Salon Newsreal | Gentleman's agreement

T A B L E+T A L K
Walgreens, Starbucks and others: Cases of capitalism defeating democracy? Discuss and debate in the Social Issues area of Table Talk

R E C E N T L Y
Nappy and proud?
By Earl Ofari Hutchinson
Black women haven't come a long way, baby, when it comes to their hair
(12/07/98)
The uneasy death of Florence Griffith Joyner
By Kristina Rebelo Anderson
When the superstar former athlete died suddenly in her bedroom, a Pandora's box of dark rumors and murky explanations was let loose
(12/04/98)
Hello Oprah, good-bye Constitution
By Lori Leibovich
An impeachment scholar bemoans the spectacle that has invaded the House of Representatives
(12/04/98)
Impeachment diary
Compiled by Daryl Lindsey
It was a busy week at Henry Hyde's Theater of the Absurd on Capitol Hill
(12/04/98)
All conservatives do not think alike
By David Horowitz
In a reply to Joel Dreyfuss, David Horowitz defends his view that the black community has locked itself into positions that are destructive to its own interests
(12/03/98)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Browse the
Newsreal Archives
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

spacer

gentleman's agreement
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WHY DOES CLINTON GET TO STAY SILENT ON PINOCHET?

BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS | In December 1989, the U.S. armed forces descended in strength on Panama City, flattening a few of the poorer barrios, and took Gen. Manuel Noriega prisoner before "extraditing" him on a military aircraft bound for Florida. Some of the niceties were observed (a new Panamanian president was hastily sworn in on the tarmac of an American Air Force base), but not, it is safe to say, all the niceties.
So slight was the attention to international law, in fact, that the Bush administration was forced to depend for endorsement on the only two allies that never deserted it -- namely British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the congressional Democrats. Thatcher declared herself delighted that this thug had been brought to justice. The Democrats checked the polls, as they tend to do, and went along, as they always had. Asked to nominate a pretext for apprehending Noriega, the Bush administration halfheartedly cited the wife of a U.S. Navy lieutenant who had been badly roughed up by the general's goons.
The gorgeously uniformed Noriega, newly clad in prison garb, was duly convicted of some bad stuff related to narcotics and put under lock and key. He was not embarrassed by any questions about the whereabouts of his former political critics, in a country where the word "former" carries no implication of early retirement. Nor did the Florida court evince any curiosity about his role in the still-open Iran-contra business. Nor has anyone mentioned him in the current controversy about the "disposal" problem posed by another Latin America brute. But now, when it comes to the noninvasion detention of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, Thatcher is incandescent with righteous rage, and the Democrats, having consulted the polls, have decided that nothing is expected of them.
A good question to ask, of any Clinton policy, is "What would George Bush have done?" This must, after all, be the question that Clinton asks himself. Sometimes, it's true, he goes for something flashy out of the Reagan or Nixon repertoire. But in general, he is predictable. Leave the economy to Greenspan and Wall Street and take the credit; pose as a "globalist" at all international summits; act as a provincial isolationist when global standards could impede the imperial liberties of the United States. There, that's not so hard, is it? In fact, it's easier than pie because Clinton can count on minimal opposition from liberals -- a boon that for Reagan and Bush was too much to expect.
I don't think that a Republican administration could have gone for three whole months, cost-free, without saying a word about the Pinochet case. (Indeed, I sometimes think that a Republican administration that sabotaged the land-mine treaty and negated the near-unanimous vote on an international court for war crimes, as Clinton did, would have attracted some criticism, too.) But it turns out, as so often, that bipartisanship really does do its job, by putting all controversial questions into a twilight zone.
N E X T+P A G E+| All just part of the game of "Let's move on"

PHOTOGRAPH: AP/WIDE WORLD

T A B L E+T A L K Walgreens, Starbucks and others: Cases of capitalism defeating democracy? Discuss and debate in the Social Issues area of Table Talk R E C E N T L Y Nappy and proud? By Earl Ofari Hutchinson Black women haven't come a long way, baby, when it comes to their hair (12/07/98) The uneasy death of Florence Griffith Joyner By Kristina Rebelo Anderson When the superstar former athlete died suddenly in her bedroom, a Pandora's box of dark rumors and murky explanations was let loose (12/04/98) Hello Oprah, good-bye Constitution By Lori Leibovich An impeachment scholar bemoans the spectacle that has invaded the House of Representatives (12/04/98) Impeachment diary Compiled by Daryl Lindsey It was a busy week at Henry Hyde's Theater of the Absurd on Capitol Hill (12/04/98) All conservatives do not think alike By David Horowitz In a reply to Joel Dreyfuss, David Horowitz defends his view that the black community has locked itself into positions that are destructive to its own interests (12/03/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		`gentleman's agreement` - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WHY DOES CLINTON GET TO STAY SILENT ON PINOCHET? BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS \| In December 1989, the U.S. armed forces descended in strength on Panama City, flattening a few of the poorer barrios, and took Gen. Manuel Noriega prisoner before "extraditing" him on a military aircraft bound for Florida. Some of the niceties were observed (a new Panamanian president was hastily sworn in on the tarmac of an American Air Force base), but not, it is safe to say, all the niceties. So slight was the attention to international law, in fact, that the Bush administration was forced to depend for endorsement on the only two allies that never deserted it -- namely British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the congressional Democrats. Thatcher declared herself delighted that this thug had been brought to justice. The Democrats checked the polls, as they tend to do, and went along, as they always had. Asked to nominate a pretext for apprehending Noriega, the Bush administration halfheartedly cited the wife of a U.S. Navy lieutenant who had been badly roughed up by the general's goons. The gorgeously uniformed Noriega, newly clad in prison garb, was duly convicted of some bad stuff related to narcotics and put under lock and key. He was not embarrassed by any questions about the whereabouts of his former political critics, in a country where the word "former" carries no implication of early retirement. Nor did the Florida court evince any curiosity about his role in the still-open Iran-contra business. Nor has anyone mentioned him in the current controversy about the "disposal" problem posed by another Latin America brute. But now, when it comes to the noninvasion detention of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, Thatcher is incandescent with righteous rage, and the Democrats, having consulted the polls, have decided that nothing is expected of them. A good question to ask, of any Clinton policy, is "What would George Bush have done?" This must, after all, be the question that Clinton asks himself. Sometimes, it's true, he goes for something flashy out of the Reagan or Nixon repertoire. But in general, he is predictable. Leave the economy to Greenspan and Wall Street and take the credit; pose as a "globalist" at all international summits; act as a provincial isolationist when global standards could impede the imperial liberties of the United States. There, that's not so hard, is it? In fact, it's easier than pie because Clinton can count on minimal opposition from liberals -- a boon that for Reagan and Bush was too much to expect. I don't think that a Republican administration could have gone for three whole months, cost-free, without saying a word about the Pinochet case. (Indeed, I sometimes think that a Republican administration that sabotaged the land-mine treaty and negated the near-unanimous vote on an international court for war crimes, as Clinton did, would have attracted some criticism, too.) But it turns out, as so often, that bipartisanship really does do its job, by putting all controversial questions into a twilight zone. N E X T+P A G E+\| All just part of the game of "Let's move on" PHOTOGRAPH: AP/WIDE WORLD