Talk:Augusto Pinochet

"US-Backed Coup"

There has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing over whether or not the 1973 coup was "US-Backed", prompted by this article on the Harry's Place blog. In it the author, Michael Ezra, expresses his exasperation at the use of the phrase "US-Backed" to describe the 1973 coup that brought Pinochet to power. As evidence that the US did not back the 1973 coup, Ezra quotes the 1975 Church Report:

Was the United States DIRECTLY involved, covertly, in the 1973 coup in Chile? The Committee has found no evidence that it was. (Link)

It is worthwhile to point out the same report details evidence that the US supported a failed coup in 1970, expressly ordered by President Nixon, by supplying weapons to chilean army officers. It also details support given to various right-wing organisations, such as $12.3m spent on election 'propaganda' and $1.65m spent on propping up a right-wing newspaper, "El Mercurio". Another interesting piece of information is that in 1964, the CIA gave $2.6m in campaign finance to the Christian Democrat party. As the report notes:

Covert American activity was a factor in almost every major election in Chile in the decade between 1963 and 1973.

In fact the whole report is very interesting for people wishing to learn more about US involvement in Chile.

However, posters have been repeatedly re-inserting the claim that the 1973 coup was backed by the US, most recently by IANVS here. IANVS also puts 7 footnotes to support the claim that the 1973 coup was "US-Backed". I shall go through them and demonstrate why they actually do not support the "US-backed" claim:

1. Link one goes to http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch18-01.htm, which is the opening page of a series of cables dated 1970 from the US Embassy in Chile (written by Ambassador Edward Korry) to the Secretary of State, announcing Allende's win in the election that year, and the policy implications of that result. While candid, I cannot find anything in the linked front page (or any of the other, unlinked pages) that discusses US sponsoring of a coup in 1973.
2. Link two goes to http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch01-01.htm, which is a 17 page report dated 18 November 1970 on "Chilean Task Force Activities". It reviews action taken during the course of the election campaign by the US to prevent Allende obtaining power. While it discusses a potential military coup, it notes that this option was ultimately unfruitful. Again, there is no discussion of a coup in 1973.
3. Link three goes to PINOCHET: A Declassified Documentary Obit, which is an opening page for a series of declassified documents detailing a variety of topics in Chile, including US support for the Pinochet regime. Every single document linked from this page dates from after the coup (which was on 11 September 1973), the earliest is dated 13 September 1973 (although the document says 26 September 1973), which was a message from the US to the Junta welcoming their rise to power.
4. Link four goes to Chile and the United States: Declassified Documents relating to the Military Coup, 1970-1976, which is a page with links to a variety of documents. It sounds initially more promising. Unfortunately, all the documents are dated after the 1973 coup, except for a small handful which pertain to the botched 1970 coup. There are no documents dated in the years 1971 or 1972 or before 11 September in 1973, which presumably would have to exist if a coup were to be planned.
5. Link five goes to http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch27-01.htm, which link four describes as "Cable Transmissions on Coup Plotting". It is dated 18 October 1970. It discusses secret shipments of weapons, but this appears to be again part of the botched 1970 coup, which was cancelled in link two.
6. Link six goes to http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch05-01.htm, which link four describes as "Operating Cable Guidance on Coup Plotting". It is dated 16 October 1970. It juicily declares "it is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire on 24 October but efforts in this regard will continue beyond this date." However, it gives absolutely no detail on any plots that might happen in 1973, 3 years in the future. It is instructions given to CIA operatives in 1970 but not evidence of any coup attempt in 1973.
7. Footnote seven has no link, and bizarrely cites the Church report which Ezra quoted above as declaring that there is no evidence to the claim that the US supported the 1973 coup. This is categorically not evidence in favour of the 1973 coup. As I note above also, it supports the 1970 coup claims.

So to conclude, none of these footnotes provide any evidence of US coup plotting or even "US-Backing" to a coup attempt in 1973. There is plenty of evidence to show that the US attempted a coup in 1970. It seems that IANVS has got his or her history slightly muddled and confused the two.

No that is not conclusive. All your references come from the same source. That is patently ridiculous. Better luck next time.

