User:Veritas Aeterna/Draft Talk: On Nixon

Proposed Changes Regarding Chile
Greetings, Wehwalt. I'll address your concerns below. The truth is the current single paragraph about Chile is very misleading to the reader and needs to be corrected in some manner. Because this article is about Nixon and he and Kissinger are most responsible for the loss of life these issues need to be addressed somehow. I disagree that the loss of lives of 1000s of individuals, their exile, their torture, etc. is not worth adding two more paragraphs to the existing section.

The declassified documents do indeed establish the facts I maintained. They are there for all to see in various archives and in the 114 declassified documents reproduced in Kornbluh, Peter, The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability, The New Press, 2003. ISBN 1-56584-936-1.

So let me respond to your specific points.


 * I'm sorry but that is totally incorrect. It is misleading to say the US did not play a "direct" role. They played a very extensive covert role:

Nixon authorized $10 M dollars, the USG sent submachine guns via diplomatic pouch, 50K was provided to coup plotters, police equipment was provided to Pinochet, the coup plotters were encouraged to take action leading to Allende's overthrow, etc. There is mountains of evidence, overwhelming amounts.

In contrast to what you cited:

"Indeed, the documents contain new information on virtually every major issue, episode and scandal that pockmark this controversial era. They cover events such as: Project FUBELT, the CIA's covert action to block Salvador Allende from becoming president of Chile in the fall of 1970; the assassination of Chilean commander-in-chief Rene Scheider; U.S. strategy and operations to destabilize the Allende government; the degree of American support for the coup; the postcoup executions of American citizens; the origins and operations of Pinochet's secret police, DINA; CIA ties to DINA chieftain Manuel Contreras; Operation Condor; the terrorist car-bombing of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt in Washington, D.C.; the murder by burning of Washington resident Rodrigo Rojas; and Pinochet's final efforts to thwart a transition to civilian rule. ... A comparison between what was said and done in secret and the official statements, testimonials, and memoirs reveals, in stunning detail, the mendacity that accompanied U.S. policy." [Kornbluh, p. xvii-xviii]


 * The Church Committee information is out of date as the declassified documents show that the Church Committee was lied to.

"The initial Orwellian response to the CIA-ITT scandal set the stage for a protracted cover-up, made possible by a display of official mendacity virtually unparalleled in the annals of foreign policy. Outright deception--of the public, of Congress and even other sectors of the U.S. government--permeated the administration's effort to contain and conceal the facts of Track I and Track II. The CIA, State Department, and the NSC sought to obstruct the Senate Subcommittee on Multinational Corporations investigation. Cooperation was severely restricted; evidence was withheld; government and corporate witnesses committed perjury. In its commitment to hide the truth, and contain the inquiry, the administration even assisted ITT in defrauding the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)--and by extension the U.S. taxpayer--in order to collect a $94 million political risk insurance claim for its expropriated Chilean properties." [Kornbluh, p. 100]

I could go on, but just adding, "The CIA's own internal file review concluded "there is reason to believe that perjury [by various witnesses] was committed and that the Agency was aware of the fact." [Kornbluh, p. 102] should suffice unless you would like even more detail.

I see you are quoting from the CIA's 2000 report, "CIA Activities in Chile", using a National Security website that Peter Kornbluh provided. He says, regarding that report, "...on the question of helping Pinochet to power, the report hedged on the details of multiple covert operations that assisted the regime in consilidating its repressive rule." [p. 486] The CIA was essentially forced to write the report and declassify documents it did not want declassified.

What is stated above is misleading given that the US provided 50K and submachine guns, and actively encouraged the coup, letting military leaders know the US would welcome it.

Again, this commentary came out in 2003 and Kornbluh's analysis of the 24,000 documents did not come out towards the end of 2003. It is inaccurate in several ways. The US did not support an independent press as it paid El Mercurio to present black propaganda. Nixon himself authorized funds for El Mercurio. He did succeed in making Chile's economy scream by numerous financial machinations, withholding of loans, etc. Economic, psychological, and political warfare was a three-pronged approach to foment a coup. All this and much more is covered in Kornbluh's analysis.

The sources sited against the edits I made are all conservative sources that have a vested interest in maintaining a favorable image of Nixon. On the Wikipedia article on Conrad Black, the description of his biography of Nixon says...

FrontPage Magazine is described in its Wikipedia article, "FrontPage Magazine (also known as FrontPageMag.com) is a conservative online political magazine,...

FPM's 2011 "Man of the Year" was the Wounded Warrior Project[1]

FPM's 2010 "Person of the Year" was the Tea Party Movement[2]

FPM's 2009 "Man of the Year" was radio and then-Fox News host Glenn Beck[3]

...

FPM's 2004 "Man of the Year" was John O'Neill, the head of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." My point here is just that it, of course, has a very conversative take on events, and as I mentioned before I doubt the author read Kornbluh's analysis of the 24,000 declassified documents as his book came out in the same year.


