USA, Chile and Salvador Allende

Politics International Politics
1

Pinesay,
The people of Chile did the responsible thing and elected Allende, but that was abviously too irresponsible for the US (Allende was a socialist) so they basically supported Pinochet with arms, money, troops to train their soldiers and what happened? Thousands including Allende were murdered, Thousands more fled to Canada and Europe (None to the US, of Course) and the country was ruled into the ground by a US supported Despot for almost 20 years.

Oh, just last week an Aussie journalist (I think) reported that Chalabi (The Iraqi leader appointed by the US) went into a police station and personally summarily executed seven prisoners–Another US appointed despot in the making?

It’s all well and good to talk about taking responsibility, and to a certain extent you are right, but it’s another thing for people to take responsibility when, for example in Sudan, Where the peasants are being massacred and driven off their traditional lands by the armies loyal to the rich and powerful of the country because there be oil under their huts. And who, apart from the Sudanese politicos are reaping profits? You guessed it! The rich oil companies in Britain and the US. Sure, responsibilities for a country’s people rests on its government, but how irresponsible is it for the oil companies and the countries that benefit from their endeavors to turn a blind eye? BTW The Un has just (yesterday) given the Sudanese 30 days to clean up their act, and we are still waiting for the US to say something, though the issue was brought to their attention more than five years ago.

What about the Kyoto accord? The US refuses to sign and take part of the responsibility for emissions, ignoring the health of its own people and the citezens of this planet. How can a maple sugar farmer in the Eastern Townships of Quebec take responsibility for the sulphur dioxide emissions that drift from the north-central US and blight his trees? Or how could the Mexican farmers in northern Mexico take responsibility for their generations-old farms drying up after the US dammed the mighty Colorado River so Californians could have swimming pools in their backyards? Or the Kurds that were gassed by Saddam, where does the responsibility for that lie? With Saddam or the country that gave him those weapons?

The aroogance manifested in the Teddy Roosevelt’s gunboat diplomacy, Nixon’s No commie’s in our backyard South American policy, Reagan’s call the terrorist Contras “Freedom fighters analogous to the Boston Tea party sabateurs” policy (Were the tea dumpers in Boston terrorists?I guess it “depends on how you decide to look at it.” Hmmmm!) and Bush’s gunpoint diplomacy in Iraq is where responsibilies lie also.

Are you surprised that people have reacted violently to invasion and threats? It is no myth that US foregn policy creates strong opposition at the very least.

It is easy to preach responsibility when you are born in a country with access to the “luxuries” of life–education, healthcare, food, clothing, shelter, and etc. Why can’t they pull themselves up by their bootstraps like these and these people? Why can’t they be like us? Why are they like that?

Unfortunately, there are no easy answers, but lets not be arrogant and deny any responsiblity or worse yet, fail to see that they have legitimate qualms and real reasons for disliking the way the powers that be have failed them and others like them.

The strong have a responsibility to the weak, if only just to not harm them. Like you said it is probably too late for sensitivity classes–that time has passed and we did not seize the opportunity while it was around. But let us not continue to be arrogant and believe we can “fix” the Osama and terrorism problem with guns and bombs alone.

BTW This thread is about F911 and I saw the moview a couple of days ago and for me it represented to some extent the other side of the story that CNN and the major news networks refuse to acknowledge. Of course, as a piece of journalism, it fails teribly because of its lack of balance–it is severly one-sided. However, it is more than just proseletizing, as some of the reviews have suggested. It is also darkly humorous in the way Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine are, though you might not think so if your father or sister perished during the 9-11 attacks. So I can see why people get so emotional and are so offended by the movie. And no matter which side of the political fence you sit on, it is well worth the watch. Hope you all see it soon.

2

Wookie wrote:

Um, what percentage of the Chileans voted for Allende? What percentage voted against him? Given that he won a plurality but not majority, does that mean that those voting against him were “irresponsible?”

Also, please supply documents proving that the US supported Pinochet with arms, money, troops and trained their soldiers prior to the coup. I challenge this assertion. I also challenge the assertion that the US supported Pinochet for these 20 years with nary a criticism. How would that have been possible under Carter? Hmmm? Check out the human rights reports and concerns issued by the US from Nixon (during that time) and later during subsequent administrations.

