It's a nash equilibrium, the primary value of spycraft is opposition to hostile spycraft.
It's like wishing militaries didn't exist.
It's like wishing militaries didn't exist.
Like most "CIA coups", the role the CIA played in Chile is more of a "hey let's help this guy who is already planning a coup" and if you dig into the details, it raises the question if the CIA had done nothing whether the outcome would have changed at all.
Helping a fascist coup is bad, even if the fascist coup didn't need your help.
It's not a choice between democracy and a fascist (Allende was going regardless), it was a choice between a US friendly authoritarian or a USSR friendly authoritarian.
This is a nice summary of the situation in Chile at the time, the actors involved (domestic and international) and the role of the CIA.
https://www.kyleorton.com/p/myth-1973-american-coup-in-chile
To get a sense of the CIA’s role, they didn’t even think Pinochet had it in him - they had others pegged as the coup leader. They were surprised to find out it was Pinochet.
Yes, the USA shouldn't be meddling in the domestic affairs of other countries to action its proxy cold war against a rival super power.
I acknowledge that the USA determined this was a correct course of action in order to strengthen its hegemony, and the hegemony of global capitalism, however it was still unethical and in opposition to the needs of people in the USA.
If your take is that it’s unethical, that’s fine, but you need to consider the alternative - giving the USSR free rein to meddle in the domestic politics of the Southern hemisphere. The citizens of those countries end up living under an authoritarian anyways.
I’m not saying it isn’t an ugly business, but I’m not sure the alternative is much better.
Do you just shrug your ahoulders and do nothing?
First, I'll answer the post ipso facto aspect: The USA did meddle, and was that good? In the case of Pinochet, no, because he was a brutal authoritarian and was obviously the worse alternative to the leftist, not even communist, government he overthrew. Also, if the people voted for communism, then, that's self determination, let them have it. If it works, it works, if it doesn't, it doesn't, that's no business of America's. A military coup is "might makes right," an unethical ideology. So if we compare the two forms of meddling, actually, the USSR's was more ethical, since it was aligned with the will of the people. Overall though I still think neither country should have meddled.
What should have been done instead? If the USSR is meddling, the USA as a nation state should do nothing more than leverage its platform to expose any instances of meddling, especially if they were against the will of the people (e.g. fraudulent votes). The people in the USA is a different thing entirely, if I knew what direct action people could take to resist nation state meddling entirely I'd write it here, since I don't, I'll just say the usual: form subversive relationships with neighbors in opposition to authority, mutual aid in opposition to capital-derived infrastructure, mutual education, mutual bonds.
As for Hitler, who also rose to power undemocratically I might add (Reichstag fire and the like), he was committing a genocide, any and all means to stop that is ethical, including full invasion by other nation states. On the other hand, I can't think of an ethical way for a nation state to prevent him coming to power. After all, at the time, I'm not sure it was possible to predict what he was about to do - an anti-semitic politician wasn't exactly groundbreaking, and nobody had ever seen a Holocaust before. If Germany can't prevent itself from becoming a fascist hellhole I don't really see America's responsibility there other than to offer safe haven to any fleeing Jewish people, gays, trans people, communists, etc. Since time machines don't exist, I can't think of an ethical justification for USA meddling in Germany pre-Holocaust or pre-invasion of Poland.
What do you think? I think an interesting question is, "what is ethical and allowed if Hitler 2 arrived today and began seeking power?" Such questions could have interesting answers depending on what you think America should be allowed to do to the current person and nation conducting a genocide, Netanyahu in Israel.
No, they just never said that in the first place. What they said was, "Yes, the USA shouldn't be meddling in the domestic affairs of other countries to action its proxy cold war against a rival super power." Emphasis mine.
Comparing the two is so fatuous I can't believe it.
It would be like someone saying "Kim Jong Un is a horrific leader" and then another person responding with "yeah well my home owner's association president is terrible too." Just a complete non sequitur.
This article is on the level of "the holocaust never happened" cherry-picked argumentations.
Just an example: it doesn't even mention the trucker's strike was directed by the CIA.
The total funding was $7M over 2 years. The strike involved 250,000 trucker drivers, or $28 per striker.
As the source said in a NY Times article..
““The whole point of this is that covert action provides a 1 per cent impetus for something that the people want anyway,” he said.” - CIA source
https://www.nytimes.com/1974/09/20/archives/cia-is-linked-to...
