Henry Kissinger said in his eulogy: "The world is a better place, a safer place, because of Richard Nixon." I’m sure he was thinking of Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. But let’s focus on one place that wasn’t mentioned in all the media hoopla- Chile-and see how it’s a "better, safer place." In early September 1970, Salvador Allende was elected president of Chile in a democratic election. What were his politics?
He was basically a social democrat, very much of the European type. He was calling for minor redistribution of wealth, to help the poor. (Chile was a very inegalitarian society.) Allende was a doctor, and one of the things he did was to institute a free milk program for half a million very poor, malnourished children. He called for nationalization of major industries like copper mining, and for a policy of international independence-meaning that Chile wouldn’t simply subordinate itself to the US, but would take more of an independent path.
Was the election he won free and democratic?
Not entirely, because there were major efforts to disrupt it, mainly by the US. It wasn’t the flrst time the US had done that. For example, our government intervened massively to prevent Allende from winning the preceding election, in 1964. In fact, when the Church Committee investigated years later, they discovered that the US spent more money per capita to get the candidate it favored elected in Chile in 1964 than was spent by both candidates (Johnson and Goldwater) in the 1964 election in the US!
Similar measures were undertaken in 1970 to try to prevent a free and democratic election. There was a huge amount of black propaganda about how if Allende won, mothers would be sending their children off to Russia to become slaves-stuff like that. The US also threatened to destroy the economy, which it could-and did-do.
Nevertheless, Allende won. A few days after his victory, Nixon called in CIA Director Richard Helms, Kissinger and others for a meeting on Chile. Can you describe what happened?
As Helms reported in his notes, there were two points of view. The "soft line" was, in Nixon’s words, to "make the economy scream." The "hard line" was simply to aim for a military coup.
Our ambassador to Chile, Edward Korry, who was a Kennedy liberal type, was given the job of implementing the "soft line." Here’s how he described his task: "to do all within our power to condemn Chile and the Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty." That was the soft line.
There was a massive destabilization and disinformation campaign. The CIA planted stories in El Mercurio [Chile’s most prominent paper] and fomented labor unrest and strikes.
They really pulled out the stops on this one. Later, when the military coup finally came [in September, 1973] and the government was overthrown-and thousands of people were being imprisoned, tortured and slaughtered- the economic aid which had been canceled immediately began to flow again. As a reward for the military junta’s achievement in reversing Chilean democracy, the US gave massive support to the new government.
Our ambassador to Chile brought up the question of torture to Kissinger. Kissinger rebuked him sharply-saying something like, Don’t give me any of those political science lectures. We don’t care about torture-we care about important things. Then he explained what the important things were.
Kissinger said he was concerned that the success of social democracy in Chile would be contagious. It would infect southern Europe-southern Italy, for example-and would lead to the possible success of what was then called Eurocommunism (meaning that Communist parties would hook up with social democratic parties in a united front).
Actually, the Kremlin was just as much opposed to Eurocommunism as Kissinger was, but this gives you a very clear picture of what the domino theory is all about. Even Kissinger, mad as he is, didn’t believe that Chilean armies were going to descend on Rome. It wasn’t going to be that kind of an influence. He was worried that successful economic development, where the economy produces benefits for the general population-not just profits for private corporations-would have a contagious effect.
In those comments, Kissinger revealed the basic story of US foreign policy for decades.
You see that pattern repeating itself in Nicaragua in the 1980s.
Everywhere. The same was true in Vietnam, in Cuba, in Guatemala, in Greece. That’s always the worry-the threat of a good example.
Kissinger also said, again speaking about Chile, "I don’t see why we should have to stand by and let a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people."
As the Economist put it, we should make sure that policy is insulated from politics. If people are irresponsible, they should just be cut out of the system.
In recent years, Chile’s economic growth rate has been heralded in the press.
Chile’s economy isn’t doing badly, but it’s based almost entirely on exports-fruit, copper and so on-and thus is very vulnerable to world markets.
There was a really funny pair of stories yesterday. The New York Times had one about how everyone in Chile is so happy and satisfied with the political system that nobody’s paying much attention to the upcoming election.
