The Reagan Administration’s ambassador to Chile during the final
years of General Augusto Pinochet’s rule died August 9. Harry
Barnes, a career diplomat, was hailed in his Washington
Post
obituary for defending human rights in Chile and helping nudge
Pinochet towards the 1988 plebiscite that led to the peaceful and
democratic transition of 1990.
This narrative of the Reagan Administration’s role in peacefully
democratizing Chile contrasts with the secular and Religious Left’s
portrayal of the Pinochet years. “I think he [Ambassador Barnes]
did a magnificent job,” the Post quoted Elliott Abrams,
the Reagan era State Department official often demonized for his
role in Iran-Contra.
Chile in the 1970s and 1980s was a key flashpoint in the Cold
War. Marxist Salvador Allende was elected in 1970 in a three-way
race and promptly ushered Chile into what the Post obit
called a “chaotic socialist period.” The economy collapsed while
Allende tormented the opposition media, armed his supporters, and
invited his hero Fidel Castro for an extended visit while hailing
the Cuban model. Prior to Allende’s taking office, U.S. covert
action unsuccessfully tried to unify the opposition and prevent his
accession to power.
These bungled attempts were later exposed and fed the popular
impression at least on the Left that the U.S. had orchestrated the
eventual 1973 military coup against Allende, resulting in his
suicide and Pinochet’s empowerment. This legend was the basis of
the 1982 film, Missing, starring Jack Lemmon and Sissy
Spacek, based on the story of a U.S. journalist missing in the wake
of the 1973 coup. As the aggrieved father, Lemmon seeks answers
about his son against a villainous, unnamed U.S. Ambassador
ostensibly complicit in the coup.
The Nixon Administration was indeed relieved by Allende’s
collapse, as was much of Chile, whose judiciary and legislature had
virtually green lighted his overthrow, the Congress having accused
Allende of “totalitarian” ambitions. But the Chilean military had
acted on its own, perhaps mindful of earlier U.S. ineptitude.
Although Chile is a relatively small nation, Allende’s collapse had
much wider geo-strategic and philosophic implications, rebutting
the 20th century Marxist claim of once Marxist, always Marxist,
which the Brezhnev Doctrine sought to enforce.
By the time of Allende’s 1970 election, the Religious Left in
the U.S. and around the world was endorsing Liberation Theology’s
understanding of a Gospel aligned with Socialist revolution. Under
Allende, U.S. United Methodist missionaries wrote President Nixon
imploring the U.S. not to “impose its own solutions on Chile.” When
Chilean Methodist Church leaders commended Pinochet’s new regime, a
United Methodist missions official back in New York was befuddled
by the “dilemma.” Another U.S. missions official insisted: “We
cannot affirm the junta even to affirm the Methodist Church of
Chile. If that’s intervention in Chile’s affairs, then history will
have to say which one of us is right.” The United Methodist
missions board even debated whether to meet at a Sheraton Hotel
because its parent company ostensibly had opposed Allende.
More realistically, one United Methodist Bishop admitted after
returning from Chile in the mid 1970s: “As undesirable as the
military regime is, most dependable people of the Church,
university and seminaries said to me that the situation had become
so desperate that they preferred [the military government] to what
they had before.” Many Chilean evangelical Protestants, especially
Pentecostals, supported Pinochet, a Roman Catholic who presided
over relative stability and prosperity, and who once hosted a visit
by U.S. televangelist Jimmy Swaggart in the 1980s.
The Catholic Church, although relieved by the collapse of
Allende’s socialism, largely defended human rights and worked for a
peaceful transition to democracy. Cardinal Juan Francisco Fresno
Larrain, archbishop of Santiago, convened Chile’s democratic
parties in 1985 to call for free elections and protections for
private property (not desiring a return to the Allende fiasco). In
1989, Cardinal Fresno received a Religious Freedom Award from my
organization for advocating democracy and reconciliation in Chile.
He credited God as the “first source and the permanent support of
our work for reconciliation and the promotion and defense of human
rights within the framework of religious liberty — fundamental
values in all authentic democracies.”
The Religious Left did not foresee Chile’s peaceful transition
to democracy during the Reagan years. Instead, some United
Methodist bishops warned Reagan in late 1980 of “increasing acts of
oppression and racism” globally because of his election. “We are
firmly convinced these events are in response to campaign
statements and positions taken by persons associated with you,”
they decried. Other Methodist bishops at the time noted that
Reagan’s election had fueled an “alarming turn toward violence,
confirmed by a soaring arms race, by the belligerent rhetoric of a
revived cold war, a turning away from human rights in the name of
national expediency and support for a variety of military
governments abroad while neglecting the poor and wretched at home.”
An ecumenical Religious Left statement warned of an “international
blood bath” if Reagan did not denounce human rights abuses by pro
U.S. regimes.
Instead the end of the Reagan years and the immediate aftermath
witnessed not only the collapse of Soviet communism but also of
rightist, non-democratic regimes in South Korea, the Philippines,
South Africa, Argentina, and Chile, among many others. It was a
dramatic transition from the bleak 1970s, which concluded with the
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Islamist revolution in Iran.
Such a shift would have been impossible absent the resurgence of
American economic, political, and economic power in the 1980s,
accompanied by vigorous U.S. affirmation of democracy and human
rights.
