Chile's 9/11 -- and the legacy of Gen. Pinoc...

Chile's 9/11 -- and the legacy of Gen. Pinochet
Should he be remembered as a tyrant or as an economic reformer who turned Chile into a global success; and to what extent did the U.S. government bring about his dictatorship?
By Heraldo Muñoz
September 11, 2008
» Discuss Article   (38 Comments)
Thirty-five years ago today on a different 9/11, army Gen. Augusto Pinochet overthrew the democratically elected government of Socialist President Salvador Allende in Chile. Since that day, two issues have continued to generate contention: Should Pinochet be remembered merely as a tyrant who became an international symbol of repression, or as an economic reformer who turned Chile into a global success; and to what extent did the U.S. government bring about his dictatorship?
Many of those who backed the 1973 coup had wanted the armed forces to simply restore order and then call for elections. Pinochet did initially bring about order after a period of instability and chaos. But having seized power -- joining the coup at the last minute -- he decided to keep it. He ordered the murder of union leaders, the exile of thousands of dissidents, the torture and disappearance of political prisoners, the terrorist bombing of exiled leaders -- including the 1976 assassination of former Chilean Ambassador Orlando Letelier and his U.S. citizen colleague, Ronni Karpen Moffit, in Washington -- and created a state of internal war.
But during that time, he also transformed Chile economically. Pinochet was a pragmatist who, faced with a broken economy, introduced major free-market reforms inspired by University of Chicago Nobel laureate Milton Friedman. Inflation was drastically reduced, state-owned businesses and social security were privatized, the financial system was deregulated, external tariffs were lowered and non-traditional exports fostered.
By the end of the decade, the Chilean economy had become one of the most prosperous in Latin America and the inspiration for the "Washington Consensus," the set of rules recommended for countries wishing to "put their houses in order" and grow.
There was a social cost though: Income distribution deteriorated, and Chileans living under the poverty line climbed from 20% in 1970 to almost 40% by the end of Pinochet's rule.
The real economic miracle occurred after Pinochet, between 1990 and 2007, when his reforms were legitimized and improved through democratic debate and consensus. Successive governments also made many of those reforms more palatable with heavy social investment to help those left behind during the Pinochet era. As a result, growth rates almost doubled those of the preceding three decades, and poverty was cut by more than half
In 1988, Pinochet lost a plebiscite in which Chileans voted "no" to his remaining in power for another eight years. It became clear that night that military commanders would not join him in another coup and that his supporters would choose to preserve the neoliberal economic model over his personal rule. Elections were held in 1989, and he grudgingly handed over the presidency to the democratic opposition in 1990. He recognized that he had to relinquish part of his authority if he was going to retain any, continuing as army chief and, later, as senator for life.
Looking back, Pinochet was only partly Chile's creation. In the polarized global context of the late 1960s, before Allende was president, and, in the early '70s, after his election by a slim plurality, many leftists pressured Allende with unrealistic demands for revolutionary change. This collided with the uncompromising stand of a formerly pragmatic political center and with the ferocious defense of the status quo by the right. Add to this the Nixon administration's two-track policy in 1970 to deny Allende the presidency: a plot to foil his ratification by Congress and the fomenting of a coup by some military officers and right-wing civilians, aided by CIA money and weapons.
When that failed, the White House declared a silent war to destabilize the Allende administration: slashing aid, denying export credits, refusing to renegotiate the Chilean debt, discouraging investment by American businesses and covertly funding strikes and terrorist actions against the government. Allende's Chile was judged a threat by President Nixon and his national security advisor, Henry Kissinger.
So, although the coup that put Pinochet in power was Chilean made, it was U.S. sponsored. "Our hand doesn't show on this one," said Nixon to Kissinger, according to transcripts of conversations between the two in 1973 -- made public only in 2004. "We didn't do it," Kissinger replied. "I mean we helped them ... created the conditions as great as possible."
But Washington, like a sorcerer's apprentice, had helped unleash forces that it could not control.
Pinochet, assuming he enjoyed unconditional support from his anti- communist U.S. partner -- after Nixon embraced him following the coup -- ordered terrorist strikes against Chilean dissidents around the world.
