9801. ScottLoar - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:06 PM PT
Come to think of it, I can recollect that odour on any crowded el train in Chicago come summertime about 5:30 on a workday.
9802. ptboya - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:06 PM PT
OK marjoribanks…
All is forgiven. But, you owe me one pal.
9803. ptboya - Oct. 14, 1998 - 1:08 PM PT
CUL8r all....
9804. MrSocko - Oct. 15, 1998 - 1:30 AM PT
Perhaps FV would be kind enough to enlighten us on the rash of creepy murders that have taken place in Java this year, particularly in East Java. Are visitors to Jakarta advised to pack a sickle?
9805. cartman69 - Oct. 15, 1998 - 3:04 AM PT
Great food posts! Sorry I missed out on it; I'll throw my two cents in anyway. Irish food gets a bad rap because of its blandness, and everything being boiled. But meat & potatoes is OK for some of us less gastronomically adventurous types. Nothing remarkable, but nothing godawful like sea slugs or blood sausages either.
When I visited England, I stuck with fish-and-chip type stuff, and was not disappointed. Again, not all that adventurous. In Dover was a restauraunt that had a wondrous plaice (a type of perch I believe). Excellent seafood!
PE is right about schnitzel being an overlooked plus in Germanic cuisine. Even Wiener schnitzel; every city I visited in Austria had great schnitzels and pork dishes, not too heavy.
Chinese food is a favorite, but I prefer the Americanized version. I don't even want to think about the types of meats involved in actual Chinese dishes (pet-type animals and such). Probably the most singularly awful meal I ever had though was at a Chinese restaurant in Coos Bay, Oregon (which may explain everything in itself). Nasty lumps of viscous noodles, stinky sauce, and mystery meat. Not enough Tsingtao in the world to wash *that* down.
9806. FrayVader - Oct. 15, 1998 - 7:19 AM PT
Socko:
I wish I *could* shed some light on this affair, but it is a great mystery.
Over the past few months, nearly 200 Islamic Medicine Men (or as the local press likes to call them, "witch doctors") have been gruesomely murdered. The MO is that a masked gang breaks into the home of a witch doctor, abducts him in full view of his family, tortures, mutilates and murders the victim, and then dumps the body in a public place.
Unlike previous similar events in the past, these murders are getting a great deal of press coverage. The only part of the story missing is who is doing this, and why?
Best guess: the military, to take the peoples' attention away from government incompetence, rising prices, and massive hunger and unemployment. It was a not uncommon Suharto era strategy (the "Mysterious Killings" of criminals in 1984, the 1996 and 1998 riots, etc.).
As far as I know, the victims have been limited to this category and have all been in East Java. So you are safe visiting Jakarta... unless you let people know you are a witch doctor, that is.
9807. MrSocko - Oct. 15, 1998 - 7:29 AM PT
FV:
A number of those murdered have been Islamists who by no stretch of the imagination could be considered witch doctors. It makes one wonder if "witch doctors" are not going to become, courtesy of the new dalang, this year's "Chinese" of Indonesia (now that the original Chinese have all packed their bags and lit out of Dodge).
All the same, I shall be packing my sickle next month.
9808. NickVanston - Oct. 15, 1998 - 7:29 AM PT
Joe, Ptboya is right. If you read the early books of the bible, you will see that the Jews inhabited the Jerusalem area then for the same reason they occupy it now: they killed off and drove out the other tribes who were there before them, because they were better fighters. Let's face it: Israelis are the Serbs of the Middle East.
The history of the world is mostly a history of migrant tribes who conquered their predecessors and settled their land, until they were overcome in their turn by the next wave. When Alexander the Great set out on his victorious travels, the Celts were living along the banks of the Danube. Centuries later they occupied France. Then they moved into Britain and pushed the Picts and Scots northwards. They were pushed in turn by the Franks, Angles, Saxons, Jutes etc. Now they live on the margins of the UK and northern France. There are no more Picts. And have you ever wondered why modern Greeks are mostly small and swarthy whereas classical Greeks were depicted as tall and light-skinned? If everybody was encouraged/obliged to return to their ancestral homeland, central Russia would be very crowded.
9809. Wombat - Oct. 16, 1998 - 1:38 PM PT
Yumm!
Go away for a few days and miss the food-o-rama! My mouth has been watering for the last half hour.
Middle East in New York:
Atlantic Avenue has lost much of its M.E. pizzaz. I recommend Leila's on 7th Avenue in Park Slope (Brooklyn): A lentil soup that is to die for (so much garlic...), babaganoush that I would kill to get the recipe for, lamb with yogurt, pine nuts, radishes, and toasted pita bits....
British cooking:
Britain is smoked fish heaven. An English breakfast is cholesterol heaven, although the bacon is undercooked and salty. The haggis! I could never understand why the Brits like such heavy desserts...with cream sprinkled over them. I ordered a cheese cake once, the waitress asked if I wanted some cream poured on it. With the exception of cheese and pickle rolls, British sandwiches are either disgusting or a cruel joke. London's Chinatown introduced me to real Cantonese cooking. Fortunately it is catching on in the States.
The Washington area now has great "Asian" restaurants: Vietnamese, Korean, Chinese, Thai. Also the Cafe Rose in Falls Church has excellent Iranian food.
9810. wexxford1 - Oct. 17, 1998 - 6:34 AM PT
Wombat ! Did you not visit the Champagne bar at any decent British race track --Ascot or York--for a big feed of Champers and lobster salad? Or,were you running all the way with the fish-and-chips crowd? The Brits ,after all, did invent the sandwich. Their latest Madison Avenue variation, the Ploughman's Lunch--cheese and onions--is swallowable only if swilled down with a few pints of bitter.As for the Haggis. Well,no sane person with a nose would stay in the same room as one. The sheep stink from your true Scottish haggis is darned near the smell of a warehouseful of old toe-jammed British army socks.Their cheap food policy has forced the Brits to eat like an army on the run.After generations of eating Heinz beans and brown things out of cans, the Brits will swallow anything.
9811. Wombat - Oct. 17, 1998 - 11:44 AM PT
Wexx:
Not my type of scene.
