Talk:Augusto Pinochet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ericd (talk | contribs) at 09:20, 26 March 2004 (Pinochet didn't murder only communnists.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archive 1

Dictatorship vs. democracy

The article had:

was a military dictator who...

I cut this, because dictators don't generally create constitutions which result in their getting voted out of office! --Uncle Ed 19:06, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 29, 1936 - Hitler gets 99% approval in a "free" plebicite approving Nazi rule Mintguy (T) 19:16, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Balanced perspective

Okay, maybe I'm all wrong about Pinochet, but check out talk:Chile for the current state of the country.

My POV is that Pinochet stopped Allende from turning Chile into a Marxist dictatorship. Ah, if only Germany had someone who could have stopped Hitler from turning Germany into a fascist dictatorship!

Let's discuss how we can balance the two main POVs:

  1. Pinochet is bad because he overthrew an "elected president"; and because he prevented socialists from establishing a worker's paradise; and because he brutally suppressed revolutionaries trying to overthrow his dictatorship; versus,
  1. Pinochet is good because he stopped Allende from seizing power and creating a dictatorship; he reversed the damage Allende's ill-advised socialist reforms caused; he stepped down voluntarily after holding free elections

--Uncle Ed 19:25, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ed - you are embarking on revisionism. Pinochet expected to win the plebicte, otherwise he wouldn't have held it (just like Hitler in 1936). He was surrounded by sychophants who told him he would win. Many members of the opposition has just been executed after the attempt on Pinochet's life the previous year, the remainging figures in the opposition movement were not united. Mintguy (T) 19:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Good. Put that in the article! "Pinochet had no intention of giving up the perverse thrill of being a dictator. He thought that like Hitler he could consolidate his power by holding a special election that would forever trample democracy under his boots. In an incredible quirk of fate, democratic forces jerked the rug out from under him."
Just make sure that it's labelled as the point of view of its advocate -- and, oh yes, balance it with the point of view of its opponent. We want a neutral article, right? Not just one which praises or condemns Pinochet... --Uncle Ed 19:42, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Anyway, I'm banning myself from this article for the rest of the week. My rule is: if there's even a 10% chance that I'm biased and don't know it, I stop work and search my conscience. --Uncle Ed 19:45, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The plebiscite was programmed since 1980, it was among the transitory articles in the constitution aproved by referendum on that year (that also gave Pinochet 8 more year, so he was elected in a sense for the period 1981-1989). Pinochet didn't govern alone, the "Junta" (the other commanders in chief) were the only ones that could have prevented the plebiscite, and with difficulty, because it would have meant a constitutional reform. The "many members of the opposition executed" were three comunists (only a small part of the opposition) that didn't help important positions, and who were murdered, the crime was investigated. The opposition had access to free time on TV for the plebiscite, the same as the "yes" option (half an hour each everyday for a month or so). Of course there was unnoficial tv time for the yes option in news or so, but I don'tr think that that is so unusual. Recent versions say that Pinochet thought of not accepting the results, but he was not the sole ruler, the Junta would have had to approve a break of the constitution, and they didn't. --AstroNomer 19:49, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

CIA role in coup

This page at George Washington University has a number of important declassified documents that provide information on the involvement of the CIA in supporting the coup on September 11, 1973: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8.htm -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 19:18, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

The CIA, and the government of the US in general did contribute the the conditions that led to the coup, that is very well documented. It is also documented relation of the CIA with the repressive apparatus. But the involvement of the CIA in the coup itself is not documented anywhere. It might be in the still not declassified documents, but until they are declassified (if they exist) there is no proof of involvement of the CIA in the coup. If I am wrong, please point me to the appropiate sources.--AstroNomer 17:00, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