Pinochet turned against the United States when subsequent administrations demanded justice in the Letelier case. And as Cold War tensions faded, he became expendable.
In 1998, a judge in Spain issued an arrest/extradition warrant for Pinochet in connection with the slayings of political prisoners, and the former dictator was arrested in London. He was returned to Chile, where he was hounded by those seeking justice up until his death in 2006, although he was never sentenced for his crimes.
Pinochet's memory still conjures up different meanings for different people. Some still view him as the leader who transformed Chile into a prosperous economy -- despite the human and social costs. But as Chile continues to prosper under democratic rule, Pinochet more likely will be remembered as a notorious symbol of repression, one that casts a shadow on the history of U.S. foreign policy.
Heraldo Muñoz, a dissident during the Pinochet era, is Chile's ambassador to the United Nations and the author of "The Dictator's Shadow: Life Under Augusto Pinochet."
. Pinochet is a Hero... By the way, I hope the Communist that now hide in Canada and Europe finally realize that "Socialism" does not work. Funny how these Communist were against "Capitalism" back in 1973, but now live in the most Capitalists countries in the world... go figure. Communist are nothing but Thiefs!
Submitted by: Patricio
5:14 PM PDT, September 11, 2008
2. Gen. PINOCHET is a HERO! Chile would be the "Cuba" of South America if 1973 events had not taken place! It would be nice if CNN told the other side of the story for once, how our families lost land and our assets were frozen... nobody ever remembers that! All the killings/deaths in Chile during that era are Justified. Pinochet changed our country and look at us now, The "Economic Giant" of South America. GRACIAS GENERAL PINOCHET, U ARE STILL WITH US IN SPIRIT!!!!!!!
Submitted by: Patricio Gonzalez
5:11 PM PDT, September 11, 2008
3. Allende was a great fan of Fidel Castro. It was only a matter of time before he used Castro's methods to socialize Chile by force, as the economy was already in a shambles, truckers were striking and popular support was gone. Pinochet was evil and thousands did die, yet that number is small compared to those killed and imprisoned by Castro in Cuba.
Submitted by: noco
4:03 PM PDT, September 11, 2008
4. If anyone cared to read the history of the CIA they would know that from it's inception, its only purpose has been to topple democratically elected leaders of foreign nations that aren't friendly to American business interests. The entire organization is nothing more than a criminal syndicate and proof that our political establishment, democrat and republicans alike, have no respect for sovereignty or democracy. In other words, this whole country is imprisoned in shagri-la and living a lie.
Submitted by: Sean K
3:57 PM PDT, September 11, 2008
5. What is the argument here? That because Chile recovered, and even prospered after Pinochet, the crimininality of his regime is somewhat excusable? The question of this op-ed piece is in itself a fallacy. He was a murderer who facilitated the economic recovery. Which is not to say, the economy prospered because he was a murderer. It is just wrong to assume that torture and repression are a "cost" of economic recovery. Do you want proof? Just take a look at what left leaning democracy is doing for Chile right now.
Submitted by: Wilmer
3:39 PM PDT, September 11, 2008
6. Furthermore, Chile is more free-market than the United States. It´s income-inequality is significantly greater as well. Growth has benefited the rich. Also, regarding the Kissinger and Nixon conspiring to do something in Chile...see these recently released telephone transcripts at the George Washington University's National Security Archive. In english here http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB255/index.htm, and some in spanish here http://ciperchile.cl/2008/09/10/desclasifican-nuevas-conversaciones-entre-nixon-y-kissinger-para-derrocar-a-allende/
Submitted by: Tomas
3:34 PM PDT, September 11, 2008
7. Also, let's not forget the impact of the coup on the economic system of Chile that has persisted to this day. Milton Friedman's Chicago Boys were in-country since the mid-60s, and became Pinochet's trusted advisors after the coup. See Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine.
Submitted by: Tomas
3:34 PM PDT, September 11, 2008
8. The "Chilean Economic Miracle" is whitewashing in the extreme. It was only after years of failure when Pinochet backed off and the country started to recover a bit - the "Chicago Boys" experiment was nothing more than that, a failure. For more on this, read "Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein.
