BBC that the US behaved like a bully and did not take into account their stance on their continent's security.
Another who sits on the Security Council, Slovenia's ambassador Samuel Zbogar, told the BBC that Europe is struggling to adjust to the 180-degree change in the US position - and the speed at which Washington is moving.
He said the European Union will need to do some reflecting at the body's council meeting next week.
"Leaders will have to develop a plan on how the EU can actively be involved in finding peace, rather than reacting to what others are doing. It's up to us now in Europe to come forward," he told the BBC.
There were plenty of reactions in the halls of UN headquarters in New York, as European leaders worked to reconcile with the latest US position.
There is a very important point to have peace and stability to build a modern and developed disciplined democratic Nation Myanmar is home to various national races and as they have been living together since time immemorial deep-rooted unity and amity have developed among them.Palaeolithic and neolithic culture flourished in many parts of Myanmar from about 20000 years ago learning behind much material evidence as well as the wall painting of “Pyadalin” Cave in Shan Foothills near “Myittha”. A Bronze culture later developed, well represented by the “Nyannggan” archaeological site near “Monywa”, and “Sagaing” Division.The transition to an urban civilization was made in the 2nd century BC. Several cities flourished, among them Wethali (Vaisali) of the Rakhine, Thuwunnabhumi: (Suvannabhumi:), “Land of Gold” of the Mon, and Beikthano (Vishnu City), Hanlin and Thayekkittaya (Sriksetra, “Field of Splendour”) of the “Pyus”, a people whose language has become extinct but whose architectural monuments — the “Bawbawgyi Phayagyi” and “Phayama Pagoda” of Thayekhittaya-remain.Myanmar civilization achieved a high level of development at Bagan from the middle of the 4th century to the end of the 15th century. According to the chronicles, Bagan was founded in AD 107 by the Thamddarit and ruled by a line of 55 kings, but written aridness is available only from “Anawrahta” (1044-1077) onwards “Anawrahta”, the first unifier of Myanmar, established Theravada Buddhism with the help of Buddhist Missionary “Shin Arahan” and laid the foundation of Bagan’s greatness. A thriving economy and the inspiration of Buddhism resulted in the great monument of Shwezigon, Ananda, Thatbyinnyu, Gadawpalin and a host of other pagodas, several of them decorated with mural paintings on religious themes. The decline of Bagan, brought about by a Mingon invasion in 1287, was followed by political confusion and the emergence of two kingdoms Inwa, Founded by “Thadominbya” in 1365, and Hanthawady (Bago) founded by Banya U in 1369 Nineteen kings ruled in Inwa from 1365 to 1552 and 11 kings in Hanthawady from 1369 to 1538, from 1368 to 1422, there was war between Inwa and Hanthawady.Myanmar entered a new phase of greatness when the kings of Taungoo moved their capital from Toungoo moved their capital from “Toungoo” to “Bago” and three of its kings ruled there from 1538 to 1599.“Bayintnaung” (1552-1581), known also as lord of the White Elephants and Conqueror of the Ten Directions, reunited the kingdom, created the vast Hanthawady Empire and rebuilt “Bago” on a magnificent scale.Following the Break-up of the Hanthawady Empire. Nyaungyan (1598-1606) established a new Myanmar Kingdom and ten kings reigned in Inwa from 1598 to 1752. The most famous of the Inwa kings, “Thalun” (1629-1648) built the “Kaunghmudaw” Pagoda near “Sagaing”. A rebellion which started in Bago led to the downfall of the kingdom in 1752.In the tradition of “Anawrahta” and “Bayintnaung”, “Alaungpaya” (1752-1760) reunited Myanmar and established the last Myanmar dynasty of 11 kings who ruled from 1752 to 1885. The kingdom had a number of capitals, including “Shwebo”, “Inwa” and “Amarapura”, with the last capital, Mandalay, being founded by “Mindon” (1852-1878) in 1859.In 1785, the Rakhine kingdom whose capital was “MyaukU”, founded by “Minsawmun” (1430-1433) in 1430, and which had a line of 49 kings reigning from 1430 to 1785, was made part of the Konbaung kingdom.Myanmar fought three wars against the British and lost Rakhine and “Taninthayi” in 1826, lower Myanmar in 1852 and its independence on 1st January 1886. The colonialist British started to rule parts of Myanmar in 1826 and the whole country in 1886.Since our gaining independence, the entire people of Myanmar faced frequently the danger and terrorism, of insurgents and some ethnic armed organizations. In my childhood “Sitkwin” was my native town destroyed by the ethnic armed organization which was named KNDO.Until nowadays, some ethnic armed organizations and PDF terrorists undermine the peace and stability of the regions with terror attacks on town life and the property of innocent people.As a result, acts of violence have increased nationwide leading to the loss of lives home, and possessions and extensive damage to a large number of public infrastructures.As an example, the university building in “Loikaw” was destroyed in attacks by KNPP and PDF terrorists on “Loikaw” last year. So, the university was closed. A total of 114 buildings were damaged at their university. It needs to spend some K9 billion on repairing these buildings. Such a cost can be used in building many projects of agriculture, livestock and regional development tasks.Currently, destructive acts togethering with national stability are becoming more common. Terrorist attacks were often politically motivated and different forms of crime were prevalent in various