SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (114490)9/11/2003 9:04:21 AM
From: epicure  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
THE WORLD
Allende Revival Stokes Animosity in Chile
Thirty years after his death during a military coup, the leftist leader is honored by a successor.





By Héctor Tobar, Times Staff Writer

SANTIAGO, Chile — President Salvador Allende did not leave this world quietly. With army tanks surrounding his offices in the downtown La Moneda palace, and jets overhead poised to drop bombs on him, he went on the radio for one last defiant speech.

"I will not resign," he said. "I will offer my life to repay the loyalty of the Chilean people." Then he donned a helmet, grabbed a machine gun — and eventually shot himself.







In the three decades that have followed the military coup led by Gen. Augusto Pinochet, the name of the democratically elected leftist president has been all but erased from the nation's history. But now, on the 30th anniversary of the right-wing takeover, Chile's current president, Ricardo Lagos, is bringing Allende back to the forefront of this country's political life.

Allende is being honored this week in two acts of official remembrance that, though simple and muted, have shaken Chile's establishment. A meeting room in the presidential palace was renamed after him Wednesday. And Lagos today will become the first president since the leftist leader's death to enter La Moneda palace through the door by which Allende's body was carried out on Sept. 11, 1973.

The potent symbolism has provoked anger not only from the right-wing parties and military officers who backed the Pinochet dictatorship, but also from the centrist allies in Lagos' ruling center-left coalition, who have declined to attend the official ceremonies marking the coup's anniversary.

"It doesn't seem right to us that the former adversaries of the Allende government should be asked to attend an act in honor of a government we thought was a bad one," said Patricio Aylwin, a former president, reflecting a common sentiment in the Christian Democratic Party.

Elected president in 1970, Allende ruled during a heady time in which he and his supporters imagined themselves leading their country down a "Chilean road to socialism." He nationalized industries and earned the enmity of the Nixon administration, which worked covertly to undermine his government.

About 3,200 people died in the coup and in the 17 years of right-wing authoritarian rule that followed, according to the official "truth commission" report issued in 1991 under the government of Aylwin, the democratically elected president to whom Pinochet handed power in 1990.

Despite the reservations of Alywin and others, the image of Allende and his leftist Popular Unity government has undergone a remarkable rehabilitation here. No longer is he seen as the bumbling Marxist ideologue that the Chilean media once made him out to be. Instead, he is increasingly viewed as a courageous statesman and a victim of U.S. meddling in Chilean affairs.

Pinochet, meanwhile, is a largely discredited man who has escaped trial for gross human rights violations only because a judge said he suffers from "dementia."

The horrors of the 1973 coup are being detailed on nightly documentaries, such as a recent one that offered viewers images long considered taboo here: workers recovering bodies of executed prisoners from the Santiago trash dumps and the Mapocho River.

Most tellingly, the report used the Spanish word for coup, golpe, rather than the long accepted euphemism — "the military process."

"There has been a 180-degree turn," said Sen. Jorge Patricio Arancibia, a member of the rightist Independent Democratic Union.

During the 1973 coup, Arancibia was a naval officer overseeing the detention of workers at a coastal factory. He said no one was tortured or killed there, and he remains proud of the military's overthrow of Allende.

Until 1998, he pointed out, Sept. 11 was a national holiday here, celebrated as the day of Chile's liberation from "Marxist terror." Then the holiday was canceled and replaced with a memorial Mass. Now Allende will be honored on that day.

"The government is making a mistake putting Allende's name forward on Sept. 11," Arancibia said. "Far from being a statesman, he was one of the worst presidents Chile has ever had. He ruined the country."

Arancibia and other rightists see political motives in the celebration, a distraction from economic woes and scandals that have eaten away at the popularity of the ruling alliance, the Coalition of Parties for Democracy.

All three presidents elected since Pinochet stepped down — Aylwin, Eduardo Frei and Lagos — have been members of the coalition, which united two parties that were bitter foes during the Allende period, the Christian Democrats and Allende's Socialist Party.

After taking office in 2000, Lagos enjoyed wide popularity until several congressmen from his coalition were implicated in a bribery scandal this year. Then a government fund was plundered by the worst case of financial fraud in Chilean history.

Sensing the government's weakness on the issue, the right-wing Independent Democratic Union in May put forward its a plan to prosecute human rights abuses from the Allende era.

Four months later, the Lagos government announced that it would expand and accelerate the prosecution of the military men and security agents guilty of the worst excesses during the dictatorship. And, for the first time, lower-ranking officers would be given immunity to testify against their superiors.

"There is no perfect justice on this Earth," said Jose Zalaquett, Lagos' top human rights advisor. "But we will achieve a significant measure of justice if we ensure that the worst cases do not go unpunished."

The effort is slowly gaining traction in what has become a regionwide effort to accelerate the prosecution of past human rights abuses, with Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil and Peru all taking steps to revisit a recent history of political violence, torture and killings.