Kyoto. Hah! First, there is no definitive proof that humans are responsible for global warming. In fact, the Max Planck Institute in Germany (hardly Republican funded) now believes that this could be caused from extra activity on the sun’s surface.

Second, Kyoto as is will only slow global warming by an “optimal” six years during the next 100 if all countries who have signed fulfill their obligations. France is far behind its Kyoto obligations so is it good that France signed even though it is not meeting its commitments? Is this better than realizing that you cannot live up to those commitments and not signing?

Third, Kyoto looks at total emissions but does not give the US credit for “sinks” i.e. forests and other natural areas that suck up carbon dioxide. The way Kyoto is structured now is such that it penalizes countries with wide open spaces like the US, Australia (higher per capita than the US) and Canada than densely populated nations in Europe. Just a coincidence do you think?

Finally, why are not all serious environmental issues then taken to task? Why is not France’s nuclear power (80% of total) being targeted for its damaging waste that lasts for 10,000 years? Hmmm?

So Wookie: Sounds like you have been reading zmag. org and are all up in arms but you lack a balanced understanding of these issues. Your demonizing of the US is quite simplistic. Would you like me to get the dirty facts on any other country of your choosing? It can be done quite simply and then you will have other nations to hate in addition to America. Shall we start with France? Germany? Russia? Take your pick.

Love Fred

3

Fred man,
Pinesay and I were having a discussion on people’s responsibility for their own plight, successes, etc. His point was that US foreign policy was not responsible for terrorism and I was just refuting that argument and pointing out to him a few areas where the US should have acted a bit more responsible. Check out the entire thread, if not here, then the original thread in the Arts and Entertainment forum for the reasons why the words “responsible and irresponsible” were used in that context.

I know you are a staunch defender of the US, at Forumusa at least, and I understand and respect that. It’s a dirty/tough job and somebody’s gotta do it–better you than me. But just from reading some of your posts over that last couple of months I have a question for you, Can you see any faults/shortcomings whatsoever with the government, policies, people of the US?

Anyhoo, re Chile and Allende and the US and the CIA, check out this article from the NY Times:
mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ciachile.htm
This is just a bit of it.

WASHINGTON – From 1970 to 1973, the United States sought to overthrow the government of Chile and its democratically elected president, Dr. Salvador Allende, whom it deemed a Marxist threat to U.S. interests. Under orders from President Richard M. Nixon, the CIA mounted a full-tilt covert operation to keep Allende from taking office and, when that failed, undertook subtler efforts to undermine him. Those efforts “never really ended,” the CIA’s director of operations at the time, Thomas Karamessines, later told Senate investigators.

And also, this article from the National Security Archives–even today, 30 plus years after the fact, the CIA are still refusing to declassify a great deal of articles regarding their operations in Chile, What are they hiding?
gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/19980911.htm
Again, this is just a bit of it.

** U.S. officials were well aware of the military’s atrocities in the aftermath of the coup, but still rushed new economic assistance to Chile, and ordered CIA covert propaganda operations aimed at “improving the Junta’s image.”

** In 1975, Embassy officers and the State Department Policy Planning office called for the cutting off of all economic and military assistance to General Pinochet’s government on human rights grounds. They were overruled by the Ambassador and officials of the Pentagon and Treasury Department who wanted to maintain close ties with the government.

As for your reference to France, see my opening graf. or start another thread “Humans are not responsible for global warming,” Or “France and Germany are responsible for global warming,” or “The boreal and temperate forests of North America negate the US’ impact on global warming.”

Finally, I have never read Z.mag and I am not up in arms about anything, nor am I demonizing the US. I don’t hate the US either. How can one hate a country? And of course, I am quite aware that each nation has its own dirty secrets. The question is, as stated above, can you accept that the US does too and perhaps post some constructive ideas as to what the US and its government can do better?

4

First, what did the US do to stop Allende? We cut off loans for him and used our influence in the World Bank and IMF to veto loans and aid to his regime. That is very different from sending weapons and money to support a coup.