Submitted by: CapnZilog
2:52 PM PDT, September 11, 2008
9. The U.S. government played a key, behind-the-scenes, role in the peaceful and democratic transition from Pinochet's rule to the democratically elected Alwin administration. How many "dictators-for-life" have provided the opportunity, then voluntarily stepped aside after being voted out? This took place under the administration of Bush 41. While it is cathartic to rail about the evil U.S. and Pinochet, life is somewhat more nuanced than that. As someone who was present for part of that transition, I can attest to the hard work of many dedicated diplomats and leaders from all parts of the political spectrum in both countries.
Submitted by: cag4
2:36 PM PDT, September 11, 2008
10. Pinochet was a monstrous dictator and mass murderer -- a truly despicable hybrid of Cold War imperialism and Latin American fascist military traditions.
Submitted by: David
2:23 PM PDT, September 11, 2008
11. Overall, I would say that Mr. Munoz's assessment of the Pinochet presidency in Chile is a realistic and balanced one. I would add, however, that of all the crimes the U.S. has committed in the name of foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere, its support and sustaining of this murderous regime was its most heinous. There are those in El Salvador and Nicaragua, however, who might well disagree.
Submitted by: Raymond
2:17 PM PDT, September 11, 2008
12. As we all know that is the kind of heads of state the US wants to have on it's side, it's the easiest way to control the people in the third world.Take the Shad, Iddi,Somoza,just to mention a few.I cant believe that some people era so naive as to think that the US is going to support someone like Allende,or Castro,or Ortega, this goes aginst the priciples of capitalism as such.Any one who is not with America, is against it.And then we are left with the question. Is the performance of today's chilean economy worht the thousands of lives lost to one mans dream of a facist state?.
Submitted by: Scito Mayorga
2:16 PM PDT, September 11, 2008
13. Originally the CIA opposed the coup, they had stated that the Chilean presidency only serves 6 years. It was their belief that in 1976 the Popular unity coalition would fall apart and teh Social democrats would assume power. But Nixon didn't wan to wait.
Submitted by: Rick
2:13 PM PDT, September 11, 2008
14. I´m an American that lived in Chile for 4 years. Many find it so easy to project our limited views as those apprently shown by all Chileans. Those who do that, should stop there. Pinochet is very polarizing. He´s adored by half of Chile and hated by the other half. So, let´s no simplify matters here. In the '88 referendem vote, he won more of the popular vote than our current president in either of his winning elections. And, he still stepped down.
Submitted by: michael
2:04 PM PDT, September 11, 2008
15. Here's the question below the headline: "Should he be remembered as a tyrant or as an economic reformer who turned Chile into a global success; and to what extent did the U.S. government bring about his dictatorship?" The answers? Yes, he was a tyrant. No, the economic reform came after Pinochet brought back Allende reforms. And involvement of the U.S. government involvement...of course we were involved...along with the 3000 corporations who wanted to do "business" in Chile. Pinochet will answer to God for the murders he committed. What other questions need to be asked????
Submitted by: tbonilla
1:52 PM PDT, September 11, 2008
16. It's ironic that this Pinochet op ed piece followed one By Timothy Ashon on "The New World Disorder" in which the following statement appeared: "... we should not kid ourselves that we can have only liberal democracies as partners. Our values may pull us that way, but our interests will necessarily push us to relationships and even partnerships with currently illiberal states as well." We continue to honor the "Illiberal" Che Guevara. Given the present prosperity of Chile, it's hard for liberals to accept that an "Illiberal" state and a conservative economics professor laid the groundwork for its present success.
Submitted by: Verbwank
1:19 PM PDT, September 11, 2008
17. The USA lead by Nixon and Kissinger using the CIA toppled a democratically elected government of a foreign country. Hasn't been the last time such criminal activity has taken place.
Submitted by: tucanofulano
1:06 PM PDT, September 11, 2008
18. If the US had supported Allende, we would not have endured the torture, splitting of families, the brain drains, and the ego-driven Chicago economists who don't know about charity. Supporting Allende may not have given us a WOMAN democratically-elected President but at least there would be thousands of Chileans alive today and many more not living in fear. Pinochet was an evil man - right up there with Hitler.
