Richard Nixon's presidency

[Captain_Amazing]

@Guinastasia

Captain Amazing, no one is excusing the actions of other presidents – LBJ, JFK, Ike, FDR, the whole alphabet soup of them. Latin America has been screwed over by the US for god knows how long. But that’s another thread. This is about Nixon, and HIS actions. Dammit!

Yes, but (even putting aside the fact that there isn’t conclusive proof that the US was involved in the 1973 coup, and in all likelihood, the US wasn’t directly involved), if screwing over Latin America is standard US policy, then it doesn’t make sense to single out Nixon for it.

[BrainGlutton]

@Captain_Amazing

Yes, but (even putting aside the fact that there isn’t conclusive proof that the US was involved in the 1973 coup, and in all likelihood, the US wasn’t directly involved) . . .

Perhaps not, but there’s plenty of circumstantial evidence.

[42fish]

@Voyager

Nixon didn’t rig the election. Watergate came from the paranoia of Nixon and his people that the Dems had some dirt on him.

What makes Nixon a tragic figure worthy of Shakespeare is that McGovern had no chance, and that Nixon would have won in a landslide without doing anything.

Except that if Nixon hadn’t done anything, it’s possible he wouldn’t have been facing McGovern. The “fixing” of the '72 election was the “Dirty Tricks” squad sabotaging the campaigns of Muskie, Jackson, Humphrey and anyone else who wasn’t McGovern so Nixon could run against the weakest of the Democratic candidates.

[Sailboat]

@Starving_Artist

The mainstream media hated Nixon for decades. Probably because

Probably because they got a much better look at him than you did.

[Captain_Amazing]

@BrainGlutton

Perhaps not, but there’s plenty of circumstantial evidence.

Did you read the link you provided?

There is no evidence that the U.S. instigated or provided material support to Pinochet’s successful coup in 1973, but the Nixon administration was undoubtedly pleased with the outcome; Nixon had spoken with disappointment about the failed coup earlier that year. The U.S. did provide material support to the military regime after the coup, although it criticized them in public.

[Lantern]

The Wiki articleon Project FUBELT details the evidence that the Nixon administration was involved in the coup, based on documents declassified in 1998. I would say it goes beyond circumstantial evidence.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Lantern

The Wiki articleon Project FUBELT details the evidence that the Nixon administration was involved in the coup, based on documents declassified in 1998. I would say it goes beyond circumstantial evidence.

That’s evidence that the Nixon administration was involved in trying to keep Allende from coming to power in 1970, and to destabilize the Allende government. That helped contribute to the poor conditions in Chile in 1973 that made the coup possible, but it’s not evidence that the CIA had direct involvement with the 1973 military coup.

[Lantern]

Read the section on revelations from declassified documents. For example:

In a secret cable, Thomas Karamessines conveyed Kissinger’s orders to CIA station chief in Santiago, Henry Hecksher: “It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup.”

[BrainGlutton]

@Captain_Amazing

Did you read the link you provided?

Yes.

Allende Presidency

Salvador Allende ran again in the 1970 presidential election, winning a narrow plurality (near 37%). U.S. president Richard Nixon stated his fear that Chile could become “another Cuba”, and the U.S. cut off most of its foreign aid to Chile and supported Allende’s opponents in Chile during his presidency, intending to encourage Allende’s resignation, his overthrow, or his defeat in the impending election of 1976.[2] To this end, the Nixon administration clandestinely funded independent and non-state media and labor unions.

The U.S. government had two approaches to fighting Marxism as represented by Allende. “Track I” was a State Department initiative designed to thwart Allende by subverting Chilean elected officials within the bounds of the Chilean constitution and excluded the CIA. Track I expanded to encompass a number of policies whose ultimate goal was to create the conditions that would encourage a coup. [3]. “Track II” was a CIA operation overseen by Kissinger and CIA’s director of covert operations, Thomas Karamessine. “Track II” excluded the State Department and Department of Defense.[3] The goal of Track II was to find and support Chilean military officers that would support a coup.