In Chile, a handful of former "repressors" have been convicted in the last two years and are serving prison sentences. Before then, officers had been tried in only one prominent case, the 1976 assassination in Washington of Orlando Letelier, Allende's exiled defense minister.

Gen. Manuel Contreras, head of Pinochet's secret police, who was found guilty in 1993 by a Chilean court of ordering Letelier's assassination, was arrested again this year on new charges.

"And his boss, Pinochet," said Zalaquett, "has avoided prison only because biology and time took their course. In the moment he was held to answer [for his crimes], he was mentally impaired."

One of the most important legacies of the Pinochet era was a law that granted amnesty to any military man who committed a crime in the line of duty between 1973 and 1978.

In recent years, however, a growing number of former officials have been prosecuted thanks to a loophole: Cases involving victims who remain "disappeared" are being treated by many judges as if they were ongoing kidnapping cases, and thus as crimes that continued to occur after the amnesty period.

Several prominent officers have been convicted, dozens of ex-soldiers and security agents are in custody, and about 200 other military men are facing charges, while hundreds more cases remain dormant.

Ongoing judicial proceedings, carried out in private, are shedding new light on the horrors of that Sept. 11 of three decades ago, according to lawyer Nelson Caucoto, who represents family members seeking prosecution in dozens of cases. Court proceedings have revealed that the arrested personnel from La Moneda were taken to a military base, where they were killed with hand grenades, he said.

The Lagos government's new proposal would increase the number of special judges to prosecute human rights cases and also increase the benefits paid to former political prisoners and the relatives of the disappeared.

And yet, many here feel the government's plan is a surrender to Chile's still-powerful right.

"Each time we see these repressors free on the streets, it is an insult to the memory of our loved ones," said Lorena Pizarro, 37, whose parents disappeared during the dictatorship.

Pizarro is president of the Union of Families of Disappeared Prisoners. She was 7 years old the day Allende fell. Both of her parents, high-ranking militants in the Communist Party, went into hiding. Eventually, the entire family lived in safe houses under new identities, forcing the children to address their parents by different names. Then her parents were captured at a party meeting, and she never saw them again.

At the Pinochet Foundation, established to celebrate the general's 80th birthday in 1995, Sergio Jarpa believes that most Chileans do not want to dwell on the horrors of the past.

Yes, some excesses were committed during the "military process," and the people responsible should be prosecuted, said Jarpa, a former minister in Pinochet's government. But he believes history will look kindly upon the dictator's reign.

Despite the recent malaise, Chile's economy remains one of the strongest in South America and Pinochet's application of strict fiscal discipline after the "excesses" and hyperinflation of the Allende government deserves the credit, Jarpa said.

Sen. Arancibia also believes history will be kind to Pinochet.

"Look at how many people were killed in Argentina [as many as 30,000], and their problems were not even half as bad as ours," he said. "Or look at Peru, where they are now saying [more than 69,000] people were killed. And let's not even mention places like Africa.

"When you look at it from that point of view," Arancibia continued, "what we had in Chile was practically a surgical operation."

latimes.com



To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (114490)9/11/2003 9:44:13 AM
From: aladin  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Jacob,

That was a different era. We should really look at a new year 0 and start over.

I understand a lot of animosity over right wing thugs we backed during the cold war (and some like the Saudi's left over from that era). What gets a lot of conservatives is the biased view of most liberals never admitting there was a communist empire bent on expansion backing lots of left wing thugs. Castro is the textbook example.

You at least are very open about your animosity to all thugs (be they right or left).

John



To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (114490)9/11/2003 10:04:39 AM
From: Dennis O'Bell  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
And Kissinger was only one of a list of Americans who would be in serious danger of getting hauled in front of the ICC, for crimes against humanity, if the U.S. believed in the rule of law, or equality before the law (for anyone other than Americans).

If anyone thinks I would like to let any of those out of touch "diplomats" sitting in Brussels on the European Union have a word to say about dragging Americans in front of their international tribune, they're dreaming. One would have to be hopelessly naive to think for a nanosecond that playing the boyscout would buy us a shred of good will for all the headaches it would cause.

Understand well what jerks the Europeans are; they treat a terrorist like Arafat as some kind of legitimate head of state and award the terrorist the Nobel Peace Prize. And you want me to trust these clowns with the international legal status of Americans ?? I mean, let's get real !!!!!

There were plenty of communists every bit as bad as Pinochet. But my country didn't put them in power, so I am not responsible for their crimes.

Yeah, and it's "living in the Cold War" where communists are concerned, naturally nothing further is allowed to be said about them, it's only the odd Pinochet one is allowed to complain about.

