Powell's Comments Re: Chile '73

[Arrian]

By GEORGE GEDDA, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - When a student asked Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) about the 1973 military coup in Chile, the retired general turned diplomat made no secret of his deep misgivings about the U.S. role in that upheaval.

"It is not a part of American history that we're proud of," Powell said, quickly adding that reforms instituted since then make it unlikely that the policies of that Cold War era will be repeated.

The matter might have ended there had not Washington operative William D. Rogers taken notice of Powell's televised comment. Rogers served under Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1975-76 as the department's top official on Latin America and maintains a professional relationship with Kissinger.

In a highly unusual move, the State Department issued a statement that put distance between the department and its top official. The statement asserted that the U.S. government "did not instigate the coup that ended Allende's government in 1973" — a reference to the elected president, Salvador Allende.

Rogers was concerned that Powell's comment was reinforcing what he called "the legend" that the Chile coup was a creation of a Kissinger-led cabal working in league with Chilean military officers opposed to Allende. He called the department legal office to point out that there was a pending law suit against the government and Powell's comment was not helpful.

"I also called Kissinger," said Rogers. "I talked to him about it. I wouldn't say he was upset. ... I told Henry I think this is bad stuff. It doesn't help the U.S. legal position."

Rightly or wrongly, Kissinger has been linked to the coup that brought Gen. Augusto Pinochet (news - web sites)'s military government to power.

Rogers said the Chilean military acted not because the United States urged it to do so, "but because they believed that had the Allende regime continued much longer, Chilean liberties would be irretrievably lost."

Peter Kornbluh, a student of Latin American issues, whose book, "The Pinochet File," will be released in September, disputed Rogers' account. "The U.S. government carried out a clear effort to undermine and destabilize Allende's ability to govern, creating the climate necessary for a coup to take place," Kornbluh said.

Rogers insists Kornbluh overstates the case. "Climate is one thing. Instigating a military attack on the civilian regime is quite another."

Kornbluh said the perceived U.S. role in Chile did not end with the coup. He added that the U.S. government helped the Pinochet regime consolidate its power with overt and covert support, "despite the full knowledge of its atrocities."

The notion of Nixon administration involvement in the post-Sept. 11, 1973, period was reinforced last November when 11 residents of Chile filed a complaint against Kissinger and the U.S. government seeking damages for deaths and other rights abuses by the Pinochet government.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, also names Michael Townley, a U.S.-born former Chilean intelligence agent.

Under the long-standing rules, Rogers said Kissinger's role as defendant is assumed by the U.S. government on grounds that Kissinger was not acting as an individual but was carrying out government policy.

Rogers said his main concern is not the court proceeding but the perception that the U.S. government was working hand in hand with Pinochet and his allies to oust Allende.

"The accusation that the U.S. is morally, legally or factually responsible for the coup is a canard," he said. "This is the issue raised by Powell's comment."

The State Department statement that the U.S. government "did not instigate" the coup is more in line with Rogers' view than with Powell's.

As for the suit against Kissinger and the U.S. government, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages "in excess of $11 million" for rights abuses committed in the post-coup period. They also asked for punitive damages in an amount "at least twice the compensatory damages."
___

EDITOR'S NOTE — George Gedda has covered foreign affairs for The Associated Press since 1968.

Not a catchy thread title, I'll admit, but I found this article interesting on a couple of different levels. Comment as you see fit.

-Arrian

[Bereta_Eder]

It would be interesting to have more Latin American posters here instead of them going to the spanish forum...


About that never happening again, a question and a name: Venezuela?

[chequita guevara]

I saw that too. I wonder how this is gonna play out? Wonder if the lawsuit will now call Powell as a witness.

[Sava]

Poor Powell, I'm sure his chickensh1tHawk fellow cabinet members are whispering to Bush, "Georgee, we gotta get rid of this guy. He's going to ruin everything!".

[Az]

Powell

Erm, honest question, Sava, what is 'everything'?