Allende proceeded to form close ties with Cuba and the Soviet bloc and was receiving aid from both. He nationalized US property in Chile. Why should we have been nice or given him aid and loans?

Given that the socialist experiment was just as successful in Chile as other nations, why is it suprising that the people of Chile rose up to end the economic instability, inflation, power outages, nonstop strikes, etc. that plagued the country following Allende’s rule? Why are Chileans only puppets to have their strings pulled by a plotting US government and CIA? Cannot they take action without our imprimatur or control? Sounds racist to me. Given that all the actors were Chilean, what percentage of the blame for Allende and Pinochet must they take themselves and given the hypothesis that there was no US to get involved, how long would it have taken for the same coup to have resulted? I mean are you suggesting that Latin America was coupfree until the US started getting involved?

The CIA document that you show is from 1998. Clinton has since declassified all the documents related to US involvement in Chile and guess what? No smoking guns. Not a perfect record but given the Cold War at the time and Soviet and Cuban involvement in Chile, why not any counter involvement from the US?

I have beefs with the US government believe you me, but Chile is one of those urban legends that gets batted around and there is no proof for it. If you want serious US abuses, stick to the ones that have some traction: Iran in 1953 (though I believe the US government had some very good reasons for toppling Mossadeq who likewise was supported by a large segment but not majority of the population) and Arbenez in Guatemala in 1954. Those are better examples. Chile is just a cause celebre among lefties but lefties lacking sufficient proof.

Back to the Kyoto Treaty. Why all the economic costs to reduce global warming by six years in the next 100. Studies show that when countries develop, they spend more on environmental protection. Let’s help India and China grow even faster and then see what happens to their air and water quality. To me we can grow our way out of these problems. To the Left, we must stop economic development and condemn brown people to living in cute villages without cable tv so that they can visit and be amazed by the simple, yet happy villagers while lording their first world status over them. No thanks.

5

Wookie,

you wrote: Thousands including Allende were murdered, Thousands more fled to Canada and Europe (None to the US, of Course) and the country was ruled into the ground by a US supported Despot for almost 20 years.

Isabel Allende, Salvador Allende

6

Fred,
Coal mines, fruit plantations, thousands of hectares of land owned by the US and worked by peasants who got very little for their labor would not sit well and did not. Why was it wrong for Allende to say, Hey, this is our land, why should we allow the US to reap all the rewards and pay us pittance?
Sadly, the history of land ownership in South America is one that is similar–huge tracks of land owned by those with the guns to claim it and if it wasn’t the US it would have been someone else. Allende was only trying to even up the odds for the peasants in the only way he knew how. Everyone now knows, or should, that socialism/communism as a political and social structure is seriously flawed–someone should tell China, Cuba and North Korea this. ahowever, at the time of Allende’s rise to power however, it was a legitimate option for many nations and leaders concerned with the disparities between segments of their citizenry. The fact is that the US was and still remains deeply fearful of communism and acted as if a crime was committed each time a socialist party came to power. There be blood on their hands, Fred, in Grenada and El Savador too.
Sure, there was widespread dissent in Chile after some of Allende’s reforms and yes, I believer a coup would probably have taken place but only if Allende did not agree to hold elections. Why does everyone assume that he would go the way of Castro and declare himself lifetime ruler. There was no indication at all that he would. Thing is, The US panicked everytime a socialist leader got elected in the Caribbean and South America and sent the CIA in to destabilize legitimately elcted govts. and still does. The point is, without assurances from the CIA and the US, some in the form of public statements from the US’ ambassador to Chile, Pinochet would probably have not instigated the coup or thought he had carte blanche to do whatever he wanted–which was murder all the supporters of Allende he could.Put another way, the US assumes it has the right to dictate the affairs of sovereign nations as it has done in the past and continues to do. Can’t you see the blatant contradiction? Come on Fred, The US’ manifesto reads like something from George Orwell, All countries are free, but some are more free than others, and the freer one has the right to impose its will on the rest. In other words, if you are a country, you have the right to chose your own leaders, form of govt. etc.,but you had better choose one the US approves of, or else.
And Chewy, Isabel Allende was born in Peru and Salvadore Allende was his uncle, not his father. She also lived in other South American countries before moving to the US.