Submitted by: Isabel
12:55 PM PDT, September 11, 2008
19. To what extent was the U.S. responsible? This is still an open question? It's been shown that CIA took wads of cash down to Chile to bribe members of the military, for what purpose? Charity? C'mon. Seven months later, a democratically elected President is overtaken in a bloody coup. Where Pinochet is now, there's no need for central heating. He will go down as a monster, and rightly so.
Submitted by: Hugo
12:31 PM PDT, September 11, 2008
20. Pinochet murdered thousands people. He had mothers thrown from helicopters. He broke the hands of musicians whose music scared him. He stole from the poor daily and lined his pockets with their money. His "reforms" fought an artificial economic chaos, driven by the rich. God will judge and punish this agent of fear and death. Benito Mussolini made the trains run on time too, but if you were a Gypsy or a Jew, it didn't really matter, did it?
Submitted by: VivaChileMierda!
12:30 PM PDT, September 11, 2008
21. This is one of the best, honest and impartial article on Chile and pinochet. I wish Venezuela would find a 'Kinder' Pinochet and turned it oround for generations to come.
Submitted by: altatension
11:53 AM PDT, September 11, 2008
22. This article has stirred some memories of my childhood in Chile. Before the coup of 9/11, I remember getting up early in the morning to stand in long lines to buy bread, milk, sugar, flour,etc. We had nights fill with fear as goverment assisted mobs would threaten to take over our homes. I remember the morning of 9/11 in Chile, and the relief I felt when I heard my mother saying " this is what we have been waiting for the Armed Forces to do" Many Chileans were hoping for the US govement to get involved, we knew Russia and Cuba were in bed with Allende and we were afraid to become another Cuba. Thanks USA!
Submitted by: Yamna Yuri
11:44 AM PDT, September 11, 2008
23. No economic change (liberal or communist) should required the death of thousands and decades of cultural stagnation. Economic reform has been a major copout for those who try to justify the death toll as a necessary evil. If we condemn Stalin for forcing farmers to work in agro-communal concentration camps at bayonet point, why is the transition to communism in Chile even consider as a positive effect of such treacherous event.
Submitted by: Emanuel Bravo
11:33 AM PDT, September 11, 2008
24. Kissinger should be in the dock at the International Criminal Court. He represents all that is heinous about the U.S. What happened to Allende is just one of the dozens, if not hundreds of times the U.S. has crippled and pillaged countries around the world, and why we find ourselves reviled. Next, we should deport the Bushes to the Hague, and let them answer for their multigenerational criminality.
Submitted by: edwcorey
11:23 AM PDT, September 11, 2008
25. Mr. Munoz may have been a "dissident" during the Pinochet 'era', but he offers a revisionist view of history in his article. Hitler's Germany was also a very successful economy!! As to the USA's involvement in the Allende overthrow, that has been concretely established by much research.
Submitted by: p. norris
11:07 AM PDT, September 11, 2008
26. What's sad about these dictators is that they'll never pay for their terrible deeds. Killing some of the most intellectual university professors and innocent people...So if there's no hell, Franco, Pinochet, Somosa and others will never pay for their inhumane acts and actions. Many university professors still feared Pinochet long after his death, afraid of his followers which were many. This is an excellent article, refreshing our memory of another 9/11. As another read, pointed out, the US has always backed dictators who were ''friendly'' to US. Somosa and Franco, besides Pinochet and others.
Submitted by: Enriqueta
10:46 AM PDT, September 11, 2008
27. What the U.S did in Chile on 9/11/73 is nothng different then what Bin Ladden and his network did on 9/11/01. The only difference is that more people were murdered and disappeared by the U.S. backed Pinochet in Chile. Its nothing new, the U.S has repeated that same scenario in Colombia, Granada, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama and many, many other attempts including the failed attempt in Venezuela. So whats new? We have backed, placed kept murderes in power for our interest and disregard Human Rights Abuses, so we have no right to scream bloody mary.
