WESTERN HEMISPHERE

CHILE: "Reflections From The Colony"

Conservative, influential, newspaper-of-record El Mercurio carried an op-ed piece (12/2) by attorney Hermogenes Perez de Arce: "Colony: a territory that lacks sovereignty. Ergo: we are a colony. The question is, whose colony? That will not be solved by us. England and Spain will decide which one will be our metropolis. I'd rather be a British colony. Between Spanish fabulation and British hypocrisy, I choose the latter.... [Spanish judge] Garzon beat his own record by stating that Pinochet committed genocide against Jews.... But, besides that and by disgustingly manufacturing stories in the (Spanish) media about Chile's present and past reality, the Spanish have done something even worse: They have laughed at us. Another judge...dismissed the charges filed by Cuban exiles against Fidel Castro for genocide, terrorism and torture.... That's because Castro is on the left, and Pinochet, not.... The British don't do better: Lord Hoffman is married to an Amnesty International officer.... However, I don't have the authority to criticize him: I, too, don't dare to disobey my wife's orders."

"Polarization"

Leading-circulation, independent, popular La Tercera featured this op-ed piece (12/2) by Party for Democracy (PPD) member Carolina Toha: "Are we condemned to oscillate between polarization and a consensus that eludes problems or that does not resolve them completely?... Regarding polarization...the most polarized attitudes and threats questioning democratic order have been raised by the right.... On the left, nobody has called for popular courts if justice isn't served.... Regarding consensus and reconciliation, the truth is we have never been even close over the human rights issue. From this perspective, we haven't moved back, but rather, [we are] confronting the little progress we have made.... Let's not regret the lost reconciliation, because there has never been a true one."

"Let's Think About The Numbers..."

Leading-circulation, financial Estrategia carried this op-ed piece (12/2) by former appointed Senator William Thayer: "Pinochet clearly headed a military revolution in Chile in 1973.... He is 'responsible' but not 'guilty' for the 3,000 dead during 16 years of his government.... Let's think about the number of victims of the Soviet revolution...that a recent European publication estimates reached 20 million in the USSR. A little more than Pinochet's!"

"What's At Stake"

Conservative La Segunda ran an op-ed essay (12/1) by attorney and historian Gonzalo Vial: "Genocide, if it occurred, was committed in Chile, therefore it should be judged by our justice, applying our law.... Next, which definition of genocide should be applied in an extraterritorial trial? According to the Canadian rules...any of Russia's higher authorities could be judged as accomplices after the 'event' for genocide in the USSR.... If an International Criminal Court existed, then it could accept any pre-existing definition of genocide.... What is unacceptable, even ridiculous, a real international chaos, is the Spanish 'solution': that any state, applying its own laws, can judge crimes against mankind committed beyond its territory. Would it be acceptable that Tanzania, Liberia...etc... judge a Spaniard for crimes committed in his country during the Spanish Civil War?... It is said that Europe has very strong and determined awareness and opinions about persecuting and punishing...crimes against mankind.... All Europe rushes to do business with Iraq and Cuba, demanding that the United States or UN release the obstacles that hinder them from doing business.... European horror about crimes against mankind?... The fact that countries which we admired so much have risen to the occasion to vex us, is unforgettable and unforgivable."

"A New Kind Of Colonialism"

In its international news weekly round-up column, El Mercurio opined (11/30): "The British House of Lords' ruling...establishes a disturbing precedent in the fields of international law and international relations. The consequences of the British judges' interpretation may be many and, in the worst of cases, could lead bilateral relations between states into chaos.... The application of these concepts breaks the basic principles on which the international community's coexistence is founded. Fundamental principles such as sovereignty, territoriality of laws, and immunity lose relevance. Likewise, the finding has the grave consequence of validating the Spanish courts' interpretation of genocide and terrorism.... In other words, the ruling opens the possibility of having the international community witness the beginning of a persecution of former heads of state for alleged crimes against mankind.... The finding gives the international community the wrong signal about the peaceful transitions from authoritarian governments to democratic regimes.... In light of the Law Lords' finding, it's difficult to believe that any authoritarian leader would peacefully give up power to his successor, if the possibility of finding himself persecuted by any country's courts for alleged crimes against mankind under his government exists....

