Proposed Changes Regarding Chile edit
Greetings, Wehwalt. I'll address your concerns below. The truth is the current single paragraph about Chile is very misleading to the reader and needs to be corrected in some manner. Because this article is about Nixon and he and Kissinger are most responsible for the loss of life these issues need to be addressed somehow. I disagree that the loss of lives of 1000s of individuals, their exile, their torture, etc. is not worth adding two more paragraphs to the existing section.
The declassified documents do indeed establish the facts I maintained. They are there for all to see in various archives and in the 114 declassified documents reproduced in Kornbluh, Peter, The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability, The New Press, 2003. ISBN 1-56584-936-1.
So let me respond to your specific points.
Veritas Aeterna seems to be misrepresenting what the declassified documents say:
- "After more than thirty years, no evidence has come to light in either country that the United States played a direct role in the overthrow of the Allende government, but it was certainly a geopolitical bonanza for the United States, as Allende was cavorting with Castro with a particularly irritating relish."-Black, Conrad (2007). Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full. Public Affairs. pp. 921–922. ISBN 978-1-58648-519-1.
- I'm sorry but that is totally incorrect. It is misleading to say the US did not play a "direct" role. They played a very extensive covert role:
Nixon authorized $10 M dollars, the USG sent submachine guns via diplomatic pouch, 50K was provided to coup plotters, police equipment was provided to Pinochet, the coup plotters were encouraged to take action leading to Allende's overthrow, etc. There is mountains of evidence, overwhelming amounts.
In contrast to what you cited:
"Indeed, the documents contain new information on virtually every major issue, episode and scandal that pockmark this controversial era. They cover events such as: Project FUBELT, the CIA's covert action to block Salvador Allende from becoming president of Chile in the fall of 1970; the assassination of Chilean commander-in-chief Rene Scheider; U.S. strategy and operations to destabilize the Allende government; the degree of American support for the coup; the postcoup executions of American citizens; the origins and operations of Pinochet's secret police, DINA; CIA ties to DINA chieftain Manuel Contreras; Operation Condor; the terrorist car-bombing of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt in Washington, D.C.; the murder by burning of Washington resident Rodrigo Rojas; and Pinochet's final efforts to thwart a transition to civilian rule. ... A comparison between what was said and done in secret and the official statements, testimonials, and memoirs reveals, in stunning detail, the mendacity that accompanied U.S. policy." [Kornbluh, p. xvii-xviii]
*"Was the United States DIRECTLY involved, covertly, in the 1973 coup in Chile? The Committee has found no evidence that it was. There is no hard evidence of direct U.S. assistance to the coup, despite frequent allegations of such aid. Rather the United States - by its previous actions during Track II, its existing general posture of opposition to Allende, and the nature of its contacts with the Chilean military- probably gave the impression that it would not look with disfavor on a military coup. And U.S. officials in the years before 1973 may not always have succeeded in walking the thin line between monitoring indigenous coup plotting and actually stimulating it."-Frank Church et al. (18 December 1975). "Covert Action in Chile 1963-1973". US Government Printing Office.
- The Church Committee information is out of date as the declassified documents show that the Church Committee was lied to.
"The initial Orwellian response to the CIA-ITT scandal set the stage for a protracted cover-up, made possible by a display of official mendacity virtually unparalleled in the annals of foreign policy. Outright deception--of the public, of Congress and even other sectors of the U.S. government--permeated the administration's effort to contain and conceal the facts of Track I and Track II. The CIA, State Department, and the NSC sought to obstruct the Senate Subcommittee on Multinational Corporations investigation. Cooperation was severely restricted; evidence was withheld; government and corporate witnesses committed perjury. In its commitment to hide the truth, and contain the inquiry, the administration even assisted ITT in defrauding the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)--and by extension the U.S. taxpayer--in order to collect a $94 million political risk insurance claim for its expropriated Chilean properties." [Kornbluh, p. 100]
I could go on, but just adding, "The CIA's own internal file review concluded "there is reason to believe that perjury [by various witnesses] was committed and that the Agency was aware of the fact." [Kornbluh, p. 102] should suffice unless you would like even more detail.
"On 10 September 1973 -- the day before the coup that ended the Allende government -- a Chilean military officer reported to a CIA officer that a coup was being planned and asked for US government assistance. He was told that the US Government would not provide any assistance because this was strictly an internal Chilean matter."-CIA (19 September 2000). "CIA Activities in Chile". Chile Documentation Project. National Security Archive. p. 13.
I see you are quoting from the CIA's 2000 report, "CIA Activities in Chile", using a National Security website that Peter Kornbluh provided. He says, regarding that report, "...on the question of helping Pinochet to power, the report hedged on the details of multiple covert operations that assisted the regime in consilidating its repressive rule." [p. 486] The CIA was essentially forced to write the report and declassify documents it did not want declassified.
What is stated above is misleading given that the US provided 50K and submachine guns, and actively encouraged the coup, letting military leaders know the US would welcome it.
