Thursday, April 27, 2006

Las Payas Elegantes

El lujo añejo del rojo mantel
a cuartel del desdeño del reojo
el cerrojo de los bienes ilusorios
sin crin ni jolgorios de aves
sin sus mares y sin mortuorios

El oro vive solo ese momento
un esperpento sin voz ni coro
que se olvida en un segundo
y el fin del mundo es el vacío
con solo hastío del más profundo

Y el cristal frío no se compara
con la fresca agua de río
y me rio como un crío.

Alcuza, ensaladera, plato 'e fondo
espejo redondo y pimentera
La que entera no cunde ni salpica
lluvia rica, olmo y pino
ni el dulce trino de la golondrina
con su canción, más fina que lo fino

Sólo naturaleza, verde desbordante
que me desplante en mi entereza
que me cueza y que me abrase
que me case en frac de hoja
y nube roja, atardecer monumental
calzando el estival que del frío me despoja.

Y el cristal frío no se compara
con la fresca agua de río
y me rio como un crío.

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Airport Angst
It must come as a result of my unholy familiarity with travel, but I’ve always disliked flying. If the beauty of travel lies not in the destination but in the deed itself, then I desire my travels to be ugly and dirty. Give me a bicycle any day.
It’s not really airplanes which I hate. They’re nothing but bigger, noisier buses with better service, a worse environmental record and more sophisticated ways of peddling goods to passengers. The in-flight films can be fun, and the food these days is not nearly as bad as their vomitive reputation says. Though the main course is all right, it’s really the entrée and dessert that I dread.
For all my frequent nomadic impulses I am a sedentary minded man (a trait that seems to get stronger as I grow older). Airports rub me the wrong way. More and more often I find myself dreading the airport experience, like a child paying a visit to the dentist. I deem them as non-places; soulless fibreglass stopovers, a midpoint but never a destination. I dislike their sterile insipidity, their fluorescent lighting, their criminal prices.
It is people who make this world, and it’s usually people who make it unpleasant. Airports tend to be packed with people –busy, disgruntled people, brought together by a single common wish: to leave as soon as possible.
Strangely enough, the larger part of airport angst does not flow directly from the travellers. One has to speculate about the friendliness of underslept people rushing from gate to gate over several terminals in a panicked frenzy (especially when you yourself are also underslept, rushing and in a panicked frenzy). But experience has shown me that, for better or worse, there will always be a talkative character on the neighbouring seat, ready to spill his life into a warm ear. There is also the amiable lady who will be willing to look after your bag while you find a rubbish bin. It's perhaps the feeling of camaraderie that spawns off mutual frustration.
Misery emanates mostly from the staff. Starting with unfriendly immigration officers to irritable security personnel to the road-raged midnight janitor who will chase you around on an electric cart, it is a rarity to find an airport worker who is not so jaded with his job that he fails to treat passengers like mildly retarded sheep.
Despite the dreadful uniformity of airports everywhere, they all have numerous ways of dealing with their universal fed-upness. Most of the time they will take on the less obvious cultural traits of the place, making a transit through an international airport seem like a field trip for sociologically-inspired psychologists.
Take what I call the Napoleon complex (Animal Farm, not Waterloo). Think of being downtrodden all your life and then suddenly given absolute power over your oppressor (and his look-alikes). Oh the possibilities!
O’Hare airport in Chicago is mostly operated by runts who use the opportunity to give their society a taste of their own medicine. People are shoved into security checks like Jews into cattle trains, and officers will not hesitate to scream like gulag masters at anyone who fails to follow instructions. Overworked staff will dodge any queries, which usually ricochet from one person to the next until it returns to the passenger unanswered. The lady at the information desk ignores a queue to comment to her friend on her lucky sister’s tax break due to her terminal illness (I wish I was making this up). The same road-raged janitors come close to shoving mop sticks up the ribs of napping travellers. Contempt doesn’t even begin to describe their attitude.
Japanese airports, on the other hand, are dubbed with the asinine courtesy and anally-retentive passion for order of their people. The bureaucrats are just as surly, but at least they pretend to be nice, fanfaring their misanthropic ways with a flurry of honorifics and bows aplenty. (I still haven’t made up my mind whether I prefer blatant hypocrisy over barefaced rudeness, but shifting from one to the other is always a satisfyingly shocking experience).
Discrimination toward passengers here is exercised through the characteristic Japanese talent for passive aggression. Thus, a traveller (usually a young male foreigner) may be gently ushered into a side room for a full cavity check and kept aside for several dozen minutes, all the while being offered an unending stream of apologies. Authority is bestowed in a strict but benevolent manner (Japan’s time-honoured answer to political repression). Nanny will spank you if you’ve been bad, but it’s all for your own sake. Nanny cares. And she particularly cares about who walks her immaculate halls.
Immigration at Heathrow airport in London is not known for its leniency toward non-EU visitors, and their preferred method of abuse is somewhere in between the US and Japan: not overtly rude, but stern and hopelessly mistrustful. A typo in an official document might be enough for them to deny you entry. They will smile, all the while someone else checks your baggage for hidden bombs.
But if the English will suspect you behind your back, the people at Frankfurt airport will not go to any lengths to mask their suspicion of anyone born below the equator. They are prone to checking and rechecking a passport, sometimes in groups and for a considerable amount of time, even when everything is in order. In a hurry you say? Ve vill ask ze questions.
Airports in Poland, Hungary and Indonesia like to scare off their passengers with military personnel walking around with machine guns. Miami International likes to greet visitors with the double chill of sarcasm over air-conditioning at full blast. Provincial Chilean airports like to douse passengers with toxic pesticide sprays.
Not all is bad, of course. I’m almost sure most of the Scottish immigration authorities I’ve met were high. The Irish, never prone to self-inflicted bother, have an even better way of dealing with their herds of tourists: they are seldom there at all.
If hell is a state of mind, airports are the products of a hellish state’s mind. Tougher immigration policies make up for stress, which is often taken out on visitors by overworked airport staff. And who can blame them? They have to spend a considerable amount of their lives in there. At least the passengers know they’re leaving soon.

