|
article: But then as a Senator from General Pinochet's party and the daughter of one of the military junta's most senior members, she would say that. The most barbaric operation one would ever, in one's worst nightmares, dream possible, and this bitch claims it would have been so much worse if Allende had remained as Chile's very popular (before Nixon/Kissinger destroyed him) President. The BBC writer is working overtime rewriting history. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Pinochet and the New York Times
13 Dec 2006
by Eric Biewener
Augusto Pinochet died this past Sunday, December 10. The following day, the New York Times published an editorial under the headline “The Dextrous Dictator.” As the dominant U.S. newspaper of record, the Times could have used the opportunity to set the record straight and reflect on the role of the United States in the rise of Pinochet and the atrocities committed under his brutal rule.
Despite the unusual length of the editorial and its substantial focus on the dictator’s crimes, the Times makes only passing mention of U.S. involvement in a single, practically ignorable line: “…he led a coup against the socialist Salvador Allende, whose chaotic presidency had been further destabilized by the Nixon administration.”
This brief history lesson draws only a flimsy connection between U.S. destabilization and the coup, when in fact both arose out of an explicit and multifaceted strategy undertaken by the Nixon administration to overthrow the democratically elected Allende.
At a 1970 meeting in the Oval Office, Nixon famously instructed CIA director Richard Helms to “make the economy scream.” What followed was a combination of economic and diplomatic disruptions as well as a propaganda campaign aimed at inciting a military uprising against the fledgling Allende government.
Along with failing to point out how the U.S. government purposefully worked toward the overthrow of Chile’s democratically elected leader, the Times also omits mention of the prolonged U.S. support provided to the Pinochet regime—support that was given despite full knowledge of the atrocities being committed under his rule. As Kissinger explained to his staff, “However unpleasant they act, the government is better for us than Allende was.”
The Times also wasted the opportunity of Pinochet’s death to reflect on its own role in the destruction of Chile’s democracy. Prior to—and after—Allende’s electoral victory in 1970, the paper published editorials warning of the “cataclysmic” effects that his election would hold not just for Chile but also for all of the Americas. The newspaper fanned the flames of paranoid Cold War fears warning that an Allende victory would provide “Russia and Communist China” with a dangerous “boost” to their “prestige.” Times editorials further claimed that Allende’s victory struck a “heavy blow against liberal democracy,” a conclusion clearly repeating the paper’s consistent vilification of democratic, socialist-minded reformers. (Never mind Allende’s long-standing commitment to constitutional democracy.)
Contributing to the Times’ view that the election of Allende would prove devastating for Chilean democracy was its concern that an electoral victory for the socialist leader would amount to no less than a “coup de grace” for the struggling “Alliance for Progress, launched to ‘improve and strengthen democratic institutions.’” The Times simply accepts the U.S. government’s propagandistic description of the Alliance for Progress, a program far more concerned with opening Latin American markets and countering Soviet influence than furthering the cause of democracy.
(snip/...) http://news.nacla.org/2006/12/13/pinochet-and-the-new-york-times/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~American media in general ignored completely the role that the American government had in the crimes of not just the coup, not just the reign of terror which Pinochet's secret police extended around the South American continent and across the globe—including the worst terrorist act on U.S. soil prior to 9/11, the assassination of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Karpen Moffitt in 1976 in Washington, D.C.—but also multiple attempts to overthrow the democratic government of Chile in the years prior to the coup. These efforts were coordinated from the very top of the American government, by President Richard Nixon and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
Neither The Washington Post nor The New York Times, either in their obits, or in each of their respective editorials reflecting on Pinochet's death, mentions the name Kissinger. In fact, the Post is odious enough to claim that in the end, Pinochet (and patron Jeanne Kirkpatrick, who also died last week) were "right" and can be given the credit for Chile's economy and stable liberal democracy now (never mind the fact that before Pinochet, Chile had a history of liberal democracy unbroken since the 1930s and unparalleled by any South American, or even many European countries).