9812. wexxford1 - Oct. 18, 1998 - 3:48 AM PT
More evidence of America's dumbing down in this Pinochet case!How is it,fraygrants need to ask ,that was NOT Uncle Sammy's lawyers that clapped that ten-cent fascist Pinochet in the brig for trial as an enemy of the people ?Our ridiculous Senator Foghorns such as Al D'Amato have blathered for decades about the " Free World" and its expensive defense .Hyuh. Hyuh. Hyuh. "Crimes of genocide that include murder ",eh?.The Spanish, of all people,putting out an APB on the little Chilean fascist in fancy dress? This may be embarassing for some Amurrican personalities who were cheering when Pinochet and his military buddies got the green light to kill from the U.S.Was not Kissinger a Pinochet pal when the Chilean military did the mass killings of civilians? "No immunity for crimes by heads of state against humanity", sez the Spanish lawyer representing 400 victims.Argentina'a tinpot generals next? How come not a single one of America's 1,000,000 lawyers never opened a well-paid trap about this Chilean murder policy until now ? Ah, yes, I remember it well .The great legal American minds of all time were wearing pancake make-up for TV blather,lining their pockets with phony sexual harasssment nonsense, and keeping their traps shut when reality intruded.Where was the 1,000,000-strong American press corps,those great talkers about human rights and investigative reporting . Mmmmmmmmm.Or has the dumbing-down of America become so harsh that no American lawyer or reporter, no American publication, can afford to tackle any issue that is not placed on the radar screen by our Field Marshals in charge of Public relations ?.Will Brady bonds drop in price with the news?
9813. JoeTiernan - Oct. 18, 1998 - 10:20 AM PT
Wexxford: You really need to use paragraphs. I can't understand a lot of what you're saying. What does "will Brady bonds drop in price because of the news?"
9814. CalGal - Oct. 18, 1998 - 10:35 AM PT
Does anyone know anything about Pinochet's arrest by the British for the Spanish? Shouldn't he have been safe, given he had a diplomatic passport?
9815. MrSocko - Oct. 18, 1998 - 7:26 PM PT
Pinochet did not have diplomatic accreditation. Additionally, he was traveling under a fake name.
9816. CalGal - Oct. 18, 1998 - 7:36 PM PT
Socko,
Thanks. I read that the Chilean government was tipped off to the possibility that there would be problems when the French denied him a visa. Which is when they got him the accreditation.
Do you mean that the accrediation wasn't valid (he held no position to require it) or that it had been faked?
I hadn't read that he was travelling under another name.
9817. coralreef - Oct. 18, 1998 - 8:46 PM PT
The British claim that because he wasn't on an official visit the immunity doesn't apply.
It may hinge on whether being tried for crimes against humanity is an exception to diplomatic immunity.
9818. ScottLoar - Oct. 18, 1998 - 8:55 PM PT
If that is so then any country or group pleading crimes against humanity can jolly well arrest the diplomatic corp of whomever they jolly well please, which would moot the very meaning of diplomatic immunity.
9819. CalGal - Oct. 18, 1998 - 9:41 PM PT
New York City will immediately declare traffic tickets a crime against humanity. (g)
9820. MrSocko - Oct. 19, 1998 - 7:16 AM PT
For your info, CalGal, the following are banned in this thread:
• "LOL"
• "ROTFL"
• "<g>"<BR>• ";-)"<BR>• ":-)"<BR>• discussions on China<BR><BR>
9821. MrSocko - Oct. 19, 1998 - 7:17 AM PT
• "LOL"
• "ROTFL"
• "(g)"
• ";-)"
• ":-)"
• discussions on China
9822. FrayVader - Oct. 19, 1998 - 7:20 AM PT
Socko:
Not to mention misusing angle brackets so that "BR" appears everywhere in a post.
9823. MrSocko - Oct. 19, 1998 - 7:27 AM PT
Ah yes!
9824. marjoribanks - Oct. 19, 1998 - 7:34 AM PT
Hahahahaha
9825. marjoribanks - Oct. 19, 1998 - 8:26 AM PT
"UNIQUE RITUALS: The next morning woman
than ensures that her husband and kids
apply "utne", a herbal powder with
medicinal value, on their bodies
before the ritual Diwali bath...
During the Diwali week, "Bhau Beej"
signifying sibling love is celebrated.
Laxmi Pujan is performed at the workplace
on the second or the third day of Diwali.
For Christians, Diwali is
reminiscent of their own Christmas in
several ways. Like Christmas, Divali
too used to be a family festival in Goa
earlier. Hindus distribute the Divali
preparations to all their Christian and
Muslim neighbours.
URBANISATION: But the influx of non-Goans
having increased Goa's population by nearly
36 per cent, the tenor of celebrations have
changed. The new ew elements are Narkasur
parades, Narkasur, and other glittering
events like "Diwali Frenzy'98" featuring Rap
dancing and Dancing Competition at BPS Club,
Margao, yesterday.
One fine day, the traditional "fov"
may be a thing of the past with fast foods
swamping every taste.The traditionall ponti
(earthern oil-lamp) too has been
increasingly replaced by decorative,
coloured bulbs. Even despite the High Court
refusing to lift the ban on public
illumination, electric decoration was seen.
########################################
DIWALI DHAMAAL 1998: Goans felt duly
proud and pleased with pop singer,
Panjimite Hema Sardessai, who sang
their very own "Undra Mhojea Mama"
in the special "Diwali Dhamaal 1998"
telecast by DD Metro to usher in the
festival of lights last night. Among
other pop singers including Leslie Lewis
of the "Colonial Cousins", Hema sang
some of her Hindi hit songs. But she
stole all hearts with a Konkani folk
medley which ended into
"Ia-Ia Maya Ia, Ia-ia Maya ia."&quo
9826. marjoribanks - Oct. 19, 1998 - 8:28 AM PT
Double hahahahaha
The translation of "Undra Mhojea Mama" btw, is 'My Mother is the Rat".
9827. CalGal - Oct. 19, 1998 - 9:58 AM PT
Socko,
Thank you for letting me know the rules. I'm not used to these molasses-like threads. But I see there are advantages.
One can leisurely express humorous intent, secure in the knowledge that no other posts are rapidly piling up in the seeming eternity it takes to type "Double hahahahahahahahaha".
A phrase which is, apparently, on the approved list?
9828. rickc2000 - Oct. 19, 1998 - 11:10 AM PT
Iam just glad that *someone* was willing to arrest Pinochet and put him on trial for his crimes. The political structure he left behind in Chile prevents them from it and the deep involvement of the USA through the CIA etc. prevents the USA from taking on the task. If the US did it they would have to put all his American backers on trial as well. Would make for a pretty crowded docket IMO.
9829. Wombat - Oct. 19, 1998 - 11:13 AM PT
The Pinochet Experience:
If you are going to stamp out the left-wing intelligentsia in your country, be sure to exclude foreign nationals!
That said, my feelings are somewhat mixed about Pinochet. I think that the democratic system in Chile is stronger now than it was when Allende won the election under somewhat freakish circumstances.