[Stefu]

He should have said "Damn right we offed the commie. I did it personally, bare-handed! And we'll whack you other pussies in Europe and other lands too unless you obey us!" Then he should have unzipped, done the helicopter and shouted "Hoo ha!"

Hey, I thought the new US foreign policy was all about US being feared instead of loved. Wouldn't this be the perfect opportunity to show it?

[Arrian]

Stefu, that was hilarious.

Thank you.

-Arrian

[South killer]

That is just another example of what usa has done, not only in Chile, but in many others parts of the world. For example, in argentina the military junta that started the falklands war was helped by usa to get to power.
The same has done usa in cuba (batista), in Irak (Guess who placed saddam in power???) and in many other places. During the '60 ,'70 and '80 USA implemented in latin america the ''national security progamme'' or something like that, that wasn't nothing more that aiding all military dictators in all latin american countries. There was even a period in which ALL (Yes i said ALL)latin american countries from Argentina to Mexico including brazil, chile, uruguay, etc. had a dictator placed or aided by USA. That's why i'm not anti-american, but anti american foreign policy. The american people has to wake up and realise that all the stories your government tells you are LIES, excuses to plant dictators, organise wars, and steal other countries.

[Drake Tungsten]

in Irak (Guess who placed saddam in power???)

I know it wasn't the United States.

[Az]

what is this notion that dictators need to be propped up? They usually come up by theirselves just great.

Of course, both the US, and the SU had contacts with Saddam. so did the French, the Germans, the Chinese, and well, almost everyone. I think Israel is one of the only countries who didn't ( though I won't sign anything ).

[Spiffor]

I'm glad to see Powell is still able of political courage, despite being bound by this bigot administation.

He is a true statesman

[Chilean President™]

Chile 1973... what happen that year?




Allende was a jack@$$ he was removed by the armed forces due to the economical chaos in the country. Besides he create a plan to transform Chile (a democracy since the independence in 1810) into a Communist Dictatorship

The problem was that the military government kill to many inocent people the true is that when Pinochet came to power he had 80% of approval.. when he leave the presidency he had 30%.

Economics reforms under the Pinochet administration
Civil right under the Pinochet administration

Anyway, the situation on Venezuela is more chaotic than Chile'73, and Chavez still have support of a large number of the population ... who knows why..

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Chilean President
Anyway, the situation on Venezuela is more chaotic than Chile'73, and Chavez still have support of a large number of the population ... who knows why..

Because his oppenents manage to be even worse ?

[Az]

This post will forever and always be used by apolyton's neo-cons to prove that the US was right in its' support for Pinochet, and was actually following the voice of the people of Chile.

[Chilean President™]

Maybe... but then why there isn't a third choice.. one in the middle.
The problem is that the venezuelan politics seems not willing to achieve a peaceful resolution. Chavez want to kill the guys on the opposition and the press. The opposition only want a bloody coup.

The two faces of the same coin.

[Chilean President™]

Originally posted by Azazel
This post will forever and always be used by apolyton's neo-cons to prove that the US was right in its' support for Pinochet, and was actually following the voice of the people of Chile.

of course... but anyway the US didn't help us too much. They gave money trough the ITT company to do some sort of 'propaganda' actions.

But a coup is sad, even if it looking for an end of a horrible governement. Sept. 11, 1973 was the break of 163 years of democracy

[Az]

... but then why there isn't a third choice.. one in the middle.

That, sonny, is the multi-billion dollar in oil revenews question.

[South killer]

