|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If
impunity is the absence of justice, then there are many in positions of
power in the so-called developed as well as the developing world who
are being protected, even though they committed crimes that should not
go unpunished.
Baltasar Garzon, the jurist who issued an arrest warrant for Augusto
Pinochet, the Chilean dictator, stated in a recent essay on www.portside.org:
“As lived reality or in the law, impunity is usually present in some
form in our lives, whether through laws designed to protect big
criminals, a judicial inability to confront both major and minor
criminal activity, an absence of political will to tackle weaknesses in
the judicial system, unrestrained granting of pardons in circumstances
of transitional justice, or irrational acquittals or illegal amnesties.
All with scant regard for accepted international standards and the
doctrines of human rights courts and tribunals that prohibit such
actions.”
In essence, he was saying simply that there will be no peace without
justice. But, if impunity is so pervasive in our world, how
will there be justice anywhere, if those who commit crimes, big and
small, are protected by laws, by custom, by tradition, or by
trickery?
Political and economic elites in every country, rich or poor, always
have acted to protect their positions, their wealth, and their
power. And, they nearly always are guilty of the first
crime: Deciding in their own mind or with the complicity of a few
others in their inner circle that they will do anything to increase
their power and that always means controlling the people of the country.
In Pinochet’s case, he was the beneficiary of a military coup, which
ousted a democratically elected president, Salvador Allende, who died
in the takeover. There are voluminous records, reports, and books
indicating the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency’s involvement in the
coup and its preparation. What followed was a 17-year reign of
terror for any opponents of the Pinochet regime. There were
thousands killed, thousands interned and estimates that as many as
80,000 tortured during his time. In 1980, he orchestrated a
plebiscite and a new constitution that contained his escape
hatch: He would be a senator for life, which he believed would
give him immunity from prosecution for the crimes committed during his
rule.
There was a laundry list of human rights crimes committed by Pinochet
and his regime, but he though he was safe. The one thing he
may not have accounted for, however, was the resort to traditions of
international law and agreements, under which Garzon issued the arrest
warrant for Pinochet, while he was in London, where he was visited and
celebrated by then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who praised him
for “bringing democracy to Chile.” A democracy in form, perhaps,
but one soaked in the blood of its people.
Garzon, however, was not talking about Pinochet alone. Rather, he
swept the brush broadly across the world and included internal
conflicts, as well as other forays into war crimes and crimes against
humanity. His question, in effect, is: Who speaks for the victims
of torture and death and do the perpetrators continue to benefit by
some “agreement of immunity” between the two parties in the conflict,
or some law that purports to relieve the responsibility for
perpetrating crimes, great or small?
Tragically, there are few voices that call out for justice. If it
is true that the victor writes the history of a war, conflict, mass
torture, revolution, or even genocide, then the perpetrators cannot be
expected to stand before the bar of justice anywhere,
anytime. They might get their just desserts, in one way or
another, but they are rarely required to stand before a judge and
answer for their crimes...and be sentenced, by whatever the appropriate
punishment. As a result, there are many who have committed great
crimes against humanity and war crimes who are still walking
free. Some of them even receive honorary degrees from prestigious
colleges and universities for their “contributions” to the nation and
the world.
The great acts, personal and institutional, that rise to the level of
crimes against humanity or war crimes are too many to list outside of a
rather lengthy book, so it will be best to just use one example, the
U.S. invasion of Iraq by the George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
Administration. That war of choice was a war of aggression, which
is against international laws and treaties. It was done in the
name of “ridding the world of an evil dictator and bringing democracy”
to a people who are desperate for it. And, of course, to rid Iraq
of its “weapons of mass destruction,” which were not present.
It turned out, just as millions had predicted it would. There
were protests around the world against the invasion by millions of
people, but to no avail. Once the country was broken by the
invasion that the U.S. administration called “shock and awe,” it was
ravaged by war for a dozen years and served as the fuse for more war
and destruction that spread throughout the Middle East. There is
no fixing it and the people never will be made whole by anyone, let
alone those who caused such massive suffering. It did not end
with the election of a new president, as we have seen with President
Obama’s drone war in several countries in the flaming region, as well
as supplying weapons to various factions. The U.S. also has sent
advisors to some parts of the region under Obama’s watch.