OK fine, but when living in France not too many years back I got to see the real comparison. First, I saw the French welcome Castro as some kind of long lost hero, complete with Danielle Mitterand playing kissy-face. Naturally, Cuban expatriates with a word or two to say about the old fart were kept out of the news. Then I saw every Socialist on the continent go right after Pinochet when the equally old fart showed up for some medical treatment or whatever the pretext was for him to be in England, and you never heard the end of it, it went on for months.

This is not an isolated pair of incidents, but the standard pattern where treatment the US or capitalism is concerned, and it's nothing but sour grapes from once-great colonial powers with delusions of continued importance.

And it's far, far, more biased for Israel - a country that wouldn't even exist if it hadn't been for European anti-semitism.

crossed out the word "communist", replaced it with the word "Islamist"

There is no comparison between Communism and Islamist extremists. Communism was a genuine global danger to world democracy with the Soviets at the helm, while the latter is a small group of criminals incapable of any more than occasional murder of unarmed citizens here and there. The rest of the "Muslim street" will sooner or later have to embrace western progress or else be left far, far, behind as the Asians and the West carry human progress forward.



To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (114490)9/12/2003 1:07:51 AM
From: frankw1900  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Especially since Kissinger's Cold War Manual For Murder and Mayhem is still being used. They just crossed out the word "communist", replaced it with the word "Islamist", and carried on as before.

Commnunist, fascist, baathist, islamist, etc = anti-democratic, anti-reason, anti-modern ideology and action.

Galtieri, Pinochet, Shining Path, Hussein, etc, are all pigs. As were the Soviets with their gulags.

As are the Taliban and the wretched medieval fools running Saudi Arabia and destroying Pakistan.

I cut to the chase thirty years ago and it's time you did too.

The struggle, as I've said here, a zillion times, is between archaism and modernity. There is no quarter.

Throughout most of history modernity has lost. It got a huge leg up in the 18th century and has been winning since but not without gigantic sacrifice, as the wars and tragedies of the 19th and 20th centuries have demonstrated.

I think modernity has been almost too successful. Those who live within it have in some cases become complacent and have stopped vigorously defending the secular nature of their education systems and governments. And others have become self-indulgent in looking for the magic bullet cure for their difficulties and insecurities in nostalgic efforts to recapture the world views and systems of other times.

In both cases they reject, at the least, reason, and often democracy, as well. (See the example of the wacko judge who thinks the Constitution of the US is not valid).

The history of the last five hundred years has demonstrated that religion cannot be allowed to intermingle in government in any significant way because it leads to tyranny and incessant warfare.

The history of the last hundred years has shown that Culture oriented secular replacements for religion (communism, fascism, islamism) are equally noxious to human freedom and welfare when they intermingle with government..

Modernity has costs. The obvious one is constant, unsettling change. A less obvious one is that it can easily host archaic elements at little cost to itself until they grow very large, demand public space and the right to interfere with peoples' thoughts and lives. And once more tyranny rises up.

Modernity doesn't require abandonment of ethics. Contrarily, it requires much greater ethical effort and its beneficiaries are obliged to make that effort - much of the time they don't. The most obvious example I can think of is the American and European embrace of subsidies (in themselves an archaism) at huge cost to the poor parts of the world (and strangely, considerable cost to themselves, as well). And it requires appalling choices.

The world has become too small and crowded to sustain both modernity and its archaic enemies. We've been to this poisoned well before:

Although the West and US supported some vile regimes during the Cold War they were, despite claims to the contrary, never that comfortable doing so and were happy and relieved to drop support of these regimes and support their democratic replacements. You should especially note opposition to the Soviet and Chinese communists was not based on their regrettable economic model but on the undemocratic, indeed tyrannical, nature of their ideology and regimes. It seems contradictory at first glance that the US would support strongman regimes but these were based on a person or family opposed to the Soviets and were seen as means of keeping the people in these countries from under the Soviet ideology. This policy was socially and economically less successful in the Philipines, S America and Arabia because these areas were ruled by people and families whose economic views, indeed world views, were more appropriate to the 17th, 13 th or even 8th centuries than the 20th.

Bluntly, the West held its nose against the tyranical stink of these regimes and supported them because it had to.

You should also note successive US regimes did not like, but did not interfere with socialist countries which held strong democratic beliefs. The US and Western opposition was against the one-man-one-vote-one-time ideological outfits like the Soviet and Chinese communists and previously, the fascists.

Your comments about Kissinger are badly taken. He did what he had to do. He had lousy clients and not much choice of clients - he either had no choice, or choices between bad and worse. I'm sure if you or I had been in Kissenger's position we would have made different choices; some of them equally bad.

So, islamism of the wahhabist sort is every bit as nasty, if not nastier than communism - it partakes of many of the same methodologies as communism, it's just as expansionary, perhaps more totalitarian, leads to possibly even greater social disaster than communism, but even so, you don't want to use Kissenger's "book." Fair enough, which "book" do you want to work from?