Compared to his contemporaries in Latin America, Pinochet was comparatively honest, and the killings were limited, compared to--say--Argentina, El Salvador, Nicaragua.
Pinochet had a vision for Chile that was broader than those of his Latin American colleagues. He also had the sense to step aside (somewhat) when it became clear that the country was getting tired of him. I think he compares in many ways to Franco, who perhaps unwittingly, created a pro-democratic constitutional monarchy.
That said, it amuses me that his assiduous attempts to protect himself from the consequences of his actions have backfired.
9830. CalGal - Oct. 19, 1998 - 11:36 AM PT
Here is an article in the Times about Pinochet, his diplomatic immunity, and why most international law scholars think it wasn't valid.
You need registration to read the Times, but it's free. So if you aren't registered already, I recommend it.
9831. FrayVader - Oct. 19, 1998 - 11:57 AM PT
The NYT is free, *unless* you live outside the USA, in which case you pay through the nose.
But I understand they accept web-based e-mail addresses and an assurance that one is in the USA. I can't imagine anyone doing such a terrible thing, though.
9832. ScottLoar - Oct. 19, 1998 - 12:38 PM PT
I for one am glad it was not the US that detained Pinochet despite his diplomatic immunity, for doing so could incur detention of US diplomats on charges of crimes against humanity by any country antagonistic to the US or its government, and by filing so in a sympathetic third country no less. If Pinochet is proved to be outside of diplomatic immunity because his status of the moment - not his crimes - disallow him protection so then, of course, detention is lawful and morally just.
9833. Raskolnikov - Oct. 19, 1998 - 12:57 PM PT
Part of me chuckled with glee when Pinochet was arrested. Another part is saying "uh oh" very loudly, and wondering what the repercussions will be.
Very glad the US wasn't the one to do it.
9834. MrSocko - Oct. 19, 1998 - 5:49 PM PT
Future political historians will surely note that the current British administration is pursuing a most praiseworthy foreign policy, combining humanist values with tough realism. One can't help but contrast this with the shabby treatment given to Salman Rushdie by 10 Dowling Street and the U.S. State Department in the years when conservatives ruled both sides of the Atlantic roost.
9835. wilkpaul - Oct. 19, 1998 - 5:52 PM PT
I congratulate the courage of the government of Tony Blair in England for arresting that tyrant and murderer-former Chilean dictator Pinochet. It is a refreshing change to see an action of principle rather than expediency rule in foreign policy.
God bless Tony Blair and the Labor Party for standing up for the widows and orphans of the goon squads of the Pinochet's regime Secret Police.
9836. MrSocko - Oct. 19, 1998 - 6:29 PM PT
Before somebody jumps on my head, let me add that *Dowling* Street was a typo. The correct address is, of course, No. 10 Downing Street.
9837. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 19, 1998 - 7:06 PM PT
I agree with most of Wombat's Message #9829, except two small items. (1) There was nothing "freakish" about the 1970 elections. The 1958 and 1964 elections had also produced governments who had won only a plurality of the votes.
(2) If there ever were some slight justification and mitigation to be eked out of "stamping out a country's left-wing intelligentsia", it would be found not in Pinochet's rule but in that of the Argentine junta of the 1970s. Pinochet did wipe out the far left, but the Chilean far left were democratic and peaceful. In Argentina, by contrast, the far left were murderous. This is the perspective most people now completely ignore in blathering about the "desaparecidos" or the "mothers of the Plaza de Mayo". Argentina in the mid-1970s found itself in unprecedented civil violence -- a virtual civil war with an urban guerrilla insurgency of the Montoneros and the Tupamaros, perhaps numbering 20,000 to 30,000. In 1973 (I believe), terrorist bombs were going off daily in Buenos Aires. How would the U.S. government react to 500,000 urban guerrillas roaming American cities, I wonder. I'm not trying to justify the Argentine military's ferocious & lethal reaction, but it's understandable in context.
9838. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 19, 1998 - 7:10 PM PT
I still don't understand how this Spanish magistrate is justified in wanting to prosecute Pinochet. Crimes against humanity? Genocide? Please! He killed a few thousand people, the vast majority of whom were the citizens of his own country. How does merely killing people, let alone a few thousand, constitute a crime against humanity or a genocide? And why doesn't this Spaniard just go after the still-living Falangists in his own silly country?
9839. MrSocko - Oct. 19, 1998 - 7:24 PM PT
"In Argentina, by contrast, the far left were murderous. This is the perspective most people now completely ignore in blathering about the 'desaparecidos' or the 'mothers of the Plaza de Mayo.'"
I plead guilty to being such a blatherer. Among the 30,000 people who disappeared during Argentina's Dirty War, some 400 children were kidnapped by the military. Human rights groups around the world launched a number of campaigns, one of them the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo, an organization of mothers of the disappeared who demanded to know the whereabouts of their offspring. Many of these women themselves disappeared. Perhaps, like pseudoerasmus, the regime disliked the "blatherings" of these courageous women. Or perhaps, as pseudoerasmus and his pin-up girl Kirkpatrick felt, these women were nothing but two-bit "communists" anyway.
9840. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 19, 1998 - 7:29 PM PT
socko: don't ululate like some bitch giving birth to dead puppies. As I said, I wasn't justifying the Argentine military's murderous reaction to the urban guerrilla insurgency. My point was that the "desaparecidos" should be seen as the atrocities of a civil war.
9841. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 19, 1998 - 7:32 PM PT
And actions in war, civil or foreign, are always more grey and complicated morally than the sort of thing Pinochet did -- which was wipe out the democratic left.
(Personally, I would have welcomed the coup, just like most Chileans apparently did. But the thousands of deaths were totally unnecessary.)
9842. ScottLoar - Oct. 19, 1998 - 7:48 PM PT
re Message #9838: My understanding is Spanish judges warranted Pinochet's arrest for the murder of Spanish citizens, and it is Spain to which Pinochet would be extradited. I don't know if the charges would grow to encompass "crimes against humanity" but clearly, Pinochet's murder of Spanish citizens does trespass against Spanish law which even Chile's diplomatic team in London is said to concede "with Spain, 'they're convinced there's nothing they can do'" according to Ricardo Israel, head of the University fo Chile's Institute for Political Science (quoted from Chicago Tribune, Section 1, pg.16, Monday, October 19).
9843. CoralReef - Oct. 19, 1998 - 7:53 PM PT
SL: The charges have already expanded to include 'crimes against humanity'. Baltasar Garzon, the judge who issued the arrest warrant, did so today.
9844. ScottLoar - Oct. 19, 1998 - 8:01 PM PT
Perhaps that judge may come to regret he was not satisfied with the easier charge of murdering citizens of Spain.
