interesting editorial in the Post this morning, which sort of echoes some conversations i had with Chilean friends several years ago when i was singing in santiago. my old man had spent some time teaching in chile during the allende years, and went back after the coup. i was there during elwyn's first campaign, the first post-pinochet democratic election. stayed in the hotel that jack lemon's character supposedly stayed at in the film missing, overlooking the presidential palace. one of my dad's friends was a surgeon, and we had some fairly heated discussions about pinochet, me arguing he was a tyrant, serial-human rights abuser, etc, and the dr. saying "it's not that simple" and "isn't a good economy a human right?" this was also during the great grape boycott, and on every street corner there were vendors selling raisins. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/11/AR2006121101166.html [rquoter]A Dictator's Double Standard Augusto Pinochet tortured and murdered. His legacy is Latin America's most successful country. Tuesday, December 12, 2006; A26 AUGUSTO PINOCHET, who died Sunday at the age of 91, has been vilified for three decades in and outside of Chile, the South American country he ruled for 17 years. For some he was the epitome of an evil dictator. That was partly because he helped to overthrow, with U.S. support, an elected president considered saintly by the international left: socialist Salvador Allende, whose responsibility for creating the conditions for the 1973 coup is usually overlooked. Mr. Pinochet was brutal: More than 3,000 people were killed by his government and tens of thousands tortured, mostly in his first three years. Thousands of others spent years in exile. One prominent opponent, Orlando Letelier, was assassinated by a car bomb on Washington's Sheridan Circle in 1976 -- one of the most notable acts of terrorism in this city's history. Mr. Pinochet, meanwhile, enriched himself, stashing millions in foreign bank accounts -- including Riggs Bank, a Washington institution that was brought down, in part, by the revelation of that business. His death forestalled a belated but richly deserved trial in Chile. It's hard not to notice, however, that the evil dictator leaves behind the most successful country in Latin America. In the past 15 years, Chile's economy has grown at twice the regional average, and its poverty rate has been halved. It's leaving behind the developing world, where all of its neighbors remain mired. It also has a vibrant democracy. Earlier this year it elected another socialist president, Michelle Bachelet, who suffered persecution during the Pinochet years. Like it or not, Mr. Pinochet had something to do with this success. To the dismay of every economic minister in Latin America, he introduced the free-market policies that produced the Chilean economic miracle -- and that not even Allende's socialist successors have dared reverse. He also accepted a transition to democracy, stepping down peacefully in 1990 after losing a referendum. By way of contrast, Fidel Castro -- Mr. Pinochet's nemesis and a hero to many in Latin America and beyond -- will leave behind an economically ruined and freedomless country with his approaching death. Mr. Castro also killed and exiled thousands. But even when it became obvious that his communist economic system had impoverished his country, he refused to abandon that system: He spent the last years of his rule reversing a partial liberalization. To the end he also imprisoned or persecuted anyone who suggested Cubans could benefit from freedom of speech or the right to vote. The contrast between Cuba and Chile more than 30 years after Mr. Pinochet's coup is a reminder of a famous essay written by Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, the provocative and energetic scholar and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who died Thursday. In "Dictatorships and Double Standards," a work that caught the eye of President Ronald Reagan, Ms. Kirkpatrick argued that right-wing dictators such as Mr. Pinochet were ultimately less malign than communist rulers, in part because their regimes were more likely to pave the way for liberal democracies. She, too, was vilified by the left. Yet by now it should be obvious: She was right.[/rquoter]
Greenwald takes a look... _____________ Tuesday, December 12, 2006 The Washington Post's praise for Augusto Pinochet (updated below) The Editorial Page of The Washington Post today lavishly praised right-wing Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. The Editorial begins with the cursory (really almost bored and resentful) acknowledgement that "for some [Pinochet] was the epitome of an evil dictator." Why would the dreaded, unnamed "some" shriek that Pinochet was an "evil dictator"? No good reason; only this: Mr. Pinochet was brutal: More than 3,000 people were killed by his government and tens of thousands tortured, mostly in his first three years. Thousands of others spent years in exile. The Post even belittles the contempt expressed for Pinochet by claiming that