Bad Old Men

Since writing this, Saddam was deposed, Slobadan has died in prison, and Pinochet's legacy is in tatters. Clearly, it was all done because of wot I dun written.



Do you ever get the feeling that you're wasting your time? I seem to be getting it more and more these days, especially every time I check the news. For example, I like to think of myself as a basically good person. I try to get on with people and if it is within my power to help someone then I will do so without hesitation. This gives me the smug satisfying feeling of wanton self righteousness that makes all of my dear friends want to punch me occasionally (I said I thought of myself as good; I'm realistic enough to realise what an arrogant sod I am!)

But today I find myself thinking, "What is the point?" And what has caused this rethink on my part? Well, it is the overwhelming body of evidence that says the bigger the bastard, the better the time they have, and the higher the chance they have of living out their lives in relative peace. I refer of course to that darling old man, Augusto Pinochet. The man who pleaded ill health throughout his stay at the more exclusive branch of Butlins in this country before getting up from his wheelchair to salute the waiting crowd in Santiago. The man who has fought false tooth and manicured nail against accepting even the tiniest piece of responsibility for any of the quite appalling crimes committed during his dictatorship.

I'm sure you're familiar with the generalities of the brutality during his CIA sponsored coup, but as a quick refresher he executed the Marxist president of Chile, Salvador Allende (because America, being the bastion of democracy that it is, couldn't allow a democratically elected president to be Marxist and therefore minded to be sympathetic to USSR). He organised the Caravan of Death (which to me lends itself to a quite horrific image of being dragged along on camping holidays to the wilds of Scotland, but that's beside the point...) which butchered at least 75 political prisoners in the aftermath of his takeover. And to cap it off, it is thought that at least 3,200 people died during his reign. All in all, not the sort of man one would like as a babysitter ("Now Timmy, do as Uncle Augusto tells you tonight or else he'll have to have to administer electro torture to the genitals before having you thrown into the Atlantic from 20,000 feet.")

Had the above catalogue of Bogminded badness been committed by your average citizen (yes, yes, I know that your average citizen would have a certain amount of difficulty in assassinating the Tony Blair and massacring over 3000 people; I suppose he'd have to take a couple of weeks off work or something. Shall we just assume he/she used a bomb and continue? Good...) then it's a fairly safe bet that the full weight of the law would come crashing down upon them. Had I been responsible for the above, then I wouldn't have expected a number of prominent Lords to campaign passionately for my release. I wouldn't have expected mass demonstrations on my behalf by some of my countrymen.

As it is, our vaunted British justice allowed him to go home and make a mockery of the law on the steps of his airplane. Chilean law is faring slightly better having began proceedings to bring him to book for covering up his crimes and attempting still to charge him for the acts themselves. However, the old bastard still has numerous appeal options open to him and I have my doubts as to whether he will ever stand trial. It has been said that the sullying of his name caused by all of these proceedings is sufficient. Balls say I! If one were able to ask those murdered and disappeared at Pinochet's orders, do you think that a besmirched name would be adequate justice for them?

But this is by no means an exception. Modern history is littered with infamous dictators who committed quite the most disgusting crimes against humanity and who have escaped any form of justice. Oh, they've lost their power and their influence, but they have their lives, liberty, and invariably their money. Idi Amin committed atrocities for fun yet he lives out his peaceful (albeit enforced) retirement in Saudi Arabia with all of the oranges he can eat. Baby Doc Duvalier continued the work of his father (their work being the economic ruin of Haiti in order to line their own pockets) and after he was eventually forced to flee he settled somewhere in France. Other than a halfhearted attempt at arresting him he is still at large to the best of my knowledge. Pol Pot and Stalin were old men when they died in their beds having been responsible for killing millions of their own people. The only one of the bastards who suffered any kind of retribution was Hitler and that was only because he downed a cyanide cocktail with bullet chaser.

Now if you have any sense of justice at all, the above will make you stamp your feet and scream that it is so unfair! Fine, so it's unfair. We seem to be singularly rubbish at actually expressing this in any meaningful way; will anybody change their vote because of the handling of the Pinochet affair, or the Totalitarian tactics used during the visit of the Chinese premier? I think not. Will anyone take issue with the French (not that we need any excuse to take issue with them) about their sheltering of a thug who terrorised his people? Nope. Has the Moslem community any intention of pressing our government to raise the issue about Idi Amin's safe haven? Uh-uh.

We don't like what goes on in the world, but the prevailing attitude is "I'm alright Jack". I don't make any major criticism of that, but it does mean that we allow such realpolitik to take place. By that I mean that no country will condemn or prosecute any of the above unless they have political reasons to do so. In other words, our leaders share our attitude for different reasons. We remain quite willingly blind to the evil of these men because it is easier to do this rather than speak out against it, and frankly most of us (myself included) wouldn't know where to start.

Anyway, that is just my own view and that counts for little. What makes the big picture somewhat more worrying is that we now have countless examples of dictators being beastly and to all intents, getting away with it. Even Saddam Hussein only received the military equivalent of a spanking during the Gulf War. Has he been ousted from power? Has a period of peace and rebuilding been ushered in throughout Iraq? Erm...no.

So then, the point to this little rant (yes, there is a point throughout the endless rambling) is as follows; there are flare-ups and dictatorships in place the world over, and the UN and NATO are sending peacekeeping forces here, there, and everywhere. Why should they be taken seriously when history has shown that the main movers and shakers behind the trouble will stay free whilst the people have to live with whatever indignities their former leaders have heaped upon them. The organisation before the UN was the League of Nations. By the time it was dissolved it was universally regarded as impotent. That was in 1939. I'd say in was in the UN's interests to be seen as strong. That means punishing the people responsible for the brutality and deaths during their rule. There's plenty of the old bastards still around, so why don't we make a start?