Chilean... me decepcionas.)
Chile should be proud to have had a president like Allende. Wether you agree with his ideas or not he was a man that died for his beliefs You just can't say he was Jack@ss. Most of the economic stability Chile has now (in comparison with other soth american countries) was thanks to Allende's economic policies. he nationalised a lot of companies there,from what i know. (notice that i don't know that much, as i'm not chilean)
About venezuela it's the same case. An somewhat honest politican comes to power, nationalises enterprises and ends the party for American bussinessmen. then USA causes inestability and tries to make a coup.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by South killer
That is just another example of what usa has done, not only in Chile, but in many others parts of the world. For example, in argentina the military junta that started the falklands war was helped by usa to get to power.
The same has done usa in cuba (batista), in Irak (Guess who placed saddam in power???) and in many other places. During the '60 ,'70 and '80 USA implemented in latin america the ''national security progamme'' or something like that, that wasn't nothing more that aiding all military dictators in all latin american countries. There was even a period in which ALL (Yes i said ALL)latin american countries from Argentina to Mexico including brazil, chile, uruguay, etc. had a dictator placed or aided by USA. That's why i'm not anti-american, but anti american foreign policy. The american people has to wake up and realise that all the stories your government tells you are LIES, excuses to plant dictators, organise wars, and steal other countries.

In 1938, the USA was 13th in world Power. That right 12 other countries had more power than we did. The US did very little in Central and South America until after W.W.II. We did help Panama gain freedom from Colombia and we sent the Marines to Guatemala in 1923? That is about it. Your anti-American attitude is showing.

[Chilean President™]

Lo sé South, tarde o temprano pasaría.. pero deja que esto paso hace milenios.. y no estoy apoyando a Pinochet, sino que.. bueno es complicado. Allende hizo cosas muy malas también, el problema es que fuera de Chile eso no se sabe ya que lo han mitificado.


You're way wrong about "Allende's economic policies", he believe that every industry, corporation, bank or whatever should be on the hand of the state (obviously cause he was a communist), but the actual economic situation of Chile is thanks to the reforms of Hernan Büchi (minister of Economics) and Jose Miguel Piñera (also in M.o.E.) who took the economic model of Friedman (el monetarismo.. don't know the name in english) and build the new open market economy, during the military government.

Allende maybe was a good man, but he commit a lot of mistakes. In social welfare, economics and even civil rights (he wanted to ban the right-wings parties).

Again, a dictatorial government isn't good, but if you compare Castro's Cuba to the Pinochet administration you will find that in one hand Cuba is after 50 year a dictatorship and Chile have democracy again after a free election under the Pinochet Adm., Cuba have a underdeveloped economy meanwhile Chile is signing free trade agreements with the US, Japan, UE and Korea (well the FTA with the US could be sign in a really long time due to the Chilean refuse to the war )

[Spiffor]

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.

[academia]

"but because they believed that had the Allende regime continued much longer, Chilean liberties would be irretrievably lost."

Hehe... and i assume that Pinochet was the correct answer in order to protect those liberties

[academia]

We did help Panama gain freedom from Colombia

Nice joke

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Spiffor
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.

You will notice that I did not say Europe did anything in C. and S. America. I just pointed out, that the US had little to do with those countries until after the war.

[Spiffor]

That's right.

[South killer]

that the US had little to do with those countries until after the war.

It had little to do OFICIALLY. But underground the CIA Supported most of the military coups.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by South killer


It had little to do OFICIALLY. But underground the CIA Supported most of the military coups.

We did not have a CIA until 1948/9, so how many dictator did we install before 1948?

[academia]

In my opinion, the CIA didn´t "install" dictators directly. Just supported them
They were forced to make a choice:
What do we want in southamerica? Dictatorships or Left-wing governments?

Obviously, CIA chose option 1. That´s all.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Powell for president

but if that happened an American president is overdue a successful assasination already so

[Ned]

I don't know what people mean at times when they say we "helped" "supported" "placed" or "instigated' this or that dictator to get into power. I would like some clarification on this from the proponents of the theory.

As to Chile, I suspect the conspirators checked with the CIA concerning what they planned to do. I am willing to bet that Nixon and Kissinger gave the conspirators a green light. This does not mean that the US instigated anything. However, I believe we could have stopped it if we said no.

Does anyone know if events unfolded in this fashion?

This is what happened a few years earlier with Diem in SV. He was overthrown and killed by his own people. However, the conspirators first checked with Kennedy, who did not say no.

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.

But this is pure speculation on my part. I do not know what actually happened. I'd rather deal in fact than pure conjecture.