After years of characterizing the human rights violations that occurred in Chile under the dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet as "excesses" by individual officers rather than a deliberate government policy, the Chilean Army reversed course on Friday and acknowledged that it must bear collective "institutional" blame for such abuses.
"The Army of Chile has taken the difficult but irreversible decision to assume the responsibility for all punishable and morally unacceptable acts in the past that fall on it as an institution," the current army commander, Gen. Juan Emilio Cheyre Espinosa, wrote in an essay published by La Tercera, a daily newspaper in Santiago, the capital. "Never and for no one can there be any ethical justification for human rights violations," he said.
This is big. It's also big for this reason:
"It's going to be hard for Pinochet to keep arguing that he had no clue, no sense, of what was going on, and that all the atrocities were due to a few bad apples," said José Miguel Vivanco, a Chilean who is director of Human Rights Watch Americas.
The old guard isn't happy:
Two former navy commanders close to General Pinochet criticized General Cheyre's declaration.
"It seems to make no sense to me," Adm. Jorge Arancibia said. The other former navy chief, Adm. Jorge Martínez Busch, said he was "not in agreement with this vision, because simply put, that's not how it was." He added: "I categorically reject there was any such policy of state, as some maintain. Responsibility is always individual."
Chile at the time of the coup had what was probably the most professional military in Latin America. They were trained in the 19th Century by Prussians and continue to operate under a well-organized command structure. It defies logic that they would have rogue operations taking place; especially rogue operations that went unpunished.
randy, i have to agree with some of your points. i've read enough to know that the chilean military would not do the things people say they did unless they were specifically ordered to do it. you can have a few bad apples in any bunch, and that is always regrettable, but the widespread abuses that occurred after 9/11/73 could not have been the product of a few bad apples; there were too many of them and they were too systematic for that. i can also understand the anger of the admirals; overthrowing a democratically elected government, even a marxist one, must have weighed on all of their minds. i dont believe a serving officer made the decision to do this lightly. i believe they overthrew allende because they saw no other way out of the political situation they were in. having one of their military confreres secondguess them thirty years after the fact must be more than a little annoying. as for why the american army cant be more like the chilean army in this regard, people such as the commenter on road to surfdom either cant or wont hear that the abu ghraib scandal surfaced because there was an ongoing official army investigation into what was going on at that prison; there was no military cover up. the press printed what the army already knew about and was doing something about. the idea that soldiers might have some morals always seems to upset the commenter, since it pokes holes in his (or her) somewhat blinkered world view. so, did mercia have to wait long to vote for kerry?
Posted by: akaky | November 07, 2004 at 02:16 PM
Rubbish.
The accuracy of that claim depends on what surfaced means. If you mean it only came to the attention of the public/press, it is correct, despite which it did have the flavour of a military coverup - the details had been known about for months and months and were sitting on Rumsfeld's desk being ignored.
What triggered the investigation was a whistleblower. Without that person, we don't know that there would even have been an investigation, and given Rumsfeld's disinclination to do anything about it when informed of it, and the administration's general penchant for extreme secrecy about trivial things, let alone things that put them in a bad light, I suggest the chances of an investigation were slim.
Posted by: Lotharsson | November 07, 2004 at 03:44 PM
Akaky,
As to whether or not the coup was necessary, there is one way to turn out governments that doesn't involve bloodshed. It's called an election. One thing that never happened under Allende's rule was the suspension of elections.
Another important point to bring up is the length of Pinochet's dictatorship. Even some of the junta members (General Leigh, for example) thought that there should be a quick return to democracy. Pinochet won that fight and considering the revelations about his bank accounts, one can imagine why he wanted to keep control.
As for Abu Ghraib, coniser the fact that the soldier who broke the story about the torture is now in protective custody and that General Taguba's career may well be over and the revelations about extraordinary rendition and Alberto Gonzales' comments about the quaintness of the Geneva Conventions and I certainly don't feel sanguine about this matter.
Posted by: Randy Paul | November 07, 2004 at 03:44 PM
In answer to our question, we didn't wait long to vote. We were there at 7:15 a.m.
I gotta agree with Lotharsson, by the way.
Posted by: Randy Paul | November 07, 2004 at 04:05 PM
lothar, all investigations are triggered by someone who blows the whistle. the army began investigating these charges back in january, well before the pictures that disgust you and me both were leaked to the press. this is not woodward and bernstein; the press published the results of an investigation that was already underway.
randy, i have to agree with you about the length of pinochet's rule; clearly no one expected him to hang on as long as he did. but even he must have felt the pressure to return chile to democratic rule; the fact that he submitted to the will of the 1989 plebiscite when he could just as easily could have ignored it shows, to my mind, a certain ambiguity about his rule. one cannot imagine, for example, francisco franco submitting to a plebiscite or even permitting a move towards democracy while he was still alive and could prevent it. and yes, allende never suspended elections, but then again, he never got the chance, did he?
Posted by: akaky | November 08, 2004 at 02:34 PM
yes, allende never suspended elections, but then again, he never got the chance, did he?
Actually, congressional elections took place in March 1973 and went off without a hitch. The UP actually gained a little ground in that location.
but even he must have felt the pressure to return chile to democratic rule; the fact that he submitted to the will of the 1989 plebiscite when he could just as easily could have ignored it shows, to my mind, a certain ambiguity about his rule
A couple of years ago General Matthei, the Air Force Commander at the time of the plebiscite gave an interview on Chilean television in which he intimated that when the No vote appeared to have won, Pinochet wanted to send the troops out on the street. Matthei, the commander of the Caribeneros and the ommander of the Navy all refused to go along with this.
Some months later Pinochet was giving a speech before a woman's group and commented about the danger of plebiscites saying that there was another plebiscite centuries ago and the people chose Barabbas. I've seen the speech and it is repulsive. Pinochet was determined to hang on to power.
Posted by: Randy Paul | November 08, 2004 at 03:15 PM
No, they're not. A whistleblower is someone who has no authority to stop the behaviour they're reporting, and goes against their peers and superiors who do not wish to start an investigation because they condone or encourage the behaviour in question. This contrasts with investigations started by superiors observing suspect behaviour by their subordinates.
This particular investigation was triggered by a whistleblower, going against his peers and the ignorance or tacit approval of his superiors.
The only reason that Abu Ghraib surfaced in the press is because the photos were leaked. It's pretty clear Rumsfeld was not interested in making sure the investigation was timely and thorough, let alone made public. He was apoplectic because the photos were in the press, not because of the behaviour they represented. I have no confidence the public would ever had the opportunity to find out without that leak, and that would constitute a military/administration coverup.
Posted by: Lotharsson | November 08, 2004 at 03:56 PM