As if the money was for the strikers and not just their leaders...
(But even so, 28 USD in 1974 would be 180 USD today and was still a pretty sum in Argentina at the time, especially for a trucker)
Bad faith arguments doesn't help believing you have an honest argument to begin with.
So you're claiming the leaders were able to convince 250,000 union members to strike because... the leaders wanted it? That makes no sense.
As laid out in the article, the truckers were already upset at the government undermining their entire industry. They didn't need $28 USD to convince them to strike.
It wild how people think the CIA with a few million dollars can convince an otherwise stable democratic nation to overthrow it's leader in a coup.
As the article lays out, the CIA were mostly observers who tossed a bit of money to opposition parties. It's questionable if the CIA had any impact at all considering they weren't backing Pinochet himself, and the timing of the coup caught them by surprise. It's pretty clear they weren't very plugged in to what was happening.
"The other guy was worse," is factually pretty off base. You can pick and choose sources all you want, but the fact is that Allende was elected as democratically as any US president in the last few decades: the idea that foreign interference invalidates an election is pretty specious. And even if you want to call Allende a dictator, he's definitely a better dictator than Pinochet: he killed far, far fewer innocent people. I give zero fucks about US-friendly vs. USSR-friendly in this case: if the US friendly dictator kills hundreds of thousands of people and the USSR friendly one doesn't, the USSR friendly one is better.
Let me make this clear: if you choose capitalism over preventing mass-murder, your morality is screwed up.
And even if somehow Allende was worse (which again, is not true), that doesn't make supporting Pinochet morally right. Most 5 year olds know two wrongs don't make a right.
> To get a sense of the CIA’s role, they didn’t even think Pinochet had it in him - they had others pegged as the coup leader. They were surprised to find out it was Pinochet.
If your argument is that the CIA was incompetent, that doesn't look much better for them.
Absolutely wrong, to the point of negationism. Amongst many things, the CIA trained South American militaries and police in torture through the School of the Americas.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2246205
If "this guy" wasn't already planning a coup, the CIA would have done it themselves anyway. Overthrowing Allende by any means was a core mission for them. The CIA was directly responsible for killing a general, René Schneider, who stood against any attempt at a coup.
And then they collaborated with Argentina's (and other South Amrican dictatorships') Operation Condor:
-mass abduction
-death squads
-torture of anyone suspected of being even vaguely leftist (electric shocks, prolonged immersion in water, cigarette burns, sexual abuse, rape, removal of teeth and fingernails, castration, and burning with boiling water, oil and acid)
-throwing them alive fron planes into the sea, hands and feet bound
-kidnapping newborns from their "leftist" mothers (subsequenly killed) to give them to conservative families
“ In the best traditions of the CIA, catastrophe ensued. Viaux ignored the explicit U.S. instructions to cease-and-desist; two abduction efforts against Schneider, on 19 and 20 October, failed; the third attempt, on 22 October, ended with Schneider being mortally wounded (he died on 25 October);”
Your rebuttal consists of one source completely unrelated to what happened in Chile. Well done.
And what the CIA was doing in other countries is irrelevant to whether what was article describes as happening in Chile is accurate.
If you're going to claim the article isn't true, then an actual rebuttal of the article arguments would be a helpful place to start.
Meanwhile you pretend we should ignore the CIA trained every torturer and executioner of the juntas of South America.
Pure negationism.
I take that as you can’t actually prove the article is wrong?
Empirically that's not a very well-supported statement, if you compare the economy and living conditions of Chile to its neighbours. Empirically speaking, electing communist governments almost always leads to reduced living standards. It's like if the US hadn't intervened in to help a fascist dictator in South Korea, the whole of South Korea would be as poor as North Korea is now.
Almost always leads to a CIA-backed coup or civil war which indirectly indeed reduces living standards. In the other scenarios it often resulted in generally improved living standards via industrialization, increase of literacy and social programs. In yet others gross mismanagement and large scale famines, or fluctuating results depending on the time scale. There is no commonly accepted uniform outcome, and "almost always worse living standards" is clearly not one.
I'm convinced that the evolution of the internet will bring this as well.
But I don't think nation-states are likely to survive for more than 500 or so more years. And the capacity for collaboration, innovation, and even perhaps transcendence into something like a distinct and more peaceful species seems to only grow.