"The United States did play a role in Chile, though not precisely the one ascribed to it. It attempted--unsuccessfully--to forestall Allende's confirmation by the Chilean congress. But once he was in office, the thrust of U.S. policy shifted to sustaining a democratic opposition and an independent press until Allende could be defeated in the presidential elections scheduled for 1976. To the extent that this opposition was able to survive under extraordinarily difficult economic circumstances--winning control of the Chilean congress in March 1973--one might even credit the Nixon administration with preventing the consolidation of Allende's "totalitarian project" (to use the apt expression of Eduardo Frei). What then followed--a right-wing dictatorship that crushed not merely the Allende regime but Chilean democracy itself--was not and could not have been predicted, partly because of the military's own apolitical traditions and partly because, by mid-1973, the opposition to Allende was dominated by forces of proved democratic provenance. To the contrary, Washington's presumption--that in the 1976 elections, if they were allowed to take place, the opposition would win decisively--was amply supported by the facts. It was only the savagery of the subsequent Pinochet dictatorship that in hindsight altered the historical picture."-Falcoff, Mark, Commentary, 2003
Again, this commentary came out in 2003 and Kornbluh's analysis of the 24,000 documents did not come out towards the end of 2003. It is inaccurate in several ways. The US did not support an independent press as it paid El Mercurio to present black propaganda. Nixon himself authorized funds for El Mercurio. He did succeed in making Chile's economy scream by numerous financial machinations, withholding of loans, etc. Economic, psychological, and political warfare was a three-pronged approach to foment a coup. All this and much more is covered in Kornbluh's analysis.
The sources sited against the edits I made are all conservative sources that have a vested interest in maintaining a favorable image of Nixon. On the Wikipedia article on Conrad Black, the description of his biography of Nixon says...
Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full:[79] Continuing in the vein of Duplessis, Black's 1,152-page 2007 biography of Richard Nixon sought to rehabilitate the former U.S. President's legacy. This approach was criticized by some reviewers, who felt that it attempted to exculpate Nixon of some negative aspects of his time in office.[80]
FrontPage Magazine is described in its Wikipedia article, "FrontPage Magazine (also known as FrontPageMag.com) is a conservative online political magazine,...
FPM's 2011 "Man of the Year" was the Wounded Warrior Project[1]
FPM's 2010 "Person of the Year" was the Tea Party Movement[2]
FPM's 2009 "Man of the Year" was radio and then-Fox News host Glenn Beck[3]
...
FPM's 2004 "Man of the Year" was John O'Neill, the head of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." My point here is just that it, of course, has a very conversative take on events, and as I mentioned before I doubt the author read Kornbluh's analysis of the 24,000 declassified documents as his book came out in the same year.
The U.S. did try to buy off the Congress to hold a new election--while telling Chilean military officers that it would welcome a coup--in 1970, but it never pledged direct assistance to a coup.
- I'm afraid the declassified documents show we provided 50K, the submachine guns, and later hush money for one of the conspirators that escaped.
The coup three years later was not made in the USA.
- It was largely shaped by US black propaganda, economic and psychological warfare
You could argue that U.S. funding for large strikes destabilized the country
- Yes, but much more was done than that.
(more than Allende did by arming left-wing terrorists, torturing prisoners, violating the Constitution, and wrecking the economy?)
- I don't know what you are referring to here, but certainly the US wrecked the economy more than Allende ever could. Even if you could prove these things about Allende, it does not change what the US, under Nixon, did. I would suspect that more likely these sources are ultimately derived from the US black propaganda planted in El Mercurio and other sources. But I am open to other evidence, but that would be for Allende's article, not Nixon's.
, but you can't prove that lead to the coup.
- We can prove that the US actively made intense covert efforts to foment and encourage a coup, while denying that it was doing so. True, it was not direct military action like our invasion of Iraq. Rather, it was similar to doing everything you can to sabotage a car, and then denying culpability when the car crashes.
The Congress blamed Allende, not Nixon, for destroying democracy in Chile.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Greetings, TheTimesAreAChanging, are you referring to the Chilean Congress or the US Congress, and at what time? As you can see the release of the declassified documents changed our understanding of what was happening then.
That's my thought from my readings. And remember, Church was a Democratic senator from Idaho and very much on the enemies' list ... we try to keep these sorts of things out of the top level article and stick to undisputed facts, that's one thing that made it possible to get Nixon to FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you the discussion. I agree with sticking with the facts. Although I think what you call the "imprecations" show the strength of Nixon's commitment to overthrowing Allende, which helps counter misconceptions that the US had no involvement, I'll remove those as the point can be still be made with Nixon's statement "We're going to smash him", which is also the chapter title of Chapter 8 in Overthrow, cited below.
- Kinzer, Stephen (2006). Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq. New York: Times Books. pp. 361. ISBN 978-0-8050-8240-1.
and in the spirit of civility towards fellow Wikipedia editors.
Finally, regarding the length of the contribution, I am only proposing adding two paragraphs. Compare that to 5 paragraphs on the 1960-1962 elections. I think the damage the US did in Chile and to many people's lives, warrants coverage in just 3 paragraphs.
Edits in the Latin America Section edit
Greetings, TheTimesAreAChanging, I wanted to explain my edits. I think all of us are moving this section towards more accurate and complete coverage than what was present before, and we can do so without adding too much length, as I know Wehwalt has expressed concerns.
I'm changing the description regarding the arms to clarify that a kidnapping was intended, or at least the attempts to remove Schneider were presented in that way in cables. It is not clear that an assassination was intended but it is reasonable to infer that if you attempt to kidnap a general, and you also have submachine guns, that there will be deaths.
I'm also aware there were two groups of coup plotters -- Viaux and Valenzuela, and the extent of collaboration was unclear: "We know that Gen. Valenzuela was involved ...but cannot prove or disprove that execution of attempt against Schneider was entrusted to elements linked with Viaux" [Kornbluh, p. 28]. Valenzuela's group received the weapons but Viaux's group did the kidnapping attempt / assassination [Weiner, p. 361-362]. I also know that it is not clear the submachine guns were used in the actual assault even though the CIA later recovered them, threw them in the ocean, and also (forcibly) recovered the 50K money for the kidnapping [Kornbluh, p. 30].
So there was an intended kidnapping, which I would also argue is an intended attack, as I would consider a kidnapping a kind of attack. I could change "apparently for an attack on Chilean general René Schneider." to "which was designated for kidnapping Chilean general René Schneider, but led to his assassination in the attempt [143]." but this is starting to get lengthy, and to address Wehwalt's concerns, I'll just change it back to removing the word "apparently". We could go into more detail here, if you like, but I would think that is more appropriate on other pages, not focused on Nixon but instead the coup itself.
Similarly, I could balance any discussion of the merits of Allende, vs those of Pinochet with lengthy, lengthy discussion of Pinochet's murderous reign, the Caravan of Death, numerous torture centers, first car bombing assassination in the US...need I go on? Instead, I am merely deleting the comment about the accusations against Allende to address Wehwalt's concerns about length. If the Allende statement is reverted back in then at least a sentence or two about continuing support for Pinochet's regime, and the consequences of that, should be added and I'd be glad to do that.
I also removed the part about Pinochet not requesting direct aid as the citation was to the 2000 CIA report, in which the CIA selectively presented the story to cast itself in a better light. Also, the military officer who the report says requested aid was not identified as Pinochet himself, just a military officer. Again, much more could be said about the extensive aid that Pinochet did indeed received after the coup, but I'm trying to keep it short in line with Wehwalt's concerns.
I approve of linking to 1973 Chilean coup d'état page, I think that is the right approach, we just present the key facts here and then let readers pursue the detail elsewhere if they so choose.
Overall, I think this is a good discussion and improvement of this section.
Veritas Aeterna (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Veritas Aeterna (talk)
Refinements to Edits in the Latin America Section edit
I clarified in the final sentence that the troubles in Chile leading to the coup were extremely widespread and not limited to political disputes, such as those that might have occurred between the Chilean Congress and President Allende. The US was instigating a three-pronged approach:
The three "thrusts" for the "creation of coup climate" consisted of "economic warfare," "political warfare", and "psychological warfare." If successful in heightening tension through these three sets of operations, the CIA strategists suggested, a pretext for coup would somehow present itself --"the one act that will force massive Communist reaction and/or public outrage," as Broe and Phillips hoped and predicted. "We can be looking for the opportunity and when the time comes spark it." [Kornbluh, p. 17]
The covert approaches even involved use of terrorism:
Political warfare, in the form of propaganda placements and mobilization of CIA-controlled organization and assets also accelerated. The CIA effort was intended to isolate Allende’s Popular Unity coalition by directing and financing negative statements by political and civic leaders, anti-Allende rallies, and hostile media, through CIA-owned or –supported newspapers, radio stations, and television assets. In addition, the Station was also directed to conduct multiple “black propaganda” operations – planting false but provocative information about Allende’s plans in the press and inside the military. In early October, for example, the Station was told to create and plant fictitious intelligence reports on how Chile’s intelligence services would “be reorganized along the Soviet/Cuban model thus creating the structure for a police state.”
“The key is the psych war within Chile,” CIA officials stressed. “We cannot endeavor to ignite the world if Chile is itself a placid lake. The fuel for the fire must come from within Chile. Therefore the Station should employ every stratagem, every ploy, however bizarre, to create this internal resistance.” (Doc 7) ...In another, and far more sinister, cable dated the same day the Station was ordered to consider instigating “terrorist” activities that might provoke Allende’s followers.
Almost all references to the use of terrorism have been redacted from the declassified CIA records, but they do contain enough information to show that terrorist acts were part of the effort to create a coup climate. The Task Force Daily logs show that the Agency was monitoring and providing small amounts of funding for the actions of a neofascist group, Patria y Libertad. An October 6 CIA status report noted that the Station had contacted “a representative of an anticommunist group intent on organizing terrorist activities” … [Kornbluh, pp. 19-20]
Veritas Aeterna (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)