it is due less to his murder and torture of political opponents -- that can't possibly be the real reason -- and is driven instead by the fact that "he helped to overthrow, with U.S. support, an elected president considered saintly by the international left: socialist Salvador Allende, whose responsibility for creating the conditions for the 1973 coup is usually overlooked." So, with the Rush Limbaugh/National Review straw man in place (i.e., Pinochet is only hated in "some" circles because he was pro-U.S. and overthrew a darling of the socialist-anti-American-internationalist-left), the Post builds its case that Pinochet is, on balance, an admirable figure despite his bad points (murder, terrorism, torture): "It's hard not to notice, however, that the evil dictator leaves behind the most successful country in Latin America." To the Post, Pinochet's "excesses" are mitigated, perhaps even outweighed, by his noble embrace of capitalism (via which he enriched himself with hundreds of millions of dollars): Like it or not, Mr. Pinochet had something to do with this success. To the dismay of every economic minister in Latin America, he introduced the free-market policies that produced the Chilean economic miracle -- and that not even Allende's socialist successors have dared reverse. The Post Editorial, appropriately enough, concludes with a reverent embrace of Jeane Kirkpatrick's signature belief "that right-wing dictators such as Mr. Pinochet were ultimately less malign than communist rulers, in part because their regimes were more likely to pave the way for liberal democracies." Concludes The Post: "[Kirkpatrick], too, was vilified by the left. Yet by now it should be obvious: She was right." It is hard to overstate just how radical and extraordinary it is -- though also unsurprising and revealing -- for the Post, particularly in our current political climate, to expressly embrace Augusto Pinochet and to endorse Kirkpatrick's seminal pro-dictatorship article, titled "Dictatorship and Double Standards," which was published in Commentary in November, 1979 (the headline of the Post's Editorial tracks Kirkpatrick's title). Kirkpatrick's article is now proudly displayed on the website of the American Enterprise Institute, where it belongs. The crux of Kirkpatrick's argument was a defense of American support for right-wing dictatorships (the euphemism she used was "traditional autocrats"), including those which employ "martial law" to imprison and even torture their political opponents.* Critically, Kirkpatrick defended such dictatorships not only on the ground that supporting them promotes U.S. interests, but also on the ground that such dictatorships are more benign than left-wing dictatorships ("revolutionary autocrats") and, beyond that, are even justified in their human rights abuses given the nature of the opposition they face. In defending the regimes of the Iranian Shah and the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza -- again, defending not only U.S. support for them, but defending the dictatorships themselves -- this is what Kirkpatrick wrote: Both did tolerate limited apposition, including opposition newspapers and political parties, but both were also confronted by radical, violent opponents bent on social and political revolution. Both rulers, therefore, sometimes invoked martial law to arrest, imprison, exile, and occasionally, it was alleged, torture their opponents. Both relied for public order on police forces whose personnel were said to be too harsh, too arbitrary, and too powerful. The word "therefore" in that passage is amazing. It signifies Kirkpatrick's belief that these dictators' reliance upon martial law, "harsh" and "arbitrary" personal police forces, and even torture were understandable, if not outright justifiable. After all, the opposition the dictators faced was "violent" and was seeking "social and political revolution." Under the circumstances, can't we all appreciate the need for some hard-nosed, "extra-legal" tactics where rulers get their hands dirty in order to preserve order? Western precepts of due process and revulsion towards torture are nice, esoteric luxuries and all, but when faced with revolutionary savages bent on radical change, the implication of Kirkpatrick's argument is that one simply can't afford to abide by those nicities (hence the "therefore"). A little -- or even a lot of -- torture and arbitrary imprisonment in order to preserve security and crush the evil ones might be just what is needed. That is also a pure and complete summary of the current mindset of the Bush administration and its followers and enablers (including The Washington Post Editorial page) with regard to the administration's lawbreaking and its worst excesses. Objections to the Bush administration's human rights abuses, total disregard for basic precepts of due process, and its reliance on "coercive interrogation" methods are routinely dismissed away by pointing to -- just as Kirkpatrick did -- the extreme and savage character of the Enemy, which renders such measures not only justifiable but even necessary. As long as the government continues to defend the free market and only uses such methods against those who really deserve it, that's something we can all tolerate, even appreciate. One can draw a short and straight line from Kirkpatrick's defense of right-wing dictatorships to the Bush administration's ongoing abuses.