Well OK. “Malign neglect”, perhaps: here’s what the CIA says on its own site:
You’re joking, right? So what if tens of thousands of people were tortured, disappeared, and murdered at the behest of a “leader” installed with the direct assistance of your government and supported by your tax dollars?
:rolleyes:
Since when does an entirely hypothetical economic loss justify the murder of uninvolved civilians?
Jeez, Captain, just saw your next post. IOW: “We interfered in someone else’s country to protect our economic interests, and in doing so assisted the brutal dictator that murdered and tortured tens of thousands of people. So freakin’ what?”
You do know that it’s that kind of attitude that incites anti-Americanism, don’t you?
Captain Amazing, are your questions rhetorical, I hope?
“It’s OK to kill innocent people to protect your interests.” That seems to me like bin Laden logic. I find it morally reprehensible as well as self-defeating in the long run.
And to think many people wondered why the foreigners hate us after the second 9/11, our 9/11.
“So what?” “What is that to us?” The answer to those questions can be found in the gloomy fallout of ash in lower Manhattan.
I don’t believe in karma, but I believe that bad behavior by human beings has causes and can be explained.
Listening to Pacifica Radio again. (I’m an Amy Goodman fan.) Apparently, this is also the anniversary of the death of Steven Biko, leader of South Africa’s Black Consciousness Movement, on the night of September 11-12, 1976, after being beaten by the South African police.
(America had nothing to do with that one, BTW.)
Well, we didn’t know, when Pinochet became dictator, that he would kill all those people. I’m sure we would have preferred somebody who was good for both us and the Chileans, but our main consideration was somebody who was good for us.
Supporting U.S. interests has to be the primary goal of US foreign policy, and we can’t care about the wellbeing of other countries before we care about our own. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t care about the wellbeing of other countries…we should. But we need to watch out for ourselves first.
Well without getting into the Allende discussion (although there is merit in both sides of this discussion), I fail to see what relevance US mischief making in Chile in 1973 has to the threat of terrorism from Al Qaeda in 2003 . Bin Laden and his droogs have an entirely separate agenda, and I doubt very much if they know or care about what a bunch of infidels did to another pack of infidels 30 years ago. While liberals may be (justifiably) outraged at America’s legacy of assistance to dictators, they have to remember that separate anti-American groups are not allied or outraged at the same things.
Some good information here. I especially like the cite provided by Northern Piper. None of the cites which I would deem credible however substantiate the allegation of Roger_Mexico. Specifically that U.S. participation was primarily motivated by a desire to protect Pepsi Co. It has always been my understanding that CIA involvement was due to cold war motivations. Anyone have a credible cite which supports Roger_Mexico’s allegations?
Of course the US should look out for its interests first - but not by diddling in other countries’ democratic electoral processes and assassinating politicians! Some (non-governmental, I should add) companies are going to get nationalized? Then pull out of the country with as many assets you can. It’s an occupational hazard. Or write it off as a bad debt. CIA interference in other people’s government seems pretty much always to have led to disaster (Iran? Iraq? Afghanistan?).
Grim_Beaker, I don’t really think you’ll get one from an impeccable source. But there are plenty of opinion pieces on the subject, such as:
The Guardian:
A Marxist threat to cola sales? Pepsi demands a US coup. Goodbye Allende. Hello Pinochet
Or, on the life of Henry Kissinger:
It’s really going to be something you either accept or deny.
Thanks Aro. I would say then that while it’s certainly possible that Nixon’s relationship to Pepsi could have been a factor in his decision to involve the U.S. in Chile’s affairs it is by no means proven. If it is a factor it is also not shown that it is a primary* factor (i.e. of greater importance than cold war considerations) when considering U.S. motivations. I believe it is safe to say (unless the aforementioned impeccable cites can be located) that Roger_Mexico’s claims are overstated.
The Cold War was a major factor in the events the led to Allende’s fall. Starting in the late 60’s the USSR started a very public push to legitimize Communism, part of that push was “requesting” that satellite states draft constitutions and in general introduce a level of transparency to government. Needless to say this was mostly for show, no actual changes were made anywhere but it looked good. Around this time the USSR started to pressure Castro into drafting a constitutional government, and Allende’s election was seen as a major advance for the USSR in this hemisphere.
Shortly after Allende came to power Castro went to Chile for a 3 day state visit, the 3 days were soon expanded to 2 weeks. During his visit to Chile Castro toured the country and in speeches advocated a total “communization” of the Chilean economy and political structures. Allende himself was becoming worried about the things Castro was saying and finally convinced him to leave. In short, regardless of whether you think it is valid now, the theory is that Chile was a major stepping stone for the USSR, and a great victory in the Cold War for the USSR.
By the way, I don’t know if it was mentioned above but the rifle Allende used to kill himself had been a present from Castro. A mythology grew in Cuba shortly after Allende was killed about how he had died wrapped in a Chilean flag and firing on the “fascists” with Castro’s rifle.
Certainly the cold war was a factor in the attitude of the US toward Allende. There is Kissinger’s famous quip about Chile that no country should be allowed to turn communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The US was a little paranoid, however, and its perception of Soviet influence must be balanced against actual evidence of Soviet influence. For example, this interview with Yuri Pavlov, formerly head of the Latin American division of the Soviet Foreign office, suggests that the Soviets were lukewarm towards Allende:
“So gradually this eroded support Allende had
among the Chilean population and by the time he traveled to Moscow to ask for more assistance, he even had to ask the military to include some members into his government to prop his government. So he was the first to kind of appeal to military support and that’s bringing the Chilean military into politics and this was a clear indication that he was losing support among
population. And therefore it was felt in Moscow that it was not worth sacrificing these scarce resources that we had to try to bolster the Allende regime economically because in Moscow
we’re not convinced that would, this would change anything. That this would kind of help Allende to survive and hold out until the next elections. So some limited support was given but Allende of course came from Moscow disillusioned and that
was it.”