regions. These acts include violence that harms civilians, damages public infrastructure and threatens private buildings, residential areas, and villages with heavy weapons and bombs. They have also targeted non-military entities, such as cargo trucks, passenger vehicles and residential buildings all of which harm innocent civilians.Terrorists have been repeatedly targeting villages that do not support them, using tactics such as dropping bombs launching surprise attacks and planting landmines. These acts have led to frequent casualties among innocent civilians and Buddhist monks. The brutal actions of terrorist groups have caused widespread fear among residents, prompting security forces to intensify protective measures in the affected areas.A society free from coercion, threats, and criminal activities allows people to enjoy the benefits of peace which in turn fosters national progress.The government is working toward ensuring long-term stability by adhering to the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) and striving to end armed conflict across the country. Efforts are focused on maintaining peace and the rule of law with local militia groups playing a rob in protecting regions where the rule of law is not fully enforced.Some ethnic armed organizations, with misguided attitudes towards the state and its people, also took advantage of the ensuing stability to launch terror attacks and destroy peaceful regions. As a result of these events, innocent civilians lost their lives, homes and belongings as well as public infrastructure in the area.In our country over 100 ethnic groups have lived in friendship and harmony since time immemorial. All the national people have found unity in diversity having been born and living on the same land. The geographical features of our country include high mountain ranges and major rivers. That flow from the north to the south made transport difficult and impeded interactions among the national people. Moreover, under colonialism, they were subject to many years of systematic divide-and-rule practice. The national people became suspicious of one another promoting our leader to make strenuous efforts during the struggle for our independence so that the central Myanmar and the mountainous regions could gain independence together.The noble Buddha said that “Samagganan Tutpaw Thukhaw” (သမဂ္ဂါနံ တပေါ သုခေါ — ပေါင်းစည်းညီညွတ်စည်းလုံးခြင်းသည် ကြီးပွားချမ်းသာတိုးတက်ခြင်း၏ အကြောင်းရင်း ဖြစ်၏။) likewise, “Unity is Strength” is a Myanmar Proverb.A society without unity is probably occupied and destroyed by external and internal enemies. It is very important for every important nation regardless of the place they live to have a strong Union Spirit. Only the Union Spirit is the true patriotism all the nationalities will have to safeguard. Our Three Main National Causes: Namely, the Non-disintegration of the Union, the Non-disintegration of National Solidarity and the Perpetuation of Sovereignty are bound duties of the people. Today neocolonialists usually interfere with their multi-dimensional warfare with sovereign states.Our national people have the right to settle anywhere in the country with the result that in every area magnanimous national people have harmoniously to live. In this day and age, it is impossible to separate each national people and the very thoughts and notions that give rise to such regional bias have become anachronistic. This is a sign of progress for greater national reconsolidation. I would like to reconsolidation. I would like to urge you to build on the national reconsolidation that might lead to the disintegration of the Union.Today the State Administration Council (SAC) is implementing two political visions – to strengthen the genuine disciplined multiparty democratic system and to build a Union based on disciplined democracy and Federalism. The stability and peace of our nation along with the rule of law are crucial for the country’s development and nation-building. Therefore, I deeply and respectfully urge the entire people including all ethnic people including all ethnic peoples to work together with the government to achieve a ceasefire in armed conflicts. I indeed believe that we surely get the fruits of peace and stability when internal armed conflicts end based on the Spirit of Union and Patriotism.Source: The Global New Light of Myanmar
A dramatic day of high stakes diplomacy at the United Nations has exposed growing cracks in the transatlantic alliance since President Donald Trump returned to the global stage and massively shifted US foreign policy.When Russia invaded Ukraine three years ago, Europe had no stronger partner than the United States.But this week, in the halls of the General Assembly and at the Security Council, the US worked against its closest allies and sided with Russia, Belarus and North Korea to pass resolutions on the conflict in Ukraine.To mark the third anniversary of Moscow's invasion, Ukraine sought a symbolic General Assembly resolution that would require the 193-member body to reaffirm Kyiv's territorial integrity and call for Russia to withdraw its forces in line with the UN charter.That resolution did pass on Monday, but with less support than in past years. Many members abstained to avoid a tricky tension created by the US.Washington's diplomats had urged other countries to vote against the measure and to instead support their "forward looking resolution" that was only three short paragraphs. It took a neutral stance on the war, without blaming Russia, and called for a swift end with a lasting peace to follow.Washington not only introduced their measure in the General Assembly