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

To my One reader

Yes, you, the deranged loon with too much time on his/her hands. I haven't updated for donkey's years. I know. I've been distracted, and probably too drunk and stoned to write anything coherent. Not that my usual stuff is any better, but at the moment my thinking skills are little better than that of a cactus.

So go do something useful with your time. Go to www.answers.com and educate yourself in random trivia knowledge. Play the Wikipedia game (choose an obscure subject, click on random article and see how many clicks it takes you to get to your subject of choice). Surf for some more porn. Alternatively, call somoene up and have a real human conversation. Then, when you get bored and cranky and remember why it is you log on to the internet so much, come back here. Hopefully I will have updated by then.

Friday, January 27, 2006

Thirty-three Years of Vengeance
*He's the most highly honoured military officer in the whole southern cone - every medal symbolises a bank account in Switzerland.

Many years later, in front of the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendia would remember that distant afternoon when his father had taken him to see ice.”
Garcia Marquez’s famous opening lines from his acclaimed novel, One Hundred Years of Solitude, set the score for an unending cycle of violence spread out between irregular bouts of past, present and future in a rural Latin American fantasyland.
Sixteen years after the cycle of violence that consumed Chile between 1973 and 1990, the past has also come back to haunt Chile’s ex-dictator Augusto Pinochet. This time, however, the memories are far less nostalgic. As criminal courts find increasing evidence for the arrest of one of South America's bloodiest ex-leaders and his family, questions arise about the mood of the procedures. Can the downfall of the Pinochet clan be regarded as a case of divine retribution? Could it be that justice is being served as a side dish to vengeance, or is it the other way round?
To understand this situation we must look back at the history of the procedures from the beginning.
After a brief detention in England back in 1998, the aged General was for the first time charged for the atrocities committed during his regime. It was a shocking event for the “Pinochetistas” of the Chilean right wing and the General himself. The tired cold war arguments and self-made legitimacy of their illegal government had successfully blinded people at home (“by reason or force,” like the suspiciously authoritarian motto in the national coat of arms), but failed to convince the rest of the world, who still looked askance on the dictatorship’s history of torture, censorship and human rights abuses.

The General had thought himself untouchable, but proof of the contrary seemed to sprout everywhere. Glimpsing a window of opportunity during a routine medical visit by Pinochet to the UK, it was Spanish judge Baltazar Garzon who cast the first stone. He ordered the immediate arrest and detention of the ex-dictator in the hopes of making him stand trial in Spain. Before anyone could say “bloody coup”, Pinochet was under house arrest in a lavish northwest London mansion, facing prompt extradition into Garzon’s hands.