 * I'm afraid the declassified documents show we provided 50K, the submachine guns, and later hush money for one of the conspirators that escaped.


 * It was largely shaped by US black propaganda, economic and psychological warfare


 * Yes, but much more was done than that.


 * I don't know what you are referring to here, but certainly the US wrecked the economy more than Allende ever could. Even if you could prove these things about Allende, it does not change what the US, under Nixon, did. I would suspect that more likely these sources are ultimately derived from the US black propaganda planted in El Mercurio and other sources. But I am open to other evidence, but that would be for Allende's article, not Nixon's.


 * We can prove that the US actively made intense covert efforts to foment and encourage a coup, while denying that it was doing so. True, it was not direct military action like our invasion of Iraq. Rather, it was similar to doing everything you can to sabotage a car, and then denying culpability when the car crashes.


 * Greetings, TheTimesAreAChanging, are you referring to the Chilean Congress or the US Congress, and at what time? As you can see the release of the declassified documents changed our understanding of what was happening then.


 * Thank you the discussion. I agree with sticking with the facts. Although I think what you call the "imprecations" show the strength of Nixon's commitment to overthrowing Allende, which helps counter misconceptions that the US had no involvement, I'll remove those as the point can be still be made with Nixon's statement "We're going to smash him", which is also the chapter title of Chapter 8 in Overthrow, cited below.


 * Kinzer, Stephen (2006). Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq. New York: Times Books. pp. 361. ISBN 978-0-8050-8240-1.

and in the spirit of civility towards fellow Wikipedia editors.

Finally, regarding the length of the contribution, I am only proposing adding two paragraphs. Compare that to 5 paragraphs on the 1960-1962 elections. I think the damage the US did in Chile and to many people's lives, warrants coverage in just 3 paragraphs.

Edits in the Latin America Section
Greetings, TheTimesAreAChanging, I wanted to explain my edits. I think all of us are moving this section towards more accurate and complete coverage than what was present before, and we can do so without adding too much length, as I know Wehwalt has expressed concerns.

I'm changing the description regarding the arms to clarify that a kidnapping was intended, or at least the attempts to remove Schneider were presented in that way in cables. It is not clear that an assassination was intended but it is reasonable to infer that if you attempt to kidnap a general, and you also have submachine guns, that there will be deaths.

I'm also aware there were two groups of coup plotters -- Viaux and Valenzuela, and the extent of collaboration was unclear: "We know that Gen. Valenzuela was involved ...but cannot prove or disprove that execution of attempt against Schneider was entrusted to elements linked with Viaux" [Kornbluh, p. 28]. Valenzuela's group received the weapons but Viaux's group did the kidnapping attempt / assassination [Weiner, p. 361-362]. I also know that it is not clear the submachine guns were used in the actual assault even though the CIA later recovered them, threw them in the ocean, and also (forcibly) recovered the 50K money for the kidnapping [Kornbluh, p. 30].

So there was an intended kidnapping, which I would also argue is an intended attack, as I would consider a kidnapping a kind of attack. I could change "apparently for an attack on Chilean general René Schneider." to "which was designated for kidnapping Chilean general René Schneider, but led to his assassination in the attempt [143]." but this is starting to get lengthy, and to address Wehwalt's concerns, I'll just change it back to removing the word "apparently". We could go into more detail here, if you like, but I would think that is more appropriate on other pages, not focused on Nixon but instead the coup itself.

Similarly, I could balance any discussion of the merits of Allende, vs those of Pinochet with lengthy, lengthy discussion of Pinochet's murderous reign, the Caravan of Death, numerous torture centers, first car bombing assassination in the US...need I go on? Instead, I am merely deleting the comment about the accusations against Allende to address Wehwalt's concerns about length. If the Allende statement is reverted back in then at least a sentence or two about continuing support for Pinochet's regime, and the consequences of that, should be added and I'd be glad to do that.

I also removed the part about Pinochet not requesting direct aid as the citation was to the 2000 CIA report, in which the CIA selectively presented the story to cast itself in a better light. Also, the military officer who the report says requested aid was not identified as Pinochet himself, just a military officer. Again, much more could be said about the extensive aid that Pinochet did indeed received after the coup, but I'm trying to keep it short in line with Wehwalt's concerns.

I approve of linking to 1973 Chilean coup d'état page, I think that is the right approach, we just present the key facts here and then let readers pursue the detail elsewhere if they so choose.

Overall, I think this is a good discussion and improvement of this section.

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Veritas Aeterna (talk)

Refinements to Edits in the Latin America Section
I clarified in the final sentence that the troubles in Chile leading to the coup were extremely widespread and not limited to political disputes, such as those that might have occurred between the Chilean Congress and President Allende. The US was instigating a three-pronged approach:

The covert approaches even involved use of terrorism:

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am concerned, not only about length, but about possible POV, but given that you guys know more about the topic than me and appear to be listening to each other as you discuss it, I'm content to sit back and watch for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)