Why Kissinger Helped Pinochet
The United States “hands have not always been clean” (Landau 1999, page 16). It seems that as time passes more and more of past United States foreign policy actions are discovered to have been a cause of corruption rather than security. Recently numbers of declassified documents show the fraud of Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. It is apparent that Kissinger directly assisted General Augusto Pinochet into power in Chile and despite his knowledge of Pinochet’s human rights violations he deliberately ensured his stay in power (Landau 1999; page 16). Currently the legal action being taken against Henry Kissinger must be taken seriously to show current United States officials, the cruelty of our nations past and how we are guilty of initiating and helping a brutal dictatorship for sixteen years.
One must wonder; what was Kissinger’s motive? Being pushed by “his boss” President Nixon to prevent communism in Chile at all costs is apparent, as is his friendly relationship with Pinochet that he developed. “I want to see our relations and friendship improve,” Kissinger states in a memoir to Pinochet during his trip to Chile that was intended to speak about human rights concerns (Kornbluh 1999; page 5). But what was truly the underlining motivation that caused Kissinger to risk his job and reputation to keep Pinochet in power? Could it simply be a lack of sympathy? Or was Kissinger just overly fanatical about stopping the spread of Communism?
In lieu of the unclassified documents it is apparent that Kissinger had formed a liking to Augusto Pinochet. Recent memorandums show that Kissinger told Pinochet that he was a casualty of “Communist propaganda” and reinforced Pinochet, while hundreds of Chilean citizens were being jailed without cause, that the United States would not punish him for human rights violations. In September 1976 Kissinger sent out a warning to some South American nations about the rumor of an “Operation Condor” but intentionally excluded warning Chile in fear of how Pinochet would react (Duke 2005, page D01). Reveled in the transcripts are “Kissinger’s expression of ‘friendship,’ ‘sympathetic’ understanding and wishes for success to Pinochet at the height of his repression…” After receiving an overwhelming amount of pressure from congress to deal with Chile’s human rights issues Kissinger “gave a speech at an OAS conference in Santiago.” However,
In Overthrow, some of the CIA’s actions that brought massive destruction, death, and chaos to foreign countries are dissected. The disposing of Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh by Secretary of State John Dulles can only be described as unfounded and irrational. Which, as told by Kinzer, was a common thread in US foreign policy during the 50’s. Fueled by hate and fervor against communism- many nations faced the brunt force of US policy- by the hand of our leaders. All of which, was done legally and with authorization- sometimes encouragement from US Presidents. Such incidents are certainly blunders on behalf of the US. Although, what Kinzer fails to mention or recognize is instances where Covert Actions helped achieve ends which would never be possible otherwise. The Cold War was a turbulent time for the US and most of the world’s history. One country, the Ukraine- formerly a part of the Soviet Union, has an especially sordid past. The ethnic inhabitants, Ukrainians, suffered under Soviet oppression for many years and endured a man made famine- orchestrated by Stalin to suppress Ukrainian Resistance movements. Such an event, “Holodomor” which killed approx. 3 to 12 million people are considered by many countries to be a genocide. The US, while not directly intervening in warfare, did send agents to assist
America had begun to indulge in the unilateral environment afforded to it during the Cold War. As the Soviet Union began to collapse in the 1980s, the United States was on its way to becoming a solo super power. This acquisition of complete power would inevitably lead the country into new problems, including those foreign and domestic. One of the main issues that came around in the 1980s for the Unites States was the Iran-Contra Affair, which involved the Reagan Administration. With the United States readily inserting influence across the globe, the Iran-Contra Affair proved how foreign intervention can lead to scandal and disgrace in the modern world. Along with detrimental scandals, the Iran-Contra Affair showed how America’s imperialistic behavior in South America was beginning to catch up. In order to remain a dominant influence in South America, the United States had no choice but to topple governments that did not align with American ideology. Using guerillas like the Contras insinuates America’s cornerstone of doing what is necessary in order to satisfy foreign interest.
Over the course of the history of the United States, specific foreign policies have affected the methods in which the U.S. involves itself around the globe. Specifically, certain policies have affected U.S. involvement in Latin America. It is the intention of this essay to explain the United States foreign policy behind specific doctrines. In order to realize current objectives, this paper will proceed as follows: Part 1 will define the Monroe Doctrine, Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 will concurrently explicitly explain the Roosevelt Corollary, Good Neighbor Policy, and the Nixon Doctrine, discuss how each policy resulted in U.S. involvement in Latin American countries, describe how it was justified by the U.S. government, respectively, and finally, will bring this paper to a conclusion.