Submitted by: Dr. Rude
10:31 AM PDT, September 11, 2008
28. Given that we are SUPPOSED to be the Beacon of Democracy, and have a son of a bush, doing his own dirty work, one can justifiably equate the two. I met Pinochet, his Junta, (all FRIGHTENING, except General Fernando Mattei) plus his entire Chicago Mafia of technocrats. Their's, was a civil war, with the threat that Socialistic Cuban-style Marxism would spread to other parts of So and C America. Pinochet was NOT a good man, but having the technocrats transform the economy was a great gift to future generations of Chileans. I doubt bush could ever claim that!
Submitted by: Robert Laughing
10:25 AM PDT, September 11, 2008
29. The US government's selective application of democratic ideals never ceases to amaze me. We have supported and overthrown tyrants throughout our history when it suits our own national interests. While often under the guise of spreading democratic values, democracy has very little to do with it. When are we going to learn that while this may have benefits in the short term it has tremendous long term costs.
Submitted by: John Pecod
10:00 AM PDT, September 11, 2008
30. Why is it that an ideological qualification has to be employed when discussing a democratically elected official of a "non ally" of the U.S.? In this case, the first paragraph referencing "the democratically elected government of Socialist President Salvador Allende in Chile..." Do we refer to our President as the "Capitalist President George W. Bush"? Until we can identify that democracy can be found in all types of economic and social configurations, we will continue to apply ideological blinders to what are important and, in these times, imperative conversations.
Submitted by: Salem Elzway
9:56 AM PDT, September 11, 2008
31. To suggest that Pinochet did anything other than torture the people of Chile, literally and economically, is the height of ignorance. As admitted by Mr. Munoz, none of the economic "reforms" dreamed up by Milton Friedman and implimented by Pinochet did anything for the economy but make Chileans poorer. Decades later, when those policies were reversed, Chile became economically viable. Pinochet was a murderous tyrant, nothing more.
Submitted by: Collin McDonnell
9:14 AM PDT, September 11, 2008
32. "Chileans living under the poverty line climbed from 20% in 1970 to almost 40% by the end of Pinochet's rule." those results are ones that Republicans would kill to generate. oh wait, they did kill to generate them, but killing was justified seeing how the Allende government was such a "threat" to the continued existence of the USofA.
Submitted by: RB
9:09 AM PDT, September 11, 2008
33. Why isn't Kissenger arrested and charged for his crimes?
Submitted by: russell
8:44 AM PDT, September 11, 2008
34. Leave it to the LA Times, on Sept 11, to bring up this topic. I guess if Chile was left alone, no people would have been killed by the loving and peaceful communist govt.
Submitted by: Gaby C
8:31 AM PDT, September 11, 2008
35. and... Chile has a democratically elected president who also happens to be a Socialist and a woman. Hopefully history will not repeat itself.
Submitted by: jeremy
8:27 AM PDT, September 11, 2008
36. As an American living in Chile, the split over this issue has taken another direction in recent years. There will always be those who are pro or anti, but many are now viewing him as a necessary evil. I personally don't see Chile where it is today without Pinochet. The country is a dynamic exporter with an infrastructure in place that frankly would never have sprung up without Miltonesque free-market reforms. Pinochet was a monster in many ways, yet had Allende kept chugging along, Chile would simply be Uruguay or a colder, modern day Peru.
Submitted by: Peter Frerichs
7:21 AM PDT, September 11, 2008
37. Nothing justifies repression. The fact that Chile's economy has improved is a minor detail that in no way should be perceived as a positive when one considers the amount of people unjustly killed by Pinochet's dictatorial government. The end doesn't justify the means. Having said that, Chile's economy is one of those classic Latin American examples where the goverment (and its corrupt corporate associates) is wealthy and the rest of the country lives in poverty. I have never seen so many children begging on the streets and so many shanty towns. You can't call an economy successful, if it only benefits half the population.
Submitted by: Fernando
6:00 AM PDT, September 11, 2008
38. Good article. I earned my Chemical Enginering degree at the Catholic University. I was a student resident in Santiago from 1961 to 1967. I returned to Panama, with my Chilean wife and son, in April 1967. I was in the US in September 1973 and was impacted by the news and the atrocities reported. My friends told me about the realities of the coup I do feel that the article is as impartial as it can be and I congratulate the author for this. I still consider Chile as my second country. sha@pa.inter.net
Submitted by: Silverio Henriquez
4:49 AM PDT, September 11, 2008