7

Another thing Chewy,
Salvador Allende had the backing of the peasants, but not the planter class (land-owners, business leaders, etc) as is usually the case for socialist presidents–those that have anything to gain will support a socialist regime and those that stand to lose will not.

Some quotes from the above links because you abviously didn’t read them.

On Sept. 16, William Broe, chief of the CIA’s Western Hemisphere division, met with Helms and other senior CIA officers.

The Director (of Central Intelligence) told the group that President Nixon had decided that an Allende regime in Chile was not acceptable to the United States. The President asked the Agency to prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him. The President authorized ten million dollars for this purpose, if needed. Further, the Agency is to carry out this mission without coordination with the Departments of State or Defense. . . . The Director said he had been asked by Dr. Henry Kissinger . . . to meet with him on Friday, 18 September, to give him the Agency’s views on how this mission could be accomplished.

On Oct. 16, a cable went out from CIA headquarters to Henry Heckscher, CIA station chief in Santiago, Chile, who had doubts about the plots.

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 United States government and American hand be well hidden. . . . Please review all your present and possibly new activities to include propaganda, black operations, surfacing of intelligence or disinformation, personal contacts, or anything else your imagination can conjure which will permit you to press forward toward our (deleted) objective.

And:
Plans were already in motion. Five days earlier, on Oct. 11, Broe sent this cable from CIA headquarters to the Santiago station:

SUB-MACHINE GUNS AND AMMO BEING SENT BY REGULAR (deleted) COURIER LEAVING WASHINGTON 0700 HOURS 19 OCTOBER DUE ARRIVE SANTIAGO LATE EVENING 20 OCTOBER OR EARLY MORNING 21 OCTOBER.

On 15 September 1970, C.I.A. was directed to try to prevent Marxist Salvador Allende’s ascent to the Chilean Presidency. . . .

Also:
A military coup increasingly suggested itself as the only possible solution to the Allende problem. Anti-Allende currents did exist in the military and the Carabineros, but were immobilized by the tradition of military respect for the Constitution. . . .

That means, without the US’ encouragement the Military and Pinochet, would probably not have acted in the manner that they did.

The CIA report does go on to say the the US played no “direct” role (my quotation marks), I guess by direct they mean no US citizen actually fired a shot. WTF? How much more direct could they get?

So money, arms, verbal support, you choose, Was the US responsible?

8

Wookie,

Yes the CIA did instigate Track II before the election, which sent US$100,000 to support the right-wing candidates and prevent Allende from coming to power, but this was three years before the coup and does not address whether the U.S. was directly responsible for his overthrow or not. I suggest you read the recently declassified CIA documents, as well as Dick Helm

9

Wookie wrote:

I think that your quote here gives adequate proof that for many people like you fed a steady diet of Marxist Liberation Theology in your university years that somehow the US was a “reactionary” force that was preventing justice and such from emerging in Latin America. That is your view and you are welcome to it but do not pretend that you have a right to “foment” unrest in Latin America and conservatives like me are “banned” from reacting because that would be “holding back progress” and would be an example of American “oppression” and “hypocrisy.” I am entitled to my views just as you are and if I choose to support action to stop people like you from supporting such efforts I am equally entitled as you are to get involved. Why is it wrong for me but not for you? Why is it wrong for the US but not for the Soviet Union and Cuba?

The most recent documents (all) declassified by Clinton show numerous cables being sent back and forth to discuss the matter. The fact that Nixon and Kissinger were not pleased is no surprise and yet despite all their plotting and planning and supposed support for the opposition (I do not hear you criticizing Cuba or the Soviet Union or other international communist groups for supporting Allende, why not? Isn’t that equally interference, intervention?), Allende manages to be elected on a plurality of 37 or 38 percent. What does he proceed to do? Act like someone who has won without a majority and try to find a moderate middle of the road position?

No, he creates great dissatisfaction with nationalizations, expropriations, inflation rises, there are power outages, strikes, bread shortages and after three years of this, most of the Chilean middle class and upper class and many of the lower class are in fact fed up. So the support for Pinochet was there and they deposed Allende in a coup. There is no proof or evidence whatsoever of direct American involvement. Were Nixon and Kissinger happy that Allende was gone? Undoubtedly, but where is the proof that they played a direct role? They certainly cut off loans and aid and pressured other nations to do the same.