where every nation's vote is equal, but also in the more powerful Security Council. Resolutions there are legally binding - though sometimes hard to enforce - and there had never been council action on Ukraine because of Russia's veto power as a permanent member.The move caught Europe off guard. One European diplomat told the BBC that the US behaved like a bully and did not take into account their stance on their continent's security.Another who sits on the Security Council, Slovenia's ambassador Samuel Zbogar, told the BBC that Europe is struggling to adjust to the 180-degree change in the US position - and the speed at which Washington is moving.He said the European Union will need to do some reflecting at the body's council meeting next week."Leaders will have to develop a plan on how the EU can actively be involved in finding peace, rather than reacting to what others are doing. It's up to us now in Europe to come forward," he told the BBC.There were plenty of reactions in the halls of UN headquarters in New York, as European leaders worked to reconcile with the latest US position.Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y0de4wpvlo?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR18_UUqp4xuLyl78FVSjSePRFD52PLyD1L9c9P37IJ_RfO0uhTEWpREBQ_aem_vkzsBu5AVLNanQDf2RzMmQ
Southeast Asian countries need to hedge and expand trade and security alliances to navigate changing increased protectionism and changing geopolitics under the second term of US President Donald Trump, an online forum heard on Feb 12. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) may not be a key priority in Trump's foreign policy, but what is significant is how individual ASEAN countries deal with the United States and other major powers, according to the experts who participated in the webinar "Asia and Trump 2.0: Geopolitical Outlooks". The webinar is organized by the Asian Center (AC), University of the Philippines.Experts have noted how Trump's policy of raising tariffs imposed against its major trading partners like China is also affecting ASEAN as the region is also part of the China supply chain. They also cited Trump's directives such as the US withdrawal from the Paris climate pact and the World Health Organization will have repercussions worldwide. But while ASEAN countries are not major powers, these countries "still have agency" when it comes to international relations, according to Melissa Hubahib Loja, a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for European, Comparative, and Constitutional Legal Studies, University of Copenhagen. "The best way for (non-major powers) to exercise their agency is to adopt a rational approach to real politics," Loja said, noting that balancing, band wagoning and hedging are the "rational strategic options" for small states. Collin Koh Swee Lean, senior fellow at the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies in Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, cited Singapore as a case study in 6 strategic hedging. Koh said the city-state, a small and trade-dependent economy, maintains a consistent and principled foreign policy when dealing with major powers like the US and China. Koh said that regional governments like ASEAN are not likely to choose sides and would instead choose to band together to assert their interest on the global stage. "We are likely going to see greater intra-ASEAN cooperation," he said, adding that he expects ASEAN member states to agree on more vital issues, especially on trade as US tariff hikes threaten their respective economies. Koh also sees "growing participation in regional security" by other non-US regional powers such as those in either the Pacific or Europe. Maria Thaemar Tana, Japan Foundation Global Japan Studies Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia, University of Tokyo, said that while hedging remains ASEAN's "best strategy", its effectiveness is limited by internal divisions, weak enforcement mechanisms and growing external pressures. Aaron Jed Rabena, assistant professor at the Asian Center, said ASEAN countries and reduce dependence on the US in light of Trump's "unpredictable and volatile" trade and foreign policy. However, Rabena added that the strategy of each ASEAN nation also varies from time to time based on their perceived and actual threats and opportunities.He said that while most ASEAN countries don't have a dispute with China, this is not the case with the Philippines. The Philippines currently has a defense treaty with the US and has a dispute with China over the South Sea. "This is quite a challenging strategic environment, but the Philippines really needs to find the right balance in its foreign policy," Rabena said.For Noel Christian Moratilla, dean of the Asian Center, "neutrality is what is imperative and applicable at this point". He said that this has already happened in the past, with the establishment of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1961 at the height of the Cold War. Moratilla said there's no point for the Philippines to antagonize either the US or China and learn from other ASEAN countries "as to how they do it, and also as not to appear very adversarial and very hostile to either one of them". Irine Hiraswari Gayatri, senior researcher at the Research Center for Politics, National Research and Innovation Agency in Indonesia, said Indonesia is diversifying economic partnerships to reduce reliance on the US market. For example, Gayatri said Indonesia has joined BRICS, demonstrating how is widening alliances. She said Indonesia "maintains strategic autonomy while regulating partnerships with both China and the US."