"The ruling also underlines the political and juridical inconsistency of European nations like Spain, England, and France, that consistently have opposed and rejected the application of the principle of extraterritoriality by other countries.... A clear example of this is the United States' attempt to apply its anti-monopolism law.... Such extent of U.S. jurisdiction has never been accepted by European nations. A similar situation has occurred with the Helms-Burton law.... Should a case occur in which a small nation arrests a powerful nation's former head of state due to a minor country's request, undoubtedly, the amount of protests, pressures and threats raised would demonstrate that the application of this rule only applies to a new kind of colonialism: It only allows the great powers to judge countries with less power, but not vice versa."

"Trampled Sovereignty"

Leading-circulation, financial Estrategia carried an op-ed piece (11/30) by National Renewal (RN) Senator Antonio Horvath: "In the past four years, Chile's sovereignty has been trampled twice. In 1994, an arbitration court's absurd and corrupt finding...which gave (territory in dispute) Laguna del Desierto to Argentina.... Now in 1998, for the second time in a short period, we see Chile's dignity trampled. By setting a real trap, the British government has aided the arrest of the senator in London.... With the possibility of staying in power until the end of his days, Pinochet has followed his country's wishes and is suffering the consequences. Chile must react, domestically and externally, not to let itself be trampled again."

"But They Run To Hug Fidel"

Leading-circulation, financial Estrategia carried this editorial comment (11/30): "The question is whether Europeans and socialists...who have responsibility for real crimes against mankind, are--as they say--building a new international juridical system. The answer is no, because no proposal exists to judge Fidel Castro...former Soviet leaders or other nations from the U.S.S.R. orbit. Chilean socialists follow the same rule. During Castro's visit to Chile, their leaders ran to hug and drink cocktails with him at the Cuban embassy.... International harassment against the senator-for-life reflects socialism's and communism's desire for revenge.... The current panorama is the worst. The general's immediate fate depends on the British left's highly ranked leader.... Meanwhile, the government is in the crossfire. On the one hand, it holds the defense of his immunity, the Chilean courts' independence, and the country's sovereignty. On the other, the voiced and/or surreptitious opposition of socialists to support President Frei weakens the official position. If judged on its results, the government's gesture has been ineffective....

"Chilean socialists are taking advantage of the difficult situation faced by Senator Pinochet.... Now they offer to mediate before the British Labor Party members for his release, in exchange for reviewing the law of amnesty, and along the way, withdrawing his parliamentarian exemption to make him stand trial in Chile. A resolution that they have dreamed of for so long."

"Chilean Right Cannot Continue Making All Chileans Pay For This Episode"

Government-owned, editorially-independent La Nacion ran an op-ed piece by commentator Sergio Munoz (11/30): "One would have to expect very bad times...if the situation was assessed in the view of some of Pinochet's partisans' behavior after the Law Lords' finding.... Maybe, what is most unbearable for Pinochet's partisans is the feeling of having been defeated.... In practice, Pinochet has already been tried.... The right cannot continue making all Chileans pay for this episode.... Regarding Pinochet's fate, and the enormous difficulties faced by Minister Insulza's mission (in London and Madrid), we will have to wait and see how effective Pope John Paul II or Bill Clinton's gestures are, so that given Pinochet's age and condition, he be set free for humanitarian reasons."

"A Double Standard"

Independent, weekly news magazine Que Pasa carried an editorial (11/28) by Christian Bofill: "For the left, the Law Lords' ruling represents the most valuable and unexpected victory over Pinochet since the 1988 plebiscite.... The old theory confirmed after what occurred in London, is that General Pinochet has become the world's main symbol for violations of human rights.... The European countries' double standard, when comparing dictatorships from the left and the right in Latin America, can't be denied.... An old controversy that reveals racism: Many Europeans believe that the most appropriate (governments) for Latin Americans are regimes such as Castro's, although they wouldn't accept it for themselves."