Immediately after the Allende government came into office, the U.S. sought to place pressure [4]on the Allende government to prevent its consolidation and limit its ability to implement policies contrary to U.S. and hemispheric interests, such as Allende’s total nationalization of several U.S. corporations and the copper industry. Nixon directed that no new bilateral economic aid commitments be undertaken with the government of Chile.

The U.S. provided humanitarian aid to Chile in addition to forgiving old loans valued at $200 million from 1971-2. The U.S. did not invoke the Hickenlooper Amendment which would have required an immediate cut-off of U.S. aid due to Allende’s nationalizations. Allende also received new sources of credit that was valued between $600 and 950 million in 1972 and $547 million by June 1973. The IMF also loaned $100 million to Chile during the Allende years.[5]
Track I

Track I was a State Department plan designed to persuade the Chilean Congress, through outgoing Christian Democratic President Eduardo Frei Montalva, to confirm conservative runner-up Jorge Alessandri as president. Alessandri would resign shortly after, rendering Frei eligible to run against Allende in new elections. However, Track I was dropped, because Alessandri, despite being firmly anti-Allende, was also adamantly opposed to going against Chile’s longstanding democratic traditions[citation needed].
Track II
Main article: Project FUBELT
The CIA had also drawn up a second plan, Track II. The agency would find military officers willing to support a coup and provide them with support. They could then call new elections in which Allende could be defeated. In September 1970, President Nixon found that an Allende regime in Chile would not be acceptable and authorized $10 million to stop Allende from coming to power or unseat him. As part of the Track II initiative, the CIA tried to convince key Chilean military officers to carry out a coup.[6]

The kidnapping and death of General René Schneider shocked the public and increased support of the Chilean Constitution. Schneider was the army chief commander and a constitutionalist, which meant he would not support a coup. Schneider was killed by a group led by General Roberto Viaux who was forced into retirement after the Tacnazo insurrection. Viaux was considered unstable by the U.S. and was discouraged from attempting a coup himself but his willingness to support a coup made him attractive to the Track II participants . The death of Schneider caused the citizens and the military to rally behind the just-elected Allende and ended the U.S. hopes of a coup.

On October 22, Viaux went ahead with his plan, which was badly botched. Gen. Schneider drew a handgun to protect himself from his attackers, who shot him in four vital areas; he died in Santiago’s military hospital three days later. The event provoked national outrage. As far as American involvement, the Church Committee, which investigated U.S. involvement in Chile during this period, determined that the weapons used in the debacle “were, in all probability, not those supplied by the CIA to the conspirators.”

On September 10, 2001, a suit was filed by the family of Schneider, accusing former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger of arranging Schneider’s 1970 murder because he would have opposed a military coup [7]. CIA documents indicate that while the CIA had sought his kidnapping, his killing was never intended. Kissinger declared the coup “hopeless” and said he “turned it off”.[5] The CIA backed an attempt to kidnap Schneider an on October 22, weapons were given to a group led by General Camilo Valenzuela[5][3] but they were unable to succeed prior to the killing.
1973 coup

Main article: Chilean coup of 1973
In the Chilean coup of 1973, Augusto Pinochet rose to power while Allende died. While the CIA itself, staunchly denies involvement in the coup, declassified documents relating to the military coup indicate a direct link between U.S. intelligence operatives and coup instigators in Chile.[8] [9][10]

While U.S. government hostility to the Allende government is unquestioned, the U.S. role in the coup itself remains a highly controversial matter. Claims of their direct involvement in the actual coup are neither proven nor contradicted by publicly available documentary evidence; many potentially relevant documents still remain classified. However, US Senate inquiries following the establishment of Pinochet’s regime found that the US did exert its influence upon the Chilean economy in such a way as to create conditions favouring a coup[11] Regarding Pinochet’s rise to power, the CIA undertook a comprehensive analysis of its records and individual memoirs as well as conducting interviews with former agents, and concluded in a report issued in 2000 that the CIA “actively supported the military junta after the overthrow of Allende but did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency.”[12] Nonetheless, this is contradicted by the declassified documents involving the CIA, in which covert operatives were inserted in Chile, in order to prevent a Marxist government from arising and subsequent propagandist operations which were designed to push Chilean president Eduardo Frei to support “a military coup which would prevent Allende from taking office on 3 November.”[13][14]

