Consistency in human rights

Commanding Moments
    By Michael Burstein

Augusto Pinochet is responsible for the murder or "disappearance" of over 3,000 people during his rule in Chile from 1973 to 1990. He held sway over a brutal dictatorship, freely using murder, kidnapping, torture, and coercion to subvert his ideological opponents--this much is certain. That these actions constitute human rights violations under international law is also certain. What is not so certain is how dictators like Pinochet can be held accountable for their crimes.

Three weeks ago, acting on an arrest warrant issued in Spain, British police arrested Pinochet. It seemed to be a triumph for human rights advocates. But the legal ambiguities and political implications of the case argue against such an ad hoc approach.

The moral argument for upholding human rights is indisputable. Its basic premise is set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world." In practice, this means that all people are entitled to basic freedoms of conscience and action and that crimes against humanity such as genocide, political murder, and torture are to be prosecuted under international law.

But as nations increase their political and economic interdependece, human rights concerns become obscured. The moral argument is compelling only insofar as it does not interfere with other objectives, such as trade; witness the U.S.'s weak stance on Chinese violations in order to ensure continued market access. The political argument, then, for paying attention to human rights rests on the establishment and maintenance of international order so that the gains from globalization can be fully actualized.

In the Pinochet case, Spanish and British authorities were morally correct to pursue and hold the dictator. But this view is too simplistic. The events since Pinochet's arrest have shown some of the difficulties in unilaterally applying international law--thorny issues of jurisdiction, immunity, and national sovereignty. The judges and magistrates in Spain and Britain pursuing Pinochet are to be applauded for their efforts, but it seems unlikely that they will succeed in bringing the former dictator to justice.

More importantly, there are compelling reasons why this approach should fail. The Chilean government vigorously protested the arrest of a member of its Senate who had been granted immunity from prosecution at home. The arrest itself strained relations with Britain and opened up a rift between Pinochet's supporters and opponents which threatens political stability in Chile. It is antithetical to the goal of prosecuting human rights if such actions result in further instability--the idea is to promote peace.

Moreover, when one nation tries to exert its moral might unilaterally, it places the case into an atmosphere inappropriately charged with politics. In Britain, for example, the labor government of Tony Blair has given tacit approval to the crusade. Consider, however, that only two weeks earlier, Pinochet took afternoon tea with former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who has denounced the arrest of her ally from the Falklands War. The choice to prosecute human rights violations, a supposedly universal principle, should not be subject to political whims.

Nations flexing their moral muscle when and where they see fit is not the way to hold brutal dictators accountable for their crimes. Establishing an international criminal court would go a long way toward politically practical enforcement of moral principles. An apolitical, independent body would not only solve the problems associated with an ad hoc approach, but would appropriately place human rights law in the pantheon on international relations that include trade, finance, and strategic objectives. Such a court was agreed to earlier this year by over 100 nations--but not the U.S. It's time that the U.S. and other nations focus their human rights efforts on establishing this court.

We have a moral duty to uphold human rights. Pinochet should be tried, convicted, and jailed for the terrors of his reign. But we also have a political duty to uphold order and not let conscience run rampant.

Back to Opinion...