By 1975, Sen. Frank Church had already established through public hearings culpability for U.S. covert activities in Chile in the decade leading up to Pinochet's coup. According to his report, "Covert Action in Chile 1963-1973," while the official U.S. response to Allende's attempts to gain power were diplomatic chills and attempts to organize embargos, there was a "Track II" process, at the order of Richard Nixon and coordinated by Director of Central Intelligence Richard Helms, then-Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Henry Kissinger and Attorney General John Mitchell, without the knowledge of the Departments of State and Defense or the U.S. ambassador to Chile. In 1970, in order to prevent Allende from being elected, Nixon ordered a coup:
(snip)
Meanwhile, the United States pursued a two-track policy toward Allende's Chile. At the overt level, Washington was frosty, especially after the nationalization of the copper mines; official relations were unfriendly but not openly hostile. The government of President Richard M. Nixon launched an economic blockade conjunction with U.S. multinationals (ITT, Kennecott, Anaconda) and banks (Inter-American Development Bank, World Bank). The U.S. squeezed the Chilean economy by terminating financial assistance and blocking loans from multilateral organizations. But during 1972 and 1973 the US increased aid to the military, a sector unenthusiastic toward the Allende government. The United States also increased training Chilean military personnel in the United States and Panama.
According to notes taken by CIA director Richard Helms at a 1970 meeting in the Oval Office, his orders were to "make the economy scream." It was widely reported that at the covert level the United States worked to destabilize Allende's Chile by funding opposition political groups and media and by encouraging a military coup d'état. The agency trained members of the fascist organization Patria y Libertad (PyL) in guerrilla warfare and bombing, and they were soon waging a campaign of arson. CIA also sponsored demonstrations and strikes, funded by ITT and other US corporations with Chilean holdings. CIA-linked media, including the country's largest newspaper, fanned the flames of crisis. While these United States actions contributed to the downfall of Allende, no one has established direct United States participation in the coup d'état and few would assign the United States the primary role in the destruction of that government.
(snip/...) http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/12/12/washington_bullets_pinochet_and_kissinger.php~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1973 Chilean coup d'état
~snip~
In October 1972, Chile saw the first of what were to be a wave of confrontational strikes led by some of the historically well-off sectors of Chilean society; these received the open support of United States President Richard Nixon. A strike by truck-owners, which the CIA supported by funding them with US$2 million within the frame of the "September Plan," began on October 9, 1972 <3>. The strike was declared by the Confederación Nacional del Transporte, then presided by León Vilarín, one of the leader of the far-right paramilitary group Patria y Libertad <3>. The Confederation, which gathered 165 truck-owners trade-unions, with 40 000 members and 56 000 vehicles, decreeted an indefinite strike, paralyzing the country.
(snip) http://www.answers.com/topic/1973-chilean-coup-d-tat~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Last but not least:
Chile 1964-1973
A hammer and sickle stamped on your child's forehead
excerpted from the book
Killing Hope
by William Blum
~snip~
The stage was set for a clash of two experiments. One was Allende's "socialist" experiment aimed at lifting Chile from the mire of underdevelopment and dependency and the poor from deprivation. The other was, as CIA Director William Colby later put it, a "prototype or laboratory experiment to test the techniques of heavy financial investment in an effort to discredit and bring down a government."
Although there were few individual features of this experiment which were unique for the CIA, in sum total it was perhaps the most multifarious intervention ever undertaken by the United States. In the process it brought a new word into the language: destabilizatlon.
"Not a nut or bolt be allowed to reach Chile under Allende", warned American Ambassador Edward Korry before the confirmation. The Chilean economy, so extraordinarily dependent upon the United States, was the country's soft underbelly, easy to pound. Over the next three years, new US government assistance programs for Chile plummeted almost to the vanishing point, similarly with loans from the US Export-Import Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, in which the United States held what amounted to a veto; and the World Bank made no new loans at all to Chile during 1971-73. US government financial assistance or guarantees to American private investment in Chile were cut back sharply and American businesses were given the word to tighten the economic noose.
What this boycott translated into were things like the many buses and taxis out of commission in Chile due to a lack of replacement parts; and similar difficulties in the copper, steel, electricity and petroleum industries. American suppliers refused to sell needed parts despite Chile's offer to pay cash in advance.
Multinational ITT, which didn't need to be told what to do, stated in a 1970 memorandum: "A more realistic hope among those who want to block Allende is that a swiftly deteriorating economy will touch off a wave of violence leading to a military coup."
(snip/...)
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Chile_KH.html |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