The point of this is to put all the evidence down in front of everybody so that we can reduce silly edit wars and 3RR violations. Hopefully it will achieve its aim. -- yoctobarryc ⁂ ☎ 15:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I am always suspicious of multiple references for a fact. One good reference is sufficient and multiple poor references do not compensate for this. It may be that the U. S. backed the coup but we need sources to support that. So I would ask other editors to find these sources. If there are sources that some writers believe the U. S. backed the coup, we may add that opinion as well. TFD (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not make this simpler? The CIA's own website implies that the US supported the 1973 coup - assuming that helping the plotters collect intelligence equates to "support" - The website reads: "Although CIA did not instigate the coup that ended Allende’s government on 11 September 1973, it was aware of coup-plotting by the military, had ongoing intelligence collection relationships with some plotters, and—because CIA did not discourage the takeover and had sought to instigate a coup in 1970—probably appeared to condone it." [1]. Moreover, to pretend, as the wikipedia article does, that the 1975 Church Report is the definitive authority, while ignoring all of the information that has been released since then, is absurd. And the wiki article even misrepresents the Church Report! The latter states, "There is no hard evidence of direct U.S. assistance to the coup, despite frequent allegations of such aid." This is quite different from the article's assertion that "there is no evidence" of U.S. support. Another thought: wikipedia always seems to lock those articles that are most demonstrably wrong. What's the purpose of locking a website without clearing away the obvious trash within it?

[Erik Mears, 13 Oct 2010] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.213.78 (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Erik, I wrote a detailed explanation of why the US was not directly involved in the US coup on the United States Intervention in Chile page. I quote several sources, including the one you give. Just read the one you quoted properly:

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. The Station Officer also told him his request would be forwarded to Washington. CIA learned of the exact date of the coup shortly before it took place. During the attack on the Presidential Palace and its immediate aftermath, the Station's activities were limited to providing intelligence and situation reports.

I posted this to stop people just blindly citing the same sources, to prove a point which the evidence doesn't actually support. But if you want to keep things simple, here's the summary from the other page: "no evidence has emerged that the US either participated in the 1973 coup, assassinated Allende, or helped Pinochet to assume the Chilean Presidency."-- yoctobarryc ⁂ ☎ 22:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yoctobarryc, Please explain exactly how/where you are disagreeing with what I wrote above. My point was that regardless of whether the U.S. directly participated in the coup, the U.S. certainly "supported" the coup - since they actively collected evidence with the coup plotters; a fact which you don't deny, and which contradicts the section of the wikipedia article that wrongly claimed (I just changed it) that the Church Report states that there was no evidence of U.S. "support" for the coup. Of course, if you disagree with the implication that the world's most powerful intelligence body's collaborating with coup plotters constitutes a form of "support" for the coup, then you've marked where we can part ways. -Erik Mears —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik.Mears 69.86.175.244 (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It's obviously dubious and really pretty ridiculous to say "as evidence that the US did not back the coup, Ezra quotes this US government report..." (there is obviously the same issue with the Kerry Committee and the other by the Hitz investigation, the two US government reports on the Contras/CIA links to drug dealers). The main report on this issue (the Hinchey Report, not the "Church Report" which I believe came out much earlier and was less substantial regarding Chile) is indeed seen as authoritative as to the *minimum* involvement of the US. The US acted, prior to the coup, in the form of "economic warfare" which caused much internal destabilization (Kissinger quote: "make the economy scream;" US-prompted tightening of international credit and company-specific "embargoes"), directly sponsored a violent 1970 coup attempt that resulted in rene schneider's assassination (which paved the way institutionally in the military for pinochet and his allies to rise in power, and let the Pinochet faction know that the US would likely recognize and warm up to a coup government), and between 1970-1973 paid out significant money to oppositional groups "possibly including terrorist groups" (according to the report). Those elements of the US role in bringing about the coup are all confirmed by US govt. report and they constitute a sort of minimum level of "setting the stage for" and "assisting" the coup though not "directly instigating" the coup as they clearly did in Guatemala in 1954. Now, again, that constituted the *minimum* level of involvement that the US government has admitted to. Close links with the CIA and DINA chief Manuel Contreras immediately following the coup (I mean during the junta period before Pinochet was even formally made President) and the admission of a cable from Chilean military about the situation, suggest that perhaps there is more to the story and that the Pinochet/Contreras faction might have had some alliance with the US government (perhaps through the "opposition" and "possibly terrorist" groups that the CIA admits to having paid from '70-'73) prior to the coup, but that is not confirmed by the report or by any other hard evidence. Addtionally, the significant redaction of many primary sources causes much suspicion that there is a much more sensitive layer to this that possibly did involve CIA instigation, as pointed out by John Dinges. But as for what we know for sure, we must cite the report as the minimum of what the US has admitted to, admit that there is not much other primary evidence to go on, and mention on the page that due to redaction (and the fact that the source is the CIA itself, an alleged actor in the coup) the report should not be taken at face value, but seen in the context of why it was released. The page (or the page on US intervention in Chile) should *also* mention the context of the document release and report (the Garzon trial and extradition order of Pinochet from Spain during his travels prompted the disclosure on the part of the US, encouraged by the Clinton administration, in the context of Operation Condor's coming to light over the years). And needless to say, the CIA did closely collaborate with DINA after the coup, as part of Operation Condor -- like I said, Contreras was made into a CIA asset during the Junta period immediately after the coup. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This whitewashing by people in the US who benefitted from the bloodshed must stop. Article is NPOV and furthermore the whitewash is a disgrace.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.64.189.8 (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