But the London Financial Times (which is the world’s most influential business paper, and hardly radical) took exactly the opposite tack. They cited polls that showed that 75% of the population was very "disgruntled" with the political system (which allows no options).
There is indeed apathy about the election, but that’s a reflection of the breakdown of Chile’s social structure. Chile was a very vibrant, lively, democratic society for many, many years-into the early 1970s. Then, through a reign of fascist terror, it was essentially depoliticized. The breakdown of social relations is pretty striking. People work alone, and just try to fend for themselves. The retreat into individualism and personal gain is the basis for the political apathy.
Nathaniel Nash wrote the Times’ Chile story. He said that many Chileans have painful memories of Salvador Allende’s fiery speeches, which led to the coup in which thousands of people were killed [including Allende]. Notice that they don’t have painful memories of the torture, of the fascist terror-just of Allende’s speeches as a popular candidate.
Well, not just the media but pretty much true of academic world, the picture is we the leading democracy in the world, the beacon of freedom and rights and democracy. The fact that democratic participation here is extremely marginal, doesn’t enter [the media story.] The media will condemn the elections in Iran, rightly, because the candidates have to be vetted by the clerics. But they won’t point out that in the United States [candidates] have to be vetted by high concentrations of private capital. You can’t run in an election unless you can collect millions of dollars.
One interesting case is right now. This happens to be the 50th anniversary of the US invasion of South Vietnam – the worst atrocity in the post war period. Killed millions of people, destroyed four countries, total horror story. Not a word. It didn’t happen because “we” did it. So it didn’t happen.
Take 9-11. That means something in the United States. The “world changed” after 9-11. Well, do a slight thought experiment. Suppose that on 9-11 the planes had bombed the White House… suppose they’d killed the president , established a military dictatorship, quickly killed thousands, tortured tens of thousands more, set up a major international terror center that was carrying out assassinations , overthrowing governments all over the place, installing other dictatorships, and drove the country into one of the worst depressions in its history and had to call on the state to bail them out Suppose that had happened? It did happen. On the first 9-11 in 1973. Except we were responsible for it, so it didn’t happen. That’s Allende’s Chile. You can’t imagine the media talking about this.
And you can generalize it broadly. The same is pretty much true of scholarship – except for on the fringes – it’s certainly true of the mainstream of the academic world. In some respects critique of the media is a bit misleading [because they’re not alone among institutions of influence] and of course, they closely interact.
I can't think of single war the United States government has engaged in that has been justified before it started or had a good outcome after it ended, but the world sorely needs more people like Pinochet in power.
Chile is doing way better than the rest of Latin America, fren. We're richer, we live longer, we have less crime. Only other land comparable is tiny Uruguay.
36 comments
1 McCthulhuDeluxe 2019-04-12
Bop bop bop
1 McCthulhuDeluxe 2019-04-12
Watchin clownfrens drop
1 emonationalist 2019-04-12
Bop bop bop
1 ScuffedRomanReigns 2019-04-12
YAY! WEEEE
1 Titus70 2019-04-12
My general is cute
1 S0NNENRADICAL 2019-04-12
I'm only laughing on the outside, my smile is just skin deep. If you could see inside I'm really crying, you might join me for a weep.
*HONK HONK*
1 Imperial_Account 2019-04-12
Finally, a final solution to the clownfren problem.
1 OhNoBearIsDriving 2019-04-12
Oh no helicopter jokes, ahs nonfrens will be coming after us (again)
1 SHUTTHEFUCKUPWEEBS 2019-04-12
Free publicity for frenworld.
1 duckilol 2019-04-12
thank for ideas SHUTTHEFUCKUPWEEBS, you are a true fren
1 Rubissrox 2019-04-12
That's how found out about this amazingly frenly place.
1 DredgenZeta 2019-04-12
Honk honk
1 Muddcatttt 2019-04-12
sees Dredgen in name
Alright, alright, alright, clowns on the field!
1 04fhs 2019-04-12
Bank those clowns brother, and you’ll summon a clowneval.
1 DredgenZeta 2019-04-12
ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT!
1 _fidel_castro_ 2019-04-12
Hey frens help me out a bit here. Is Julian Assange a fren?