ARGENTINA: "U.S. Zigzagging"

Jorge Elias, daily-of-record La Nacion's Washington-based correspondent, wrote (12/2): "One day after the United States backed Chile's claims regarding Pinochet's arrest, the State Department announced yesterday that it will release formerly classified documents on the dark years of repression.... Washington's position, at first distant (it is a matter between the governments of Chile, Great Britain and Spain) and now zigzagging, reflects, to some extent, the uneasiness in reviewing an issue of the past in which the U.S. actively participated in supporting Salvador Allende's overthrow due to the inconveniences caused by his Communist-oriented government to U.S. businesses with interests in Chile.... Rubin reiterated yesterday that 'several countries, after emerging from authoritarianism or conflict, reach different balances between justice and reconciliation, and may do so without sacrificing the principle of rendering accounts.'

"The position declared the day before yesterday, nevertheless, falls far from serving Garzon's interest of extraditing Pinochet to Spain, but, at the same time, the declassification of those documents, something about which White House spokesman Joe Lockhart was aware of, would work in his favor.... Until the day before yesterday, given the excuse that they were discussing opinions coming from each side, particularly the Lords' decision to avoid changes in Pinochet's situation, Washington had remained cautiously silent. The endorsement it gave Chile now changed into backing Garzon. Or, finally, into backing a country whose economy, implemented during Pinochet's time, won the category of Latin American miracle, and in a gesture of respect for those who claim justice. It is still equally confusing though, because, for a long time, everyone knew that those documents, which up to now had been secret, already existed."

BRAZIL: "Chile's Savage Right"

Clovis Rossi wrote on liberal Folha de Sao Paulo's editorial page (12/1): "It seems logical to assume that while Pinochet remains in London nothing serious will happen in Chile. If military action were taken it would be the ultimate evidence of the savagery of which the dictator and his military and civilian friends have been accused. But if he is extradited to Spain or returned to Chile for judgment, the situation will become worse. It will not be the trial of a general or of a former president...but the trial of an entire institution, the Armed Forces, or at least of a significant portion of its leadership during the 1973-1990 dictatorial period.... The Chilean right, both civilian and military, is as fundamentalist as the most radical ayatollah. It feels itself besieged by a remarkable international conspiracy of socialists and communists.... Those who consider British Prime Minister Tony Blair a dangerourous socialist, or those who consider the House of Lords who decided that Pinochet has no immunity, a bunch of leftists--are capable of anything."

PANAMA: "Why Did U.S. Release Documents?"

Independent La Prensa (12/3) said in its front-page editorial column "Hoy por Hoy": "The London arrest of former dictator Augusto Pinochet has stirred consciences, anguishes, hopes, precedents, foresight, and jurisprudence among other things. The thirst for justice is contagious. Not only Judge Garzon from Spain is asking for Pinochet's extradition, but also France, Switzerland and Belgium.... The United States has kept, up to now, a noticeable ambiguity. On the one hand, none of the mentioned European countries have the reasons that United States could have to judge Pinochet in his own country. He was, after all, the intellectual author of terrorists acts in Washington...that killed former Chilean Minister Orlando Letelier and his U.S. assistant Ronni Moffit.... On the other, the role the U.S. government played in trying to impede Allende's victory in 1970 and forcing a coup, is very well documented. What is left to be seen is how close was the U.S. collaboration with the 1973 coup and how much that country [United States] knew of Pinochet's atrocities..... We may soon know why the Clinton administration has decided to remove the secrecy of its diplomatic and intelligence files. Why did Clinton decide to do so now? One can venture to say it might be a genuine commitment, although sometimes inconsistent, with democracy and human rights; the other, to yield to the Republican Party, who is continuously banging on the morality of the Lewinsky case, the obligation to justify his innocence to an infinitively more important moral environment.... How much did Nixon and his Republican collaborators know of the crimes, tortures and horrors in Chile? How did he collaborate? We will soon know."