Now, look at Chile today. No. 1 in Latin America for economic development, GDP growth rates, foreign investment, etc. etc. while Cuba is where exactly? Now, do you see what I am glad and would have even supported direct involvement in Chile (even though it did not occur) to ensure that communism did not win?

In all fairness, you can read that steady drip of Marxist Leninist Liberation Theology but should you not have also exposed yourself to Milton Friedman and Hayek and Schopenhauer? See what they have to say about excessive state involvement.

And if the Sandinistas were so popular, why were they voted out in the first election held? Hmmm? More US “influence?” I don’t think so.

Now, do I think that land reform should occur in Latin America. Most definitely. Not to give the peasants their “rights” because I do not believe that the poor have the right to anything just by virtue of being “poor” but because this excessive investment by the wealthy in land stunts the overall economic and economic development. In Taiwan, we saw people using land as collateral to invest in factories and businesses, not people using businesses as collateral to buy even more land. This “estancia” mentality is starting to break down in Latin America but it should be encouraged even further.

But unless you want someone coming into your home in the United States or wherever you live simply by virtue of the fact that they are poorer than you (it never ends this need to redistribute wealth) had better support property rights which many economists have said is key to economic development. Tribal societies that do not allow land ownership invariably fail to develop. We have seen this in Peru and throughout Africa. Clear titles to land and property and an absolute must to see economic development and prosperity.

10

like I said before Fred, Bush was elected by a plurality too, and he seems to have pissed off quite a large part of the US population, but you wouldn’t support a coup would you. Neither should you. People should wait till the election to change government.

[quote]
Now, look at Chile today. No. 1 in Latin America for economic development, GDP growth rates, foreign investment, etc. etc. while Cuba is where exactly? Now, do you see what I am glad and would have even supported direct involvement in Chile (even though it did not occur) to ensure that communism did not win? [/quote]

This is all well and good but as ever you fail to address the key question:
If Allende was so unpopular, why not wait until the election to get rid of him? No argument has been put forward to show this was not possible. As wookie pointed out, at no stage did Allende threaten to make himself lifelong leader or to prevent the electoral process. So again, why the need for the coup?

See how an election can work.

11

But Butcher Boy:

You must ask the Chileans why they did not want to wait. Given that I deny the US has anything to do with directly supporting the coup, and unless you have proof, why ask me why they did not want to wait? That is the Chileans’ responsibility. I am pleased that he was ousted, but that does not mean I had anything to do with it.

12

[quote=“fred smith”]But Butcher Boy:

You must ask the Chileans why they did not want to wait. Given that I deny the US has anything to do with directly supporting the coup, and unless you have proof, why ask me why they did not want to wait? That is the Chileans’ responsibility. I am pleased that he was ousted, but that does not mean I had anything to do with it.[/quote]

I think you’ll find that not all Chileans had a choice in whether or not a coup took place. It was only some who took part. (Or did they all take a secret vote? )

Why do I ask you? Because on many occasions on this forum you have trumpeted your support for democracy, yet support this coup as a necessary evil to remove an unpopular government. Trouble is you have not shown that it was necessary, so your support should drop away.

I think you either support democracy or you don’t, and if you think that this coup was a good idea then you can’t be said to support democracy. As has been said before, at no stage did Allende threaten to nullify the democratic process.

13

Now I have to defend MY stance on democracy? I thought this was about Chile? Where is the proof that the US was responsible for Chile? Am I glad that Allende was ousted? Yes. Was it good for Chile? Yes. Was it 100 percent clear but black and white and no shades of gray? No. But I thought it was precisely these shades of gray that you anti-neocons were so desperate to see remain in existence. We are too black and white for you, now I am too gray? What is it?