9845. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 19, 1998 - 8:26 PM PT
What is the international law definition of "crime against humanity" or "genocide"? Must the victims have some ethnic, religious, or racial cohesion? Or, perhaps, even if the crime is not directed against religious, ethnic or racial groups en masse, the method of killing alone can designate an action "crime against humanity"? What about numbers? Does it become a crime against humanity if you kill a certain number of people for political reasons, regardless of ethnic, religious or racial motivations, and regardless of the method of killing?
I take it that for Spaniards, killing but one Spaniard constitutes a crime against humanity.
9846. CoralReef - Oct. 19, 1998 - 8:32 PM PT
Here's an article from the PBS website that attempts to define genocide.
9847. CoralReef - Oct. 19, 1998 - 8:37 PM PT
And here is a university website piece on the law and genocide, which seems to define it much more broadly than the author of the PBS Frontline article would have liked.
9848. ptboya - Oct. 19, 1998 - 8:58 PM PT
How does the precedent of the US action against Noriega play here, wrt Pinochet. Do we fudge the comparison by claiming the Noriega detention as an act of war and not jurisprudence?
9849. ScottLoar - Oct. 20, 1998 - 5:21 AM PT
Neither definition of genocide offered by sites referenced by Message #9846 and Message #9847 could be applied to Pinochet, and the PBS site notes the word has become trivialized by common and careless use. Even "crimes against humanity" may be hard to prove for Pinochet's motives and the acts of his henchmen, albeit murderous and heinous, were motivated by the victims' politics. I'm content to let the Spanish law court prove their accusation of crimes against humanity by Pinochet.
9850. ScottLoar - Oct. 20, 1998 - 5:26 AM PT
I thought Noriega was arrested by US troops, remanded to the US, tried, convicted and imprisoned for drug trafficking and not for the charge of crimes against humanity?
9851. wexxford1 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 5:58 AM PT
This Pinochet thing is a PR event so far. The British Foreign Office has said nothing. And with good reason. It is one thing for the dumbed-down press to run their little ' You-Can't-Get-Away-With Murder' stories as pub talk . It is quite another thing for a newspaper to speculate on why Idi Amin got away with murder . And why the U.S. is treating Slobo Milosevitch as a regular bloke, fit to sit at the bargining table .Putting the darbies on tinpot fascists is a good thing.But it ain't gonna happen , kiddies . This is PR grist for the little people...so far, and that's the way it must be played.
9852. Wombat - Oct. 20, 1998 - 6:34 AM PT
PE:
The "freakish" part of the election was that the left was able to get in due to a split in the in the center-right coaltion that had--in various incarnations--ruled Chile for years.
9853. ptboya - Oct. 20, 1998 - 8:11 AM PT
"I thought Noriega was arrested by US troops, remanded to the US, tried, convicted and imprisoned for drug trafficking and not for the charge of crimes against humanity?"
I concur. Does that make Pinochet's arrest even more justified by comparison of the nature of the crimes? BTW, for those lawyers who practice international law, isn't entering another sovereign country to arrest someone (obviously outside the jurisdiction) far more controversial in international law than requesting extradition?
9854. ptboya - Oct. 20, 1998 - 8:13 AM PT
'The "freakish" part of the election was that the left was able to get in due to a split in the in the center-right coaltion that had--in various incarnations--ruled Chile for years.'
This is a good description of Tony Blair's gov't. Does this therefore justify engineering a coup against him?
9855. ptboya - Oct. 20, 1998 - 8:17 AM PT
Let me amend the last post. The right was hardly very split in Britain. Regardless, Blair's sweeping victory was freakish, just as The sweep by the Liberal party in Canada's last election was. How would this justify an outside party interfering in the elective process and then organizing a coup when that fails?
9856. ScottLoar - Oct. 20, 1998 - 8:23 AM PT
"Does that make Pinochet's arrest even more justified by comparison of the nature of the crimes?" No. Pinochet's detention by reason of an Interpol warrant and Noriega's remandment have nothing in common. Pinochet murdered Spanish citizens and so the law court in Spain can have at him if they can get him, but to extend chargeable offenses to "crimes against humanity" seems a leap of faith that may not hold up in court. As I said, I'm content to let Spain have at it, but I doubt they'll prove crimes against humanity.
9857. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 8:35 AM PT
ptboya (Message #9854)
I think the conditions of 1973 in Chile warranted a coup (only the second interruption in Chile's long history of parliamentary democracy).
Morally justified or not, the coup was a response to gravely deteriorating local conditions. In 1973 alone: an inflation rate of 605% by the CPI but 1000+% by the wholesale price index; total public sector deficit of 30% of GDP; plummeting tax collection; the shortage of basic goods, including food; the balance of payments completely out of whack; and even wages, the supposed pride of the Unidad Popular regime, plummeted. The minimum real wage in the third quarter of 1973 was fully one-half of the 1970 level, and the average real wage 67% -- this despite the huge artificial increases in both rates in 1971-2. Furthermore, the domestic production of food decreased by 43% between 1970 and 1973, while food imports quadrupled and capital imports fell. Despite that, there was still a food shortage.
Not to mention the civil disorder of violent strikes and political gangfights on the streets between left and right. The country came to a standstill.
It was chaos unprecedented in Chilean economic and political life. Coups have been carried out for far less elsewhere in the developing world.
9858. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 8:39 AM PT
By the way, don't let the robust prosperity of Chile's economy in the last 10 years fool you. Pinochet's economic policies were grossly incompetent in his first 10 years. The current prosperity is the result of his post-1982 policies.
9859. MrSocko - Oct. 20, 1998 - 8:45 AM PT
By jove! In 1973 alone Chile suffered ... "an inflation rate of 605% by the CPI but 1000+% by the wholesale price index" and what's more, "total public sector deficit of 30% of GDP"! That fellow Hitler became politically unpleasant for far less than this! Crickey! Let's all apologise to both of them for not fully appreciating the economic facts of reality! And while we're at it, why not have this fellow pseudoerasmus writing a regular column for _Private Eye_!
9860. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 8:46 AM PT
Message #9855
Your analogy with Blair's victory is completely beyond my ken. Blair garnered a massive majority, which he can justfiably claim as an unequivocal mandate for his centre-left agenda. Allende tried to effect a radical transformation of society and economy despite having no plausible mandate at all -- he, after all, had only received a third of the popular vote.
"How would this justify an outside party interfering in the elective process and then organizing a coup when that fails?"
(1) Interferin in an election? The United States contributed monies to the conservative and centrist parties in Chile. So what? Doesn't seem all that heinous to me. This was done in Italy after the war too.