Give me a break...US and CIA support of the coup is not even a topic of dispute. I can go beyond that and say the US government handed the Chileans the name of American journalists and the like in Chile who were subsequently executed is not in dispute. The US also let the Chilean spooks come into the US and assassinate an American, Ronni Karpen Moffitt on a street in Washington DC during a time that they were assassinating Chilean exiles and pro-Chileans all over Europe as well, something the US government gave less of a damn about, although there is no smoking gun to speak of. But of course, someone was killing Chilean exiles and supporters all over the world and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. The US support of Chile's coup is braindead, you should stick to arguing about DINA's hit on Moffitt and the like. -- Hanpuk 17:55, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The best collection of declassified material can be found in the National Security Archive, also online here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/latin_america/chile.htm. The website collects numerous declassified documents that show US support for an overthrow of Allende and other measures to bolster a dictatorship in Chile. AstroNomer is correct that there is little direct evidence that the CIA had a hand in the actual coup, but that is not the issue - we are talking about the phrase "CIA supported", which is certainly warranted by the available evidence. To quote:
  • Cables written by U.S. Ambassador Edward Korry after Allende's election, detailing conversations with President Eduardo Frei on how to block the president-elect from being inaugurated. The cables contain detailed descriptions and opinions on the various political forces in Chile, including the Chilean military, the Christian Democrat Party, and the U.S. business community.
  • CIA memoranda and reports on "Project FUBELT"--the codename for covert operations to promote a military coup and undermine Allende's government. The documents, including minutes of meetings between Henry Kissinger and CIA officials, CIA cables to its Santiago station, and summaries of covert action in 1970, provide a clear paper trail to the decisions and operations against Allende's government
  • National Security Council strategy papers which record efforts to "destabilize" Chile economically, and isolate Allende's government diplomatically, between 1970 and 1973.
  • State Department and NSC memoranda and cables after the coup, providing evidence of human rights atrocities under the new military regime led by General Pinochet.
  • FBI documents on Operation Condor--the state-sponsored terrorism of the Chilean secret police, DINA. The documents, including summaries of prison letters written by DINA agent Michael Townley, provide evidence on the carbombing assassination of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt in Washington D.C., and the murder of Chilean General Carlos Prats and his wife in Buenos Aires, among other operations.
Now, as to whether it is justified to speculate about very direct involvement, I think the orders to the CIA station chief in Santiago, Henry Hecksher, are quite clear: "It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup." These operations were explicitly ordered to be conducted to hide the "American hand". Given that not all material is declassified, and given that the evidence is clear, informed speculation about direct involvement is certainly on solid ground and has a place in the article about the matter.
—Eloquence 18:02, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
Informed speculation is on firm ground, and has a place in the article, no doubt about it. But do we want speculation on the first paragraph, that defines the article? I belive that the coup would have happened even without CIA involvement, (not so sure without the whole US involvement in international organizations) and given that, also, there is strong suggestion that Pinochet wasn't even involved in the planning until shortly before (lower officials in the Army, and the Navy and Air Force apparently did most of the planning) I do not like the impression that Pinochet was simply doing the CIA's bidding in the coup, epecially when there is no proof about that. --AstroNomer 18:23, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
We do not imply that the CIA carried out the coup, or that it would not have happened without them. That the CIA supported the coup is a fact. And that fact belongs into the introduction.—Eloquence 18:26, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with AstroNomer. The CIA role is a complex topic, and simply saying they "supported" it is not clear, and could be misconstrued as saying they supported Pinochet specifically. The CIA in fact claims they did not know about it until just before it happened, and barely knew who Pinochet was, so how could they "support" it, except in a vague sense that they wanted some sort of coup to happen (and in 1970)? By this standard, millions of people all over the world "supported" the coup, perhaps it was "Willy Brandt-supported". The possible influence of the CIA is discussed later on in fuller detail. This unclear and off-topic claim does not belong in the introductory paragraph. -- VV 02:12, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is documentary evidence for CIA support of the coup. See [1], and in particular [2]. I quote:

The President asked the Agency [the CIA, presumably] 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 support from the Departments of State or Defense. (emphasis mine).

This document [3] mentions CIA agents establishing contacts with coup supporters. If no-one can provide any evidence to the contrary, I will amend the page to show that there is very little doubt over CIA support of the coup. —Cadr

I see some of this has been discussed on the talk page before (sorry for not noticing). I think there's overwhelming evidence to justify the phrase "CIA support", and it is important to mention it in the first paragraph, becuause it is possible that the coup would not even have succeeded without CIA support. How it can be considered "off topic" I'm not sure. —Cadr
Hmm, I've changed my mind. It's probably better to leave it out of the intro, if only to prevent the constant edit wars.—Cadr

"Dictator"

Just to return to the question of why we can't call him a "military dictator". He clearly was a military dicatator. Holding a plebiscite when you feel like it does not stop you from being a dictator. —Cadr

He didn't hold a plebiscite when he felt like it, the plebiscite was decided in 1980, when the constitution (that still rules) was approved. Anyway, you can call it a military dictator, but please do the same with Fidel Castro. I put dictator there but was reverted telling he is "elected". In competition with whom? In Cuba there isn't even a "no" option like there was in the 1980 and 1989 plebiscites...--AstroNomer 18:12, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
Maybe we can't call ANYONE a "dictator", if it's one of those inflammatory words no one can agree on, like "terrorism". Words like ruler and leader are still relatively uncontroversial.
If we are using "dictator" in the sense of "unelected leader who is accountable to no one", then only Idi Amin comes to mind. Unless Fidel Castro's 45-year reign over Cuba counts...
Anyway, with the legitimacy of the regime so highly contested, we're probably better off not making an evaluation. Just say that "X calls him a dictator, Y calls him a whatever". Editorial neutrality means rising above controversies. Assume an air of Olympian detachment, eh? --Uncle Ed 19:50, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
"military ruler"? "de facto ruler"? –Hajor

"military ruler" or simply "ruler" would be the most indicated. "de facto ruler" would only cover the period 1973-1981, as after that he was "de jure" ruler according to the still current constitution. And somewhere else in the text say he was considered a dictator by opponents. When asked if his government was a "dictadura" he replied it was a "dictablanda" ("dura" means "hard" in spanish, "blanda" means "soft").--AstroNomer 20:32, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

