Powell's Comments Re: Chile '73

[Wernazuma III]

Damn, I can't find the article anymore, but I've got somewhere here a Chilean communist paper which also holds that Allende refused to leave the palace deliberately. We'll never know whether he'd have been shot if surrendering to the troops of Pinochet...

Anyway, "Verdad y justicia" for those who suffered under Pinochet. It's a good sign when an American politician can jump over his shadow and admits that this kind of politics was a wrong way.


That's a photo I took from Allende's grave:

[Sirotnikov]

I'm taken the chilean president's word.

This considering I've also met che making all sorts of interesting claims about world events, which I found no basis for.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Even the Chilean socialists and communist of this days know and accept that Allende kill himself after the militaries gave him the chance to fly to Cuba with his staff and family.

A man commiting a suicide while he in under siege... now that is lovley... he must have been suffering from depression and while under siege he run out of prozac and he commited suicide ... or perhaps he couldn't stand that he just lost a job and that was too much for him...

come on... the victor writes the history but they need to come up with some better stories really...

[Az]

exactly.

"No no no, It's not the Military Shells that killed him, he killed himself!"

Like that matters, he was still ousted in a coup.

[Kidlicious]

Conservatives care little about national soveriegnty when it comes down to the bottom of things.

[Dr. Nick]

Jesus christ, Chilean, you DO sound like a Chilean born and raised in a Pinochetean education system.

He killed himself with the AK-47 that Castro gave him when he refused to be embarked to Cuba and he was screwing his secretary and then he was a godless communist and, and, and he was going to take away all our civil liberties and rights. What next? Allende was the Antichrist, and the Pope didn't have enough time to excommunicate him? I'm not going to contest fact, because what I've read, albeit from various sources, is not much, but it's overly contradicting with all you've said so far. I'm not going to, therefore, contest facts, but you sound like you're spewing propaganda, not as if you're arguing.

Joseph : I think the European powers haven't meddled in South America long before WW2. Actually, the core of the monroe doctrine (early 19th century) was to consider the rest of the Americas should be influenced by the US and not the rest of the world.
IIRC, Europe has stopped to play any significant role in SA since the Spanish-American war.

Europe (particularly Britain) still had a lot to do in the River Plate, as well as in Chile. Commercial and industrial interests primarily, which were overtaken by the US after WW2.

As to the aftermath, Pinochet appears to have gone a little too far. I remember that he allegedly had communists step out of helocopters over the ocean. I doubt that the US "supported," such actions in the sense that we participated in them or approved of them.

But I think the left contends that we support a dictator if we provide the dictator military aid. In this sense, I might agree that we "supported" Pinochet. But at the same time, I am certain that we supported a return to democracy in due course.

The criticism against the US is that it gave its green light to the dictators by being passive. Of all the Presidents, only Jimmy Carter put pressure on the Latin American dictatorships on the human rights issues. It's the hypocrisy of American foreign policy that is criticised, as the US is seen as a passive (though sometimes active) supporter of the regimes because they didn't oppose them enough. The US is viewed as having betrayed the democratic ideals it promulgued by not opposing the juntas. The lack of a strong US condemnation (particularly hypocritical in lieu of their criticism of Cuba but lack of criticism for the right wing dictators) screwed up the image of the US.

[VetLegion]

originaly posted by Sava:
They just know about these things. Let's shut up and believe them.

when will you say this about ex-yugoslavia?

[JCG]

Admitting my ignorance, I've normally believed the "Allende had good intentions but he went too far against the U.S./interests, causing them to provide aid and organization to his opposition with the intent to coup/kill him" theory...

But perhaps I should take into account alternatives coming from native Chileans, including Chilean President's, after reading this thread. IMHO (and experience), when faced with conflicting/biased interpretations, the truth's usually somewhere in the middle....

[Chilean President™]

Again, and for the last time, I'm not defending Pinochet (God help me if I do) or saying that Allende was the antichrist (Por favor Elawrence!!), I'm just giving the facts.
Allende had crappy people on his staff.
A group of them didn't want a democratic government and were thinking of doing some kind of revolution (in a smaller scale than the Cuban)
Almost 80% of the Chileans in 1973 didn't like the government and supported the decision of the Congress to ask the resignation of Allende.
And last, but not least, the Pinochet governmet had between 1973 and 78 (year of the crisis with Argentina) a good evaluation (which of course went down when the torture and human right crimes were knew by the people .. the 'average Chilean' if you prefer).