The Chilean right wing was quick to respond. Shifty rhetoric about national sovereignty flooded the local press. “No one can try Pinochet but Chileans themselves,” cried the powerful allies of the General, as if to say “this has nothing to do with you.” Populist images of past European imperialism were conjured, while Congress reactionaries and powerful industrialist groups bullied the government to back up the petition for Pinochet’s release.

A few lost souls even flew to England to protest with gaudy handmade banners in front of the Houses of Parliament, about twenty odd people shivering in the cold of winter, chanting in thick Chilean Spanish dialect. It was a preposterous sight. Busy Londoners, in their typically English manner, pretended not to notice the quaint protesters, swiftly quickening their pace as they strode by.

After much lobbying by Tory ex-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher –herself a good friend of the General, dating back from the Reagan days- and shady medical excuses concocted by sympathetic doctors (what would later become a staple of the defense in the Pinochet trials), the British government gave in to external pressure and, not without a canned sigh of relief, sent Pinochet back on the first plane home.

Old and sickly, Pinochet left the UK sporting a drop-dead complexion, hunched on a wheelchair pushed by grieving relatives. As soon as he stepped off the plane, however, he seemed to recover his youthful vitality almost instantaneously. He sprang up to greet the crowd of suits at the airport, beaming with cocky pride on what he thought was literally a safe return home.

Photos of Pinochet’s miraculously regained health circled the globe to the shock of the liberal media. It was an outrage –the defense had blatantly lied about the General’s condition. Meanwhile, the right wing’s fiery nationalist oratory began to slowly shift from “let the Chilean courts handle this” to a conveniently Christian “forgive and forget” sermon.

Voices of dissent had previously predicted that a proper trial in Chilean territory would be impossible. The democratic institutions were still coming to terms with remaining pockets of military authority, and the right wing lobbies were too powerful. Most importantly, however, is that most Chileans –terrorised for decades under the dictatorship’s bloody rule- found it hard to believe that Pinochet could ever stand trial. Even almost ten years after the end of the dictatorship, fear of reprisals lingered and belief in the judicial power, so abused by the military in the past, was scant.

Nevertheless, the General’s detention in London had set a historical precedent, enough to start the snowball of events that would ultimately lead to his downfall. Although human rights trials against military officers had been set in motion since the return to democracy in 1990, it was the first time anyone had frontally attacked the ex-leader. Judge Garzon had shown the Chilean public that Pinochet was not impervious to international law. He was urged to continue the procedure on the General and the large Chilean exile community called for more international pressure.

At home, as the fear accumulated for two decades gradually disappeared, more and more voices started calling for justice and the due criminal processing of Pinochet. Soon, the government reacted and, after much battling with the conservative elements in Congress, managed to finally strip the General off his self-appointed senator-for-life status. This meant he could now stand trial like any other citizen.

In the light of this sudden social outburst, the General’s lawyers were faced with ever more predicaments. A mass grave with the remnants of several political detainees was found, and ex-officers started testifying against him during their own trials. As increasing evidence suggested Pinochet’s direct involvement in several campaigns of planned genocide, things started turning –as a picturesque Chilean expression goes- ant-coloured for the old General. Their best bet was to press on the claims of Pinochet’s illness, making him default from criminal procedures and therefore putting the trials on hold indefinitely.

Repeated medical exams showed vague evidence of real illness, but thanks to Pinochet’s advanced age his doctors managed to find a loophole in abstract mental diagnoses. Thus, in 1999, the General was officially charged with senile dementia. The once feared leader of the formidable Military Junta, the man who had once claimed that in Chile not a leaf moved without him knowing, had been reduced to the status of a ranting old coot. Unfortunately, this also gave the defense leeway for protecting their client on medical grounds.

The few liberal publications available at the time welcomed this turn of events with marked irreverence. Popular newspapers ran headlines such as “Esta Loco!” (he’s insane!) and “Loco Por Ti” (crazy for you). Soon, jokes about the incontinent, rambling General had become a staple in universities and left-wing circles. National catharsis had never felt so good.

Still, the human rights trials had yet to bear fruit. Pinochet’s lawyers managed to maintain a game of hide-and-seek with the justice system for several years, where the General would always suspiciously suffer from mild strokes or health complications before a court hearing. Given the cunningness of his lawyers and Pinochet’s old age, it was feared that he would die before ever facing trial.

Talk of the general’s imminent demise swamped the media. The soon-to-be presidential candidate for the Socialist party, Michelle Bachellet (famous for losing her father to the dictatorship), was even asked at an interview if she would go to Pinochet’s funeral were she elected president. Such talk shocked the right wing, who considered “of bad taste” to refer to the ex-dictator’s death while he was still alive. No one else seemed to mind.

