Because You Never Asked

     (This essay was written around 1999. One of the most under covered stories of the year 2006 was the election of the first female president ever in Latin America. This happened in Chile in the person of Michelle Branchelet. Even more relevant is her politics, which is uncomfortably to the left for the average gringo government. This is a phenomena that is happening with some degree of regularity lately in South America, with Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil and the poster boy for such “yanqui” defying bluster, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, being recent examples. Being that the ex-military dictator of Chile, Augusto Pinochet, casts his long shadow over everything that happens in Chile, this seems a propitious moment to add this essay to this website.)

     I quote from the essay “Bosnia-Herzogo-What?”. “Every so often, depending on the socio-economic needs of western culture, we hear new words which soon become part of our everyday vocabularies. Some fairly contemporary examples are ‘Ayatollah’, ’Grenada’, ’Saddam’, and the latest entry alluded to in the title of this essay“. For many Americans, “Pinochet” has now become a part of the language.

     As most of us know by now, the ex-military dictator of Chile, Augusto Pinochet, is currently being held by England while it decides the propriety of Spain’s extradition request based upon his alleged criminal acts committed against Spanish citizens. To say that any of this has anything to do with the socio-economic needs of western culture might seem, at first glance (or even after many glances), somewhat of a stretch. But for the practitioners of the “New World Order Global Economy”, “altruistic” acts are usually just a smokescreen for the fundamental advancement of their own interests. It should not be forgotten that this whole affair is being propagated by the same people who gave us centuries of brutal colonial exploitation, the same people who were glad to see Pinochet do what he did when he did it.

     Would you buy a used car from these people? Might there not be ulterior motives here? (When I say “these people”, I do not restrict myself to England and Spain, but mean the whole consortium of “Thatcher-Clinton” cowboys now dominating the world.)

     Before theorizing as to what these ulterior motives might be, an examination of the media portrayal of this gambit is essential.

     One of the things the media seems to be conveniently ignoring is the fact that this is purely a judicial proceeding. The celebrity of the defendant has correctly given more impetus to the story, but from a jurisprudential standpoint, there is nothing really startling here. The Spanish government (and, as it turns out, other governments as well) considers Pinochet a fugitive for crimes against their sovereignty. They claim to have enough evidence to at least be given the opportunity to prove their case. Based upon this evidence, they are requesting his extradition.

     As I write, the United States is seeking the extradition of a young man who allegedly killed someone in Maryland and has fled to Israel where, as a Jew, he can nebulously claim Israeli citizenship. The fact that he committed the crime on U.S. soil is a perhaps relevant difference from Spain’s claim against the Chilean, but both are considered fugitives from the judicial mechanisms of each respective country.

     Even more comparable is the high profile case of the Pan Am jetliner blown up over Scotland. The United States (and England) has been trying to have 2 Libyans, who they claim to have enough evidence against, extradited from Libya in order to stand trial for their alleged crimes. These crimes were committed against American citizens outside the United States. In both the Pinochet and Libyan cases, we have 2 sovereign nations demanding justice in a routine effort to protect their citizens. This is nothing new.

     Of course, in the case of Pinochet we have the muddled question as to whether the ex-head of state has some kind of diplomatic immunity. It is not within this writer’s sphere of expertise to unravel such legalistic mush, other than to emphasize that this is a judicial proceeding.

     If we treat this case simply as the judicial proceeding it is, then we are not really measuring the magnitude of the crime. There is nothing more than an aggrieved party (Spain in this case) claiming that under its laws a crime has been committed. Theoretically, if Stalin, who undoubtedly committed heinous crimes on a larger scale than Pinochet, had only brutalized Soviet citizens, no one else would have jurisdiction over him. It would be a purely internal affair for the Soviets and their heirs to unravel.

     Ironically, the Chilean government makes such a claim, saying that their country has already decided on how to deal with its past and nobody else should meddle in it. If Pinochet had only killed and tortured Chileans, they’d be right. But there is good reason to believe he made no such distinctions. He saw his enemies as his enemies, be they who they may.

     Why do I emphasize the judicial nature of all this?

     Our usual organs of media indoctrination, although they haven’t ignored the mundane judicial aspects of this affair, have decided to treat this case as some kind of universal measuring device for barbaric behavior. The question as to who has the right to decide Pinochet’s fate is unavoidable, even for the usual white bread sources of news diffusion, but it has spent more time on the bench than in the game. For the average citizen first becoming familiar with this man, what Pinochet did and how it should be seen against this universal standard of “human rights”, is monopolizing the attention.

     But there is a catch here: it is the neo-liberal, global economy practitioners that are setting the standard. Do they speak for everyone?

     The astute reader should be raising the following question (one of the great joys a chicken soup philosopher has is astute readers … even non-astute readers): being that Pinochet has always been considered an ally of the people who are now mounting this little number, where is the ulterior motive?

     Augusto Pinochet is 83 years old. As far as the neo-liberal, global economy practitioners are concerned, his mission has been completed. They are not going to kill him. They are not going to put him in a terrible jail. He will be hassled and degraded a bit. He will be used as an example of their magnanimous, objective pursuit of justice. By prosecuting their old friend Augusto, they can now pursue their real enemies with a veneer of righteousness. Whoever didn’t, isn’t, or will not play ball with them in the future can always be made into a “human rights” abuser. Take heed Fidel. Watch your step Mohamar. Good riddance Slobadan. And as for you Saddam … the neo-liberals set the standard. They are “human rights“ experts.

     One fully digesting the mainstream media’s interpretation of these events would have to come to the conclusion that only “dictators” are subject to these universal standards of civility. None of this seems to apply to Presidents, Prime Ministers, or other such lackeys deemed respectable in the burlesque of Murdochland information. With this in mind, I leave the reader with the following hypothetical: let’s say a government not sympathetic to the United States takes power in Panama. Might this government be within its rights in demanding the extradition of George Bush for crimes committed against the people of Panama during “Operation Just Cause”?

     Post Script: As I put this essay up on my website in 2006, now more than 3 years into Mini-Me Bush’s attempt to conquer Iraq’s oil wells, with its baggage of torture, incarceration without charges nor legal representation, and a whole host of abuses the people who harassed Augusto Pinochet would supposedly consider “human rights abuses”, the questions raised in the last paragraph of the essay are more relevant than ever.

     After a number of months of gilded cage detention in England, Pinochet was allowed to go home to Chile, due to the “delicate” state of his health. Six years later, he is still alive. I wonder if Chile’s new President has him on her agenda?