14

The events in Cile are all about respect for democracy. That is what the issue is. A democratically elected government was overthrown violently and you think that was a good thing. As you have shown no necessity for the coup, and no threat to democracy from the allende government, to say it was good suggests something less than a total repect for democracy. Indeed it seems that whilst democracy is good for the good citizens of the US, it is only good for the people of Chile if it happens to go with capitalist economic ideology. You just seem to be being a little bit of a moral relitavist. I basically don’t see why you wouldn’t want to condemn this blatant attack on democracy.

15

Must run, but will be back with Allende’s “vision” for “democracy” later today. Can you wait?

I think that you will agree with me at this point though that we can prove that Allende was certainly not someone who respected rule of law. Fair?

Bit of a dilemma and I fully admit to that. Moral relativist? Hmmmm not really. Take the following example: Would I be sorry to see Hugo Chavez overthrown? No. Would it be good for democracy? Maybe. Is it apparently incompatible with my stated views earlier? Very likely. Will that mean that I am conflicted if he is overthrown? Nope.

Was Allende’s rule good for Chile’s long-term prospects for democratic and economic development? I don’t think so. But as you have said, it certainly is a dilemma. Life is filled with them. That is why I am happy that the US was not directly involved. Then our “views” are really moot or severely less important issues in the grander scheme of moral “commission,” no?

16

Allende was elected in September 1970 but by the autumn of 1973 a combination of economic incompetence and arrogant abuse of power had destroyed his legitimacy. The country was polarized, paralyzed, fraught with street violence and on the brink of a bloody civil war.

Setting the Record Straight On Allende, Once More

Wall Street Journal, April 25, 2003
By MARY ANASTASIA O’GRADY

This truth is of course anathema to international socialists and communists who have been pumping out propaganda for three decades to deny the failure. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell is the latest to prove the effectiveness of that campaign by recently advancing the canard – in an interview on Black Entertainment Television – that it was the U.S. that staged the 1973 military coup in Chile. To be precise, a 17-year-old in the BET audience told Mr. Powell that “the United States staged a coup in Chile on September 11th, despite the wishes of the Chilean populace against the coup and the populace in support of the democratically elected President Salvador Allende, the CIA, regardless, supported the coup of Augusto Pinochet and that resulted in mass deaths.”
Mr. Powell lamely responded: “With respect to your earlier comment about Chile in the 1970s and what happened with Mr. Allende, it is not a part of American history that we’re proud of.”
The secretary might as well have been reading from an Oliver Stone script, blessing Castro’s version of world history. Not only did he passively accept utter nonsense but he also suggested that the U.S. should regret its efforts to combat Soviet expansion in Latin America during the Cold War. That is a rather strange viewpoint given what we now know about the cruelty of communist repression.
Here was a chance to set the record straight. It was also a teaching opportunity on freedom, the importance of limited government and the rule of law. It was a lob that the secretary could have hit out of the park, Allende’s abuse of power being such a clear violation of classical liberal values and constitutional democracy. It was a chance to explain why even an elected president in Venezuela lacks the moral authority to trample individuals, press freedoms or property justifys.
Allende’s victory in 1970 came with only 36% of the vote. That meant that congress held power over his win. The Christian Democrats who despised Chile’s justify but clearly distrusted the radicalized leftist agreed to clear his way only if he accepted a “Statute of Guarantees” to ensure the democracy and the rule of law. Allende consented so as to get into office but he had no intention of containing his militant constituents, backed by Fidel Castro, and their appetite for power. It is true that the U.S. disliked Allende immensely and considered his victory a big defeat. It is also true that the CIA was lurking about in Latin America during those Cold War years and that the U.S. funded Allende’s political opposition. But in the succeeding three years Allende would ruin himself by destroying the country. Chileans would drive him from power. The military had the idea to send him into exile but instead, according the Journal’s crack reporter, Everett Martin, who interviewed Allende’s doctor, he committed suicide. This has been disputed by Allende supporters but put to rest by reliable testimony.
There is no lack of historical data to back this up. One useful compilation is “Out of the Ashes,” by James R. Whelan, a history of Chile from 1833 to 1988. Sharp political divisions helped Allende get and hold power for three years despite his radicalism and his reckless economics. He cleverly used the law to shield himself while he consolidated that power. There were assaults on the press, extensive nationalization of businesses and a methodical effort to build a shadow army, which produced mounting violence throughout the period. The weapons for his informal army were coming from Cuba, the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. In the end there were enough to “equip a division of 15,000 men,” according to Mr. Whelan. By 1973 the country was in shambles and housewives were banging empty pots to protest Allende economics. Early that year the government announced rationing. Former President Eduardo Frei, no friend of Chile’s justify, called it “a clear and definitive action toward totalitarian control of the country . . . The people of Chile cannot tolerate that they be submitted to a dictatorship without escape.” That opinion gained adherents as the year wore on.
On May 26 all 14 Supreme Court justices signed a document complaining that “an open and willful contempt of judicial decisions [by the executive]” threatened an "imminent breakdown of legality." On Aug. 22 came the resolution from the Lower House declaring a “grave breakdown of the legal and constitutional order” and placing the responsibility for restoring “legal paths” with the military. On August 25 the Medical Association asked the president to resign and the Bar Association followed suit on Aug. 31. Yet experts say that more than any one single event it was Allende’s proposal for a national education curriculum, a l