(2) The United States didn't "organise" the Pinochet coup, though surely it helped out. The coup would have happened with or without the United States.
9861. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 8:52 AM PT
Message #9859
Comparing Pinochet to Hitler? What bullshit.
(By the way, Private Eye is quite droll, but hardly the foundation for one's intellectual formation -- an observation Socko clearly hasn't heeded.)
What, praytell, is so heinous about a coup per se? I mean, can't one say that the overthrow of Allende was a good thing, all the while deploring the totally unnecessary killings that followed?
I recall a discussion in this thread a while ago about the Turkish military's interference with, and scuttling of, the democratically elected Islamist government. A move Socko strongly supported. I would have supported the Pinochet (though not its violent aftermath) precisely in the same spirit.
9862. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:02 AM PT
Message #9859
Obviously, citing numbers in this crowd is a mistake.
Let me rephrase. There was no food in the cities. There was massive hyperinflation. The country was bankrupt. Supporters of Allende (even more radical than he) were brawling on the streets with right-wing thugs. Railroads & trucks were not operating. Work on mines had stopped. There were "spontaneous" seizures of factories and farms. There was fear among the Chilean middle class ** that Allende was a Kerensky to somebody else's Lenin.
(The majority of the Chilean population were middle-class, for Chile had always sported an urban, industrial, middle-class society. This is in stark contrast to the Western image of Latin America as a peasant backwater.)
The highly professional Chilean armed forces, with a long record of absolute obedience to civil authority, broke its tradition of neutrality and ended civilian government. I see nothing wrong with the COUP per se.
9863. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:15 AM PT
Both the Chilean left and the Chilean right banked all of their hopes on congressional elections scheduled for March 1973. But the elections failed to produce a decisive victory to either side, prolonging the deadlock. While the opposition fell well short of the 2/3 majority needed to impeach Allende, the Allende government remained in minority. Yet it remained intent on ruling the country as though it had achieved a decisive mandate. Moreover, Allende was prevented by the two Marxist parties of his Unidad Popular coalition from compromising with the parties of the right and the centre on such key issues as nationalization and property rights. The all-party conference brokered by the Archbishop of Santiago between Allende and the Christian Democrats was scuttled when the Marxists threatened to repudiate Allende.
Clearly, civil authority had reached an impasse. The structural deformity of Chilean institutions -- the very thing that had produced three successive minority governments between the late 1950s and the early 1970s-- had become intractable. (The reason I don't agree with Wombat on the word "freakish".)
I don't think the Pinochet coup -- except in its violence -- was very different from DeGaulle's intervention in 1958.
9864. ScottLoar - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:34 AM PT
Thanks for the clarity, badly needed.
9865. rickc2000 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 12:13 PM PT
"The "freakish" part of the election was that the left was able to get in due to a split in the in the center-right coaltion that had--in various incarnations--ruled Chile for years.'
This is a good description of Tony Blair's gov't. Does this therefore justify engineering a coup against him?"
This is not a good parallel. Perhaps a better one would be the United States where an ideological split between extreme conservatives and "moderates' in the Republican party, long the party of the executive branch, led to the election of a Democrat. We have yet to see if the non-military coup engineered by conservatives will be successful in reversing the election(s).
9866. rickc2000 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 12:18 PM PT
"The United States didn't "organise" the Pinochet coup, though surely it helped out. The coup would have happened with or without the United States."
It helped out quite a bit. I disagree that the coup would have happened without US support. If it had been attempted ther would have been a long protracted civil war that may even have attracted the attention of the Soviet Union. Hardly a successful coup.
9867. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 1:01 PM PT
rick2000 (Message #9866)
"I disagree that the coup would have happened without US support."
That's because you don't know what you're talking about. The United States's role in the coup could hardly be called enabling.
"If it had been attempted ther would have been a long protracted civil war that may even have attracted the attention of the Soviet Union."
A civil war between whom? The Chilean military versus a bunch of ill-armed radicals on the streets? Please, don't tell such silly jokes.
9868. proudnerd - Oct. 20, 1998 - 1:25 PM PT
pseudoE,
Are you trying to say that military coup is a welcome remedy for bad economic policies of a democratically elected government ?
9869. Wombat - Oct. 20, 1998 - 1:41 PM PT
Proudnerd:
When the elected governement is trying to ram through far-reaching policies without attempting to gauge the strength of the opposition or address its concerns, and the political system lacks the constitutional safeguards of--say--the United States, then a coup is sometimes better than the alternative. Turkey and Algeria are two cases where the military has intervened to prevent parties from abusing the democratic process. Would you argue against military intervention in cases such as Germany in 1933, when Hitler became Chancellor through the democratic process?
9870. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 1:43 PM PT
Proudnert (Message #9868)
No. I'm saying that a military coup, as long as it doesn't turn murderous (which the 1973 coup did), is a welcome remedy to the insoluable chaos and the national emergency caused by a political constitution malfunctioning beyond repair.
Pinochet could have been the DeGaulle of Chile. But he decided to be Franco.
9871. Raskolnikov - Oct. 20, 1998 - 1:48 PM PT
While one can theoretically favor a coup to get rid of a bad government, and condemn the killings that followed, I'm not sure the two can be quite so easily separated in non-theoretical circumstances. Are there numerous instances in developing world countries where there was a coup, followed by a quick and non-punitative establishment of order and a new civilian government?
9872. proudnerd - Oct. 20, 1998 - 2:07 PM PT
pseudoE, Message #9867
"The United States's role in the coup could hardly be called enabling."
Have you read the de-classified NSC and CIA papers on their activities in Chile prior to the coup ? You can read them at this site. The NSC papers record the strategy to destabilize Salvador Allende's government during the period from 1970 to 1973.
9873. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 2:07 PM PT
I think the 1973 coup was the tragic consequence of a bad design problem. Besides the lack of constitutional checks and balances that Wombat talked about (which few countries other than the United States really make such a big deal of, anyway), the Chilean constitution permitted powerful presidents to be elected with a plurality of the vote (unlike the absolute majority system in France that DeGaulle instituted). Furthermore, the constitution allowed the president powers which in other countries would properly belong to the legislature. This system might have been adequate for a country which was not as ideologically polarised as Chile had become by the 1960s. For Chile, it became a recipe for disaster.
Now, Americans get sort of squeamish and even puritanical about the sanctity of constitutions. Most other countries, perhaps because they have a richer national heritage, don't need to make a constitutionalism a unifying civic religion. So they tend not to make such a big deal about getting rid of broken constitutions, in favour of another one.
