Pinochet is really a figure of the past. Latin American elites are now quite capable of controlling societies under the guise of democratic regimes, without having to revert to extreme, Pinochet-like measures.
The real threat today lies in economic institutions - corporations, IMF,etc. For instance: a country like Brazil is about to yield to IMF conditions and cut already dilapitated health programs - this, when epidemics like dengue are coming back with a vengeance because of years of neglect and spending cuts in the public health system.
Surely, arresting Pinochet in England will be of no benefit to Latin American masses reeling under the yoke of the IMF and transnational corporations - and won't threaten the position of those institutions either.
Perhaps the European left should concentrate on fighting to change an international order that creates misery for millions, instead of celebrating the arrest of a now innocuous former dictator at the hands of the British establishment - btw, an arrest that will be of no practical use to victims, since no one is suggesting that compensation be paid to them.
1. The British Government has been claiming, since the very beginning of the Pinochet story, that it is "powerless" to act on Chilean Government demands for the release of Pinochet. Messrs Cook, Straw, et alia claim "it's simply a judicial question", and that, the courts in England - such a civilized model of Western democracy - being independent,the process just has to follow its normal course, excluding any kind of political interference.
And yet it's now plainly there for us to see that all this talk is just cheap propaganda. In Germany, another democracy under the rule of law and independent tribunals, there is a longstanding judicial warrant for the arrest of Mr. Ocalan, the Kurdish leader. And yet Mr.Schroeder has just said, after his meeting with Italy's Premier D'Alema: no, it's not politically convenient for Germany to ask for his extradition. In plain English: forget about the courts - it's all political after all.
I hope - perhaps too optimistically - this recent development may lead believers in "the rule of law" in International relations to start thinking more realistically. The truth is the British Government arbitrarily decided for political, not judicial, reasons to give Chile a lesson. It seeked - and obtained - international popularity as a "human rights enforcer" at a Chilean Senator's expense. Law and justice have got nothing to do with the hypocritical charade of Pinochet's arrest.
2. Many reactions to my site that I've received via e-mail show how easily the propaganda system of western capitalism manages to transpose its clichés into peoples' minds, blocking the possibility of clear thinking and thus our ability to effectively challenge that system.
For instance, one reader says, a propos the trial of Pinochet in Europe:
"it doesn't mean at all that the trial then is a political one, because the actuation of the judges in itself is absolutely free" (end of quote).
May I remind the reader that the laws and the court system are one of the main instruments of the ruling class in its eternal mission to control the populace? There is no such thing as "free" judges" and "independent" trials in our system - judges and trials exist to (mainly) perpetuate the rule of business and its' political institutions.
(Note: in case you think I'm exxagerating, let me refer to an article on American justice in this week's edition of the "Economist" (p. 29-30). There you will read that in the U.S. minorities fare particularly poorly in capital cases, that blacks are more likely than whites to draw death sentences for similar crimes, that blacks who harm whites fare worst of all, that being poor doesn't help, because public defenders are underpaid and overloaded with cases, that in Illinois death-row inmates say they were tortured into confessing, etc. Just an illustration of what I said in the previous paragraph - laws and justice serving its purpose of repressing the "rabble").
In 1998 Pinochet was arrested in Europe because it is now in the interests of the European ruling class to show its "humane" face of human rights enforcer - the same ruling class that in 1973 used Pinochet to brutally quell a (modest and timid) challenge to business rule in Chile. It is just a sign of the collapse and bankruptcy of the left that it can "rejoice" in Pinochet's arrest by Britain - see how, in the 1960s, the Chilean left was a credible force, busy trying to change peoples lives through political struggle, whereas today it has dropped all demands for social and political change and contents itself in meekly applauding the arrest (by others) of a FORMER dictator.(Of course, the Chilean people know all this: recent polls suggest an overwhelming 71% think his arrest by Britain "won't change anything" in their country's internal situation).
Pinochet's arrest is thus , in my view, a splendid victory for international capitalism, that has just managed, at zero cost to itself, to lead the "left" into applauding its' institutions (courts, police, etc.), while at the same time reinforcing the "humane" image it needs to go on safely exploiting people all over the world.
As for demands for Kissinger's and Bush's arrest, we should take them for what they are: daydreaming. It will never happen, for the simple reason that the ruling class does not have the habit of committing suicide. Pinochet is a lesser breed from a third rate country in the present world order - he was used, then discarded by the real rulers of the world (same happened to Noriega, and many other useful "tools"). Kissinger , Bush, etc. are THE masters - they make the law, they command and the others obey. Those who control the levers of power shall never have to submit to it.
By the way: The latest issue of the London "Economist" is rejoicing, literally, over Pinochet's arrest. The cover runs like this:"ex-dictators are not immune" - and they celebrate the "birthday gift" Britain has just given to Pinochet by refusing him immunity... The editorial has a key passage that explains it all:"if a rogue prosecutor somewhere demands the extradition of Thatcher or Bush on bogus charges, politicians have the power to veto the move".(Note: since any charge against these two glorious first world democrats will, by (elite) definition, be considered "bogus", the trick will be done).
Well, I guess the "Economist" has, as was to be expected from an elite publication, understood the whole meaning of this story. Only some (most) of our friends from the left haven't, apparently!
As you've certainly noticed, Chile has just decided on a few mild, symbolic measures of protest against Britain, after Mr.Straw's decision on the extradition of Pinochet. The reason for this mildness is simple: Chile is a very weak power and cannot afford to be too strident against a NATO (and IMF) leader like Britain.
How different this story would be if we were dealing with a significant, relatively independent player in international affairs like, say, China! Let's imagine British courts decide to indict Li Peng (after all, he's not China's premier anymore...). Since it's all judicial (Blair dixit!), the Scotland yard would be duly "forced" to arrest him on his next private or semi-private trip to Britain to buy arms for China's armed forces. His arrest,however, would make the Chinese very angry; and the problem for Britain is that China is considerably stronger than Chile. She does not fear Britain. In fact, she retaliates; arrests a few English businessmen visiting China. Accusation: espionage (a plausible one, since many business expatriates in China may sooner or later engage in activities definable as economic espionage in the technical sense). The prosecutor asks for the death penalty.
A terrified Blair sends a special envoy to Beijing. He proposes a deal: let's forget about courts. We let Li Peng go, you free our men. Deal made, everybody goes home. British courts, of course, shall never again consider indicting Chinese leaders: this story scared the hell out of them - and of British public opinion. Ah, if only Pinochet had been the leader of a stronger country!
From an opinion article about the arrest of Pinochet published today in one of Latin America's largest-circulation papers :
"The Aristocratic prejudice of the European countries against South America is still very much alive today, centuries of inhumane colonialism notwithstanding. They still act as if the World were divided between a "superior" race - Europeans and North Americans - and the "inferior" plebeians who happen to live in Latin America, Africa and Asia. I just can't believe that the Spanish and the English have acted in this story out of love for human rights that they have always in fact despised, throughout their History".
© 1998 Send me your comments
ALSO ON THIS SITE:
Get your own Free Home Page