The CIA was notified by contacts of the impending Pinochet coup two days in advance, but contends it “played no direct role in” the coup. On September 16, 1973, after Pinochet had assumed power, the following exchange about the coup took place between U.S. National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger and President Richard Nixon:

Nixon: Nothing new of any importance or is there?
Kissinger: Nothing of very great consequence. The Chilean thing is getting consolidated and of course the newspapers are bleeding because a pro-Communist government has been overthrown.
Nixon: Isn’t that something. Isn’t that something.
Kissinger: I mean instead of celebrating – in the Eisenhower period we would be heroes.
Nixon: Well we didn’t – as you know – our hand doesn’t show on this one though.
Kissinger: We didn’t do it. I mean we helped them. [garbled] created the conditions as great as possible.
Nixon: That is right. And that is the way it is going to be played.[15]

There is no evidence that the U.S. instigated or provided material support to Pinochet’s successful coup in 1973, but the Nixon administration was undoubtedly pleased with the outcome; Nixon had spoken with disappointment about the failed coup earlier that year. The U.S. did provide material support to the military regime after the coup, although it criticized them in public. A document released by the CIA in 2000 titled “CIA Activities in Chile” revealed that the CIA actively supported the military junta after the overthrow of Allende and that it made many of Pinochet’s officers into paid contacts of the CIA or U.S. military, even though some were known to be involved in human rights abuses.[16] The CIA’s publicly announced policies on paid informants have since been modified to exclude those involved in such abuses, but at the time they were evaluated on a case-by-case basis and measured with the value of the information they provided.
Quotes
“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.” — Henry Kissinger [17]
“Not a nut or bolt shall reach Chile under Allende. Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and all Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty.” — Edward M. Korry, U.S. Ambassador to Chile, upon hearing of Allende’s election. [2]
“Make the economy scream [in Chile to] prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him” — Richard Nixon, orders to CIA director Richard Helms on September 15, 1970.[18]
"It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end, utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG and American hand be well hidden…" — A communique to the CIA base in Chile, issued on October 16, 1970.[19]
“I think this is in the best interest of the people in Chile, and, certainly, in our best interest.” — Gerald Ford at a presidential news conference in reference to U.S. operations in Chile.[20]
“With respect to your earlier comments about Chile in the 1970s and what happened with Mr. Allende, it is not a part of American history that we’re proud of.” — U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell in a 2003 interview on the U.S. Black Entertainment Television network, when asked by high school student James Doubek why the United States saw itself as the “moral superior” in the Iraq conflict, citing the Chilean coup as an example of U.S. intervention that went against the wishes of the local population.[21]

Plenty of circumstantial evidence.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Lantern

Read the section on revelations from declassified documents. For example:

“In a secret cable, Thomas Karamessines conveyed Kissinger’s orders to CIA station chief in Santiago, Henry Hecksher: “It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup.””

Right, but that’s in reference to the 1970 coup attempt, not the 1973 one. There’s no question that the US was happy that the 1973 coup happened, or that after it happened, that the US supported the Pinochet government. But that’s different than saying we planned and sponsored the coup itself.

[Lantern]

OK so I suppose there is as of now no direct evidence that the US specifically supported the 1973 coup; a lot of the relevant evidence is still classified. However given that the US supported the 1970 coup attempt and also tried to destabilize the Allende government I would say that is very powerful circumstantial evidence that they also supported the 1973 coup. It would be truly strange if they didn’t.