* As Matt Yglesias wrote yesterday in response to various right-wing commentators exhibiting a bizarre reluctance to criticize Pinochet: I think this is the context in which you have to understand American conservatism's generally blasé attitude toward the Bush administration's more modest ventures into the fields of arbitrary detention, corruption, and torture. Years of apologizing for the deployment of such tactics by America's proxies abroad naturally desensitizes the political culture to the re-importation of these methods to the center. The Washington Post's editorial enabling of most (though admittedly not all) of the Bush administration's excesses over the past five years is clearly grounded in the Kirkpatrickian view that sometimes such measures are necessary to preserve order and security, and can never been seen as "pure evil" as long as they are imposed by a government committed to the free market. What is so striking is that, in the aftermath of 9/11, that justifying mindset, previously used to defend third-world dictatorships, was so seamlessly imported into the domestic policies of the United States. This is how Kirkpatrick defined the "traditional autocracies" which she defended: Traditional autocrats leave in place existing allocations of wealth, power, status, and other resources which in most traditional societies favor an affluent few and maintain masses in poverty. But they worship traditional gods and observe traditional taboos. They do not disturb the habitual rhythms of work and leisure, habitual places of residence, habitual patterns of family and personal relations. Because the miseries of traditional life are familiar, they are bearable to ordinary people who, growing up in the society, learn to cope, as children born to untouchables in India acquire the skills and attitudes necessary for survival in the miserable roles they are destined to fill. Such societies create no refugees. Objectively speaking, Kirkpatrick's description of the virtues of "traditional autocracy" sound quite similar to the vision which Bush followers and certain elite enablers (e.g. Fred Hiatt and similar Beltway pundits) have of the Ideal America today. Despite the radical transformation of our national character over the last five years, The Washington Post continues to be able to earn money and enjoy the rewards of the free market. We continue to "worship traditional gods and observe traditional taboos." And Bush officials "leave in place existing allocations of wealth, power, status, and other resources which in most traditional societies favor an affluent few." Just as Kirkpatrick argued in 1979 -- and as the Post implicitly endorsed today -- we can all live with some torture and arbitrary arrests and detentions. And we must always keep in mind that things could always be worse -- at least the Bush administration (like Pinochet) is keeping taxes low and corporate profits high. So our view of its human rights abuses (like our view of Pinochet's) should be tempered by our appreciation for its rejection of socialism. Thus, argues the Post (following along with the illustrious Jonah Goldberg, among others), let's set torture and lawbreaking and indefinite detention to the side. At least George Bush (and Pincochet) aren't Fidel Castro. That this has become the Post's measuring stick for our own government explains much about the last five years in this country. UPDATE: The homage paid by Fred Hiatt to Augusto Pinochet would likely baffle Ariel Dorfman, whose New York Times Op-Ed today (h/t Kovie) examines the lingering and tragic effects on Chile of Pinochet's despotism. Hiatt's admiration for Pinochet would also likely be baffling to what Dorfman describes as the "thousands upon thousands of Chileans who spontaneously poured into the streets here to celebrate the news of his extinction." http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/
and a fascinating look it is too. i agree with his initial point, that Pinochet's "excesses" are inexcusable, no matter his legacy, but he overlooks the fact that many, indeed, more than "some" chileans themselves excuse them. these are not rightwing beltway pundits, but everyday, middle class citizen's of cile. certainly many other chileans celebrated pinochet's death, but this is precisely why his legacy is ambivalent. and then glenn does his bush bashing thing, and typically, attempts to equate Bush's terror-prevention policies with "rape, murder, torture" on a system scale. of course, no such thing has occured, but hey, easier i guess to call bush pinochet than hitler. and he also ignores one central fact. Bush used american power to depose a right-wing dictator. and glenn was silent on saddam's "abuses." there's a word for that.