But with presidential elections just around the corner, the liberal agenda had to be delivered. The families of the victims claimed for justice, and the Pinochet trial represented a cornerstone in bringing back legitimacy to democratic institutions, especially the Supreme Court; they would not rest until Pinochet could be done for something –anything.

As soon as his impunity started becoming less and less evident, old friends started turning his back on the General. He was now a dangerous man and any personal implications with the dictatorship and its former leaders meant trouble. The biggest shock came when in 2003 the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces aired a public apology for the events of 1973 under the historical words: “never again”. But it was more than a mere apology, for behind the “never again” lay the insinuation of a sullen “no more” to Pinochet.

The final blow was delivered in 2004. Pinochet, still thinking he was immune to court procedures (some would say, a product of his alleged dementia) decided to attend a talk show in Miami. Acting meek and convalescent in Chile, he appeared lucid and healthy on American TV. Most of all, he talked with particular venom about the courts, who in his mind had not taken into consideration his role as a national saviour. This last act of foolish arrogance delivered a coup-de-grace to his already shady mental illness allegations, and the court finally had enough evidence to strip him off his medical immunity.

Around the same time, an investigation led to a series of hidden accounts in the US-based Riggs bank, belonging to Pinochet and his family, each one containing several million dollars. The Untouchable one had perversely fulfilled his own prophecy: just like Al Capone decades before, Pinochet was now accountable for fraud and tax evasion.

The repercussions in Chile were momentous. Until then, supporters of the dictatorship had grounded its legitimacy on economic arguments and the transparency of the neo-liberal economic model impulsed by Pinochet’s cronies. Unlike other South American dictators, Pinochet had been thought by many of his supporters as incorruptible. Yet here was evidence of what the opposition had suspected all along: the General, his family and friends had systematically ransacked the public treasury, altering official documents and bending the laws to their own benefit.

The scandal reached colossal proportions, not without certain skepticism from the liberal media. It had taken almost six years to try Pinochet for genocide charges, but the courts had been swift in tackling him for his financial misdeeds. Many writers and journalists lamented this gloomy edge of Chilean democracy, where apparently money was given more importance than human rights.

The right wing, on the other hand, accused a campaign of smears against Pinochet and questioned the lawfulness of the trials. By that time, however, the General’s reputation was at an all time low, and the proof of his crimes was too solid to dismiss as mere vengeance. There was, however, a quiet feeling of accomplishment in seeing the ex-leader finally go down. Dusty tax books and balance sheets were doing what muddy ribcages and cracked skulls couldn’t do for years.

Pinochet’s eldest son was swiftly put in prison for massive tax abuse, while his wife Lucia was charged with fraud and forgery of legal documents. The plot kept thickening to the delight of the General’s enemies. At the time this article was written the Pinochet family had been ordered to pay 3500 million pesos (about 8 million dollars) as temporary bail, and Pinochet’s eldest daughter was on the run from the law, seeking asylum in the US. She was stopped by Interpol, who reportedly impeded her entry into the North American country.
***

"Families condemned to One Hundred Years of Solitude do not have a second chance on this earth." Thus are the final words of Garcia Marquez’s novel. The cycle of destruction has winded down, ready to cease forever and dissolve into oblivion along with the fantasyland where the story takes place.
Many years later, people will still look back at the time when the sole mention of General Pinochet inspired bone-chilling terror in their hearts. While the firing squad has been all but replaced by financial auditors armed with calculators, the memories –good for some, bad for most- will never go away completely.

Violence and social unrest – they stand at the heart of Latin America’s curse. But the cycle has to stop somewhere, or at least pause before its course reverses. Divine retribution might sound rightful in the ears of what is a largely Catholic country, but there is nothing supernatural about the state of law. Vengeance alone cannot explain the Pinochet trials; the delay of the investigations and the legal battles are perhaps cumbersome effects of their legitimacy. They demonstrate that the days of the firing squad and show trials are finally over.
Yet vengeance still remains in the hearts of many, for it would be irresponsible to forgive and forget the crimes of the dictatorship. Coming to terms with the past is paving the way for a hopeful future. The trials may go on forever. It is, however, in everyone's interest that they do so, because families who condemn their fellow man to twenty years of crime and murder do not have a second chance on this earth.