9874. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 2:15 PM PT
proudnerd (Message #9872)
U.S. efforts to prevent Allede's election and his inauguration, as well as the attempts to "destabilise" his administration have been long well known. There is no question that the Nixon Administration wanted Chile "destabilised". But Allende didn't need any help: his policies were so stupid that the destabilisation happened all by itself. My point: U.S. efforts were neither necessary nor sufficient to have generated the preconditions for the coup.
By the way, people have been bullshitting about the "invisible blockade" of the United States against Chile during 1970-73 for years now. It didn't happen. (I will expand on this if you're interested.)
9875. rickc2000 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 2:15 PM PT
"That's because you don't know what you're talking about. The United States's role in the coup could hardly be called enabling."
You are full of as shit and self deluding as usual pinhead.
9876. Raskolnikov - Oct. 20, 1998 - 2:18 PM PT
PE: I understand that aspect. I am not wedded to adherence to bad constitution. But in order for me to favor a coup in any country with a democratic tradition, I would have to be convinced that there was no other way, and be willing to put up with what seems to be an almost inevitable result of a military crackdown.
In other words, I'm not sure if one can praise the coup and condemn the repressive aftermath, since it seems that the latter almost inexorably follows the former. If I am mistaken in this perception, and violent repression after a coup is not the norm in the developing world, I know I can count on you to correct me.
9877. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 2:18 PM PT
(Message #9875): If you say so.
9878. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 2:21 PM PT
Message #9871
Coup leaders generally don't easily or quickly relinquish power, but most coups in the developing world haven't led to the kind of massacres that resulted after the 1973 coup in Chile.
Surely one example of a "coup, followed by a quick and non-punitative establishment of order and a new civilian government" is Turkey.
9879. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 2:25 PM PT
Three coups which come to mind immediately as the most violent (in terms of blood-letting after the overthrow of the previous government):
Argentina, 1976
Chile, 1973
Indonesia, 1965 (surely the bloodiest)
9880. proudnerd - Oct. 20, 1998 - 3:04 PM PT
wombat, Message #9869
"When the elected governement is trying to ram through far-reaching policies without attempting to gauge the strength of the opposition or address its concerns, and the political system lacks the constitutional safeguards of--say--the United States, then a coup is sometimes better than the alternative."
What far-reaching policies are you talking about ? The nationalization of copper mines and banks ? It is ridiculous to suggest that such a policy deserved immediate intervention by the military. Chile got by with its constitutional democracy for 41 years, why should we believe that it couldn't have gotten over its economic woes without a military coup ? In fact it didn't do so until the 1980s.
At the root of this kind of attitude towards dictators of the poor countries lies the disparaging view of the people of these countries, that, they can't take care of themselves and they need an authoritative figure who can force them to do whatever is deemed necessary for progress.
9881. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 3:40 PM PT
Proudnerd (Message #9880)
"What far-reaching policies are you talking about ? The nationalization of copper mines and banks?"
You forgot agriculture. And the Unidad Popular programme went far beyond that. It was not merely the unsustainable expansion of aggregate demand that has been the feature of populism all over Latin America. The Allende administration, quite simply, sought to create a socialist society. Economics Minister Pedro Vuskovic declared shortly after Allende's election: "State control is designed to destroy the economic basis of imperialism and the ruling class by putting an end to the private ownership of the means of production".
I quote from "The Macroeconomics of Populism in Latin America" (Brookings), ed. by Rudiger Dornbusch and Sebastian Edwards:
"Between 1970 and 1973, the UP government engaged in a major expansion of the 'area of social property' (the state-owned sector). This program involved a massive takeover of firms, a step viewed as necessary to achieve official allocative and distributive goals...
The government lacked solid legislation for the nationalisation of local industries, and so it resorted to an obscure law passed in the 1930s during the short period of the socialist republic. (Decree Law no. 520 of 1932) This law, which had never been used before, stated several causes that could lead to a company's expropriation: price speculation, stockpiling, interruption of production, or the existence of unused productive capacity in times of shortages". The definition of these concepts was vague enough so that most companies could eventually qualify for expropriation. There was one caveat, however. Expropriation required full cash compensation, as determined by an independent cour. In short, the law was there, but its use was expensive.
An alternative expropriation was soon found to attain government control of private companies. Anothe
9882. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 3:45 PM PT
continued from Message #9881
Quotation from Dornbusch and Edwards continued:
"The government lacked solid legislation for the nationalisation of local industries, and so it resorted to an obscure law passed in the 1930s during the short period of the socialist republic. (Decree Law no. 520 of 1932) This law, which had never been used before, stated several causes that could lead to a company's expropriation: price speculation, stockpiling, interruption of production, or the existence of unused productive capacity in times of shortages". The definition of these concepts was vague enough so that most companies could eventually qualify for expropriation. There was one caveat, however. Expropriation required full cash compensation, as determined by an independent cour. In short, the law was there, but its use was expensive.
An alternative to expropriation was soon found to attain government control of private companies. Another little-known law of the 1940s established that companies could be subject to intervention, and thus placed under state administration, whenever labour disputes ocurred. Clearly, this procedure could not be used directly to transfer the ownership of the company. But in practise, this was many times the outcome. Labour disputes were often instigated by authorities or carried out spontaneously in order to trigger government intervention. By that time, a firm's financial position had already deteriorated. Subsequent administration by a state-nominated director, and a growing scarcity of raw materials [often controlled by the government], further weakened the company. After a while, many owners were ready to sell their firms to the government.
The authorities also counted on an administrative procedure to weaken the resolve of company owners. A state agency, DIRINCO..., was empowered to approve price increases for goods and services throughout the economy. By the simple expedient denying pric
9883. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 3:47 PM PT
continued from Message #9882
Quotation from Dornbusch and Edwards continued:
By the simple expedient denying price adjustment at a time of rapidly rising wages [artificially induced by the state], DIRINCO could jeopardise substantially the financial health of a company. This was another procedure used by to convinced entrepreneurs to sell." [end of passage]
Now, by September 1973, the Chilean government either controlled or had acquired controlling equity stakes in 507 of the top 1000 firms in Chile. Through this means, within three years, the public sector's share of non-agricultural output tripled from 15% to 45%. The Allende government managed to achieve only 45% only because industry resisted substantially, and because the legal means of nationalisation were severely limited.
I'd say all this qualifies as "far-reaching".
9884. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 3:53 PM PT
"Chile got by with its constitutional democracy for 41 years, why
should we believe that it couldn't have gotten over its economic woes without a military coup ? In fact it didn't do so until the 1980s."
