US/German friendly fire?
April 20, 2008
At present there is an issue that interests me very much in a theoretical as well as practical respect. The German news magazin Spiegel Online reported on the case of Gholam Ghaus Z. who is a German citizen and presently in US captivity in Afghanistan. Z., who was on a visit to family members in Kabul, was arrested in Kabul while trying to buy a razor at a local US army grocery store. The fact that he was in possession of approximately 1000 Euro in different currencies and several phone cards led the US army to suspect that he could be a terrorist. However, according to the German government, several interrogations and checking of Z.’s life context in Germany did not lead to a confirmation of that suspicion. The US government on the other hand is only willing to release him if the German government is willing to establish a de facto 24 hour surveillance of Z., which the German government refuses to do on grounds that such a violation of Z.’s right to liberty were absolutely unwarranted without any evidence or indication of his being a terrorist.
Now, what interests me, is the question: How is this conflict amongst otherwise friendly governments to be resolved? Of course, it is the legitimate purpose of the US government to protect the rights and security of its own citizens. But the German government has the same purpose. Obviously, the main problem is the different assessment of the case of Z. in the eyes of the German and the US government.
From the point of view of the German government, the US government illegitimately holds captive one of its citizens. What then is the German government morally obliged to do if the US government is not willing to release the German citizen? By what means can this conflict between otherwise friendly governments resolved in case that a common assessment of Z.’s case will not be achieved?
And more generally: By what means are possibly fatal errors of knowledge leading to conflict in the dealings of two (more or less) free and sovereign nations to be avoided and dealt with?
I would be intrigued to hear your answers.
Entry Filed under: Politics. Tags: afghanistan, citizen, conflict, error, germany, Gholam Ghaus Z., government, knowledge, rights, security, terrorism, USA.
3 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
Burgess Laughlin | April 20, 2008 at 2:38 pm
I have narrow, preliminary questions:
1. Does the Spiegel article explain what a “local US army grocery store” is? Is the US Army actually retailing groceries?
2, What is a “de facto 24 hour surveillance”? It is the de facto part that puzzles me.
3. For your main question, are you assuming the present, mixed-economy (and mixed philosophy) governments or are you assuming that ideally both governments are capitalist and have rational foreign policies?
2.
Sascha Settegast | April 20, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Burgess;
1. I do not know. The article speaks of a “Supermarkt der US-Militärs”, i.e. a US army supermarket.
2. The article only states that the US government requested a security guarantee from the German government that, according to the German government, would amount to a total surveillance of Z. However, the article does not state that the US government explicitly requested 24 h surveillance. Sorry, if I expressed myself in an unclear way.
3. I am more interested in what a government ideally should do.
3.
Burgess Laughlin | April 20, 2008 at 3:01 pm
I am not a philosopher of law. I can only make a suggestion for a general solution. Others can use it as a target.
In a world that includes two or more capitalist countries–governments that have written constitutions guaranteeing basic rights to life, liberty, and property–those governments should establish an agency that adjudicates disputes between them. What form that should take, I don’t know.
In the US, according to my layman’s understanding, federal courts adjudicate disputes between individual states, if the states can’t resolve the issue through direct negotiation.
Further, in the long-term, and ideally, there should be one, properly designed government in the world–but only if it is based on objective principles and it establishes only those laws that must apply to the world as a whole.