Cameron Duodu: LETTER FROM THE NORTH
Reader, if you missed last week’s “penalty shoot-out” in, of all places, the red-leather sumptuousness of Britain’s ancient House of Lords – where the Law Lords decided by a three to two majority that former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet has no “immunity” and must be sent to Spain to face trial – then you must go and look for a tape of the event pronto.
I swear, not even the Soccer World Cup provided such a thrill.
First, the chair of the five-man panel that decided the case rose and pronounced judgment in favour of Pinochet.
My heart sank, for the chair of the original panel, the Lord Chief Justice of England, had also voted in favour of Pinochet, and he had carried the other two members of his panel with him. The omens seemed bad.
Score: Pinochet 1, Human Rights 0.
Then a second Lord rose. He also kicked the ball in on behalf of Pinochet. Two in a row? All is lost, I thought.
Score: Pinochet 2, Human Decency 0.
I could see champagne bottles being cracked open in army messes in Santiago, Chile, and corks flying in the clubs where Margaret Thatcher’s friends congregate in London.
Was it going to be “sudden death”? If just one more Law Lord kicked the ball on behalf of Pinochet, the old bastard was home and free! Gee!
The third Law Lord stood up. “Pinochet has no immunity,” he said.
I heaved a tiny sigh of relief and smiled to myself. We were still far from victory. This could possibly be just a sop thrown at the human rights watch to reassure us that there were “dissenting” views on the law in the highest court in England, I thought.
Score: Pinochet 2, Human Rights 1.
Next came the fourth Law Lord. “Senator Pinochet has no immunity whatsoever!” he almost barked.
“What?” the tension in me could have been cut with a knife. “Is it possible?” I wondered.
Score: Pinochet 2, Rest of the World 2!
My palms sweating as profusely as if the woman of my dreams had unexpectedly bared all, I stood up and began to pace the room.
This was it! Just one more penalty kick. It could go over the bar; it could scrape the woodwork to the side and go out of touch. Or it could curve, like a Roberto Carlos free-kick, and enter the net from an impossible angle.
“I too think Senator Pinochet has no immunity!” said the fifth Law Lord.
I tell you, I shouted so loudly that someone on the top floor of my house came dashing down to see whether the fire brigade had decided to douse me instead of the raging fire that was about to consume me!
Full-time result: Pinochet 2, Humanity 3.
I danced. I gulped down red wine. It was sweet.
And it was good to learn later that Britain had only been able to retain its good name through the presence on the Law Lords panel of two South African-born judges – Lords Steyn and Hoffman.
With their peculiar sensitivity to Pinochet’s record of torture and murder, and of “disappearing” whole groups merely because of what they believed, the two South Africans found it easy to cock a snook at those of their British counterparts who could vote for Pinochet with a clear conscience.
I never thought I would see the day when I would say, “Thank God for South Africa!” in relation to judicial matters.
Nor, for that matter, had I ever dreamed that I would say, “God bless Cecil Rhodes”, for instituting the Rhodes scholarships which enabled Lords Steyn and Hoffman to study at Oxford University and later become such stars in the Law Lords of Great Britain. But there you are.
Meanwhile, the Pinochet episode is moving to a comic climax. Apparently, the Blair government was hoping that the Law Lords would rule in favour of Pinochet, so that he would take his “embarrassing” self away a few minutes after the verdict.
By deciding against Pinochet, however, the matter had been thrown back into the lap of the British government.
British Home Secretary Jack Straw, who was once on an intelligence list which would probably have cost him his life if it had got into the hands of Pinochet while Straw was visiting Santiago, but who now teeters on the rightwing of his party, must decide whether Pinochet returns home to Chile or is sent to Spain to face trial.
In the past week, a fantastic media campaign has been launched to prepare the British public to accept the possibility of Pinochet being sent back to Chile to face trial there!
The mendacity of it has been breathtaking. The Chilean foreign minister went on the BBC’s Breakfast With Frost to proclaim, with a straight face, that Pinochet would be tried in Chile if sent back. And David Frost, once an interviewer of integrity, let him get away with it.
How can Pinochet be tried in Chile when (1) he has written an amnesty clause into the Constitution forestalling any such trial for himself and his accomplices, and (2) he has taken the precaution of giving himself a “fail- safe” alibi by appointing himself a Senator for life (with a second “batch” of immunity?) Sadly, many of the press, including some good newspapers, have bought the argument.
So, be not surprised if you hear that the chance that two South African judges gave Britain to stand alongside the rest of humanity against a murderous dictator, has been squandered after all. For in the end, countries, like people, cannot rise above themselves.