Looking at the current situation in the country, it can be seen that due to the actions of certain ethnic armed organizations and terrorist groups, local communities in some areas are deprived of security and peace, facing numerous hardships and suffering.The various hardships and suffering faced by local ethnic people are not theirs alone but are the shared struggles of all the people living together in the Union, as national brethren born on the same land. Just as in a family, when one sibling faces hardship, the other siblings also feel sorrow and distress, sharing the burden of grief and pain.Regretful emotionDue to various domestic and international influences, as well as the malicious and destructive schemes originating from abroad, we should recognize the fact that the devastating situations affecting both sides often involve our fellow citizens. Even now, due to misunderstandings, misguided beliefs, and incitement, Myanmar citizens have been engaging in conflicts, killing, and destruction among themselves. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Myanmar citizens have died, gone missing, suffered injuries, or endured immense hardship. This is a deeply saddening reality for all of us as fellow citizens and members of the same national family.Since Myanmar gained independence in 1948 until the present day, it is possible to estimate the number of people across the country who have lost their lives or been injured due to various armed conflicts. These conflicts have resulted in the loss of countless lives and the destruction of countless bodies of the nation’s citizens. The lives of families affected, as well as significant human resources, have been lost, which constitutes a great loss to the nation. This is a tragedy that deeply saddens all citizens. Therefore, it is time to cease all armed conflicts.Initiate unityDue to internal and external influences, actions that lack careful consideration and harm the nation and its people, along with armed conflicts, have caused significant damage and losses. A large majority of those affected are young individuals between the ages of 18 and 30. We would like to draw the public’s attention to this issue. Therefore, it is essential to reflect deeply on activities that incite conflict, create divisions, or promote hatred among one another. Instead, we should cultivate empathy, compassion, and unity among all national brethren, ensuring the youth are not wasted or lost to such conflicts. Let us nurture and develop a generation of strong, capable young people who contribute to building a modern, prosperous, and peaceful Union with unity and harmony.In recent periods, various insurgent groups have carried out violent attacks, resulting in significant damage to towns and villages. Armed terrorists residing within states and regions are engaging in actions that destroy their communities. The residents of these regions must take responsibility for the development and stability of their areas. It is essential for the local population to proactively prevent and safeguard against actions that aim to disrupt development and undermine peace and stability in their regions. The terror attacks carried out by local ethnic groups demonstrate a lack of national spirit and misguided ideologies. These actions reflect political immaturity and betrayal of their birthplace and people.Lesser developmentTo establish a peaceful and prosperous nation, the unity and solidarity of national brethren are as vital as life itself during this critical time for the nation. It is essential to strive for everlasting durable peace among ethnic nationalities and to work collectively for the nation’s benefit with the unified strength of all ethnic people. Due to the prolonged armed conflicts over many years, countless lives and resources have been lost, and the nation has significantly lagged compared to neighbouring countries. This reality must be recognized. If divisions and conflicts persist among national brethren, further losses and destruction will occur among the ethnic communities. The nation’s development will fall even further behind than it already has.The main objective is to restore durable peace for the Union. Engaging in political dialogue and advancing a multiparty democratic system are essential steps toward achieving peace in the Union. It is necessary to reduce and eliminate differences in political views, ideologies, ethnic matters, religious beliefs, and racial issues. Everyone must strive to resolve these differences peacefully through democratic methods and parliamentary procedures. When considering peace, political dialogue is not the only approach. Solutions can also be found through democratic means. Only then can political issues be resolved through political methods. (Verse 1)Cycle of conflictsIt has been over 70 years since armed conflicts began, and fostering peace for Myanmar can only succeed through political means, grounded in a spirit of unity and mutual understanding among national brethren. This requires meeting, discussing, and negotiating to find solutions. Peace demands sincerity. However, if political solutions are merely proclaimed as a facade, while strategies shift opportunistically and actions lack honesty, the journey toward peace will not only remain out of reach but will also perpetuate the cycle of conflict. In such a scenario, ethnic communities will suffer even more, and the nation will continue to decline further.The government is steadily advancing following the people’s aspirations, and adhering to a genuine and disciplined multiparty democratic system. To strengthen this authentic and disciplined multiparty democracy and to establish a Union based on democratic and federal