The US, UN & Iraq III

Walter thanks interesting

I knew Cromwell allowed Jews to re settle in England, so maybe they thought they had a friend to explore pastures new in S America.

Set, you may of course impart your learning and superior knowledge of said expedition to a humble Englishman, and are hereby granted special dispensation (under international law) to do so, should you so wish.

Tartarin

Very glad to see you linked the Gannon piece. I read that yesterday. Is it not hilarious?

Also, though I haven't seen The Pianist, it is clear the point you are making - that when states or societies change from being constructive to destructive, it doesn't occur with a rifle salute, an announcement, and a change of uniforms.

I refuse to elaborate upon fanastical and tendencious historical fantasies on the grounds that it may tend to make me look sillier than i already appear . . .

It is clearly not the hobgoblin of your little mind.

Thank you, Steve, for your kind words. I won't assume I have persuaded you, but appreciate the remark.

What has Cromwell to do with Chile? Nothing. I just think he was a far worse historical figure than Pinochet. But then I'm Irish (first generation), and, according to Blatham, that explains everything.

George has a point which it is hard to ignore here, even when Englishmen object to having Ireland brought up before them as an example. There is little to quarrel with about how Cromwell behaved himself--that he participated in the conviction and execution of Charles I ought not to be grounds for condemnation, all concerned has a very personal interest in the death of the King, as he would otherwise have been a focus of opposition which might have lead them to the block; from the point of view of England, the worst thing he did was to sucker the Agitators, and deny a written constitution and a bill of rights to the dissenters, without whom the Parliamentary victory was not possible--i'm ambivalent about that last one, just because such an event was unlikely in 17th century Europe no matter the antecedants. However, Cromwell in Ireland, and the slaughter visited upon the population, largely because of their creed, is indefensible under any terms. George's ancestry doesn't disqualify him from seeing Cromwell in a bad light--you don't have to be Irish to see that as having been a vile course of action. I cannot agree with any part of his analysis of Pinochet, however, with the exception that i consider his peaceful surrender of power--after the CIA carpet had been jerked out from under him--was an example of patriotic nobility, in that he did not subject Chile to the horrors of civil war. The rest of George's comments upon Pinochet are predicated upon an assumption that nothing as good or better would have come of Allende's government. That cannot be known, Allende was gone so fast i would accept no one's claims about the likely effect on Chile had he taken office. I would note here that America, for whatever the sincerity of its people, has, as an international agent (i.e., in its governments) supported the concept of democracy and national self-determination only in those cases in which the complexion of the contemplated democracy has been approved of in advance. Allende was lawfully elected with overwhelming support.

George

Everything but the drinking.

In a democracy there is a contract, both understood and necessary, that those who are chosen to govern will do so with honesty and transparency. Where those who govern fall to the belief that the ends they desire will be impossible or inhibited through openness and accurate presentation of goals and facts, and procede to act regardless, and under cover of deceit and obfuscation, then the entire notion of democracy is surely at grave risk.

If those who govern a democracy engage in repeated and sustained misrepresentation, they are guilty not only of misrepresentation and hense, of undermining the contract of trust, they are also placing the foundations of democracy at risk through erasing any real engagement with the very constituency which place them in the position of governance.

These are not moral questions. These are questions of the essential definitions of a democracy.

like humpty dumpty, democracy for american foreign policy managers means just what they choose it to mean, neither more nor less.

as one old enough to remember the chilean coupe, the same disinformation there, when american government spokesmen said that allende committed suicide while acknowledging that he died from 18 shots in the back, is present today in the rhetoric of the busheviks with iraq and al queada.

Well, kuvasz, what a surprise to see you reappear from a rather long absense. Glad to see you're still around. c.i.

Setanta,

I have spent a good deal of time in Chile over the last decade. Most of the people I know there - admittedly middle class & more - say that at the time of the military coup that ousted Alliende, Chile was on the brink of chaos and civil war. Alliende was duly elected but in fact by a very narrow margin. He had already suspended the constitution and assumed substantial legislative powers into his own hands when he was unseated (killed).

Pinochet left the stage voluntarily on the date promised several years earlier, at a moment when the economy was booming and the political situation was tranquil. There was no Civil war coming - there wasn't even much political opposition. Such events are rare in history.

I believe the house arrest imposed on him by the British government, acting as the stooge of an errant and hypocritical Spanish judge was a shameful episode. It was also a very good example of the dangers implicit in such things as the ICC.


As an afterthought. I should have taken the very clever "out" you gave me earlier on the "foolish consistency" bit. I was provoked, but I should not have taken the bait.

Well, you are correct to take me to task for having used the expression "overwhelming support." However, given the subsequent actions of Pinochet's government, i hardly think it possible to contend that the average Chilean in the street would have been worse off under Allende. A good deal of our reaction was conditioned by the mindset we had developed over Cuba--our contemporary perversion of the concept of the Monroe doctrine. I note that you qualified your statement about anecdotal evidence with the caveat of these people being middle class. Until quite recently in Chilean history, and the history of most of Latin America, in fact (oh hell, i'll say it--all of Latin America) the combination of aristocratic and middle classes wouldn't account for more than a small proportion of the population. My comment about possible civil war is only based upon a probability of the reaction to Pinochet not having kept his promise to step down, especially given the climate of fear.