EUROPE

BRITAIN: "Nothing Ethical About This Policy"

The right-wing weekly Spectator had this byliner by former British ambassador to Chile John Hickman (12/4): "The joking is over now. Government hopes that the judiciary would get them out of the mess they had blundered into have been destroyed, and the Law Lords, by drawing limits round the concept of absolute sovereign immunity, have thrown the ball back into the government's lap. They, and particularly Home Secretary Jack Straw, have to face the fact that in the real world political actions have political consequences.... While this landmark legal decision delighted the human rights campaigners, it has opened a Pandora's box for ministers, who must now think through all its implications.... There can be no more hiding behind judicial skirts. What has been glaringly missing from ministers' handling of this affair so far is any recognition of the gradual process of reconciliation and democratic development which has gone forward in Chile since elected governments took over from the military in 1990....

"Unless Mr. Straw can bring himself to end this whole sorry debacle now, the long obstacle course of extradition hearings will prolong the agony for months. British relations with Chile could be gradually ruined and, more important, Chile's democratically chosen peace process could be shattered by foreign interference. If the Chileans can live with their ex-dictator, what right do Britain and Spain have to overrule them?"

"Controversy Leaves U.S. Straddling Fence'"

The independent Financial Times had this report from Washington (12/3): "As General Pinochet waits in the Surrey countryside for a decision by a British politician on whether he can be extradited to Spain to face trial, Washington has come down firmly on neither side of the controversy.... The case has created an obvious dilemma for Washington.... At the heart of Washington's dilemma is a question being asked by governments in capitals around the world following last week's ruling (in Britain): What does this decision mean for us? At its most extreme, one consequence is that current and former American officials could find themselves pursued through foreign courts for their actions in office: Reagan's bombing of Libya, or Clinton's of Sudan and Afghanistan, for example. The ruling also has potential implications for all countries where a transition to democracy has taken place, such as South Africa and most of Latin America.... Whatever the long-term consequences, General Pinochet's immediate fate is in the hands of British Home Secretary Jack Straw. His decision is one which officials in Washington say they are pleased they do not have."

"51 Percent Want Pinochet Sent To Face Trial"

London's conservative tabloid Evening Standard said (12/1): "A majority of the British people want General Pinochet to be handed over to Spain to stand trial for the torture and killings carried out under his rule.... But at the same time, Home Secretary Jack Straw was pulled sharply the other way as the Clinton administration signalled that the former dictator should be freed. State Department spokesman James Rubin, while denying that the administration was pushing Britain one way or another, said that Chile's demand for Pinochet to be returned should be treated with 'significant respect.'... The unexpectedly clear-cut and hostile public verdict in Britain added a new dimension to the dilemma facing Mr. Straw as he ponders whether to grant the Spanish request for Pinochet's extradition or to allow him home."

SPAIN: "A Political Solution"

New conservative La Razon held (12/2): "If it were all as simple as acknowledging that every crime deserves punishment, there would be no problem.... The nub of the matter is not whether to try [Pinochet] or not, but rather who should do so. Many recognized experts in international law have pointed this out while at the same time underlining the pre-eminence of relations among states over the decisions of an investigating magistrate, however bold and brilliant he may be. In addition, there are doubts about the application of justice in this matter: In Chile it is assumed that Pinochet has already been convicted in Spain, while here it is assumed he will be absolved in Chile. So long as there is no duly constituted international criminal court, the decision has to be political."

"Voyage To Nowhere"

Liberal El Pais stressed (12/2): "The trip to Spain by the Chilean foreign minister appears to have been undertaken more for the consumption of a part of his home audience than in the hope of achieving anything concrete here.... At the moment, there is nothing for the Spanish government to decide, while at the same time it can hardly conceal how pleased it would be if it never had to worry about bringing the senator-for-life...to Spain for trial.

"Nevertheless, and in contrast to the [frosty reception and] meager agenda Insulza was able to pursue in London, in 48 hours here he met with everybody who is anybody from the prime minister on down in Spanish institutional, political, and economic circles.... [Despite these courtesies], he left restating his belief that the political environment here is unfavorable to Pinochet. Did he really think the general would be welcomed with open arms?"

