A Few Words About Chile and Australia

[tcpip]

In 1970 the people of Chile had the temerity to elect the radical socialist Salvador Allende as their President, through a coalition of Christian leftists, social democrats, democratic socialists, radical liberals, and communists. The Allende government sought to nationalise major (and often foreign-owned) industries, engage in agrarian reform, increase minimum wages, employment, enhance social security, education, and public health. Three years later the military, under General Augusto Pinochet, organised a coup against the Allende government, ushering in seventeen years of a fascist dictatorship where tens of thousands would be executed, "go missing", imprisoned, tortured, and raped.

With declassified documents it is evident that the coup against the Allende government was encouraged and supported by the U.S. government, despite claims to the contrary by public officials for years. Further, the U.S. government supported the Pinochet régime, especially through Operation Condor, a U.S. campaign of assisting state terrorism against left-wing and democratic activists in South America. At least 60,000 deaths have been attributed to Operation Condor. Under the influence of anti-public economists, such as Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger, the Pinochet régime banned trade unions, and privitised social security and public enterprises, with many of the latter being sold below market price to politically-connected buyers.

Always following as a subservient second-ranked imperial power, Australia too supported the murderous coup and all that followed with our own operatives in Chile. Now former Australian military intelligence officer and academic Clinton Fernandes is seeking the release of classified documents relating to the role Australia played in helping the military regime of General Pinochet. Most of these documents are around fifty years old, but nevertheless the Australian government is resisting the release of these documents, arguing "national security" issues, as is always done. It stands in stark contrast that other countries involved, including the United States, that have already declassified information relating to their involvement.

On a personal note the events in Chile had a profound and formative effect on own political thought. Through the movie "Missing", which traced a family's attempts to find their murdered son (Charles Horman) after their coup. It was a fair film, carried well by Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek. The haunting soundtrack by Vangelis was never released, however a kind person has put it up on Youtube. Whilst the film concentrated on the loss of one non-Chilean life, the book went into significantly further details of the setting and the events. The important lesson learned from Allende's Chile is that, despite any claims to the contrary, if democratic capitalism is threatened by democratic socialism the loyalty of the State is not to democracy but to capitalism, and those forces will use any means in their disposal, including instituting a fascist and military dictatorship, to protect their profits, power, and privilege.

Comments

[mikeyxw]

I've got to say, I drew some different lessons. When I first started looking into the coup, I was in college and much further to the left, reading about the coup made me much more skeptical. First, Mr. Allende wasn't really threatening democratic socialism, this probably would have been accepted. Mr. Allende was realigning Chile with the Soviet Union, which was definitely not democratic and, according to adherents, wasn't really socialist. He received 36% of the vote and then was selected by the congress after agreeing to take a limited approach to his planned reforms. He then sidelined congress and the courts and embarked in the kind of reforms someone who just received 36% of the vote really shouldn't have.

He did engage in agrarian reforms (by 1972, he had appropriated all of the larger farms for example) and nationalizing large sectors of the economy. The economic results were disastrous. The US did what they could to cause this, but the things that really stood out to me weren't caused by the US. The price of copper, which was Chile's major export, dropped. Productivity in nationalized industries fell. The thing that the US did which had the biggest impact, was to reduce foreign aid from about $300 million to about $4 million. As Mr. Allende was actively courting the Soviet Union, this was understandable. The Soviets promised about $400 million in aid but didn't really come through, basically saying they'd reduce the outrageous markup on substandard Soviet stuff that Chile could buy and calling that aid.

The other actions of the US are pretty well documented and not really that impressive. The State department prevented a $25 million loan to the Chilean cattle industry, the CIA funded some strikers, Kissinger said "make the economy scream", and a few other things, none of which are that impressive. It was really the end of US aid and the fall in the price of copper.

Also, hearing about the coup, it sounded like the CIA was out there front and center. It's usually presented as a CIA coup, but there really isn't much to back this up. There was a kidnapping attempt that ended with an assassination a few years before, but I've never really seen anyone try to explain what that really had to do with the coup. It is pretty clear that Kissinger and Nixon were both pleasantly surprised by the coup. However, this was due to the Chilean military, not the CIA. Pinochet was installed by Allende as the commander in chief about three weeks before the coup, it was really Allende's miscalculation that put Pinochet in power.

Most of the descriptions also ignore Chilean politics in favor of saying the CIA was behind the coup. Allende had a habit of ignoring congress and failing to implement laws he didn't like. Just before the coup, 63% of the congress had voted to have Allende removed from power, if another three percent had supported this, he could have been legally removed. The Chilean supreme court had unanimously denounced Allende's government for failing to implement their rulings. The Chilean police were being used to suppress the opposition. Of course Pinochet was far worse on all accounts, but this doesn't erase the real possibility that Allende was following a model more like Cuba than Sweden, which is usually what is presented.