[Starving_Artist]

Be that as it may however, it’s far from proven that Nixon 'overthrew a democratically elected government" and 'installed a murderous dictator" (as though murderousness on his part once in office was preordained) in its place, as Guinastasia alleges.

So here we have in one thread complaints that we intervene in Latin America (Chile) and that we don’t (El Salvador).

I think that makes it perfectly clear that when it comes to Nixon (and U.S. interventionism in the main), everything’s a lose/lose situation.

Let’s not forget the Soviet expansionism and imperialism that was underway at that time. The Soviet Union was doing everything it could to bring Latin America under the communist umbrella and I doubt very seriously that any truly “democratic” election free from Soviet financing and skullduggery was ever held there which resulted in a Marxist government being elected to office.

One never seems to hear anything around here anything in the way of condemnation of Soviet expansionism at the time and all the people who suffered the consquences once under its dominion. The feeling one gets around here is that it would be perfectly fine if the Soviet Union had overtaken every country in the world as long as we kept our meddling hands out of things.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: everything that is wrong anywhere in the world is not ipso-facto the U.S.’ fault, and more people in more countries are living free and happy lives because of the existence and practices of the United States than any other country in the world.

Now, is that in our own self-interest? Does it benefit the U.S. to not be an island of democracy in an otherwise communist-dominated world? Certainly. But that doesn’t mean people in other countries don’t live freer, happier and less oppressive lives as a result. The United States has long felt that the true key to happiness for human beings is to be free from oppressive government rule. It was to achieve that end that this country was created and its Constitution written. So how does it follow that when we struggle to keep other countries free (or at least out of communist hands, even if the alternative government is less than stellar), that we are somehow betraying our guiding principles?

[crowmanyclouds]

@42fish

… The “fixing” of the '72 election was the “Dirty Tricks” squad sabotaging the campaigns of Muskie, Jackson, Humphrey and anyone else who wasn’t McGovern so Nixon could run against the weakest of the Democratic candidates.

Yeah, see the “ratfuckers” of “The U.S.C. Mafia”; Dwight Chapin, Donald Segretti, Ron Ziegler, and H. R. Haldeman and most significantly “The Canuck Letter”. (Time to watch All the President’s Men again! For those that might have forgotten “The Canuck Letter” was the key that unlocked Watergate for Woodward & Bernstein as it showed that the break-in wasn’t just a “third rate burglary”. It was the last crime, in a series of crimes, to destroy any Democrat that might dare to run against Nixon.)

The CIA admits their dirty, but not actually bloody, hand in the '73 coup on their own site,

CIA Activities in Chile

… Although CIA did not instigate the coup that ended Allende’s government on 11 September 1973, it was aware of coup-plotting by the military, had ongoing intelligence collection relationships with some plotters, and—because CIA did not discourage the takeover and had sought to instigate a coup in 1970—probably appeared to condone it. …

Echoes of “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” anyone?

If anyone has the stomach for it The George Washington University’s National Security Archive has lots of the more than 16,000 secret U.S. records on the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, and Washington’s role in the violent overthrow of the Allende government and the advent of the military regime to power. Totaling over 50,000 pages of State Department, CIA, White House, Defense and Justice Department records. Here and here.

CMC fnord!

[GIGObuster]

@Starving_Artist

Be that as it may however, it’s far from proven that Nixon 'overthrew a democratically elected government" and 'installed a murderous dictator" (as though murderousness on his part once in office was preordained) in its place, as Guinastasia alleges.

So here we have in one thread complaints that we intervene in Latin America (Chile) and that we don’t (El Salvador).

I think that makes it perfectly clear that when it comes to Nixon (and U.S. interventionism in the main), everything’s a lose/lose situation.

:rolleyes:

The result was the same on both: Military rulers that supported the USA and vice versa.

Democracy was the victim and only generated suspicion and hatred from many in Latin America.