In the year 1970 Salvador Allende, a member of the Chilean socialist party, was elected President. Salvador Allende was considered to be a Marxist President during a time where the Cold War and the fight between capitalism and communism were at a high. After being elected President, Allende made many moves to nationalize Chilean industries such as their copper industry; this was seen as a threat to US geopolitical interest, which would propel the US to stage a coup. Although Allende was part of the socialist party and indeed had Marxist tendencies; he did not seek support from the Soviet Union until after the US cut all ties to his administration. This begs the question, had the US tried a more diplomatic approach to the Allende administration would the coup have been avoided? Nevertheless, Allende’s political views were fundamentally different from that of the U.S. which is why the CIA supported a military coup led by Augusto Pinochet. The coup itself was extremely violent and oppressive which led to the death of Salvador Allende and thousands of Chilean members of the socialist party and any citizens that openly opposed the new military dictatorship. It is also important to note that during this time period there was a growing disdain against the U.S within Latin America. This led to many countries to begin nationalizing its resources (most notably Chile). The U.S mantra of fighting for the freedom and democracy of all people could not have been more threatened and invalid than after the support of the Pinochet dictatorship. In this specific case, the US got involved and helped overthrow a democratically elected President for the sake of maintaining its control and interest in Chile.
... strategies, CIA run uprisings to out undesirable leader. Like previous overthrows, the Cold War regime changes occurred "only when economic interests coincided with ideological ones." The CIA is a dogmatic instrument used, but perceived as an independent immoral and dishonorable force during the Cold War, that lead regime in the fight against civil liberties and insurgence. In the regards to the CIA, Kinzer shines light to the similarities amongst the event and role of the CIA in the Chilean Coup against Salvador Allende in 1973. The CIA abided by the rules and did as they were told even, when personnel cautioned the intervention. Not only was the brutal dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet proof of this sentiment, but when the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigated the coup in years after, it found president Nixon, not the CIA, most responsible.
In his book, The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide, Gary J. Bass depicts the horror and political nature of the massacre of East Pakistani citizens in which Nixon and Kissinger did nothing to try to prevent the deaths of thousands, instead, they keep good relations with the dictator and continued to supply Pakistan with American weaponry. Bass supports his explanations by illustrating the events using copious amounts of quotes. The author’s purpose is to clarify this confusing period and show Nixon’s role in it. The author writes in an objective tone.
Operation JUST CAUSE was a conflict that ensued between the United States and Panamanian Defense Forces (PDF) led by Manuel Antonio Noriega. Between 1987 and 1989, there was a steady shift in U.S. foreign policy due to the constant problems with the Panamanian military and its political climate (Grant, 1992, p. v). In 1977, the United State’s original intention was to sign over sovereignty of the Panama Canal to Panama in its entirety by the year 2000 in order to help stabilize the nation while improving the anti-American sentiment within the country. By the late 1980s, Noriega became heavily involved in drug trafficking. It was evident that the US’s strategy to build stability within the country through the treaty was threatened. The United States attempted to indict Noriega on drug charges as well as imposed sanctions on the country – neither, which was succe...
... detriment of thousands of innocent lives both here and afar. If U.S. officials were held to the same standards that the government holds to the officials of other countries, then there is no question that Henry Kissinger, Dick Cheney, and George Bush Sr. would be investigated and perhaps even convicted of atrocious maladies that the American people have not even been made aware of.
After reading three separate accounts of the crisis in Angola (U.S. Senate hearings led by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a personal memoir by 1975 Assistant Secretary of State Nathaniel Davis, and a biography entitled In Search of Enemies: A CIA Story by John Stockwell), I have come to several conclusions. Although these three men all held important positions in the U.S. government, multiple contradictions exist in their chronologies of events. Of the discrepancies I found, all of them put Stockwell in opposition with Kissinger and Davis. I believe this is due to his position in the Central Intelligence Agency, where the greater availability of information was his advantage. Moreover, since all three accounts agree that the U.S. involvement was essentially a covert operation led by the CIA, I feel the account written by Stockwell was the most valid of the three.