AstroNomer, I recommend you read the following three pages, from Country Studies: Chile, by the US Library of Congress. They may be clarifying:
-Imposition of Authoritarian Rule
-The Constitution of 1980 and...
-Authoritarianism Defeated by Its Own Rules
The original article in at the LOC web site (and listed at Chile), however those pages aren't bookmarkable as in the above mirror. --Cantus 21:22, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm well aware of the strong presidentialism and authoritarism of the original 1980 constitution, as well as how they were softened to more acceptable levels by the 1989 reforms. My point is, with his imperfections, it has been the law of the land since 1981, and you can't deny its validity without denying the legitimity of the current political system. --AstroNomer 21:48, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
Did you read the pages? The 1980 constitution had thirty-four "transitional" articles that would only apply from 1980 until 1990, a time Pinochet had assured he'd be in power, and that were largely undemocratic. And I'm not denying the current system, but it has many faults, and most are due to the 1980 constitution ( ie. the undemocratic binomial legislative system.) --Cantus 22:03, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have never said that the transitional articles were democratic, nor the military regime said that. The fact that Pinochet would be the president in that period and the military junta would be the legislative power was in those articles, as was the way in which at the end of the eight years of "transition" ( in which the proper laws that would regulate the functioning of the permanent institutions and political parties would have been enacted) the power would be returned to civilian rule. The description of the binomial system as "undemocratic" is subject to discussion. I consider the US electoral college highly undemocratic, but almost nobody says the US is not a democratic country because of that.--AstroNomer 22:15, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
[OFF-TOPIC] The US gov. is pure propaganda. That's how it's gotten away with so many criminal acts in and out of their frontiers: by lying to their people. They preach on freedom and democracy, but it's just a cover, and everyone around the world has gotten really tired of it. --Cantus 22:32, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If I may butt in, guys, I think Cantus has hit the nail on the head. The issue is what sort of government is considered "democratic". For some, it means (A) having a written constitution which provides for orderly transfers of power and/or provides for the dismissal and appointment of top official in response to votes cast by ordinary citizens. On this basis, US is generally considered the pioneer and champion. For others, it means (B) pursuing policies which socialists/Marxists, environmentalists, multilateralists, etc. APPROVE OF -- regardless of constitution or elections; in the latter sense, North Korea, Cuba and a dozen-odd states calling themselves "The People's Democratic Republic of This or That" are considered democratic. Wikipedia shouldn't take sides, but can help analyze the reasons for the dispute. --Uncle Ed 13:06, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
America the champion of "people-powered" democracy? That perception is popular within the United States. Around the globe, America is by now pretty much the most hated country (perhaps next to Israel), and certainly not looked upon as a model of democracy, but as a model of hypocrisy, especially after the last election.—Eloquence 13:31, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
Kerry was educated at a boarding school in Switzerland, where he learned to speak fluent nuance, and this skill naturally endears him to the average French official who has been taught to say "I surrender" in several languages. --Uncle Ed 13:48, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What are you on about, Ed? No-one mentioned Kerry or France, did they? Re democracy, I expect critics of US democracy would not claim that North Korea and Cuba are democracies, as you offensively and inaccurately suggest, but would rather point out that American electoral politics (although it is by no means alone in this respect) is a farsical contest between two parties and their robotic flag-waving stoodges, each whoring themselves to slightly different shady business interests. The Simpsons hit the nail on the head with their "Kang and Kodos stand for president" Halloween episode. --Cadr
You can call California's governor "robotic" and he'd probably grin at the reference to his Terminator screen roles, but "flag-waving stooge" is a bit much. And what about all the non-Republican, non-Democratic politicians who have risen to state and local office? (Not to mention the occasional independent in Congress?) Shall we create an article on American democracy? --Uncle Ed 15:00, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Another off-topic comment by 'Uncle Ed.' You obviously didn't understand the 'robotic' reference if you thought the poster meant Arnold Schwarzenegger. --Cantus 05:48, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I was being a little tongue-in-cheek of course ;) Obviously America is constitutionally a democracy (unless you're a strong believer in proportional representation, perhaps) but I think its fair to say that many major policy issues are decided, or at least heavily influenced, by elites who persist in their influence despite changes of government. There is also a general right-wing bias to the media, which tends to marginalize whole spectrums of political thought and the people who represent them (although not being an American I don't have any very direct experience of the America media, but I do read American news websites fairly often). So you could quite plausibly argue that American democracy was little more than a legal technicality in many ways, though this is not to say that America isn't one of the most free (whatever exactly that means), democratic, etc. countries in the world — even Chomsky is quite clear on that point. Anyway, my point is that I think your original summary of opinion was incorrect: people who criticize America as undemocratic do not, generally, regard North Korea or Cuba as democratic. —Cadr
Hmm, one little thing. It's quite possible to democratically elect a government who have no concern for democracy. A lot of criticism has been directed at undemocratic actions of elected governments (e.g. the Patriot Act) rather than a lack of a democratic system of choosing governments.—Cadr
Let's choose a random sample of a democratically elected leader who have no concern for democracy : Adolf Hitler. Of course, "random sample" is a bit tongue-in-cheek. Ericd 18:49, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pinochet didn't murder only communnists. For reference about the victim of Pinochet see : http://www.lakota.clara.net/derechos/victims.htm Ericd 09:20, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Augusto_Pinochet&oldid=2924783"