Gen Pinochet's brief appearance in the dock of a British courtroom yesterday was dramatic in many ways. The sight of a former dictator, whose very word was law for 17 years, subjected to the rule of law like any other citizen, should lift the heart of any democrat. Unfortunately, such confrontations have been more the stuff of Hollywood fiction than of political reality in the 50 years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed.
The general's refusal to recognise the court, and his dismissal of the charges against him as "all the lies of Spain", is indicative of the militarist contempt for democracy, due process, and truth itself, which characterised his regime. He will enjoy, as is right and proper, all the guarantees which were systematically denied to those who were imprisoned, tortured, murdered and "disappeared" under his dictatorship.
The legal road ahead is extraordinarily complex. It is already breaking unprecedented ground in Gen Pinochet's appeal against the decision of the Law Lords that he does not enjoy political immunity. This appeal seems unlikely to succeed. The argument that a judge is biased, because he is linked to Amnesty International, an organisation dedicated to the defence of the rule of law, again reveals more about the general than he may realise.
His lawyers are also considering an appeal against last Thursday's determination by the Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, that the extradition case should be allowed to proceed. It is clear that Mr Straw did not take this decision lightly, and again it is unlikely that it will be set aside. The prospect, therefore, is that the general will appear in the dock repeatedly over a period of months or even years, while the British courts decide whether to execute the Spanish extradition warrant.
Even if the British courts do not so decide, this process will focus the legal minds of the international community on what exactly we mean by the universality of human rights. This in itself is a small move against the scandal which has so often seen dictators, with blood on their hands and loot in their pockets, living the good life in democracies once their peoples have finally found the means to break their power.
The Pinochet case is particularly interesting because he had negotiated a transition to democracy whereby he could remain in the country he had so viciously oppressed. Not only that, but he and his military and political allies could demand that their victims concede to them public respect and honour. Those who argue that the arrest of Gen Pinochet in Britain is putting Chilean democracy in danger should consider what a poor shadow of its former self this democracy actually is. It would be preferable that the general should be tried by his Chilean peers. But it is the army's continuing intimidation of that society, and the immunity which it has gained at gun-point, which makes such a trial next to impossible. The opportunity offered by the fortuitous circumstances that have led to his arrest should not be lost.
His trial is also opening up a faint prospect that Gen Pinochet's backers may also face legal action. It is an open secret that he came to power with the assistance of the CIA. Henry Kissinger, then US Secretary of State, may have been complicit with some of the crimes attributed to his regime. These include the murder of a former Chilean diplomat, and a US citizen, in Washington DC. The American lawyer who investigated these allegations is calling for Gen Pinochet's extradition to the US. Such a proposal would have seemed like political fiction three months ago. It does not seem so fantastic today.
In the meantime, Gen Pinochet may choose not to recognise a British court but, to paraphrase an exchange between another British judge and Brendan Behan, most of the world can recognise him, and recognise him for what he is.