In September of 1973, a young idealistic American hailing from a wealthy upper-class New York family named Charles Horman and his wife Beth were living in Chile. A free-lance writer, Charles was a curious fellow, meticulously recording conversations and events he deemed significant. On September 11th, a coup d’etat led by the military junta and army leader Augusto Pinchot overthrew the existing socialist government of President Salvador Allende. In the confusion and chaos surrounding the immediate aftermath of the coup, Charles was separated from his wife, never to be seen or heard from again. While Beth was convinced that Charles had been captured by the Chilean government with the complicity of the American State Department, her father-in-law, Ed Horman, a well-connected and successful industrial designer, soon joined her efforts to recover his son, but began the process certain that his naïve romantic left-leaning son had gotten entangled within complicated political matters and was at fault for his own
In 1973, Henry Kissinger held coetaneous positions within the U.S. government when he was elected Secretary of State while already holding the title of National Security Advisor, and his time in office was marked by a plethora of controversial issues. Among these was the the navigation of U.S.-Cuba relations, which remained tenuous for nearly 40 years after Kissinger left office-- though Kissinger had opportunity to try and thaw the coldness between the two countries. In 1975, National Baseball Commissioner, Bowie Kuhn, proposed an exhibition Major League Baseball game in Cuba (Paterson). Kuhn presented the idea as a way to re-establish the unprecedented positive presence the U.S. had had on the island pre-1959 Cuban revolution, but Kissinger rejected this initiative, dogmatizing how effective such a proposal could have been for the relationship of the two states. Today, some argue that “The shared love of baseball and the goodwill of athletic competition was an insufficient bandage for the lasting legacy of antagonism and mutual distrust” (Turner) between the U.S. and Cuba, implying that even had Kissinger accepted, diplomacy wouldn’t have been impossible. Others, however, suggest that Kissinger’s failure to realize the potential of
To combat the nationalization of industry, the 40 Committee - a sub-cabinet level of body of the executive branch which reviewed covert plans - provided “$24,000 as emergency support for an anti-Allende [business] organization.” (US Congress, US Covert Action in Chile) I think the CIA’s wide access to money only emphasizes a growing economic gap (in world trade) between the Global North and the Global South at this time as the US was overflowing with money and Chilean people were starving from lack of basic needs. US President Richard Nixon ordered the CIA to orchestrate a military putsch in the fall of 1970 to try and disrupt the flow of the Allende bureaucracy. This plan came to be known as Track II and involved the abduction of Chile’s commander in chief, General Rene Schneider. On October 22, the men in charge of this plan shot Scheider and the next day, Schneider died in a hospital from multiple gunshot wounds. The plan had gone astray. (Peter Kornbluh, Showdown in Santiago: what really happened in Chile?) The CIA then provided the gang with $35,000 to flee Chile and keep silent about the operation. However, this did not mark the end of the program. Thomas Karamessines, a superior officer in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations, states: “what we were told to do was to continue our efforts. Stay alert, and to do what we could to contribute to the eventual achievement of the objectives
American people remember 9/11 2001 as an attack on their country, these attacks were made by foreign terrorists because of their foreign interests. The Chilean people have their own remembrance of a similar incident, but it was in 1973. On this day, Augusto Pinochet and The United States lead a coup that overthrew the president Salvador Allende, of the Chilean government. The United States government “supported, trained, funded, and armed military tin-pot dictatorships in order to defend democracy and the free market from progressive movements made up of the workers in colonized countries” (“Cold War Killer” 1). This day went down in history as the beginning of the darkest days in Chile’s history. It is said that “Augusto Pinochet’s legacy
...pport for internationalist foreign policy the next time the U.S was challenged. The leading individuals of both the Soviets and the U.S did not act rationally, but out of emotional counterattacks. J.F.K did not want the greater international public to fall under the impression that the U.S’s invasion of Cuba had failed, and make them look weak, so he kept the legislative U.S out of the Bay of Pigs; wether that led to death of 1500 Cuban revolutionaries bothered him not. J.F.K acted appropriately while dealing with the situation, and although only 1500 people died, this was a very loud incident compared to the end of the cold war.
It is interesting that there are many diverse reactions to Pinchoet's rule in Chile. Two of the responses opposed Pinochet, while two supported him. The first woman spoke about how the regime attempted to kill her and was naturally very opposed to Pinochet's rule. The third woman spoke about how her son was "disappeared" and never found and also spoke of her opposition to the regime as a result. The second woman spoke about being a staunch supporter of Pinochet because she thought he was implementing good programs, such as helping the poor, and did not think that he was really "disappearing people". In the final account, the man also accepts Pinochet's rule because he believes it will be beneficial to the Chilean economy and also