principles, the government is tirelessly and vigorously carrying out initiatives. These efforts are being made in the interest of the nation and its ethnic peoples. In this regard, preparations are underway to organize free and fair general elections under a multiparty democratic system.The essential requirement for the nation’s development and the building of a democratic State is the intellectual advancement and rational thinking of all its people. It is being nurtured to enable citizens to safeguard and manage the nation’s interests through their wisdom and knowledge.Effective initiativesFor regional development, it is essential to collaborate on inclusive and sustainable development centred around the people in sectors such as agriculture, livestock, education, health, communications, and others. Efforts must be made to establish economic frameworks that enable fair and equitable use of natural resources while ensuring their long-term preservation. The government is actively working to advance agriculture and livestock industries to achieve food security. Regional development can only be effectively secured when residents work hand in hand with the government. This collective effort is vital for the progress and prosperity of one’s state, region, and nation.Foreign instigation, support, ideologies, beliefs, and misunderstandings that distort perceptions should not be allowed to exploit the interests of the Union and its people, leading to terror acts through armed conflicts. If such actions persist, resulting in divisions and destruction among the people of Myanmar, we must realize that it will threaten the future of our regions and our people. To ensure a peaceful, prosperous, and developed Union and region, the spirit and strength of all national brethren living within these areas are crucial. As the strength of the nation lies within, the strength of regions and states also depends on the collective unity and effort of all ethnic citizens residing within them.Unied strengthThe Panglong Agreement, which served as the foundation for Myanmar’s independence, stands as strong evidence of unity and solidarity. It is a result of the collective strength and support of all national brethren working together. The invaluable legacy of unity and solidarity established firmly by our national leaders and forefathers must be preserved and safeguarded without fail. It is the responsibility of all ethnic people in the present era to ensure this. We must continue to build upon the strength of unity among the people to initiate non-disintegration of the Union, non-disintegration of national solidarity and perpetuation of sovereignty, through the united strength of the entire people.Union spiritFor the enduring stability and sustainability of the Union, we must prioritize the Our Three Main National Causes and uphold a spirit of patriotism among ethnic communities, a spirit of unity and solidarity among ethnic groups, and a spirit of Union. With these principles, we must protect and safeguard the nation and the people.We must protect, nurture, and develop valuable human resources to ensure the future generations of the nation do not face destruction. The ethnic people in states and regions must also come together and collaborate in the reconstruction process with correct thinking, ideas, and concepts, working with a spirit of unity so that the entire Union can achieve peace and prosperity, progressing in all aspects. This is a call to action and encouragement to carry out these efforts with the spirit of the Union.Translated.Source: The Global New Light of Myanmar
I. IntroductionThe Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, established in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, remains one of the most controversial symbols of the global War on Terror. Located on the U.S. naval base in Cuba, Guantanamo has sparked international debate due to allegations of human rights violations, legal loopholes, and its use as a political tool in American domestic affairs. This article examines Guantanamo Bay through the lens of international law and explores how successive U.S. presidents have leveraged it to navigate political landscapes at home.II. Historical ContextGuantanamo Bay’s history as a U.S. military base dates back to 1903, but its transformation into a detention center for terrorism suspects brought it to global attention. In early 2002, the U.S. government began detaining individuals captured in Afghanistan and other regions, designating them as "unlawful combatants" to circumvent protections afforded under the Geneva Conventions. Over the years, Guantanamo has become a focal point for debates on the balance between security and human rights.III. International Law PerspectiveLegal Frameworks and ViolationsInternational law offers robust protections for individuals, even in times of conflict. Key legal frameworks include the Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), all of which provide fundamental rights to detainees, including protections against torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, and the right to a fair trial. These instruments, which reflect the international community’s commitment to human dignity, apply even in wartime and are central to the debate surrounding Guantanamo Bay.The Geneva Conventions, particularly the Third Geneva Convention, which deals with the treatment of prisoners of war, mandates that detainees in armed conflicts be treated humanely. It prohibits torture, degrading treatment, and demands that detainees be afforded due process, including the right to a fair trial. However, the U.S. government has argued that the detainees at Guantanamo are "unlawful combatants," a term