Stumble This | You should also watch “The CIA's coup in Guatemala & The End of Democracy (1954)” |
War on Democracy - US backed 1973 coup in Chile. Our CIA used its resources to covertly and illegaly overthrow the democratically elected leader of Chile in 1973, coincidentaly on 9/11. Oh, by the way, Kissinger is a fucking liar !
here are some more resources.
http://www.youtube.com/user/CIACoupsofTerrorism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MTDbclDiKg
here are some more resources.
http://www.youtube.com/user/CIACoupsofTerrorism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MTDbclDiKg
While not all of his views on pacifism agree with me, personally, his books do provide an analysis of western foreign policy (alongside a presentation of the facts of history that most Americans rarely hear) that may surprise you too. Worth checking out.
A great and just country is made by great and just people.
Scary thing is they are right.
She argues that Milton Friedman's Chicago School economics were the reason for this brutality and evil.
*humanitarian and *history need this too
About 3 minutes in they mention the key reason. Strong video. Chile was a very strong economy until they ruined it.
On August 22, 1973 the Christian Democrats and the National Party members of the Chamber of Deputies passed, by 81 to 47 votes, a resolution entitled "Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy", which called upon the military to "put an immediate end" to what they described as "breach[es of] the Constitution… with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law and ensuring the constitutional order of our Nation and the essential underpinnings of democratic coexistence among Chileans."
The resolution declared that the Allende government was seeking "...to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the state... [with] the goal of establishing a totalitarian system," and claimed that it had made "violations of the Constitution" into "a permanent system of conduct." Many of the charges came down to disregarding the separation of powers and arrogating the prerogatives of both the legislature and judiciary within the executive.
Among other particulars, the regime was accused of:
* ruling by decree, thus thwarting the normal system of adopting legislation
* refusing to enforce judicial decisions against its own partisans and "not carrying out sentences and judicial resolutions that contravene its objectives"
* ignoring the decrees of the independent General Comptroller's Office
* various offenses related to the media, including usurping control of the National Television Network and "applying ... economic pressure against those media organizations that are not unconditional supporters of the government..."
* allowing its supporters to assemble even when armed, while preventing legal assembly by its opponents
* "...supporting more than 1,500 illegal 'takings' of farms..."
* illegal repression of the El Teniente strike
* illegally limiting emigration
The resolution finally condemned the "creation and development of government-protected armed groups which... are headed towards a confrontation with the Armed Forces." Allende's efforts to re-organize the military and police, which he could not trust in their current forms, were characterized as "notorious attempts to use the Armed and Police Forces for partisan ends, destroy their institutional hierarchy, and politically infiltrate their ranks."
And as for the economic boom?
In 1972, the monetary policies of an increase in the amount of currency, which had been adopted by the Minister of Economics, Pedro Vuskovic, led to a devaluation of the escudo and to renewed inflation, which reached 140% in 1972.
While informative, the information you've provided is absolutely no reason or justification for our country (CIA) to use its resources to help overthrow another country.
With the specifics you've brought up, please take a look at your list and notice the similarities to what our own government has been doing.
In addition, I would suggest citing the source of your information.
And although the regime was accused of various things, those are accusations rather than convictions. I'm sure Chile has an impeachment process like any other country. Why should you get the military involved immediately, if at all? There's a reason you have elections - to foster an orderly handover of power. I'm sure millions of Americans would be pleased if some F-16's attacked Dubya, but that's not the way you do things.
In an effort to add a bit more depth, I poked around a bit more. Turns out you need a 2/3 majority for the resolution you refer to to have legal force. So using the word "passed" is a bit misleading - that's a 63.3% margin, close, but not legally binding (source is WikiTalk, but I'll buy it unless someone has evidence to the contrary).