The world we're in to day isn't the Cold War, which was just a different place altogether. The reality of the time was a choice of bad regimes. He conveniently ignores the supporters of Pinochet, as if those in the streets praising him were ITT executives. But there probably will be a lot left out when you're really just using a few blips about Pinochet at the beginning to segue into your Bush agenda.
Somehow that socialist hellhole Cuba matches or beats Latin America's most "successful" country in indicators of social well being like infant mortality rate and life expectancy, despite a much lower per capita GDP and an economic embargo by the most powerful country in world. Are those commies really just that much more efficient? From the World Health Organization- CUBA Statistics: Total population: 11,269,000 GDP per capita (Intl $, 2004): 3,649 Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 75.0/80.0 Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2002): 67.1/69.5 Child mortality m/f (per 1000): 8/7 Adult mortality m/f (per 1000): 131/85 Total health expenditure per capita (Intl $, 2003): 251 Total health expenditure as % of GDP (2003): 7.3 Figures are for 2004 unless indicated. Source: The world health report 2006 CHILE Statistics: Total population: 16,295,000 GDP per capita (Intl $, 2004): 12,505 Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 74.0/81.0 Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2002): 64.9/69.7 Child mortality m/f (per 1000): 10/9 Adult mortality m/f (per 1000): 133/66 Total health expenditure per capita (Intl $, 2003): 707 Total health expenditure as % of GDP (2003): 6.1 Figures are for 2004 unless indicated. Source: The world health report 2006 http://www.who.int/countries/en/
Cuba's expenditures on health care are misleading, because Venezuela helps supply the Cuban health care system with medicine, equipment, and even doctors. It's probably Venezuela's largest recipient of foreign aid.
An American friend of mine who lived in Chile through those years told me "the communists never got over losing Chile." His legacy is complicated. You can rip him and criticize his brutal reign. You can praise him because of what happened to their economy.
here's what we should do, settle this once and for all, let's let the folks in cuba and chile vote on which country they'd rather live in. oh, wait...
Cuba has been at the top of the list in these categories among Latin American countries for more than a decade, long before Venezuela provided any aid. And by the way you've got it backwards, it's Cuba sending Venezuela doctors.
Literacy Rate Cuba 96.9 Chile 95.7 http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/pdf/HDR05_HDI.pdf So despite having a far lower per capita GDP, Cuba matches or outpaces Latin America's "most successful" country in key indicators of health and education.
The reagan administration,pinochet,manuel noriega,somoza,roberto.....all these evil doers will burn in hell for what they did to latin America.
Again, wow - a percentage point in a couple of health indicators and a percentage point in literacy. That's worth living under Castro! Setting aside that comparative health and literacy were high in Cuba vis-a-vis other LA countries pre-Castro.
Interesting topic, basso. Pinochet was a real b*stard. He deserved to croak a long time ago. He may have been "good" for the Chilean economy, but who's to say how Allende's government would have done, had he lived? Glad to read about you arguing against Pinochet's abuses while you were there. Some of my best memories are discussing politics, and the like, with people in other countries. And good to see you standing up for liberal democracy back then. D&D. Water the Dog!
I was listening to the coverage of Pinochet’s death on the BBC. I found it interesting that the vast majority of extremely vitriolic denunciations came from people living outside Chile, like Spain or Canada. From inside the country most of the responses were much more measured. I’m not sure whether there is some bias in the way the BBC collected the data that would color the data, but it did stand out to me.