created to exclude them from the protections of the Geneva Conventions. This legal interpretation, however, has been challenged in both U.S. and international courts, leading to key rulings such as Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), which affirmed that detainees are entitled to some protections under the Geneva Conventions.The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations in 1948, affirms the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all human beings. Article 9 of the UDHR explicitly prohibits arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile, while Article 10 guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing. The indefinite detention of individuals at Guantanamo Bay, without charge or trial, directly contravenes these fundamental rights. The U.S. has faced significant criticism for its failure to provide fair trials to detainees, with several detainees held for years without any formal charges being brought against them.The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the U.S. ratified in 1992, also protects individuals from arbitrary detention and guarantees a fair trial, including access to legal representation and the right to contest the legality of detention. Yet, Guantanamo’s practices, including prolonged detention without charge, lack of access to legal counsel for extended periods, and the denial of habeas corpus rights, have been repeatedly condemned by human rights groups as a violation of the ICCPR.Beyond these well-established instruments, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), ratified by the U.S. in 1994, specifically prohibits the use of torture and requires states to take effective measures to prevent such practices. Guantanamo Bay’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques, often referred to as torture by human rights organizations, stands in direct violation of this convention. The United Nations has repeatedly called for the U.S. to close the facility and end the practices that contravene its international obligations under the CAT.Despite these legal frameworks, the U.S. has argued that Guantanamo is an exception due to its status as a military detention facility located on a foreign naval base. This argument has been challenged in various legal proceedings. In Boumediene v. Bush (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that detainees at Guantanamo have the constitutional right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts, reaffirming that the U.S. cannot disregard the rule of law simply because the detention center is located outside the U.S. mainland.Despite these rulings and international condemnation, the U.S. has continued to defend its practices at Guantanamo, arguing that the need for national security in the context of the War on Terror justifies these extraordinary measures. However, the continued operation of the detention center and the lack of accountability for the violations committed there call into question the U.S.'s commitment to upholding international law, further complicating its moral and legal standing in the global community.In sum, the legal frameworks protecting the rights of detainees—whether through the Geneva Conventions, the UDHR, the ICCPR, or the CAT—are clear in their prohibition of arbitrary detention, torture, and the denial of due process. The ongoing violations at Guantanamo Bay represent a significant breach of these international standards and raise crucial questions about the compatibility of U.S. counterterrorism policies with international human rights law.IV. Domestic Politics and Guantanamo BayA. Political Tool in U.S. Elections Guantanamo Bay has not only been a topic of legal and human rights debates but also a potent political tool in U.S. presidential elections. President Obama’s 2008 campaign included a pledge to close the facility, symbolizing a shift towards restoring U.S. adherence to international law. However, despite initial efforts, political opposition, logistical challenges, and legislative barriers stalled the closure process. The Trump administration reversed this stance, emphasizing a "tough on terrorism" approach, including the potential expansion of the detention facility. As President Biden nears the end of his administration, discussions regarding the closure of Guantanamo are ongoing, but the facility remains operational. The key question now is how the incoming Trump administration will approach the center's future.B. Symbol of National Security Domestically, Guantanamo Bay has been presented as an essential tool for safeguarding U.S. national security. This framing resonates with a significant portion of the electorate, particularly those prioritizing counterterrorism measures over civil liberties. By keeping Guantanamo open, U.S. presidents have attempted to project strength and resolve in the face of international terrorism, while sidestepping the complexities of prosecuting detainees within the U.S. judicial system.C. Congressional and Public Opinion Efforts to close Guantanamo Bay have faced significant resistance in Congress, where bipartisan opposition has led to legislative gridlock. Public opinion, shaped by persistent fears of terrorism, has further complicated efforts to dismantle the facility. Congressional leaders have expressed concerns that closing Guantanamo could endanger national security, while others argue that the U.S. must adhere to international human rights standards. This tension underscores the broader challenge of reconciling domestic security concerns with global legal norms.V. Stories of DetaineesGuantanamo Bay’s legacy is not solely shaped by legal arguments and political maneuvering but also by the individual