These are facts as a fact is that the Pinochet government murder 3.000 Chileans, had huge levels of corruption and create an image of Chile that is hard to erase... but we all are doing our best.

I know is hard for many people to see a 'grey point', but is also hard for us too see the conflict as a 'black & white' or 'good & wrong' side, 'cause those side don't exist, both were wrong.. they were extremist positions that divide our society like in the Civil War of 1891.

The difrences between the point of views of the Chileans are:
- Besides the government had problems to do a good job, that doesn't mean that a military coup or any kind of coup is the answer.
- The government had a chance to do the right things but they didn't plus the congress ask for the resgnation of the President, so any kind of coup was welcome.

I suppot the second option because I think that the way it was the path was leading to a Civil War, and thats my opinion.

I will repeat something that Chegitz said before and it is the truth:

There's also a large segment of society who just want the whole thing to be over and an end to the troubles.

Chile faced the demons of the past. Members of the armed left-wings groups and generals of the Pinochet administration are now in jail fulfilling sentence by crimes they committed in the 70's and 80's.
Most of the Chileans see this as an historic fact, far away from all of us. We are now facing the future together, people from the left, the right, above, down,.....
Our history hurts us, not because some had mistaken but because we all were mistaken. And the division that sometimes made us look like two nations in one, thanks to God no longer exists in spite of what foreigners think of us.

[Dr. Nick]

I'm just giving the facts.

You don't sound scholarly, rather sounds like Jerry Springer. I'm not saying whether what you're saying is true or not, I am pointing out that you sound like the Iraqi information minister's 'facts'. Especially when you talk about Allende.

[Imran Siddiqui]

He can only sound like the Iraqi Info Minister if what he is saying is false. I haven't seen any proof that he was lying in any way.

Communists have been known to deify their leaders (especially their deposed leaders). I point to Fidel Castro as proof.

So, I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility that Chileans thought Allende was about to clamp down.

Saying he doesn't sound scholarly, while not refuting anything makes you look more like the Iraqi Information Minister than him .

[Dr. Nick]

He sounds like he's propagandising. It sounds like the US elections, where they'll try and smear as much scandal on the other as they can. I mean, in his first posts Allende shot himself. A bit later, he shot himself with the AK-47 that Castro had given him. And a few posts down Allende shot himself with the AK-47 that Castro had given him and told his secretary whom he was screwing to go away.

Besides, Siddiqui, I can only refute facts, which I stated I would not. I am commenting on his argumentative method. Remember, he's a childspawn of a Pinochetist education system.

[Chilean President™]

1) When Fidel Castro visited Chile, brought Allende an AK-47 that was done specially for him. It even had his initials.

2) The day of the coup Allende was carring that AK-47 and when he was founded dead the same gun was at his feets. Actually it was the only kind of weapon that he like to carry.

3) Miria Contreras ('La Payita'), his secretary made public the letter that Allende gave her. Also President Allende gave her the Proclamation of Independence to keep it away from the fire of the Palace.

And if I was raised on what you call the 'Pinochetist education system' I'm more afraid of your 'Argentinian education system' who have democraticly elected dictators and more military dicatorships than us

[Ned]

Originally posted by El Awrence

The criticism against the US is that it gave its green light to the dictators by being passive. Of all the Presidents, only Jimmy Carter put pressure on the Latin American dictatorships on the human rights issues. It's the hypocrisy of American foreign policy that is criticised, as the US is seen as a passive (though sometimes active) supporter of the regimes because they didn't oppose them enough. The US is viewed as having betrayed the democratic ideals it promulgued by not opposing the juntas. The lack of a strong US condemnation (particularly hypocritical in lieu of their criticism of Cuba but lack of criticism for the right wing dictators) screwed up the image of the US.

Actually, Ford cut of military aid when the OAS revealed what Pinochet was doing. Carter extended this thought to oppose, in principle, any dictator -- execpt, of course, a fellow traveler like Fidel or Saddam Hussein.

[Imran Siddiqui]

He sounds like he's propagandising.

That's the dumbest argument I've ever heard! I can say anyone 'sounds like' they are propagandising, but so what? Address the arguments, not how they 'sound' to you!!