Pinochet is finally arrested!

Why only now? And why are other criminals still at large?

Here you may find some non-politically correct considerations on the subject

(click here for follow-up article)

Ten politically incorrect considerations about Pinochet's arrest.

First

Pinochet is guilty of horrible crimes; but, by this century's standards, he is not one of the worst criminals. And if we stick to present times, there are quite a few living personalities that far outshine the General in terror tactics and outright murder within their respective countries. One example: Mr. Suharto (killed 500,000 in 1965 coup, versus some 3,000 killed and disappeared during Pinochet's rule).

Second

Pinochet didn't act on his own. His coup was openly encouraged by the U.S. (remember Kissinger's 1973 remarks on this subject?), and certainly would not have been possible without American support; and, after the coup, Pinochet ruled unopposed because Western powers (US and Europe) backed him with credits, arms sales, etc.

Third

In terms of foreign aggression, Pinochet isn't guilty of much. The same cannot be said for the Suhartos of this World (200,000 kiled in East Timor alone), not to mention the leaders of the US (2 million deaths caused by their war on Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos (1962 -75), certainly one of the major crimes of this century).

Fourth

Pinochet is the former leader of a weak Third World nation; if he were the present leader of a significant World power no one would dare act against him, no matter how many crimes he had commited (can you imagine Britain arresting Li Peng?).

Fifth

Why doesn't the former, powerful boss of Pinochet (America) intervene now to protect his ally? Because Pinochet has outlived his usefulness - he obediently used terror tactics against a "communist" threat (meaning, in reality, the threat of independent social democratic policies contrary to the interests of the Chilean elite and their American masters); now that threat is forever gone, but the nasty actions required to eliminate it still give America a bad name. So much better, and safer, for the U.S. to let bygones be bygones and not risk its reputation - for no visible gain - defending an unpleasant fellow.

Sixth

Same thought goes for Britain; it's great for Mr. Blair to polish his tarnished progressive credentials by arresting Pinochet. It's a low cost, high gain measure - a champion of capitalist values is now deserving the gratitude of the Chilean and Latin American Left, something which will only further the credibility and reputation of Blair's right wing policies all over the world.

Seventh

Pinochet's arrest helps shatter illusions about the concept and workings of international law. It's clear that - now as in the past - great powers dictate the law and apply it according to their interests. As Chilean President Frei pointed out, Europeans may judge human rights violations in Chile, but Chilean courts are not allowed to judge political crimes commited in - say - Spain during the Franco era. In the international arena, masters judge servants and not vice versa.

Eigth

The West, of course, will go on supporting anti-democratic situations whenever that suits its interests - forget the claims about "ethical" foreign policies. One present day example, very similar in that regard to Pinochet's Chile, is Algeria. Bad, anti-western guys (Islamists) overwhelmingly won a free and fair election; so the West encouraged a coup (hint: Algerian army chief of staff visited his French colleagues just days before his armed forces took over), and then calmly supported its leaders with credits, weapons, etc. Probably, in 20 or 30 years time, when (if) situation is stabilized and the islamist threat a thing of the past, some European judge will order the arrest of Algerian generals, thus "proving" the West's attachment to human rights - alas, only after damage to the victims has been permanently and irreversibly done.

Ninth

The Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro (from now on, let's face it, a strong candidate to arrest, if he maintains his propensity for travel to foreign countries), made an interesting remark: Pinochet's arrest is morally right, but its legality is doubtful. He has a point - if Pinochet was visiting Britain in order to buy arms, as his apologists claim, then he probably had diplomatic immunity. And contrary to what has been said in many an article on this subject, that type of immunity also applies (some would argue, applies even more, for diplomacy is specially useful for dealing with despots) when putative beneficiaries are guilty of crimes. When Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot travelled abroad they weren't subject to arrest - and rightly so, for otherwise all diplomacy would end and we'd be back to the law of the jungle, with emissaries being killed, negotiators arrested and States unable to use diplomatic channels to communicate.

Tenth

Crimes should be punished. But the ideals of justice and law require that we never apply a double standard for judging and condemning criminal actions. The arrest of Pinochet is an act of (retributive) justice; it also constitutes evidence of double standards at work and of the way power distorts the principles of international law.

This text written on October 24, 1998.

ALSO ON THIS SITE: