The other September 11th

If you live in Latin America, then September 11th has a very different meaning than it does to those of us living in the United States.

Between 1932 and 1973, the Republic of Chile had a vigorous democracy.  They had a well informed electorate, and turnouts of 80% of the registered voters.  That all changed on September 11th, 1973.  On that day, a military coup, led by General Augusto Pinochet led to somewhere between 2,000 and 4,000 being killed, and up to 40,000 being detained, many of them tortured.  A reign of terror that was to last for many years fell over what had been one of the few stable democracies of Latin America.

In 1970, Salvadore Allende, a Marxist, had been elected president of Chile in a three way race, despite U.S. attempts to defeat him by providing financial support to the opposition candidates.  When they were unable to defeat him, the U.S. resolved to have him overthrown in a military coup.  One major obstacle in their way was the Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean army, General René Schneider.

General Schneider had publicly reassured the nation that it was not the role of the army to overturn legal elections.  He stated that "the armed forces are not a road to political power nor an alternative to that power. They exist to guarantee the regular work of the political system and the use of force for any other purpose than its defense constitute high treason". He also said "there were no options that would invite the armed forces to undo what the politicians had wrought in Chile", adding "the only limitation is in the case that the State stopped acting within their own legality. In that case the armed forces have a higher loyalty to the people and are free to decide an abnormal situation beyond the framework of the law".

Needless to say, having man in charge of the Chilean military who believed in the rule of law did not sit well with the Nixon administration.  On October 22, 1970, General Schneider's car was attacked by men who had been armed and paid by the CIA.  Their goal was to kidnap him (this was their third attempt) but he drew his own gun and attempted to resist.  He was shot, dying in the hospital three days later.

He was replaced as the commander of the Chilean military by General Carlos Prats.  General Prats was later replaced by General Augusto Pinochet, and we all know where that led.

In order to protect the interests of Anaconda and Kennecott Copper companies, and ITT (International Telephone and Telegraph), the United States destroyed a democracy, condemned thousands to torture and death.  Yes, we had some serious disagreements with many of his policies, including his recognition of Cuba, and his improving relations with China and the Soviet Union.  All of those are legitimate reasons to for the United States to have serious disagreements with the the government of Chile.

At the time, the Chilean constitution limited a president to a single 6 year term.  So although he could seriously impact US commercial interests in the country in that time frame, any long term changes to the countries foreign policy would require the continued consent of the Chilean population.  So essentially, he was no long term threat.

Chilean presidents had been trying to extract a larger percentage of the profits from the foreign corporations that controlled the majority of Chile's natural resources for a generation.  Finally one was succeeding.  That could not be allowed to happen.  This was US and multinational businesses exerting the kind of pressure on our government that they have been asserting for over a hundred years.  Thousands of people had to die so a few companies could continue to extract wealth from Chile unimpeded by a government that was looking out for the interest of its people.

This view is of our actions against the Chilean government is not confined to some radical few.  The main architect of the US involvement of the overthrow of  Salvadore Allende, Henry Kissenger, can no longer travel freely throughout the world.  He must consult with an attorney, to determine if he risks being arrested before making his travel plans, as there is a warrant against him for crimes against humanity in a number of countries.

When the jetliners crashed into the World Trade Center, there was an outpouring of sympathy from around the world.  We had an enormous amount of international good will at that time.  And we had a president who willingly just pissed it all away with a senseless invasion of Iraq, and a network of secret prisons around the world, where suspects could be tortured free from the prying eyes of those who believe in the rule of law.

We did not become a world leader on the basis of our military and economic might.  Oppressed people around the world did not look to the United States because we were powerful.  They looked to us because they thought we stood for something.  Standing for something, that is what matters.

So every now and then, we need to acknowledge our dark side, how we have allowed truly evil things to be done in our name.  Then we have to remember what it is we stand for, and resolve to be more vigilant about what we do allow to be done in our name.