Blatham,

Well we do have a problem with the drink. Perhaps it is related to an innate understanding of the madness of life. "Carrick Fergus" remains a favorite song.

I do agree with you about the importance of transparency in government and the commitment to truthfulness implicit in democracy. Systematically violated the essential trust and public compact can be broken. I do worry about the euphemisms and evasions that increasingly beset out political discourse on all sides and on most issues in the U.S. Half truths and evasions are increasingly the norm on almost all matters on both sides. Plain talk and unambiguous statements are increasingly rare.

Sadly statecraft is shown by history to often require a certain duplicity on the part of leaders of all kinds - and I don't know a remedy for it. I don't know if that was the case in the matters at hand, or even if deception, knowing or otherwise, did occur. There may well be serious fault there. We will have to allow events to unfold. There is also a possible element of blunt, plain talk in the President's manner which we should consider as well.

Setanta,

Compared to Peru, Bolivia, and even Argentina, Chile has a much wider distribution of wealth and property, and a much larger middle class in the usual sense of that term. It is the most unlatin country in Latin America - even the cops are honest.

Did you know that the main street in Santiago is "O'Higgins Boulevard", named after the leader of their revolution against Spain.

Yes, Bernardo O'Higgins, in fact. I'd have to wonder if your description of Chile applied in 1973.

Here's some stats on Chili from the current issue of the almanac. It's current population is almost 15.5 million inhabitants, living in a land area 289,100 square miles. Per capita GDP is $10,100 (one of the highest in S America) with a life expectancy of 72.8 for males and 79.6 for females. Their literacy rate is 95%. Pretty impressive, if I say so myself. c.i.

Well, you see that is just the point. I spent my time in Chile in the 90's and early 2000 working in Chilean textile mills where I engaged not with the "middle class & more" as you euphemistically call the uber rich and and did not find a single person who had a single positive word to say about Pinochet. In fact, many had had friends and family "disappeared' under Pinochet's regime.

Perhaps you are unaware of the situation in Chile up to the plebescite Pinochet lost by over 55% of the votes after 17 years running the country. He had re-written the Chilean constitution to allow for the plebecite and expected to win handily. Afterall he agreed to call for it or allow it to happen only under pressure from the international community less than 5 weeks before the voting so as to prevent an organized alternative to him. If he had reneged on his promise and had not stepped down, the possibilty of real civil war was likely.

Detailed minutes of the "40 Committee" meetings, the high-level interagency group chaired by national security advisor Henry Kissinger, which oversaw U.S. efforts to undermine the election and government of Socialist leader Salvador Allende. These meetings reveal strategies of "drastic action" planned to "shock" Chileans into taking action to block Allende.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20001113/700909.pdf

So what you imply.viz., that the good old Grandpa Pinochet overthrew a popularly elected government because of the potential economic crisis was in fact instigated by the US and it worked hand in hand with the Pinochet faction to undermine real democracy and economic stability so Pinochet could overthrow the government and use as a ploy for his coup exactly what you stated "Chile was on the brink of chaos and civil war." Had the US kept their dirty paws off of the situation in Chile, the vaunted "economic crisis" you and other apologists use to support the radical overthrow of democracy would not have occurred.

But you seem to like Pinochet, figuring at least he made the trains run on time like a latino Mussolini. However, under the Pinochet regime, thousands of people were killed or disappeared at the hands of Pinochet's political police, while tens of thousands of Chileans flee their country. Parliament was closed, a state of siege was declared and thousands of leftists and others were arrested.

But I guess, since these were people who believed in democracy, their deaths and tortures were okay since the wealthy made out ok in Pinochet's Chile.

BTW since you seem to think that it is okay to overthrow a government which "was duly elected but in fact by a very narrow margin. He had already suspended the constitution and assumed substantial legislative powers into his own hands ." You might wish to revisit that logic with George W Bush, since he has done no less in America than Allende in Chile.

This only seems noteworthy if you believe Bush and Blix are (were) on the same side.

George -- Your take on Chile and Pinochet is so outrageous that I turned off the computer before getting really, really angry, and did some heavy duty weed-eating, thinking of you with every rotation of the nylon cord, every uprooted weed, humming "Te recuerdo Amanda, la calle mojada..."

Pinochet in Chile
Noriega in Panama
Marcos in the Phillipines
Sadaam in Iraq
the Shah in Iran
the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia
and more....

the minimization and justification of what the US has supported, in the quest for...really...business as usual, is the area of deep sin which it really ought to understand better than it does.

The schizoid nature of America is really appalling. The Bush reversals make it also darkly comic. It used to met that we exported support for totalitarianism while hugging freedom and democracy at home; now we are exporting democracy (albeit preemptively) and embracing totalitarianism at home. Hey, are Americans smart or what?!