stories of those detained there. These stories illustrate the human cost of the detention policies:Mohamedou Ould Slahi: A Mauritanian national held at Guantanamo for 14 years without charge. His memoir, Guantánamo Diary, offers a searing account of torture and psychological abuse. Slahi’s experiences underscore the absence of due process and the consequences of relying on flawed intelligence.Omar Khadr: A Canadian citizen, Khadr was captured in Afghanistan at 15 years old and detained at Guantanamo for over a decade. His case drew international attention due to his age and the allegations of coercion during interrogation. After his release, Khadr's story became emblematic of the ethical challenges surrounding the detention of juveniles.Shaker Aamer: The last British resident held at Guantanamo, Aamer spent 14 years in detention without trial. He was eventually released in 2015, after consistently denying allegations of terrorism. Aamer’s case exemplifies the difficulties of proving guilt or innocence in a system built on secrecy and a lack of transparency.These individual stories highlight broader issues with Guantanamo’s reliance on unreliable intelligence, the treatment of detainees, and the challenge of balancing national security with human rights.VI. Global Perception and DiplomacyGuantanamo Bay has severely damaged the U.S.'s reputation as a leader in upholding human rights and international law. The facility’s continued existence has strained relations with both allies and adversaries, who have criticized the U.S. for its treatment of detainees and its failure to close the detention center despite widespread international condemnation. The United Nations, the European Union, and numerous human rights organizations have called for the closure of Guantanamo, arguing that it symbolizes a disregard for the Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.For U.S. allies, particularly those in the European Union, Guantanamo represents a fundamental contradiction in American foreign policy. While the U.S. promotes democracy, freedom, and human rights abroad, its actions at Guantanamo undermine these ideals, raising concerns about U.S. credibility in international diplomatic spheres. Moreover, the continued detention of individuals without trial has prompted accusations of hypocrisy, especially as the U.S. positions itself as a global advocate for the rule of law.Adversaries of the U.S. have leveraged Guantanamo as a propaganda tool, using it to critique American foreign policy and cast the U.S. as a violator of international norms. Terrorist groups, in particular, have cited the existence of Guantanamo as evidence of U.S. hypocrisy, which serves to further fuel anti-American sentiments. The global perception of Guantanamo Bay thus complicates U.S. diplomatic efforts, creating a significant diplomatic rift that could take years to mend.VII. Legal and Ethical ImplicationsThe long-term consequences of Guantanamo’s legal anomalies are profound and far-reaching. By circumventing international legal norms and the protections granted by the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. risks undermining the rule of law, both domestically and internationally. This legal exception sets a dangerous precedent for other countries, potentially encouraging them to adopt similar practices in the name of national security. The normalization of indefinite detention without charge or trial poses a grave threat to the principles of justice and accountability that should govern both U.S. and international legal systems.Ethically, Guantanamo's practices raise serious concerns about the balance between national security and fundamental human rights. The use of torture, extraordinary rendition, and indefinite detention without trial not only violates international law but also questions the morality of such actions. As the U.S. seeks to address terrorism threats, it must grapple with the ethical dilemmas posed by these methods. The question of whether the U.S. can achieve its security goals without compromising its commitment to human rights remains one of the most pressing ethical challenges.Furthermore, the long-term psychological and physical effects on detainees—especially those who have been held for years without charge—highlight the devastating consequences of indefinite detention. Many detainees, after being released, suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other psychological issues stemming from their mistreatment. These ethical and legal violations have far-reaching consequences, not only for those detained but also for the U.S.’s moral authority in the global arena.VIII. The Path ForwardTo align with international legal standards and restore its credibility, the U.S. must take decisive steps to either reform or close Guantanamo Bay. The continued operation of the facility, despite the growing international outcry, presents a serious challenge to the U.S.'s role as a global leader in human rights. The first and most critical step would be ensuring fair trials for the remaining detainees. This could involve transferring detainees to the U.S. for civilian trials or, where appropriate, repatriating them to their home countries.Additionally, providing reparations for the human rights violations that have occurred at Guantanamo is essential for healing and reconciliation. This could take the form of compensation to detainees who have been wrongfully detained or subjected to torture, as well as public acknowledgment of the injustices they have suffered. The U.S. must also reaffirm its commitment to international human rights norms, not only by closing Guantanamo but also by ensuring that future counterterrorism measures comply