None of this is to justify the CIA's involvement in Chile, which is was involved, nor Pinochet's repression, which "seventeen years of a fascist dictatorship" accurately describes. However, the narrative of a democratically elected president who was implementing social democratic reforms and was overthrown by the CIA falls way short of what really happened. Realizing this had a profound and formative effect on my political thought.

[tcpip]

Unsurprisingly, I disagree with much of what you have to say. I will touch on just one item here.

Allende won a plurality with 36% of the vote, with Tomic receiving 28%. Both candidates supported nationalisation of the copper industry and land redistribution. Where no candidate received a majority the Chilean congress would select the President, and the convention was that it would go with the candidate with the plurality (e.g., Alessandri had been elected in 1958 with 32% of the popular vote, defeating Allende). I will leave you to your own investigations on how the US encouraged attempts to prevent Allende's election, although the comments by Nixon, recorded by the CIA directory, were quite clear; an order was given to overthrow Allende before he even took office.

"1 in 10 chance perhaps, but save Chile!; worth spending; not concerned; no involvement of embassy; $10,000,000 available, more if necessary; full-time job--best men we have; game plan; make the economy scream; 48 hours for plan of action." (15 September 1970, declassified NSA document)

[mikeyxw]

Yep, I certainly understand this and don't dispute the US made efforts to prevent Allende from becoming president or make his presidency fail. This is not what I'm arguing at all. Allende was the legitimately selected president, and a president winning by plurality is something that isn't unique to Chile and doesn't undermine his legitimacy. He was elected using the rules in place at the time of the election. However, I am arguing this didn't give him a mandate to initiate the radical reforms he undertook, and it certainly didn't justify the end runs he did around the courts and congress to do so once things got rocky. Allende is portrayed as the democratically elected president, which he was, but what's left out is that he took a very authoritarian line once he was in office. Maduro was democratically elected after all, but while this is true, it's lost its relevance.

Tomic was chosen to represent the PDC because he had more moderate leftist positions, using his support for nationalizing copper and agricultural reforms (both of which the previous government had already started, it was the 70's, nationalization of resources was in) to support Allende's policies is a bit dishonest. For example, Tomic supported the state taking over 51% of the copper industry. What was clearly needed was some kind of run-off election, which the Chilean constitution didn't really allow for. What was a mistake was for Allende to move ahead with his policies as if he had a strong mandate, which he would have if he had received something like the 64% of the vote that he shared with Tomic, which is why I disagree with you counting it this way.

I've heard the "make the economy scream" quote, as I suspect almost everyone has and I'm not saying the CIA is blameless, more that Allende has been lionized in ways that don't really hold up. I heard that quote repeated far more often than that the 63% Chilean congress voted to have Allende removed from power, even though the latter was much more important, it didn't fit the narrative. Again, the way this changed my political thought was that I realized that in college I was being taught a very selective view of what happened. For example, I had two classes that covered the CIA overthrowing Allende's government. Viewing the material that was presented, there really wasn't another rational conclusion one would reach was that this was mostly a CIA affair with Chileans playing minor parts, always at the behest of the CIA. One of those classes also specifically banned using sources that weren't part of the class material in any assignments. While there is a point in holding your own government accountable, this ends up making the 1973 coup all about the CIA, which it really wasn't. It was really a matter of the military, backed by the political opposition who represented around 2/3rds of the voters and who got some support from the CIA, overthrowing a democratically elected but increasing unpopular and authoritarian president who was supported by the KGB... just not as much as he wanted to be.

[tcpip]

> I am arguing this didn't give him a mandate to initiate the radical reforms he undertook<

He was elected with particular policies, which he sought to implement, that does suggest a mandate.

In securing the support of Congress the Popular Unity government co-signed with the Christian Democrats a Statute of Constitutional Guarantee. That serves as the only additional restriction, other than what existed as part of the Chilean constitution.

"Specifically, the agreement guaranteed the existence of opposition political parties, and of the armed forces as a nonpartisan and autonomous institution subject only to the president's control in his role as chief-of-state. Organized social groups such as labor unions were guaranteed their autonomy and multiparty character, as were the key institutions of the university, the private school system, and the communications media. The liberal-democratic freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion also were affirmed."

The Politics of the Allende Overthrow in Chile, Peter A. Goldberg
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2148700
Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 90, No. 1 (Spring, 1975), pp. 93-116

The Allende government fulfilled those requirements. The Pinochet régime did not.

[mahnmut]

John Perkins touches upon all this in his Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

[tcpip]

The Chilean economy jumped all over the place under Pinochet, and it really wasn't until after the regime that GDP PPP rose above average South American rates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Chile#/media/File:Chile_and_Latin_America_GDP_Average.png