Modern Hypocrisy
Introduction
Webmaster's note: This advertisement was originally published in a number of British national newspapers in December 1999. The advertisement defends the former Chilean leader General Augusto Pinochet who was at the time fighting extradition to Spain, strangely for alleged crimes in another country - Chile.
Even by today's standards, the fog of hypocrisy surrounding the Pinochet case is breathtaking. It is often alleged that more than 3,000 people were tortured or killed under Pinochet's rule. What is never mentioned of course, is that the number of people who were murdered, imprisoned or tortured under the previous rule of the Communist President Allende was considerably greater than 3,000. And yet Allende is a hero to the Left, while Pinochet is a villain. What is also invariably ignored is the fact that Allende brought 13,000 armed Cuban troops into Chile, an act of treason which led directly to the coup d'etat by the Junta. This fact is also rarely reported in the Western Press. Finally, although we are given no clue as to the identity of the 3,000 people who were executed or imprisoned under the Junta, the unspoken impression that is invariably given is that these were all innocent peace-loving people who were pulled out of their homes arbitrarily by the Chilean police. In fact, all the people who were executed or imprisoned under the Junta were active Communists, who had either committed violent crimes (murder, arson, rape, etc.), or who had fought with the Cubans against their own countrymen (traitors) or who were actively trying to destabilise the government by violence.
A crucial aspect of the case, which is invariably passed under silence, is that although there are countless allegations of torture, there is not the slightest evidence connecting any of these alleged instances to Pinochet personally. Nevertheless the majority of people in this country have been convinced that Pinochet is "guilty", on the grounds that he was in charged of the country, and therefore knew or should have known what was going on. If we extend that same logic to the UK, and two jailers in Wormwood Scrubs choose to beat one of the prisoners to death, it would mean that our Prime Minister, the "unspeakable" Tony Blair, would be personally criminally liable for this death. It would also mean that once his term of office was completed, he would be liable to be extradited to Spain to face charges in a Spanish court, or to any other country that wanted to try him. Would people in this country find that acceptable? Interestingly, during the first four years after the coup d'etat (when almost all the torture that is alleged took place) Chile was governed, not by Pinochet alone, but by a Junta of four army officers, one of whom was the Chief of Police. It would be normal to expect that the responsibility for Chile's prisons belonged to the Chief of Police, and not to the Chief of the Army, and yet no one seems to have the slightest interest in "arresting" the former Chief of Police, who is alive and well in Santiago.
It has been reported in the press several times (and never denied by the government), that the warrant for Pinochet's arrest issued by the Communist Spanish Judge Garzon, was legally defective when it arrived in London, and had to be sent back to Spain to be corrected. By the time it was returned to London, six days had elapsed. During those six days not only did our government not warn Pinochet that he was in danger, but in reply to his queries (because there were already rumours about a warrant), our government assured him that he was in no danger whatsoever. Is this British fair play, British hospitality? Yet, despite this duplicity, the government continues to pretend that it is treating the Pinochet case on its "legal merits" alone, without any political considerations.
Still another hypocrisy is that under Spanish law no one can be sent to jail over the age of 80, and Pinochet is well over 80. Our government is, therefore, spending millions of pounds to determine whether Pinochet will finish his life in a comfortable house in Chile or in a comfortable house in Madrid. When this question was recently raised in the House of Lords, the government spokesman refused to reply. Of course, the real purpose of the exercise is not to punish Pinochet, but to have a "show trial" in Madrid (of the sort that used to be put on periodically by the Russian Communists) in order to try and discredit him.
But the crowning hypocrisy in the Pinochet affair was the recent State visit to London by the leaders of communist China, a regime which has, since 1949, murdered and imprisoned, not millions, but tens of millions of their own people. Yet the Communist butchers are invited to dine with the Queen at Buckingham Palace, while Pinochet, the man who saved his country from Communism, continues to be under arrest. Perfidious Albion indeed.
D P Marchessini
Marchessini & Co Ltd
PO Box 29153
London
SW1X 8WD