1 SHUTTHEFUCKUPWEEBS 2019-04-12
Pinofren know best how to bop nonfrens.
1 nationalitarian 2019-04-12
Start up the rotors fren!
1 goheels104 2019-04-12
Helibopter
1 Ultimate_Ronaldo 2019-04-12
Yay
1 girosh 2019-04-12
Hello! I just discovered this sub. Could someone tell me what it is?
1 TheEntertainment89 2019-04-12
Wholesome but more like /pol/some
1 GreatEmuWarVeteran2 2019-04-12
frenly sub of peace where we make frens and bop nonfrens
1 girosh 2019-04-12
thank for frenly reply fren I would like to join
1 ChuckyIves 2019-04-12
I’m a fren but I’ve always wanted to fly in a helicopter, can I come too?
1 Saltwaterpapi 2019-04-12
Henry Kissinger said in his eulogy: "The world is a better place, a safer place, because of Richard Nixon." I’m sure he was thinking of Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. But let’s focus on one place that wasn’t mentioned in all the media hoopla- Chile-and see how it’s a "better, safer place." In early September 1970, Salvador Allende was elected president of Chile in a democratic election. What were his politics?
He was basically a social democrat, very much of the European type. He was calling for minor redistribution of wealth, to help the poor. (Chile was a very inegalitarian society.) Allende was a doctor, and one of the things he did was to institute a free milk program for half a million very poor, malnourished children. He called for nationalization of major industries like copper mining, and for a policy of international independence-meaning that Chile wouldn’t simply subordinate itself to the US, but would take more of an independent path.
Was the election he won free and democratic?
Not entirely, because there were major efforts to disrupt it, mainly by the US. It wasn’t the flrst time the US had done that. For example, our government intervened massively to prevent Allende from winning the preceding election, in 1964. In fact, when the Church Committee investigated years later, they discovered that the US spent more money per capita to get the candidate it favored elected in Chile in 1964 than was spent by both candidates (Johnson and Goldwater) in the 1964 election in the US!
Similar measures were undertaken in 1970 to try to prevent a free and democratic election. There was a huge amount of black propaganda about how if Allende won, mothers would be sending their children off to Russia to become slaves-stuff like that. The US also threatened to destroy the economy, which it could-and did-do.
Nevertheless, Allende won. A few days after his victory, Nixon called in CIA Director Richard Helms, Kissinger and others for a meeting on Chile. Can you describe what happened?
As Helms reported in his notes, there were two points of view. The "soft line" was, in Nixon’s words, to "make the economy scream." The "hard line" was simply to aim for a military coup.
Our ambassador to Chile, Edward Korry, who was a Kennedy liberal type, was given the job of implementing the "soft line." Here’s how he described his task: "to do all within our power to condemn Chile and the Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty." That was the soft line.
There was a massive destabilization and disinformation campaign. The CIA planted stories in El Mercurio [Chile’s most prominent paper] and fomented labor unrest and strikes.
They really pulled out the stops on this one. Later, when the military coup finally came [in September, 1973] and the government was overthrown-and thousands of people were being imprisoned, tortured and slaughtered- the economic aid which had been canceled immediately began to flow again. As a reward for the military junta’s achievement in reversing Chilean democracy, the US gave massive support to the new government.
Our ambassador to Chile brought up the question of torture to Kissinger. Kissinger rebuked him sharply-saying something like, Don’t give me any of those political science lectures. We don’t care about torture-we care about important things. Then he explained what the important things were.
Kissinger said he was concerned that the success of social democracy in Chile would be contagious. It would infect southern Europe-southern Italy, for example-and would lead to the possible success of what was then called Eurocommunism (meaning that Communist parties would hook up with social democratic parties in a united front).
Actually, the Kremlin was just as much opposed to Eurocommunism as Kissinger was, but this gives you a very clear picture of what the domino theory is all about. Even Kissinger, mad as he is, didn’t believe that Chilean armies were going to descend on Rome. It wasn’t going to be that kind of an influence. He was worried that successful economic development, where the economy produces benefits for the general population-not just profits for private corporations-would have a contagious effect.
In those comments, Kissinger revealed the basic story of US foreign policy for decades.
You see that pattern repeating itself in Nicaragua in the 1980s.