Let’s not forget the Soviet expansionism and imperialism that was underway at that time. The Soviet Union was doing everything it could to bring Latin America under the communist umbrella and I doubt very seriously that any truly “democratic” election free from Soviet financing and skullduggery was ever held there which resulted in a Marxist government being elected to office.

One never seems to hear anything around here anything in the way of condemnation of Soviet expansionism at the time and all the people who suffered the consquences once under its dominion. The feeling one gets around here is that it would be perfectly fine if the Soviet Union had overtaken every country in the world as long as we kept our meddling hands out of things.

In the end Vietnam got closer to the US as it was always really at odds with China. In El Salvador the FMLN just won the election and in Chile Socialist Michelle Bachelet Jeria won the 2005 Presidential election.

And only took millions of dead (taking Vietnam into account) to show that the change those nations wanted was not just because the ruskies wanted it, a forest doesn’t burn but for its own trees.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: everything that is wrong anywhere in the world is not ipso-facto the U.S.’ fault, and more people in more countries are living free and happy lives because of the existence and practices of the United States than any other country in the world.

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

Now, is that in our own self-interest? Does it benefit the U.S. to not be an island of democracy in an otherwise communist-dominated world? Certainly. But that doesn’t mean people in other countries don’t live freer, happier and less oppressive lives as a result. The United States has long felt that the true key to happiness for human beings is to be free from oppressive government rule. It was to achieve that end that this country was created and its Constitution written. So how does it follow that when we struggle to keep other countries free (or at least out of communist hands, even if the alternative government is less than stellar), that we are somehow betraying our guiding principles?

The torture, death squads, killing of teachers, priests, syndical leaders and political opposition, the destruction and elimination of the opposition press were our guiding principles?

The reality was that governments like Guatemala only wanted to keep outfits like United Fruit under control so the people would benefit, but it was easier to just claim the whole lot were commies and remove them from power, the recent break of many Latin American nations with the USA is a result of all those years of intervention when military thugs asked for help in destroying democracy and neglect of democratic ideals when the thugs were already in power.

[Kimstu]

@Starving Artist

One never seems to hear anything around here anything in the way of condemnation of Soviet expansionism at the time and all the people who suffered the consquences once under its dominion.

Well, that’s because there’s nobody around here who thinks that the Soviet takeovers were a good thing, so there’s not really any point in trying to argue about it. Do feel free to start a debate on that topic if you think there’s a debate to be had, though.

@Starving Artist

The feeling one gets around here is that it would be perfectly fine if the Soviet Union had overtaken every country in the world as long as we kept our meddling hands out of things.

Maybe that’s the feeling you get, but I think that’s got more to do with your own Nixonesque loathing of liberals than with any realistic assessment of what the liberals on this board actually think. Your sweeping generalizations are a very inaccurate caricature of real-life liberal opinions.

[BrainGlutton]

@Starving_Artist

Be that as it may however, it’s far from proven that Nixon 'overthrew a democratically elected government" and 'installed a murderous dictator" (as though murderousness on his part once in office was preordained) in its place, as Guinastasia alleges.

:dubious: Of course it was. Unlike Allende, Pinochet had no other way to consolidate his power.

@Starving_Artist

Let’s not forget the Soviet expansionism and imperialism that was underway at that time. The Soviet Union was doing everything it could to bring Latin America under the communist umbrella and I doubt very seriously that any truly “democratic” election free from Soviet financing and skullduggery was ever held there which resulted in a Marxist government being elected to office.

:dubious::dubious: There was Soviet skullduggery in Allende’s election in 1970? Bring the cite. (N.B.: Soviet financing of his campaign alone would not count, but show it if you can.)

@Starving_Artist

So how does it follow that when we struggle to keep other countries free (or at least out of communist hands, even if the alternative government is less than stellar), that we are somehow betraying our guiding principles?

:dubious::dubious::dubious::dubious: Because any country’s people have or should have the right to opt for a Marxist government in free elections if they want to, and interfering with that right is a betrayal of our guiding principles. Which is so obvious I can’t believe I have to point it out to you.