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-18/pavlov1.html
Your own discussion above indicates that Allende thought Castro was too extreme. Although Allende was a Marxist, his Chilean Socialist Party was opposed to the Chilean Communist Party, and Allende was more of a moderate in a fragile socialist-communist coalition:
http://countrystudies.us/chile/102.htm
This site has evidence of Soviet support of the communist opposition in Chile, but after the 1973 coup:
http://www.fiu.edu/~yaf/pinochetsenemies.html
There was ample evidence of Pinochet’s abuses by that time, so intervention was justified.
In summary, the US fears of Allende were unjustified and our support of the 1973 coup was an overreaction. But, as usual, our support of a sadistic right wing dictator had the effect of increasing Soviet intervention in Chile, thus justifying our paranoia.
There can be no doubt of US involvement in the Chile coup. There documentary evidence is overwelming. Peruse the GWU National Security Archives:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm
This one is especially convincing:
The CIA prepared a summary of its efforts to prevent Allende’s ratification as president and to foment a coup inChile-- track I and track II covert operations. The summary details the composition of the Task Force, headed by David Atlee Phillips, the team of covert operatives “inserted individually into Chile,” and their contacts with Col. Paul Winert, the U.S. Army Attache detailed to the CIA for this operation. It reviews the propaganda operations designed to push Chilean president Eduardo Frei to support “a military coup which would prevent Allende from taking office on 3 November.”
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch01-01.htm
You are right, I did overstate the claims about Pepsi. I apologize if I gave the impression that I thought it was a primary factor. The evidence indicates that it was but one of many factors. I emphasized the Pepsi connection because of the sheer banality of it. Sometimes my veiled sarcasm is a little too subtle, e.g., I hope no one took seriously my comment about the relative value of human life being pegged to the currency exchange rate.
You’re kidding, right?
Are you seriously trying to say this didn’t happen?
Yeah, sure. And I’m Marie of Roumania.
:rolleyes:
Here is more from the National Security Archives: CIA Acknowledges TIes to Pinochet’s Repression.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20000919/
“CIA actively supported the military Junta after the overthrow of
Allende,” the report states. “Many of Pinochet’s officers were involved in systematic and widespread human rights abuses…Some of these were contacts or agents of the CIA or US military.”
While the US may not have known in advance that Pinochet was going to torture and murder his political opponents, it is clear that the CIA actively supported the Pinochet regime while these abuses were taking place.
Backing a coup in Chile did not support US interests, it supported the narrow interests of a few corporations. I am an American, and my interests are human rights, global culture, justice and freedom. My interests were certainly not represented in any actions taken by the CIA.
ITT can hardly be considered an American interest. As Sampson describes in his book “The Sovereign State of ITT,” ITT is more of rogue multinational. In the case of ITT’s assets in Chile, ITT engaged in criminal actions:
"Korry was pulled out of Santiago by the State Department in October 1971. He advised the US government’s Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) to deny Anaconda Copper and ITT compensation for their seized property and confidentially recommended criminal charges against ITT executives, “including, implicitly, chief executive Harold Geneen, for falsifying the insurance claims and lying to Congress.”
OPIC did initially refuse compensation and the Justice Department indicted two mid-level ITT employees for perjury. But ITT and Anaconda Copper
were eventually compensated. Their executives went free “on the grounds that they were working with the full co-operation of the CIA–and higher.”
http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/nov1998/cia-n13.shtml
So, if you want to argue that the coup supported US interests, you would have to admit that the US is not interested in democracy, but rather corporate fascism. There we would be in agreement.
That the CIA instigated a coup of a Marxist regime, and installed a hand-picked man of impeccable anti-Communistist credentials would have been great, if it actually happened.
Instead, we have a case of a generic coup, executed by Pinochet and his forces, sans CIA.
I would love to think that our own CIA had the gumption and skill neccessary to install friendly gov’ts when and where needed. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Especially if one bases their view on evidence, rather than the mad rantings of some socialist.
As for supporting said regime…So what? Pinochet and his fellows were A) Not seizing American corporate assets, and B) Opposed to Communism. Good enough for the low-level ‘alliance’ we had, in my book.
Except, Brutus, you forget the part that Allende was democratically elected, and up until then, Chile had a long history of democracy.
D’oh! :smack:
Here’s 21 pages of evidence that directly contradicts your absurd denialist claims:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20000919/01-01.htm
There was no justification for the coup by any standards of Realpolitik, especially since Pinochet destroyed the Chilean economy:
SUMMARY: So what was the record for the entire Pinochet regime? Between 1972 and 1987, the GNP per capita fell 6.4 percent. (13) In constant 1993 dollars, Chile’s per capita GDP was over $3,600 in 1973. Even as late as 1993, however, this had recovered to only $3,170. (14) Only five Latin American countries did worse in per capita GDP during the Pinochet era (1974-1989). (15) And defenders of the Chicago plan call this an “economic miracle.”
http://www.puertorico.com/forums/showthread.php3?threadid=9625
Believe it or not, the resources of countries belong to the citizens of that country, not to criminal corporations.