Everywhere. The same was true in Vietnam, in Cuba, in Guatemala, in Greece. That’s always the worry-the threat of a good example.
Kissinger also said, again speaking about Chile, "I don’t see why we should have to stand by and let a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people."
As the Economist put it, we should make sure that policy is insulated from politics. If people are irresponsible, they should just be cut out of the system.
In recent years, Chile’s economic growth rate has been heralded in the press.
Chile’s economy isn’t doing badly, but it’s based almost entirely on exports-fruit, copper and so on-and thus is very vulnerable to world markets.
There was a really funny pair of stories yesterday. The New York Times had one about how everyone in Chile is so happy and satisfied with the political system that nobody’s paying much attention to the upcoming election.
But the London Financial Times (which is the world’s most influential business paper, and hardly radical) took exactly the opposite tack. They cited polls that showed that 75% of the population was very "disgruntled" with the political system (which allows no options).
There is indeed apathy about the election, but that’s a reflection of the breakdown of Chile’s social structure. Chile was a very vibrant, lively, democratic society for many, many years-into the early 1970s. Then, through a reign of fascist terror, it was essentially depoliticized. The breakdown of social relations is pretty striking. People work alone, and just try to fend for themselves. The retreat into individualism and personal gain is the basis for the political apathy.
Nathaniel Nash wrote the Times’ Chile story. He said that many Chileans have painful memories of Salvador Allende’s fiery speeches, which led to the coup in which thousands of people were killed [including Allende]. Notice that they don’t have painful memories of the torture, of the fascist terror-just of Allende’s speeches as a popular candidate.
1 Saltwaterpapi 2019-04-12
Well, not just the media but pretty much true of academic world, the picture is we the leading democracy in the world, the beacon of freedom and rights and democracy. The fact that democratic participation here is extremely marginal, doesn’t enter [the media story.] The media will condemn the elections in Iran, rightly, because the candidates have to be vetted by the clerics. But they won’t point out that in the United States [candidates] have to be vetted by high concentrations of private capital. You can’t run in an election unless you can collect millions of dollars.
One interesting case is right now. This happens to be the 50th anniversary of the US invasion of South Vietnam – the worst atrocity in the post war period. Killed millions of people, destroyed four countries, total horror story. Not a word. It didn’t happen because “we” did it. So it didn’t happen.
Take 9-11. That means something in the United States. The “world changed” after 9-11. Well, do a slight thought experiment. Suppose that on 9-11 the planes had bombed the White House… suppose they’d killed the president , established a military dictatorship, quickly killed thousands, tortured tens of thousands more, set up a major international terror center that was carrying out assassinations , overthrowing governments all over the place, installing other dictatorships, and drove the country into one of the worst depressions in its history and had to call on the state to bail them out Suppose that had happened? It did happen. On the first 9-11 in 1973. Except we were responsible for it, so it didn’t happen. That’s Allende’s Chile. You can’t imagine the media talking about this.
And you can generalize it broadly. The same is pretty much true of scholarship – except for on the fringes – it’s certainly true of the mainstream of the academic world. In some respects critique of the media is a bit misleading [because they’re not alone among institutions of influence] and of course, they closely interact.
1 FreeHellicopterRides 2019-04-12
WTF I love US meddling in foreign affairs now.
1 Saltwaterpapi 2019-04-12
yeah sure if you think this and this are worth blowing up half the world for, sure.
1 FreeHellicopterRides 2019-04-12
I can't think of single war the United States government has engaged in that has been justified before it started or had a good outcome after it ended, but the world sorely needs more people like Pinochet in power.
1 _fidel_castro_ 2019-04-12
Chile is doing way better than the rest of Latin America, fren. We're richer, we live longer, we have less crime. Only other land comparable is tiny Uruguay.
1 FreeHellicopterRides 2019-04-12
1 Shadows1455 2019-04-12
r/beetlejuicing
1 FreeHellicopterRides 2019-04-12
I have more opportunities to beetlejuice than you would think and it makes me happy.
1 Shadows1455 2019-04-12
You're lucky fren, I wish I could beetlejuice sometimes
1 Thatguitarduderagain 2019-04-12
this fren is generous!