[Captain_Amazing]

@BrainGlutton

:dubious::dubious: There was Soviet skullduggery in Allende’s election in 1970? Bring the cite. (N.B.: Soviet financing of his campaign alone would not count, but show it if you can.)

Well, according to Vasili Mitrokhin, there was Soviet financing of his campaign, and Allende had regular contact with a KGB case officer after his election

The Times & The Sunday Times

[quote]

We’re also told, in Jonathan Haslam’s “The Nixon Administration and the Death of Allende’s Chile”, about political funding of the election by both the US and Soviet Union

In the United States on 25 March, 1970, the 40 Committee, which oversaw covert operations for the US government, haplessly concluded that it would not back any one candidate for the presidential election in September. . .The 40 Committee therefore agreed that around $1 million was to be spent to block Allende’s path instead. This decision was taken with the knowledge that Cuba was contributing about $350,00 to UP [Allende’s party], matched by a Soviet contribution

:dubious::dubious::dubious::dubious: Because any country’s people have or should have the right to opt for a Marxist government in free elections if they want to, and interfering with that right is a betrayal of our guiding principles. Which is so obvious I can’t believe I have to point it out to you.

I don’t believe that. Marxism is inherently anti-democratic and violative of human rights, and we have no obligation to support a Marxist or a fascist government just because a Marxist or fascist political party was elected, especially if such a party tries to reorganize society along Marxist or fascist principles.

[BrainGlutton]

@Captain_Amazing

I don’t believe that. Marxism is inherently anti-democratic and violative of human rights, and we have no obligation to support a Marxist or a fascist government just because a Marxist or fascist political party was elected, especially if such a party tries to reorganize society along Marxist or fascist principles.

But, Allende was not trying to cancel elections or put an end to democracy. In fact, left alone he might have lost the next election fair and square, or so I read once in a Time magazine retrospective on Communism, FWIW. And it is not “inherently anti-democratic and violative of human rights” to nationalize a country’s means of production by lawful and democratic means.

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

And it is not “inherently anti-democratic and violative of human rights” to nationalize a country’s means of production by lawful and democratic means.

Nor by revolutionary means, come to think of it, depending on circumstances. Consider the Spanish Revolution, when the workers took control of the factories and the peasants took control of the estates, for real (an instance of socialization as distinct from nationalization). There’s no knowing whether it would have proved economically viable in the long run if the nominally Communist government had not crushed it; but at any rate it was not inherently anti-democratic or violative of human rights.

[crowmanyclouds]

@BrainGlutton

… Soviet financing of his campaign alone would not count …

And really, even if they did (and I’ve no doubt that the Soviets did want to see Allende elected, if only just to stick it to Uncle Sam) it’s trumped by our active participation in planning a coup to overthrow him if he was. Unless there’s some evidence that the Soviets also had a coup program in the works, the '70 Chilean election showed that the Soviets had more faith in democratic elections than the US did! :eek: :mad:

The whole question of American support for third world democracy (a subject that Starving and I have previously discussed) had me trying to remember some of our “participation” in elections, and I was trying to remember which countries we had played “games” in. I thought I remembered something about Greece, so I Googled it, and just what do I find as the third hit?

The CIA’s Secret Files on Greece by Alexis Papakhelas
To Vima (Athens) August 12, 2001

[Greek Text Translated by FBIS] These days, in the storerooms of the US Government Printing Office, in a poor district of Washington, you will find stacks of copies of a book with a wine-colored cover and the title: “Foreign Relations of the United States. Eastern Mediterranean 1964-1968”. Under normal circumstances, you would already have been able to purchase it since February 2000, paying something under 50 dollars. What is preventing you? The CIA and the ban it has imposed on its publication. …

I wonder why?

@Captain_Amazing

… we have no obligation to support a Marxist or a fascist government just because a Marxist or fascist political party was elected …

Strangely, we have a long history of obliging ourselves to support repressive, brutal, murderous, unelected governments though.

CMC fnord!