Dhaka, Bangladesh
Chile and its history of western interference

Chile and its history of western interference

By Peter Koenig

(From yesterday's issue) He addressed the people in a televised speech from the presidential palace, La Moneda, saying, 'Chile has changed, and the government must change with it to confront these new challenges'. Nobody seemed to take these empty words seriously, as the masses assembled in front of La Moneda asking for Piñera's resignation. The UN is sending a team to investigate Human Rights abuses by police and military. While Argentinians waited for regular general elections (October 27, 2019) to oust their western-imposed neoliberal lynch pin, president Macri, it is not likely that Chileans will have the patience to wait until 2022. Ever increasing inequality and skyrocketing cost of living reached a point of anger that can hardly be appeased with Piñera's apparent promises for change. For at least 80 per cent of the people these conciliatory words are not enough. They don't believe in a system led by a neoliberal multi-billionaire who has no idea on how common people have to make a living. They don't believe in change from this government. It is highly possible, they won't let go until Piñera is gone. They see what was happening in neighbouring Argentina and don't want to face the same fate. Let us just look at a bit of history. Going way back to the War of the Pacific, also known as the Saltpeter War confronting Chile with the Bolivian-Peruvian alliance, Chile counted with strong support from the UK - supplying war ships, weaponry and military advice. The war lasted from 1879 to 1884 and cantered on Chilean claims of Bolivian's coastal territories, part of the Atacama Desert, rich in saltpetre, coveted by the Brits. Thanks to the British military and logistics support, Chile won the war and Bolivia lost her access to the Pacific, making her a landlocked country. The government of Evo Morales today is still fighting for Pacific Sea access in The Hague. Peru lost also part of her resources-rich coast line, Arica and Tarapacá. Fast forward to September 11, 1973, the Chilean 9/11, instigated by the West, again. To be precise by Washington. In the driver's seat of this fatal coup that changed Chile as of this day - and counting - if Piñera is not stopped was Henry Kissinger. At the time leading up to the CIA instigated coup, and during the coup, Kissinger was US national security advisor (the role John Bolton occupied under Trump, until recently). Kissinger was sworn in a secretary of state 11 days after the coup - September 22, 1973; a decent reward. The murderous coup, followed by almost 20 years of brutal military rule by Augusto Pinochet (1973 to 1990), with torture, killings, human rights abuses left and right, was accompanied by an atrocious economic regime imposed by Washington, hired, so-called 'Chicago Boys' ruining the country, privatising social services, national infrastructures and natural resources except for Chile's and the world's largest copper mine, CODELCO which was not privatised during the Pinochet years. The military would not allow it for reasons of 'national security'. The large majority of the population was put under constant surveillance and threat of punishment/abuse if they would protest and not 'behave' as Pinochet ordered. Pinochet, along with the western directed financial sector, turned Chile into a largely impoverished, complacent population. The British empire, at the time from London, later from Washington acting as the American empire, was always influential in Chile, expanding its influence and exploitation mechanism to Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela. But then, in the late 1990s and early 2000, Latin America stood up, democratically electing her own leaders, most of them left/centre-left, a thorn in the eye of Washington. How could American's 'Backyard' become independent? Impossible. Hence the renewal of the Monroe Doctrine, which emanated from president James Monroe (1817-1825), forbidding Europeans to interfere in any American territory. The Monroe principle has now been expanded to not allowing any foreign nation to even do business with Latin America, let alone forming political alliances. (To be continued)

Share |