yoctobarryc may well be Harry or Ezra and referencing himself. To make a great leap from saying that the US supported the coup in 1970 but had no involvement in 1973 shows that there is a cnflict of interest on wikipedia. It's well known that the US was intimately involved in backing the 73 coup and it couldn't have been accomplished without the US. No "seven-year-old" can make changes on wikipedia unless she works for the US Natianal Security State Appacratus who get to push more buttons on these editing pages than others. Yoctobarryc has decided for everyone else that there was no US involvment in 1973 which is patently false. So much for collaboration. Chile is one of 50 democracies that the US has dismantled since 1945 in the name of Capitalism at great cost to civilians. "Editing wars" is a cover term that is really saying "no dissenting opinions allowed no matter how well documented" It's always the same. dissenting editors with well sourced informatin get the warnings not people like yoctobarry. It's the same on nearly every article.... 'we welcome references to show evidence so if you know of any please let us know' blah blah blah... translation? 'we won't accept them because they don't align with US nationa security and corporate interests.' Wikipedia is mainstream Capitalist revisionis propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obligatto (talk • contribs) 20:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So, what constitutes "direct involvement"? The lead sentence of the paragraph implies that the US knew nothing, saw nothing, did nothing after the 1970 coup attempt failed until after the 1973 succeeded. That's pretty clearly false, and the rest of the paragraph makes that clear.

There's a number of levels of involvement that I can think of, and the paragraph should pick one, backed by evidence, and stick to it:

1. US fomented economic conditions favorable to a coup.
2. US made statements, publicly or privately, that a coup would be welcome.
3. US knew of the coup plans but did nothing to prevent it.
4. US directly communicated to the plotters that a coup would welcome
5. US participated in the planning of the coup
6. US provided material aid to the coup

As far as I can tell from the evidence, the first three are certainly true, #4 and #5 are suspected by many but unproven, and #6 doesn't appear to be true. Certainly the church report says that $7 million was spent in covert aid to anti-Allende groups between 1970 and 1973.

In particular, I note this section of the Church report:

C. 1970-1973

After the failure of Track II, the CIA rebuilt its network of contacts and remained close to Chilean military officers in order to monitor developments within the armed forces. For their part, Chilean officers who were aware that the United States once had sought a coup to prevent Allende from becoming president must have been sensitive to indications of continuing U.S. support for a coup.

By September 1971 a new network of agents was in place and the Station was receiving almost daily reports of new coup plotting. The Station and Headquarters began to explore ways to use this network. At the same time, and in parallel, the Station and Headquarters discussed a "deception operation" designed to alert Chilean officers to real or purported Cuban involvement in the Chilean army. Throughout the fall of 1971 the Station and Headquarters carried on a dialogue about both the general question of what to do with the intelligence network and the objectives of the specific operation.

and this:

The Station proposed, in September, to provide information -some of it fabricated by the CIA- which would convince senior Chilean Army officers that the Carabineros' Investigations unit, with the approval of Allende was acting in concert with Cuban intelligence (DGI) to gather intelligence prejudicial to the Army high command. It was hoped that the ettort would arouse the military against Allende's involvement with the Cubans, inducing the armed services to press the government to alter its orientation and to move against it if necessary. ...