The secular and Religious Left opposed nearly every step of that
resurgence, unable to see beyond their own grim assumptions.
Ambassador Barnes was just one of many players who helped create a
new global era when freedom, at least momentarily, prevailed over
oppression.
Von Mises Jr| 8.24.12 @ 8:25AM
If history does not repeat itself, (hopefully) it rhymes.
If I understand the history correctly, Pinochet and Allende was a Marxist, socialist dictators. They were backed by the religious left, namely "Liberation Theology." There was an ideological war between the Marxist, socialist dictators and the Catholic Church. And it ended with a public vote (November 6th perhaps) where the people chose a democratic transition to peaceful government.
JmsA| 8.24.12 @ 8:22PM
Augusto Pinochet was not a Marxist; he was a nationalist, and a professional soldier. Allende was not only a Marxist, but a co-founder of the Socialist Party of Chile, closely allied to the Soviet Union, including the KGB which helped him ascend to power.
Von Mises Jr| 8.25.12 @ 6:08AM
Thanks, JmsA. But after reading Mises explanation of the Nazis in "Omnipotent Government," I think it is a thin line between nationalism and socialism.
You can have national pride, but when the nation state organized themselves around ethnicity and/or common language, it tends strongly towards us against them. "Origins of Totalitarianism" by Hannah Arendt explains how the Jews in Europe, especially in Germany were a people without a nation. They were not only outside the national fervor of the nation state, but became the prosecuted minority. Doesn't have to happen that way, but I cannot think of a state based on nationality that has not had majority/minority conflicts. Dr. Sowell wrote a couple books on this.
Before Obama and Napolitano urinated on our immigration laws, we were a sovereign state like Britain. It doesn't mean that there will not be conflict between English, Scot and Irish; or white, black and Hispanic, but it is organized differently and its government does not have the same inherent structure.
But I get your point and thank you for the comment. Combinations and permutations create a muddle with confused names and issues.
Kwan| 8.24.12 @ 8:51AM
Rebutting the 20th century Marxist claim of once Marxist, always Marxist, which the Brezhnev Doctrine sought to enforce.....Does that mean that Putin will send in the Russian military on November 7th if Obama is defeated in order to support the Brezhnev Doctrine: Once Marxist, always Marxist. What a revolting development this is.
TeaPartyNow| 8.24.12 @ 10:32AM
Today, America is a communist nation, under self imposed oppression by the American People. We the People, behave like we have zero power. But in reality, we are merely under collectivist despotism by habit of cultural marxism.
Seems to me that the American People want freedom back. And if you are trying to infer that money, as in romneys' carrot driven campaign suggests, will bring us back to freedom, you are fatally wrong.
America is a marxist society. We have communist medias, fascist schools, and socialist dictators. You can't put money over it and expect recovery. Not that romney would actually benefit society, financially.
If America were to recover, we'd have to change the whole of our medias ways of manipulation. We'd have to end all government unions. We'd have to reform all pay out welfares, S.S. diabilities, everything. Romney/Ryan are not qualified to take America into being the land of opportunity because they lack what it takes to address our real problems.
And most damning, they keep telling us that they can save us. No one can save America but her people. If we are to recover, it can only come from the American People. Not our so-called leaders.
Dave Williams| 8.24.12 @ 12:37PM
What you say is true, but I hope that won't stop you from voting/campaigning/raising money for Romney-Ryan. We didn't get into this mess overnight, and we won't get out of it that way, either. Let's start with these guys first, make some gains and consolidate them, and then go for REAL conservatives in 2016. I propose a Mark Levin-John Bolton ticket.
TeaPartyNow| 8.24.12 @ 2:39PM
Romney/Ryan will take us into a steeper decline than just sticking it out with obama. No one really pays any attention to Mitt Romney, or his so called plans. His tax reform pays the rich and takes from the poor. His energy plan defers power to the state for federal lands, well, that is no decline, but he will sell it as a fix all, and maintain the status quo of the welfare mentality. He has promised to go left of bush, he always talks about spending our $$$. He just urged obama not to cut any spending right now.
My main concern about romney is that he is a sedative, a false hope so the American People to fall asleep at the wheel even more. At best romney is only slightly more decline than obama. I can't support that.
America is not viable now. Why would you support someone who continues to make America a worse place to live in just because he calls himself a republican? He is pro-liberal agenda socially.
Would you support Ron Paul, if he were the nominee? The republican party in D.C. is too far gone to support. I will support my republicans in my state, but nothing else. I have seen Boehner, after his supposed big win in 2010, nothing.
I'll be looking for Santorum/Bachmann in 2016 if there is anything left of us. Levin promotes government dependency worship now. Which is where you got your need to look to romney to save you. I find it repulsive. Sorry.
Marxist nanny state without romneys parasitic bandaid, thank you very much.
Occam's Tool| 8.25.12 @ 1:36PM
I would not support Ron Paul. I would support Santorum/Bachmann or Bachmann/Santorum. Michelle is a gleaming light of decency in Minnesota politics.
Occam's Tool| 8.25.12 @ 1:37PM
Dave: you may not believe in G-d, but, if I may be bold, from your mouth to G-d's ears, sir.
Occam's Tool| 8.25.12 @ 1:35PM
Ronnie was MUCH more competent than the Bushes. They were pygmies compared to the Geopolitical Genius from a Sister School of TCU, Eureka College.