The ongoing legal wrangles between Pinochet and those bent on bringing him to justice and the spillover effect it has had on some of Africa’s dictators is interesting. I have from the onset been wary of the intentions of both the Spanish and British governments. I have had the conviction that the British government is not interested in handing over Pinochet to face his accusers. What Britain is interested in is convicting Pinochet and thereby setting a precedent to make it possible to use the same basis to get not only Third World dictators but Third World leaders who take a stance against the imperialist interests of the West. With a precedent in place, Britain would then find some loophole to get Pinochet back home because Pinochet’s abuse of his people was overlooked and at times even sanctioned by the West especially USA and UK when it served their interests. The Spanish government I believe instituted the proceedings not only from the goodness of its heart but also to tame and bring into line leaders of its former colonies in particular and the rest of the Third World in general be they dictators or not.

            Now that the precedent has been set, what are its implications not only for the dictators but also for their countries as entities and for those they rule? Would a Third World country, say Gambia, be able to launch a claim against a former leader of the UK, USA or some other Western power on the same basis? Would Saddam Hussein or Ghaddafi be able to launch a claim against George Bush, Reagan or Clinton if they were on a trip to Gambia on the basis of the repeated unwarranted bombardments their countries suffered with the attendant wanton death and destruction?

            I shall try to deal with these issues. First, what are the implications for Third World leaders be they dictators or not? The first issue for the dictators is the realisation that they cannot in the future rely on what has in the past been a given, i.e., moving to another country to forever enjoy their ill-gotten wealth in peace after murdering, unlawfully jailing and torturing thousands of people. The Habre case in Senegal comes to mind. So does the attempt to put Mengistu on trial in South Africa resulting in his rapid and abrupt about turn back to Zimbabwe. Whether this realisation would guide their actions whilst in power is not apparent.

            The second issue is what their inability to peacefully move to another country after being in power means. Would this mean that they would hang on to power no matter what? I would pessimistically assume that this would be the case in some instances to the possible detriment of the populace and of the country. If the dictators know that their opponents and human rights organizations can get them wherever they hide, then they would do anything within their means to stay in power.

            A positive implication might be a softening of the dictators or potential dictators. Knowing that the evil they do would live to haunt them one fine day, fainthearted dictators might change policies or soften their dictatorial tendencies so that they will not fall victim to their own vices. This would be a potential leap for good governance and respect for human rights.

            The implications of the Pinochet precedent on Third World leaders can be the following. First, it can make fiery and vocal anti-imperialist leaders tone their rhetoric and find ways to accommodate the West. This might mean that Third World leaders might be afraid to challenge the West for fear of being in the West’s bad books even where they have moral and other obligations to do so. They would simply toe the West’s line so as to be able to retire in peace in London or Paris after their tenure. This would strengthen the already strong grip the West has in the affairs of developing nations.

            Human rights organizations have made it clear that Pinochet is only the beginning. Some of them made it known that they intend to push forward to make it possible to try sitting presidents and leaders when they are on trips to foreign lands. The consequences of such a possibility can be overwhelming. This would mean that the West could in effect dictate which leaders are suitable for which countries based on their selfish national interests. The á la Panama style invasion to get rid of leaders antithetical to the interests of the West would not be necessary. Third World leaders would be in a disadvantaged position knowing that every time they travel they might not come back home. A positive twist to this would be the saving of millions for Third World countries due to the reduction of the often times wasteful and unnecessary trips of their leaders.

            The implications of the Pinochet affair for the populations living under the rule of dictators can be serious. Knowing that they might not be able to retire anywhere peacefully, many a dictator would employ even more brutal methods to stay in power. This would result in more repression and hardship for the people.

            It might also mean the thwarting of the democratic aspirations of the people. Many dictators would try to rig elections, buy votes and simply manoeuvre and nullify the democratic process to serve the purpose of entrenching themselves in power. An increase in life presidents would not be surprising. This would therefore leave the people frustrated and without a possibility of changing their government by constitutional means.

            The dictators’ firm resolve to stay in power no matter what and the people’s inability to constitutionally effect change brings about the implications of the Pinochet case for the country as an entity. Having nothing in mind but their selfish interests, many dictators would rather plunge their countries into civil war than give up power without a place to live in peace. This would mean fighting to the bitter end to maintain their grip regardless of the human and material costs their countries have to suffer.

            Another possible implication for Third World countries would be an increase in coup d’etats where all efforts to dislodge a dictator has failed. If there is no possibility to dislodge a leader constitutionally and that leader continues to violate the people with impunity, this might spur someone somewhere in the army to try to dislodge him/her and the consequences can be both negative and positive for the country.

            After looking at the implications of the case for not only dictators but also their subjects and countries, one cannot help wonder whether the precedent that has been established is one that can be universally applied. I asked the following questions in the beginning: Would a Third World country, say Gambia, be able to launch a claim against a former leader of the UK, USA or some other Western power on the same basis? Would Saddam Hussein or Ghaddafi be able to launch a claim against George Bush, Reagan or Clinton if they were on a trip to Gambia on the basis of the repeated unwarranted bombardments their countries suffered with the attendant wanton death and destruction?

To this I add: would a group of Palestinians or Lebanese be able to launch a process against Shimon Peres or the other Israeli leaders for the bombardments, torture, property destruction and other human rights violations that Israel perpetrated and continues to perpetrate against the Arabs? To these questions I volunteer a resounding NO! Why? Because it is not in the interests of the West to be seen as violators of the doctrines they preach. Another reason is the question of interpretation. The West would interprete and justify its actions against the Arabs as fighting terrorism but can the killing of thousands of innocent civilians some of whom are opposed to the very leaders the West is fighting be justifiable? Can the bulldozing of an entire family’s house because a member of the family is involved in a terrorist act be justified? Can punishment of a person because of another person’s crimes be justified? Where is the concern for human rights?

            To conclude, the Pinochet case has raised some interesting issues and the repercussions of those issues are numerous not only for the dictators themselves but even for those they rule and for their countries. The case has has made it possible for dictators to know that they cannot violate their people with impunity and live to enjoy in peace for the rest of their days in some foreign land. The implications of such a realisation are numerous and include among other things dictators changing their style of governance so as not to be persecuted later in life, dictators hanging onto power at any cost to their countries and to their people etc. The concept surrounding the Pinochet affair is a rather noble one but whether it can be universally applied on the same basis is another issue. I am convinced that Third World countries and peoples cannot bring similar charges against Western leaders who violate their human rights because the West would use all the overt and covert means at its disposal to nullify such claims. I am also convinced that the West would use the Pinochet precedent to get rid of or punish leaders who hinder Western interests where those interests are antithetical to those of Third World countries and leaders. Given such things, is justice á la Pinochet universal justice or is it justice that serves the interests of the West and helps to put Third World leaders in line. Sorry for such a long post. I just got carried away. Thanks.

                                                                                 Buharry.