"The Chilean Messenger"

Conservative ABC opined (12/1): "That Chilean Foreign Minister Jose Miguel Insulza was unable to meet in London with Prime Minister Tony Blair nor with Home Secretary Jack Straw--the one with a certain amount of discretion in deciding whether or not to forward the extradition request to a British judge, speaks for itself. His contacts were limited to a conversation with the defense minister in which they discussed 'humanitarian concerns'--but with future arms purchases as a backdrop--which only demonstrates what little stir his visit caused, given the weakness of his arguments [in favor of Pinochet's release].... Somewhere along the way between London and Madrid the trip changed from informational to political in nature, according to the messenger himself. We fear that this change will only lead him into an undesirable blind alley."

"Send Pinochet To Chile"

Pedro Schwartz commented in Barcelona's centrist La Vanguardia (12/1): "It is a cause for rejoicing that Spanish and British courts have expanded the application of international law with respect to the crimes of genocide, torture and kidnapping. But this is where justice leaves off and politics begins. From now on, will we apply the same yardstick to all dictators whether they be of the right or left?... General Pinochet gave up power after having been defeated in a national referendum. Felipe Gonzalez commented that he would have liked to see Franco made a senator-for-life [if he would have left office before he died].... It has been established that no abuse of human rights should escape public condemnation, and this is sufficient. Now it would be best if Mr. Straw would send Pinochet to Chile to confront the voice of his conscience, something even the loud protests of his followers cannot stifle entirely."

GERMANY: "Look It Up In Kissinger's Memoirs"

Under the above headline, Jochen Siemens stressed in left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau (12/3): "After Secretary of State Madeleine Albright worried in public about democracy in Chile, somebody in the State Department must have looked up Henry Kissinger's memoirs. In his book, people can read about how the United States cooperated to finish off democracy in Chile. Mrs. Albright's hypocrisy is based on sound reasons. Chile's military, which continues to back Pinochet, is planning to modernize its air force with U.S. products...and, if Pinochet is tried, the role that the CIA and the Nixon administration played in ousting socialist Allende would come to the fore. Now Washington is ostensibly changing course and is all of a sudden offering to release Pinochet files.... Why this sudden change of mind? We must assume that (the United States) wants to back Chile's wish to call Pinochet to account in Chile.... But we have justified doubts that the whole affair will be investigated. On the other hand, a trial in Chile would provide the country the best opportunity to grapple with the dictatorship."

"Brief Dream Of Justice"

Bernd Pickert had this to say in left-of-center Die Tageszeitung of Berlin (12/2): "Shame has never been a criterion for U.S. foreign policy--not even today. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has demanded that Britain take into account Chile's position when deciding about the extradition of Chile's ex-dictator Augusto Pinochet. This means in plain English that the British should send Pinochet home as a free man. But from the United States' mouth in particular, this call to respect the Chilean position is sheer cynicism.

"It was the CIA that offered decisive support, even encouraged the Chilean military under Pinochet's leadership, to oust the elected government of Socialist leader Salvador Allende. If the United States had shown respect for the Chilean position at that time, Chileans would have been spared their ordeal. Even today, no U.S. government has found a word of apology. Since Madeleine Albright's statement it has become a little bit more unlikely that the murderer Pinochet will be tried. This is all the more true since the pressure from Europe has decisively slackened off.... If British Interior Secretary Jack Straw adds two and two in foreign policy, Pinochet will leave Britain as a free man on December 11. This signifies the victory of political power, despite the decision of the Law Lords that was celebrated as a great victory for the implementation of human rights. The brief dream that justice which would gain the upper hand in the fight against opportunism, may be over soon."