17

Re Chavez, lets wait and see if he is ‘overthrown’ constitutionaly. I suspect if he is then he might well start to get pretty undemocratic himself. I agree, lots of dilemas.

18

Butcher Boy,

The myth that the United States was responsible is alive and well. The reality is otherwise. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find a more self-destructive mode of governance than that implemented by the Allende regime.

In the span of three years (1970-73), Allende impoverished the country, tore apart the fabric of Chilean society, and brought the polarized populace to the brink of civil war. It was a predictable consequence of a Marxist agenda.

To blame the chaos on the United States is to ignore Allende’s anti-democratic proclivities and his fantastically reckless economic policies. The US’s principal actions during this period merely involved providing funding for opposition newspapers, radio stations, and political parties, as well as cutting off loan money to Chile (since it was highly unlikely a Marxist regime would pay the money back; and sure enough, it defaulted on its existing debts) Yes, those were Allende’s words. He said them early in his administration during conversations with French leftist R

19

Read my posts on this thread chewy, you will find I have not said anything that suggests US involvement as this is not the debate I was interested in.

[quote]In August 1973, the rightist and centrist representatives in the Chamber of Deputies undermined the president’s legitimacy by accusing him of systematically violating the constitution and by urging the armed forces to intervene. In early September, Allende was preparing to call for a rare national plebiscite to resolve the impasse between Popular Unity and the opposition. The military obviated that strategy by launching its attack on civilian authority on the morning of September 11. Just prior to the assault, the commanders in chief, headed by the newly appointed army commander, General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, had purged officers sympathetic to the president or the constitution.

[/quote]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/allende.htm

Now I don’t deny that allende had introduced some damnded stupid policies but what I do say is that there was still democratic options to resolve the situation. (BTW on the role of the US, even if not involved in the coup, the destabilisation efforts which had been going on can’t have helped the democratic process in Chile)

20

Let’s see we cut off aid and let it be known that we were anti Allende at a time when he let it be known that he was importing Cuban and Soviet weapons and was against the US. But we cannot act because to do so would be hypocritical. Given that Allende was elected president with only 36 percent of the vote and I would surmise this figure dropped considerably over the three years (3 years!!!) that he was in power despite the strongest nation on earth supposedly bent on evil machinations to remove him, I think our mouthings and actions were hardly among the significant reasons for the coup. Read my post. Read about Allende’s respect for “democracy” and rule of law. He started it or was equally involved in subverting the process. It was essentially a civil war. Hence our involvement would have been justified even though I do not believe that we played a major role. What about all these Soviet and Cuban arms?

So while ethically and morally overthrowing a democratic regime looks like a questionable position on paper, in reality, it was and still remains a good thing. Allende was not the “innocent” that the left paints him nor was Mossadeq in Iran. We have a right to influence other countries.

Shall we now tell France and Germany that they cannot stop slowing the process of reform, reconstruction in Iraq just to “influence” our presidential election? They have let it be known that they support regime change in the US. Are they as evil as the CIA? Will leftists in America now start posting angrily on Internet sites about how Germany and France want to subvert democratic processes in America? It really seems to be very similar to me.