Well, it's disingenuous to compare the economic woes of the 1970-73 period and the period 1973-82. They were nothing like each other. The course the Allende regime had set for Chile simply could not continue, short of a full statisation of the economy.
I suppose, ideally, I would have preferred the army had allowed Allende's term to expire. But the conditions in 1973 were such that many feared that the most radical elements of the Unidad Popular regime would somehow entrench themselves in power.
"At the root of this kind of attitude towards dictators of the poor countries lies the disparaging view of the people of these countries, that, they can't take care of themselves and they need an authoritative figure who can force them to do whatever is deemed necessary for progress."
Well, two observations. (1) Clearly, some countries can't take care of themselves, although I don't consider Chile in that category. (2) Had Pinochet simply removed Allende from power, imposed a better-designed constitution, and returned the country to civilian rule within a few months, your comments above wouldn't even get a hearing.
9885. ptboya - Oct. 20, 1998 - 10:18 PM PT
PE…
You have stated a number of things wrt Chile which indicate (wherever have I seen these words before?) you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
>"Interferin in an election? The United States contributed
monies to the conservative and centrist parties in Chile. So
what? Doesn't seem all that heinous to me. This was done in
Italy after the war too."
Bzzzzzz /Wrong. They first attempted to buy the legislature on the second round of votes; when that failed they funneled money to unions to foment the disorder in the streets you elaborate. Nixon ordered the CIA to "make the economy scream" in Chile. International lending was shut down. As you take great pains to point out, Allende made many economic mistakes. But you neglect to mention that he knew full well that the economy was under siege from North America from the day he assumed power. You also neglect to mention the % of US ownership of major industries in '73, particularly copper.
>"Supporters of Allende (even more radical than he) were brawling on the streets with right-wing thugs. Railroads & trucks were not operating. Work on mines had stopped. There were "spontaneous" seizures of factories and farms."
Sure. All this was organized and paid for by the CIA and channeled by union allies in the US to Chilean unions. We know only that $10 million was authorized for these activities. We may never learn how much was actually spent. The "right-wing thugs," the truckdrivers, the railroad workers… all, in effect, were paid operatives. The economy not surprisingly did "scream," as per Nixon's directive.
CONTINUED
9886. ptboya - Oct. 20, 1998 - 10:19 PM PT
PART II
>"The United States didn't "organise" the Pinochet coup,
though surely it helped out. The coup would have happened
with or without the United States."
The second sentence here is idle and worthless speculation. The first is a classic fudge. Again, the details may never be divulged… but from documents that have been released to date, we can glean the extent of US gov't involvement in the details of the coup. Description of DOD, US Milgroup, Situation Report #2, Oct. 1, '73:
'In a situation report, U.S. Naval attache Patrick Ryan, reports positively on events in Chile during the coup. He characterizes September 11 as "our D-Day," and states that "Chile's coup de etat [sic] was close to perfect." His report provides details on Chilean military operations during and after the coup, as well as glowing commentary on the character of the new regime.'
The benign spin you put on US involvement in Chile simply does not jive with the facts. And complicity in the murderous aftermath by the US belies your feeble attempt to invent a disconnect between the before and after. The commonly used excuse is that local operatives just got out of hand. The fact is that after the coup (by Nov. 16, '73) US intelligence forwarded reports to Washington of extensive reprisals in the form of summary executions, thrice what was then being reported to the US press. At the same moment in time, the Nixon Admin. resumed all economic aid.
Sometimes your attempt to play the hard-headed, strong- wristed realist renders you lamentably lacking in a moral center. Perhaps you see it as bravery to flaunt your unconcern for the victims caught in the way of this power grab. If so, that is truly sad.
9887. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 10:28 PM PT
If you think any of these things refute my argument that U.S. actions against Chile in 1970-73 were neither necessary nor sufficient to have produced the economic crisis or induced the coup, then you're too stupid for words.
NOTHING the United States did in 1970-73 contributed substantially to the economic chaos of that period. NOTHING.
I will demonstrate to you in a few minutes that you don't know what the hell you are talking about when it comes to the alleged economic blockage against Chile.
9888. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 10:29 PM PT
that's "blockade".
9889. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 10:48 PM PT
Re: "making the [Chilean] economy scream"
I have not denied ANYTHING about Nixon's policies toward Allende's Chile. Everyone knows that the U.S. attempted to make the Chilean economy "scream". The question is, did it scream because of U.S. actions? The answer is simple: No.
1) Foreign debt
In November 1971, President Allende announced a moratorium on foreign debt servicing and requested a general refinancing of Chile's international obligations. Between February and April 1972, Chilean delegates met for this purpose in Paris with representatives of the eleven countries holding shares in the country's public foreign debt. Although nearly 2/3 of the total $1.8 billion was owed to U.S. institutions, the United States was unable to persuade other members of the Paris Club to link refinancing to compensation of the expropriated copper mines. Instead, the Chilean government obtained a rather favourable settlement, allowing it to roll over for an 8-year period some 3/4 of its short-term debt. The rest of the debt, which had been due immediately, was also allowed to be rolled over.
International lending did not stop. Lending by American banks stopped only after Chile suspended debt servicings. Yet Bank of America continued to lend to Chile to the very end. There was no financial blockade.
2) Multilateral development lending
New lending to Chile by both the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank slowed considerably during the Allende regime, but lending to Chile had been slowing throughout the late 1960s -- a result of macroeconomic policies these two institutions did not approve of. However, lending that had already been approved before Allende continued to get disbursed throughout his tenure. And Chile had no problem getting funds form the IMF
Why the hell should anyone lend money to Chile given its idiotic policies?
3) Any shortfall in credit to Chile from private and multilateral
9890. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 10:52 PM PT
3) Any shortfall in credit to Chile from private and multilateral lending institutions was COMPLETELY made up by alternative sources of credit or aid -- from Brazil, Argentina, Japan, Western Europe and the East bloc. Chile's net foreign indebtedness rose by 16% between 1970 and 1973 -- a rate greater than for the 1960-70 period.
4) There were no restrictions on U.S. exports to Chile. There was no embargo
The "invisible economic blockade" is a fantasy.
And the U.S. attempts to make Chile "scream" were at best an inconvenience for Chile. The economic chaos in Chile in 1972-3 is NOT in any meaningful way attributable to the alleged U.S. economic blockade. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't have a differnece of opinion -- he's simply an idiot.
9891. proudnerd - Oct. 20, 1998 - 10:58 PM PT
pseudoE, Message #8970
"I'm saying that a military coup, as long as it doesn't turn murderous (which the 1973 coup did), is a welcome remedy to the insoluable chaos and the national emergency caused by a political constitution malfunctioning beyond repair."