"No Promise Of Trial In Chile"

Centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich held (12/1): "If Pinochet is tried in Chile, he would be safe for three reasons: First, because of an amnesty for the crimes that were committed during his dictatorship; second, because of his immunity as senator; and third, because of the army which backs its former supreme commander. A trial against Pinochet in Chile--this promise cannot be kept. What remains is the humanitarian question. Chile's Justice Minister Insulza is asking the London government to release Pinochet because of his age and his frail health. The United States would also like to see such a solution, since a European trial against the ex-dictator could result in the disclosure of embarrassing questions concerning the role of the CIA during Pinochet's coup. A Pinochet who would be unable to stand trial would come at the right moment for many. The problem is that the general, during his latest appearances in public, showed that he was fit for his age."

"Washington Is Afraid Of The Dock"

Joachim Widmann wrote in left-of-center Berliner Zeitung (12/1): "Madeleine Albright is not interested in Chile's democracy. If the U.S. secretary of state is asking the British to allow Augusto Pinochet to return home, then she is only moved by the fear that Pinochet could testify before a court. Without the benevolence and the support of the former Nixon administration, Pinochet's coup and his bloody regime would never have existed. Nixon wanted to keep everything in order in the U.S. 'backyard.'... The United States support for Pinochet before the end of the Cold War made him superfluous. Since then, an amnesty law and immunity rights have prevented Pinochet and his accomplices from being prosecuted.... So far, Washington has not complained about the implications...for Chile's democracy. Today, the United States acts as an advocate of human rights where it considers this to be opportune. But it is not in the national interest to place one's own mistakes on the agenda. For Washington, Pinochet is a dangerous precedent."

ITALY: "Washington Breaks Its Silence"

An editorial in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica held (12/3): "Washington now breaks its silence on Pinochet's arrest, showing total calm and denying any embarrassment, and promises to help ascertain the truth. New CIA, FBI and State Department secret documents on the worst years of Pinochet's repression will soon be 'declassified.' We will have more details about what Washington knew and has shamefully hidden for a long time: the kidnappings, the torture, the homicides committed by Pinochet's secret police, and the obscure plots of 'Operation Condor.'... An important contribution to establishing the truth already came a few months ago from other 'top secret' documents that the White House decided to release.... Washington now says that it...has nothing to hide. True, the Clinton administration has nothing to hide. But what about the fact that Henry Kissinger was awarded a Nobel Prize for peace?"

"A Courageous Decision"

Arturo Zampaglione filed from New York for left-leaning, influential La Repubblica (12/3): "The United States is turning the page [on the Pinochet case]: With a decision inspired by President Clinton himself, and in coincidence with the legal controversies over Pinochet's fate, it has promised to make public the documents on the crimes of the Chilean dictator.... The Clinton decision is very courageous, since it breaks for the first time the wall of silence and will facilitate international initiatives to send Pinochet to trial."

"Washington Support For Chilean Proposal"

Paolo Bugialli filed from Madrid for leading conservative Il Giornale (12/2): "We had the impression that the international debate on the former general's future was chaired by Pontius Pilate. At least up until a voice, which is a very relevant and free one, came into the debate: that of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright who said to the Los Angeles Times that 'the Chilean request not to extradite Pinochet to Spain must be respected.' It is the first 'tiny sentence' coming out of Washington on the Pinochet case. Up until now there was silence due to a clear division among Clinton's advisors. It now seems that Washington supports the Chilean proposal."

RUSSIA: "No Illusions About Stern, Fair Generals"

Yevgeny Umerenkov concluded in reformist, youth-oriented Komsomolskaya Pravda (12/2): "Pinochet has been executed symbolically, with a sword broken above his grey head. So there should be no illusions anywhere, this country included, about a stern but fair general who would not hurt his people, except for their own good."

AUSTRIA: "Co-Defendant U.S."

Independent Der Standard ran this commentary by Erhard Stackl (12/2): "Should Chile's former dictator Augusto Pinochet actually be brought up for trial in Spain because of his crimes, there would be another defendant in the dock, symbolically: the United States, because during the Cold War, Washington helped install dictatorships in Latin America. In his memoirs, Nathaniel Davis, then American ambassador to Santiago, quotes sources from the Secret Service, according to which the CIA planned to organize a military putsch back in 1970. When Chile's military carried out the coup in September 1973, they could at least count on the United Sates' good will. Furthermore, U.S. reporters found out that the strike of the freight carriers preceding the putsch, which turned out to be disastrous for Chile, was financed by the CIA. The role of the United States in the context of Pinochet's rise would have to be clarified, as well as its role in other interventions, from the fall of Arbenz's government in Guatemala in 1956 (followed by 40 years of war), to those in Nicaragua and El Salvador, which were carried out in the name of the 'war against the communist danger.' In the new peace order they are striving for, the examination of these dark spots should no longer be a taboo."