.... In December 1971 a packet of material, including a fabricated letter, was passed to a Chilean officer outside Chile. The CIA did not receive any subsequent reports on the effect if any, this "information" had on the Chilean military....

... However, Headquarters acknowledged the difficulty of drawing a firm line between monitoring coup plotting and becoming involved in it. It also realized that the U.S. government's desire to be in clandestine contract with military plotters, for whatever purpose, might well imply to them U.S. support for their future plans.

During I970-73, the Station collected operational intelligence necessary in the event of a coup -arrest lists, key civilian installations and personnel that needed protection, key government installations which need to be taken over, and government contingency plans which would be used in case of a military uprising. According to the CIA the data was collected only against the contingency of future Headquarters requests and was never passed to the Chilean military.

... During 1972 the Station continued to monitor the group which might mount a successful coup... By January 1972 the Station had successfully penetrated it and was in contact through an intermediary with its leader.

...

Intelligence reporting on coup plotting reached two peak periods, one in the last week of June 1973 and the other during the end of August and the first two weeks in September. It is clear the CIA received intelligence reports on the coup planning of the group which carried out the successful September 11 coup throughout the months of July, August, and September 1973.

The CIA's information-gathering efforts with regard to the Chilean military included activity which went beyond the mere collection of information. More generally, those efforts must be viewed in the context of United States opposition, overt and covert, to the Allende government. They put the United States Government in contact with those Chileans who sought a military alternative to the Allende presidency.

So, we know the US drew up arrest lists, etc, for use in a coup, we know that the US had passed fabricated information to military officials to encourage a coup, we know that the US was in direct communication with the coup plotters, and we know that the US understood that this communication would be construed as support for a coup.

Church might not have considered this to be "direct involvement", but that certainly appears to be pure spin. In particular, while the CIA said that the planning information it put together was never transmitted to the coup leaders, it certainly seems to be highly dubious. Pstemari (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Referendum

How come there are 55.99% of NO votes against 44.1% of YES votes? Isn't that mathematically incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NsMn (talk • contribs) 19:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Flushing the Chamber of Deputies Resolution of August 22, 1973 down the memory-hole

Editors please keep an eye on the concerted efforts of (Marxist?) revisionists to erase or at least marginalize the importance of the Chamber of Deputies call upon the armed forces to physically remove Allende.Mike18xx (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Whilst the issue is clearly relevant here, let's please keep this discussion in one place, at Talk:History of Chile, and not across so many talkpages, and come back here when things are clearer at Talk:History of Chile. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 11:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Marxists abhore mainstream revisionists. Marxists understand real history in a social scientific context. Neutrality mmeans distortion, it neuralizes the truth. It's the editors like the two above that are revisionist. Just listen to some of the comments. You all are so caught up in the minutiae of form and semantics and "neutrality" that you are forgetting about context and substance.

“Radical views that are outside the mainstream generally (but not always) are more reliable than the dominant view because they are more regularly challenged and tested against evidence. They do not get to float freely down the mainstream; they must swim against the current. They cannot rest on the orthodox power to foreclose dissent, and they are not supported by the unanimity of bias that passes for objectivity.”

  Dr. Michael Parenti

If you want the real truth about Chile read his books or any Marxist Leninist analysis. I can't believe that there is not one world about capitalism or Imperialism in thise article. So much for objectivity

English pronunciation

The article currently reads "in English usually pronounced /piːnoʊˑtʃɛt/ (US), /ˑpiːnoʊʃeɪ/ (UK)". This sentence apparently makes its first appearance in Talk Archive 7.

I don't know what evidence this was based upon, but when Pinochet was in power, and in the news time and time again, the US and Canadian media pronounced his name PEE-no-shay, much to the confusion of those of us who had studied Spanish. That pronunciation is now in the article but it is labelled UK. (See above.)

Varlaam (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Using the words of Pinochet himself to define his government?

Quoting words uttered by Pinochet is not encyclopedic if it is done in attempt to present his government as Pinochet saw it. Pinochet's view or how he defined his government is too bias - putting a quote made by him that said: "my government protected chile from totalitarianism" is a joke. He also said: "not one leaf moves in Chile without me knowing". It just doesn't convey any useful information about the figure Pinochet or his government. Such funny quotes made by Pinochet could be added in wikiquote. Etc. Cerroblanco (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

what are you taling about????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obligatto (talk • contribs) 20:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)