with international law.IX. ConclusionGuantanamo Bay stands as a powerful symbol of the challenges faced by the U.S. in balancing national security with respect for the rule of law and international human rights standards. As a legal anomaly and political tool, it reflects the tensions inherent in navigating global security challenges. Resolving the Guantanamo dilemma requires not just policy reforms, but a profound shift in the U.S.'s approach to counterterrorism—one that places a stronger emphasis on due process, human rights, and adherence to international legal norms. The closure of Guantanamo Bay would not only restore U.S. credibility on the global stage but also reaffirm the importance of upholding the core principles of justice and dignity that underpin the international legal order.ReferencesHamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006).Supreme Court ruling affirming that detainees at Guantanamo Bay are entitled to certain protections under the Geneva Conventions.Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008).Supreme Court decision extending the right of habeas corpus to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, rejecting the argument that they were beyond the reach of U.S. courts.United Nations (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights.United Nations General Assembly. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights.United Nations (1949). Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Third Geneva Convention).Available at: https://www.icrc.org/en/document/geneva-conventions.United Nations (1984). Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professional-interest/pages/cat.aspx.United Nations Human Rights Office (2006). Guantanamo: The Human Cost of America's "War on Terror".Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2006/06/guantanamo-human-cost-americas-war-terror.Amnesty International (2016). Guantanamo: A Human Rights Scandal.Available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/01/guantanamo-a-human-rights-scandal/.Slahi, Mohamedou Ould. (2015). Guantanamo Diary.New York: Back Bay Books.Khadr, Omar. (2015). Enemy Combatant: A Canadian Soldier's Story.Toronto: HarperCollins Publishers.Shaker Aamer. (2015). The Last Prisoner: A Memoir.Available at: https://www.shaker-aamer.com.International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).United Nations General Assembly. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/countries/civil-political-rights.Chomsky, Noam. (2006). The New Military Humanism: Lessons from Kosovo.Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.
Political stability is truly the bottom line for national development which is the truth for every nation. The Republic of the Union of Myanmar has struggled with armed conflicts for over 70 years which is the main culprit for lag in development. Losses to the nation are still countless due to political instability. Under State Administration Council’s supervision, actions are being taken to revive NCA peace process which was initiated in 15 October, 2015. State Administration Council Chairman Prime Minister Senior General Min Aung Hlaing highlighted about the importance of prompt implementation of NCA as “As NCA was drawn by stakeholders in accord with the proposals of ethnic armed organizations, only when all walk on that way will the peaceful and tranquil State we all aspire to. Hence, it is necessary to leave a peaceful legacy for prosperity and quickly implement the peace process” as an honor of 67th Anniversary of Kayin State Day Ceremony. When observing Singapore’s history, one of the four Asian Tigers, it has proved a stable political environment since its independence in 1965. This advantage has boosted its leaders’ attention on development initiatives. In addition, a well-rounded education system of Singapore, nurturing skilled human resources has allowed the country to stand out as one of the most developed countries in ASEAN. This is one of the vivid evidences of how political stability can grant the country and its citizens to create as a strong nation and perform their best. Undeniably, political instability has brought about declining foreign direct investment inflows, the dominance of black market, the increasing rate of inflation, the problem of brain drain, the spread of fake news and misinformation, among them, the worst fact is the fear of the public. When reflecting upon, the victory of every civil war is bittersweet, especially when the victims are the citizens. If it is accepted that every civil war happens for a reason and for different perceptions, it is to be accepted that its long-term consequence is disastrous. Every civil war is indeed bloody politics. Nowadays, global value chain which is international production sharing has taken into place among countries. Hence, when a country lacks political stability, developing a robust economy is difficult to achieve. Investors require political, legal, economic, taxation and financial conditions to remain stable as a guarantee of their investment in any home country. Hence, it is to be aware that every action and plan taken by different armed groups conveys the favorable conditions for the motherland in meeting global demand. It is a duty to prevent the motherland from going backward in an international setting. As of the beginning, the implementation of Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement didn’t initiate based upon 100 % trust between parties. Depended upon existing trust, agreement was made on the basis of adhering to national interests. As the strength of the nation lies within, only when all different groups cooperate, will the nation be on the development route.
