Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] With Old Escape Routes Gone, Dictators Hang On
With Old Escape Routes Gone, Dictators Hang On
In the past, embattled strongmen would flee to comfortable exiles, but a global crackdown on past crimes now makes it harder for them to surrender power By José de Córdoba, Aug. 3, 2018, Wall St. Journal Decades ago, Latin American dictators losing their grip on power had a reliable exit strategy: exile in some hospitable foreign locale. In 1958, the Venezuelan strongman Marcos Pérez Jiménez fled from a military coup and civilian general strike after eight years in power. He flew first to the Dominican Republic and then to Miami, where he spent five years before his successors managed to extradite him. Even then, after serving five years in prison, he lived out the rest of his life comfortably in Spain. In 1979, Nicaragua’s ruler Anastasio Somoza also found temporary refuge in Miami, fleeing the Sandinista guerrillas who overthrew his government and taking much of the country’s national treasure with him. When he had overstayed his welcome in the U.S, he moved on to Paraguay, hosted by his fellow dictator, Gen. Alfredo Stroessner. For the beleaguered strongmen who now rule these countries, however, such escapes are hard to imagine. President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela and President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua both face restive populations and opposition forces determined to drive them from power. But going abroad will not help them to escape accountability for their years in office. Since the days of Pérez Jiménez and Somoza, the international community has established far-reaching mechanisms for adjudicating human-rights abuses and tracking the ill-gotten gains of corruption. Former dictators can no longer expect to find refuge abroad, which makes them even more unlikely to surrender power. “It’s a conundrum,” says Elliott Abrams, who was the State Department’s top diplomat for Latin America during the Reagan administration, when the U.S. assisted in arranging exits for Haiti’s Jean Claude Duvalier, who lived for years in a French chteau, and for the Philippines’ Ferdinand Marcos, who ended his days in Hawaii. “We were able to say, if you leave you will be OK, but if you stay who knows what will happen to you. Now, you don’t have that option.” The options for former dictators began to narrow in 1998, when the Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón caused shock waves by issuing an international arrest warrant for former Chilean strongman Gen. Augusto Pinochet, who was then visiting London, for human-rights violations against Spanish nationals. British police detained Mr. Pinochet for 18 months before releasing him because of his failing health. He returned to Chile, where he was eventually placed under house arrest as he faced multiple criminal charges, from kidnapping and murder to embezzlement and tax fraud. Then, in 2002, the International Criminal Court at The Hague began to prosecute crimes against humanity. The ICC has since indicted 41 warlords, presidents and officials, though only four have been incarcerated. All of those indicted so far are from African countries, but the court recently opened a preliminary investigation of the Maduro government. Venezuela is one of 123 countries that have agreed to be subject to the court’s jurisdiction. In Managua, the idea of ICC charges against Mr. Ortega has been discussed by regional politicians, but Nicaragua isn’t a signatory. “Third World dictators always knew in the past that they would end up their days in Europe,” says Moisès Naím, a distinguished fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “But now instead of having a house on the Costa Azul, they might end up in The Hague in the International Criminal Court.” That’s appropriate from a moral point of view, says Mr. Naim, but from a practical point of view, what he calls the “cornered rat” syndrome—when an embattled tyrant has nowhere to go—makes political transitions more difficult. Further complicating matters for current and former dictators is the willingness of judges in a number of countries, following the precedent set by Spain’s Judge Garzón, to claim jurisdiction to prosecute human-rights violations. Newly vigorous international cooperation to verify dodgy finances is another obstacle for dictators who may want to strike a deal and leave power with their fortunes intact. A web of international treaties allows for information exchanges and legal cooperation in clawing back looted riches, says Diego Garcia Sayán, a former president of the Organization of American States’ human-rights court. In the past, Panama was often a haven for toppled strongmen and compromised politicians of all stripes. Prompted by the U.S., the country gave refuge to members of Haiti’s military junta, including Gen. Raoul Cédras, an avid snorkeler. Ecuador’s impeached president Abdalá “El Loco” Bucaram, wanted in his own country for looting the treasury, spent much of his time in exile in the casinos of Panama City. The toppled Shah of Iran spent some time on the Panamanian island of Contadora before moving on to Egypt. But Panama took down the welcome sign a decade ago, as President Martín Torrijos was pushing to expand the Panama Canal and wanted no potential complications from hosting controversial foreign leaders, says former U.S. ambassador John Feeley. Striking a balance between justice for victims and getting a political deal to facilitate a transition from dictatorship to democracy is difficult. But it would be a mistake to sacrifice human rights for expediency, says José Miguel Vivanco, the director for the Americas of Human Rights Watch. “You don’t deter future abuses if you promise immunity for present abuses,” he says. For now, that leaves Latin America’s most troubled countries in a bind, as their rulers cling to power. In April, much of Nicaragua rebelled against Mr. Ortega after he imposed a tax hike to fund a penniless state pension system. Mr. Ortega violently crushed initial protests, causing a nationwide backlash against his regime. So far, more than 300 people have been killed. Mr. Ortega has regained control of swaths of Nicaragua that were for a time in the hands of protesters. Last month, his forces knocked down the last few barricades that protected rebel bastions in the country and fired on a Catholic church, killing two people, and on the national university in Managua, where the revolts started. In Venezuela, the economic schemes of Mr. Maduro have produced extraordinary hyperinflation, pushing the once oil-rich nation into famine. About 170 people have died in street protests since 2014, with more than 1.2 million Venezuelans emigrating in that period to escape the country’s great unraveling. Meanwhile, Mr. Maduro and many of his ruling elite are being investigated or have been sanctioned by the U.S. and other countries for alleged crimes, ranging from drug trafficking to embezzlement. For ex-dictators of the past, an initial escape did not always result in a comfortable retirement abroad. In 1980, a year after fleeing Nicaragua, Anastasio Somoza was tracked down by his enemies and assassinated in his Paraguayan refuge. But Mr. Ortega and Mr. Maduro have far fewer options than their ignominious predecessors. Within Latin America, their only likely haven is Cuba, which has supported both ostensibly socialist regimes. In crumbling Havana, they could hope to avoid the prying of an independent press and the reach of human-rights prosecutors and judges. “Only Cuba would be safe for them,” says Mr. Vivanco. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|