Do check out that Wiki-talk page, looks like there's some lively to and forth on the topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_coup_of_1973
"Chamber of Deputies' Resolution
<already cited above, snip>
Among other particulars, the regime was accused of:
<snip>
The resolution finally condemned the "creation and development of government-protected armed groups which... are headed towards a confrontation with the Armed Forces." Allende's efforts to re-organize the military and police, which he could not trust in their current forms, were characterized as "notorious attempts to use the Armed and Police Forces for partisan ends, destroy their institutional hierarchy, and politically infiltrate their ranks."
[edit] Allende's response
Two days later (August 24, 1973), Allende responded [9] characterizing Congress's declaration as "destined to damage the country's prestige abroad and create internal confusion," and predicting that "It will facilitate the seditious intention of certain sectors." He pointed out that the declaration (passed 81-47 in the Chamber of Deputies) had not obtained the two-thirds Senate majority constitutionally required to convict the president of abuse of power: essentially, they were "invoking the intervention of the Armed Forces and of Order against a democratically elected government" and "subordinat[ing] political representation of national sovereignty to the armed institutions, which neither can nor ought to assume either political functions or the representation of the popular will." Allende argued that he had followed constitutional means in bringing members of the military into the cabinet "at the service of civic peace and national security, defending republican institutions against insurrection and terrorism." In contrast, he said that Congress was promoting a coup or a civil war, using a declaration "full of affirmations that had already been refuted beforehand" and which, in substance and process (handing it directly to the various ministers rather than delivering it to the president) violated a dozen articles of the then-current constitution. Further, he argued that the legislature was trying to usurp the executive role.
"Chilean democracy," Allende wrote, "is a conquest by all of the people. It is neither the work nor the gift of the exploiting classes, and it will be defended by those who, with sacrifices accumulated over generations, have imposed it... With a tranquil conscience... I sustain that never before has Chile had a more democratic government than that over which I have the honor to preside... I solemnly reiterate my decision to develop democracy and a state of law to their ultimate consequences... Parliament has made itself a bastion against the transformations... and has done everything it can to perturb the functioning of the finances and of the institutions, sterilizing all creative initiatives." Economic and political means, he said, would be needed to get the country out of its current crisis, and Congress was obstructing these means; having already "paralyzed" the state, they were now seeking to "destroy" it. He concluded by calling upon "the workers, all democrats and patriots" to join him in defense of the constitution and of the "revolutionary process.""
And my most significant point, however, is to call BULLSHIP on the claim that Allende was organizing a bunch of armed groups or other such nonsense. Historical fact (from the same Wiki article as above, and from Klein's book among other sources):
"Increasingly annoyed by the long negotiations, Leigh gave the order to bomb La Moneda. However, he was informed that the Hawker Hunter fighter jets were running late and that 40 minutes would pass before they arrived at Santiago's downtown. Pinochet meanwhile ordered that tanks and infantrymen besiege the palace and destroy all the opposition. They encountered none during their path to La Moneda and only when they got to the palace did they meet a few easily-defeated socialist gunmen. At noon, the jets finally arrived and proceeded to bomb the palace. Allende committed suicide soon after." (emphasis mine)
If he *were* in fact assembling groups of armed supporters in the streets, shouldn't they have been fighting back tooth and nail with their weapons?
Buddy had a military that was - as was proven - a coup threat, and he was taking steps to allow civilians to exercise greater control over the unruly men with guns. Sounds like a Good Idea to me.
The excessive show of force - i.e., having jets fly in as if it's a real war - ties in neatly with Klein's theories about the Shock Doctrine, in particular the idea that the military had to dazzle and cow their opponents (dazzle and cow... a.k.a., shock and awe, she would and did say).
Besides, if it was a true 'people's' revolution or something like that, shouldn't you see the people themselves marching through the streets (think the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine)? This was a reactionary takeover by the elites, plain and simple.
Echoes of Burma? Hell yeah.
This is not ancient history.
In the Santiago Stadium" from the song Washington Bullets by The Clash meant.
Great song, great lyrics about an asshole country.