I can't believe anyone with a semblance of sense would take such a disgusting stand. Perhaps you went too far using shock value to grab attention, eh ?
You are of course wrong in your characterization of the state of Chile in 1973.
9892. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 11:05 PM PT
"The benign spin you put on US involvement in Chile simply does not jive with the facts. And complicity inthe murderous aftermath by the US belies your feeble attempt to invent a disconnect between the before andafter. The commonly used excuse is that localoperatives just got out of hand....At the same moment intime, the Nixon Admin. resumed all economic aid. Sometimes your attempt to play the hard-headed,strong- wristed realist renders you lamentably lackingin a moral center. Perhaps you see it as bravery to flaunt your unconcern for the victims caught in the wayof this power grab. If so, that is truly sad."
These remarks are a total fantasy. I have NEVER denied U.S. involvement in the Pinochet coup.
1) Where is this "benign spin"?
2) Where is this "disconnect" between the before and the after?
3) Where did I use this "common excuse that local operatives just got out of hand"?
You're an idiot.
9893. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 11:07 PM PT
proudnerd (Message #9891)
"You are of course wrong in your characterization of the state of Chile in 1973.".
Bullshit. Refute my arguments.
9894. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 11:28 PM PT
"They first attempted to buy the legislature on the second round of votes..."
True.
"As you takegreat pains to point out, Allende made many economic mistakes."
Mistakes? The economic policies of the Unidad Popular administration were cataclysmic.
"You also neglect to mention the % of US ownership of major industries in '73, particularly copper."
What about it?
9895. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 11:34 PM PT
As for the covert U.S. support of opposition groups in Chile, there are three components, only one of them controversial.
1) Financial assistance to the opposition media. This, IMO, has no adverse moral implications. The Chilean government and its state-owned enterprises had been the principle source of advertising revenue for Chile's daily press. Yet the Allende regime redirected this revenue exclusively to progovernment papers. Moreover, the Allende government attempted to nationalise, and then bankrupt, the only privately owned source of newsprint (the Compañía General de Papel y Cartones). The CIA apparently kept the company afloat. Unidad Popular militants even tried organise a takeover of the student-owend radio station at the University of Santiago.
2) Financial assistance to opposition political parties. No big deal, IMO.
9896. proudnerd - Oct. 20, 1998 - 11:52 PM PT
pseudoE, re Message #8981, Message #8982, Message #8983
Are you trying to suggest that Allende did a volte face on nationalization policy ? Nationalizations had been going on in Chile even before Allende took over. For example, it was Eduardo Frei Montalva's (Allendes' predecessor) government that expropriated the foreign copper mines. It is undeniable however that Allende took it too far.
"I suppose, ideally, I would have preferred the army had allowed Allende's term to expire."
There you go! That is exactly what we all should welcome, not the unwarranted military coup.
"But the conditions in 1973 were such that many feared that the most radical elements of the Unidad Popular regime would somehow entrench themselves in power."
No shit, a lot of Chileans did, thanks to some planted horror stories in El Mercurio.
"Had Pinochet simply removed Allende from power, imposed a better-designed constitution, and returned the country to civilian rule within a few months, your comments above wouldn't even get a hearing."
But he didn't (and most military dictators have been like that), so ??
9897. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 11:53 PM PT
3) As for right-wing thugs, street brawls, strikes, etc.....
There are allegations that the United States financed the right-wing terrorist group Patria y Libertad. This organisation advocated violent resistance to the Allende government and called for an insurrection within the armed forces. According to the Church committee report, "The CIA gave support in 1970 to one group whose tactics became violent over time. Through 1971 Patria y Libertad received small sums of American money through third parties for specific purposes such as demonstrations or propaganda activities. Such disbursements -- some $7000 -- ended in 1971."
In reference to the two great national strikes (10/72 and 7-9/73) that shook the regime, the Church Committee report says:
"Two facts are indisputed. First the 40 Committee did not approve any funds to be given to the strikers. Second, all observers are agreed that the two lengthy stirkes...could not have been maintained on the basis of union funds.
It remains unclear to what extent CIA funds passed to opposition parties may have been siphoned off to support strikes. It is clear that anti-government strikes were actively supported by several of the private sector groups which received CIA funds. There were extensive links between these private sector organisations and the groups which coordinated and implemented the strikes. In November 1972, the CIA learned that one private sector group had passed $2800 directly to the strikers contrary to the Agency's ground rules. The CIA rebuked the group but nonetheless passed it additional money the next month. But there is no evidence that it was U.S. policy to support these strikers financially.
In August 1973, the CIA station chief in Santiago recommended that $25,000 be passed to the striking truckers. This proposal was strenuously opposed by the U.S. mission in Santiago and the State Department and was never approved".
9898. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 12:06 AM PT
Proudnerd (Message #9896)
"Are you trying to suggest that Allende did a volte face on nationalization policy ?"
Read my Message #9881 and subsequent. They spell out rather clearly the sea-change in the Allende government's policy on the ownership structure of the Chilean economy.
"For example, it was Eduardo Frei Montalva's (Allendes' predecessor) government that expropriated the foreign copper mines."
This seems a rather irrelevant remark, in the face of the vast campaign statisation launched by the Allende regime. Anyway, the Frei administration only started the nationalisation of foreign-owned copper mines. The Allende government finished it. And the nationalisations of copper mines were popular.
Moreover, whereas the Frei administration fully compensated the foreign owners, the Allende government didn't. It claimed "back profits" from 1965 and subtracted the amount from the indemnification sum. In the end, it paid nothing.
9899. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 12:15 AM PT
"There you go! That is exactly what we all should welcome, not the unwarranted military coup."
No, in 1973, the military coup was very much warranted.
"No shit, a lot of Chileans did, thanks to some planted horror stories in El Mercurio."
But you didn't need the planted stories to fear the Unidad Popular regime. Chile's private economy & civil society were being socialised right before their yes. If it weren't for the CIA, there might not have been a functioning press to oppose the Unidad Popular government in 1976.
"But he didn't (and most military dictators have been like that), so ??"
Well, I'm saying that the overthrow of Allende, per se, was a good thing. You seem to believe that even a non-violent coup is a "disgusting stand".
9900. CalGal - Oct. 21, 1998 - 12:19 AM PT
I have no idea if you all have seen this or not--it seems fairly recent and, if I'm following the discussion (which is always iffy with me), relevant:
Chile and the United States Declassified Documents Relating to the Military Coup 1970 through 1976
If only for the novelty value.
Apologies if someone has linked this or mentioned it and I missed it.