DENMARK: "Friendship Vs. Justice"

Center-left Akuelt's editorial maintained (12/3): "America's statement that Chile is a democracy and that the country therefore is able to prosecute Pinochet clearly shows that old friendship rather than justice remains at the top of the U.S. agenda. Therefore, it is all the more important that Pinochet is extradited to Spain."

THE NETHERLANDS: "Straw's Choice"

Influential liberal De Volkskrant commented (12/4): "British Home Affairs Minister Straw should not allow the Chilean government to fool him. It would be wonderful if Pinochet were to be tried in his own country, but, unfortunately, the chance that Pinochet will actually be tried in Chile is minimal. Straw is facing a clear choice. If he wants Pinochet to be tried, he will have to send him to Spain. It could still take months or years before Pinochet has exhausted all legal options in London, but extradition to Madrid is the only possible way to get the former dictator, 25 years after his coup, on the defendant's bench.... Jack Straw is the one to decide whether Pinochet will spend his last days in Chile or in London and Madrid. The choice is clear and difficult. If Straw does not extradite Pinochet to Spain, the ex-dictator will once again escape from a trial."

POLAND: "The Number Of The Accused Should Be Increased"

Juliusz Urbanowicz wrote in centrist weekly Wprost (12/2): "Baltazar Garzon, the modest Spanish judge...has made all dictators shake and tremble. Requesting Pinochet's extradition, he simply did a good job. But the consequences of his undertaking may be far beyond his imagination and that of the entire world. Arresting Pinochet is certainly a good occasion to celebrate a new line of the international community's attitude on violating human rights. The case of the Chilean dictator, however, also lays bare the incoherence and weakness of this policy. It demonstrates that instituting global justice is very hard to achieve, if at all possible."

TURKEY: "Pinochet And Ocalan"

Conservative Turkiye front-paged this editorial by Kenan Akin (12/2): "Europe paints a pathetic picture as far as the situation of Pinochet and Ocalan is concerned. The cases of a dictator and the leader of a bloody terrorist organization have arisen in Europe, and both have become the source of trouble and shame for Europe. How can you explain England accusing Pinochet of committing terror and massacres while Italy shelters Ocalan? Europe unfortunately deliberately ignores the murderer of 30,000 people, but sees the truth regarding Pinochet. In terms of a double standard, this is a true 'caught in the very act' for Europe. There is no way to justify Europe's current contradiction if you try to interpret the whole thing within international law."

EAST ASIA

CHINA: "Pinochet In Big Trouble"

Li Yongqun pointed out in Beijing Youth Daily (Beijing Qingnianbao, 12/2): "No longer silent, the U.S. government said that it 'strongly condemns Pinochet's abuse of power when he was in office,' but that the opposition of the Chilean government to Pinochet's extradition should be taken into consideration."

PHILIPPINES: "Power Of The Great God America"

Columnist Ninez Cacho Olivares contended in the top-circulation financial daily Business World (12/4): "Charges of a political leader's dark deeds committed against his people and country remain unsubstantiated and never truly proved until the great god America decides it is time to unleash the long-held secrets to the world.... A quarter of a century after installing Pinochet to power and closing its eyes to the crimes committed by its choice of leader in Chile, the U.S. government has decided to declassify some secret documents on the killing and torture conducted by Pinochet during his rule. Making the documents public for the first time will expose the depth of knowledge the United States had on the crimes committed by the Pinochet government....