Garzon refers to “auto-immunity,” which is given by leaders who have
committed war crimes or crimes against humanity, to themselves, by
passing laws to protect themselves, when their dictatorship or regime
is beginning to come to an end. In Spain, after the decades of
the dictatorship of Francisco Franco, Garzon refers to a kind of
national amnesia, allowing the memory of the atrocities committed under
his regime to fade. In Spain, he wrote, “The more than 150,000
disappeared are still waiting for truth, justice and reparation.”
He has other examples, such as Latin America, where crimes were
committed and impunity saved the perpetrators from having to answer.
So it is with much of the rest of the world, but in at least some
cases, there is a possibility that some action will be taken before the
International Criminal Court (ICC). In the case of the U.S.,
there is little chance of that happening, because it is not a
participant in the ICC and is not likely to answer for any
actions. The victor, as we know, writes the
history, but the victor also goes unpunished for any crimes
committed.
Those who rule in the U.S. would never allow even any discussion of
wrongdoing by the national leaders, let alone draw up a list of
charges. A primary reason is that the people have been
brainwashed to believe in “American exceptionalism,” which is supposed
to make the U.S. a nation to be emulated and a place where everyone in
the world wants to be. The exceptionalism to which they refer was
an idea of freedom and justice and equality that were enshrined in the
Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. The intent
was, indeed, exceptional, but the founding documents were written by a
small group of men, who were more likely to have been thinking of their
own world as they knew it: A nation ruled by a small group of
men, with dominion over the land, the slaves, and the toilers, men and
women. There is still so far to go for all citizens to reach even
close to what the founders dreamed for themselves.
But, the political leaders and the rich need the people to believe in
the myth of exceptionalism, or they would not support their wars, their
reckless abuse of the land, water, and air, the destruction of social
programs that benefit everyone, and the plundering of the economy, so
that the wealth and income go directly to the top. If they knew
the history of their country, the common people would refuse to support
the rich in their attempt to maintain complete control. The
people don’t know and reasons for the ignorance is the dumbing down of
education and the nearly total lack of honest reporting by what are now
called the “mass media,” as opposed to the word “press,” as is written
in the Bill of Rights.
Scholars, researchers, and reporters write about and discuss wars and
atrocities in dozens of countries around the world, but not many
politicians ever remark in public about these matters or what can or
should be done about them…it hits too close to home. Individuals
like Garzon around the world know the crimes that have been committed
and, mostly, they know that the rich and powerful never have to answer
for their actions. When it happens, as in the case of
Pinochet, it is the exception. Why can’t there be at least an
open discussion on the crimes committed by American leaders?
After more than 400 years of slavery, the U.S. House in 2008 apologized
for slavery, acknowledging the “injustice, cruelty, brutality, and
inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow.” The U.S. Senate followed
suit in 2009, but, as we have seen in the past few years, the U.S. is
far from post-racial and the power elite will never countenance the
payment of reparations.
Few expect actual dollar reparations, but it is in the hands of elected
leaders to level the playing field for those who have been pushed out,
marginalized, and in many ways, continue to be brutalized. That
is a very tall order and, for many, that would be enough in
reparations, but the crimes would have to be admitted in more than a
short apology. If the nation could just get to the point of
admitting the mass crime of slavery, it just might begin a
multi-generational discussion of other crimes in our history.
Without that, we can’t go forward and make decisions as if we were a
true democracy, as envisioned in the abstract by the founders.
(Baltasar Garzón is currently the head of Julian Assange's legal team.)
|
BlackCommentator.com
Columnist, John Funiciello, is a long-time former newspaper reporter
and labor organizer, who lives in the Mohawk Valley of New York State.
In addition to labor work, he is organizing family farmers as they
struggle to stay on the land under enormous pressure from factory food
producers and land developers. Contact Mr. Funiciello and BC.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 is published every Thursday |
Executive Editor:
David A. Love, JD |
Managing Editor:
Nancy Littlefield, MBA |
Publisher:
Peter Gamble |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
