o democracy puts him beyond the reach of courts elsewhere. He is not, by a long shot, the worldÆs worst former dictator, or even Latin AmericaÆs. But there are grounds to believe that he has violated plenty of international laws. Even if Mr Pinochet really was fighting a civil war, as he claimed, the four Geneva Conventions make it illegal in an internal conflict for a government to murder or torture anyone not taking active part in hostilities, who has laid down their arms or is sick, wounded or in detention. Moreover, once he had gained control of the country, the murder, torture and imprisonment over which the general presided clearly violated the Nuremberg charter and Mr Pinochet is in his present pickle not because Chile has broken its promise to him but because the general made the mistake of swanning around the world on what turns out to have been the false assumption that the decision of ChileÆs polity binds the rest of the worldÆs courts. It is a good thing that it doesnÆt. It may be necessary for u

nfortunate countries to promise former dictators safety at home. But coaxing them from power does not require adding the bonus of a safe tea in London with Lady Thatcher.

Which brings in the third argument. Lady Thatcher took tea with the man who helped Britain in its Falklands war but happened to be a dictator. The dictator happens of Realpolitik would be protected by the rules of diplomatic immunity (which Britain says the general did not enjoy) that exist for expressly that purpose. Of course it would be wrong for just any judge applying just any law to reach beyond his borders and pluck foreigners for trial. But laws aligned with international treaties, as (according to the Spanish judge) in this case, are another matter. It would be better to make such prosecutions less arbitrary by giving them to the international criminal court whose creation America opposes. Meanwhile, the Pinochet arrest marks a modest step towards the sort of world in which powerful people think twice before they do evil.