"The grieving relatives of the victims of Pinochet and the secret police have been crying to the heavens for justice...for at least two decades and the U.S. government, under five different presidencies...never once bothered to support the people's cry.... There is no doubt that the U.S. government...also holds secret files on other leaders' dark deeds executed during their reign, but the great god America will decide when to make them public.... There is no doubt that the U.S. government knows a lot more about the Marcos takeover [in the Philippines]...but the great god America has not deigned to make any of this information public."

"A Lesson To Tyrants Everywhere"

The government-owned Journal's editorial judged (12/3): "What's happening now to Chile's former dictator Augusto Pinochet should be a lesson to tyrants everywhere who trample on the rights of their fellow human beings.... The cruelty of his rule was matched only by our own Ferdinand Marcos.... Justice [will be] served if the aging dictator is sent to the three countries to face his accusers. There is talk, however, that the United States is moving to prevent the extradition in the interest of 'democracy' in Chile. The United States is on the wrong side of the fence in this issue. It must be reminded that the Cold War has long been over and supporting a dictator no longer pays."

SOUTH ASIA

INDIA: "Pinochet's Extradition Could Be Cathartic"

Columnist Farrukh Dhondy penned this analysis for the centrist Asian Age (12/3): "The object of punishment, and in particular imprisonment, is to remove felons from society and stop them from offending again.... While these perfectly sensible aims apply to people who commit robbery and rape, the entire liberal legal project is defeated when it encounters someone like General Augusto Pinochet. Society doesn't need protection from him as he is not Napoleon and won't return triumphant from Surrey to kill again. It is unlikely that he will regret one little bloodstain on his hands. He probably still subscribes to the ideology of torture and murder.... My own position, though I fear no such thing will happen, is that Augusto will be sent to Spain and stand trial for 10 murders as a symbol of a few thousand others.... The trial is our catharsis, to engender the feeling that there is some retribution, a symbolic justice, a pronouncement. If Augusto died today in Surrey, I would still be for trying him and dragging out the sins of that brutal past into view."

"General Out Of His Labyrinth"

The centrist Telegraph featured this analysis (12/2) columnist Jayatsen Bhattacharya: "That the majority of the joyous processions after Pinochet's arrest took place in Europe rather than Chile is a pointer to the fragility of the political order...and the fact that the fledgling process of political transition in Latin America is but a bullet away from its former mode of governance. Few among Latin Americans doubt that punishing abuse of power is vital to the health of its democracies. Some democrats argue that granting immunity for past crimes encourages current and future ones. Who knows, their fears may be vindicated in the worst possible manner.... And one may raise a further toast: Never again does this happen to Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay."

AFRICA

BURKINA FASO: "Pinochet Should Be Extradited And Judged"

Independent Le Pays opined (12/2): "This is why the African countries (notably ours) in which the democratic processes, for the most part, have been kidnaped by leaders not very generous with human and people's rights, must react in unison so that the dictator Pinochet is extradited and judged.... Patriots and democrats must give a hand to contribute towards a happy outcome of this process that, for the future, constitutes the best protection of human and people's rights."

"What About Africa's Pinochets?"

Independent weekly L'Independent had this editorial (12/1): "There is always an immense hope of saving humankind each time there is unanimity in the reprobation of barbarity and dictatorship of men and their political regimes. Pinochet in prison!--and people from the whole world are dreaming about the fate that could be reserved for their own Pinochets, notably in Africa. Pinochet at the point of being extradited to a country that is not his, to be judged for crimes committed at least two decades ago. And Africans start dreaming of justice, peace and democracy."

"Triumph Of Law Or More Powerful Reason?"

Independent Le Journal du Soir opined (12/1): "As for the British and Spanish governments, their position is less and less comfortable. The proof that this affair is at least as political as judicial is that, despite the questionable decision of the five British lords, they recognize that the last word belongs to the minister of internal affairs. Whatever direction the decision of the minister takes, the harm is great for international relations: the demonstration is made that these relations remain marked by the stamp of the balance of power. Sorry, but that's how it is."

For more information, please contact:

U.S. Information Agency

Office of Public Liaison

Telephone: (202) 619-4355

12/4/98

# # #