Revista Cosas
I did arrive at about 16:15 hrs for my entrevista con Sr. S. at 16:30hrs. I thought I made good time. But there was an emergencia at the magazine. Not exactly sure what that means. Someone finally spotted someone else who didn't look drab in Santiago and had to go snap a picture?
Anyway, Nancy, the receptionist, and I chatted (Castellano, I was getting tired...) until almost 18:00 hrs. In the meantime one of the men (must have been about 60, short, balding) who was in charge of opening and closing and opening and closing the door and collecting and distributing mail was bringing me new copies of the revista as well as Sprite diet in a hour glass shaped tumbler (like they use for the Got-milk?-it'll-give-you-a-waist ads) which was balancing precariously on a white saucer. I was sinking into the leather couch-and trying not to spill my drink-when Esperanza, the assistant of Oscar S., came downstairs to collect me. After profuse apologies ("Todo en Chile no es asi...no somos siempre asi..."), we began the interview.
I had expected it to be conducted in English, however when espanol es mejor I don't have much of a choice. I began setting the parameters for my project. I am interested in the period from about 1990 onward and specifically interested in figuring out who in Chile wanted Pinochet to be tried and brought to justice for crimes during the dictatorship. Where did the pressure come from?
We covered a range of topics in this vein, none of which were particularly new to me. There are really two camps...the pro-Pinochistas and the anti-Pinochet groups, who wanted him to be brought to justice. The people of Chile were far more upset with Pinochet after the Riggs account scandal (More on Riggs). Unlike Argentina, where the Argentine people became vehemently anti-military after they saw/experienced the gross abuses and human rights violations being perpetrated (estimates of 9,000-30,000 disappeared compared to Chile's 3,000), Chile followed a different trajectory. After the majority of the violence was over (repression was worst from about 1973-76), Chile's economy began booming (Allende was probably doomed without direct CIA involvement in the early 70s; inflation was out of control, the economy was tanking) due to Pinochet's neoliberal reforms. The Washington Consensus was working perfectly in Chile, eliciting smiles from both Henry Kissinger and Chileans on the streets of Santiago. Economic prosperity was one of the reasons Pinochet was not taken down like his counterparts in Argentina (where the economy, among other things, was a disaster.)
La gente (note: both "la gente" and "el pueblo" mean "the people" in Spanish, however after Allende was removed the phrase "el pueblo" was striken from discourse because of its marxist connotation-think proletariat- and replaced with "la gente" to refer to the general population. Probably the equivalent of "the public.." in english.) eased up and credited Pinochet for saving Chile. They found him trustworthy with their money (Latin America is well-known for corrupt politicians-almost every election in LA to this day has would-be presidents promising to be honest and not siphon money away into personal accounts). Oscar S. somewhat cynically pointed out that 3,000 dead in the past (for justifiable reasons: Chile, along with the US, was fighting an elusive communist foe which frequently manifested itself as subversive leftist movements in Latin America) was unfortunately just the price to pay for stability and money in their pockets now.
When the money scandals were uncovered, the Chilean public felt shocked and betrayed. Many Pinochet supporters defected to the other side and supported his trials. However, according to Oscar S., the public support for bringing Pinochet to justice is far more passive in Chile than in the rest of the world. He noted that when Pinochet dies, it will probably have more effect abroad than in Chile. Oscar S. went on to assert that Chileans have moved on with their lives and it is a very small amount of people ("muy poco") that are continuing to hold active demonstrations (according to him, less than 200 at any given time.) This mostly includes family members of the disappeared or very focused human rights groups.
The interview with Oscar S. leads me to believe that my initial hunch that international factors were more prevalent in bringing about the trials of Pinochet (and other militares) may not be too far off the mark. It seems that a broad based movement in Chile was not something that was going on throughout the 90s.
However, there is a sticking point. The public, though not parading in the streets against their former dictator, have been voting for socialist candidates since 2000 (Ricardo Lagos, now Michele Bachelet.) Both candidates have been supported by the Concertacion (broad-based center-left coalition brought together of the course of the 80s to defeat Pinochet in the 1988 plebiscite) which means it could just be inertia that has the population voting this way. I am not sure how much it means to them to put socialists back in power (Allende was from the Socialist Party). The question is whether this represents an active democratic decision or just a default position on the part of the voting population. We'll see.
Anyway, Nancy, the receptionist, and I chatted (Castellano, I was getting tired...) until almost 18:00 hrs. In the meantime one of the men (must have been about 60, short, balding) who was in charge of opening and closing and opening and closing the door and collecting and distributing mail was bringing me new copies of the revista as well as Sprite diet in a hour glass shaped tumbler (like they use for the Got-milk?-it'll-give-you-a-waist ads) which was balancing precariously on a white saucer. I was sinking into the leather couch-and trying not to spill my drink-when Esperanza, the assistant of Oscar S., came downstairs to collect me. After profuse apologies ("Todo en Chile no es asi...no somos siempre asi..."), we began the interview.
I had expected it to be conducted in English, however when espanol es mejor I don't have much of a choice. I began setting the parameters for my project. I am interested in the period from about 1990 onward and specifically interested in figuring out who in Chile wanted Pinochet to be tried and brought to justice for crimes during the dictatorship. Where did the pressure come from?
We covered a range of topics in this vein, none of which were particularly new to me. There are really two camps...the pro-Pinochistas and the anti-Pinochet groups, who wanted him to be brought to justice. The people of Chile were far more upset with Pinochet after the Riggs account scandal (More on Riggs). Unlike Argentina, where the Argentine people became vehemently anti-military after they saw/experienced the gross abuses and human rights violations being perpetrated (estimates of 9,000-30,000 disappeared compared to Chile's 3,000), Chile followed a different trajectory. After the majority of the violence was over (repression was worst from about 1973-76), Chile's economy began booming (Allende was probably doomed without direct CIA involvement in the early 70s; inflation was out of control, the economy was tanking) due to Pinochet's neoliberal reforms. The Washington Consensus was working perfectly in Chile, eliciting smiles from both Henry Kissinger and Chileans on the streets of Santiago. Economic prosperity was one of the reasons Pinochet was not taken down like his counterparts in Argentina (where the economy, among other things, was a disaster.)
La gente (note: both "la gente" and "el pueblo" mean "the people" in Spanish, however after Allende was removed the phrase "el pueblo" was striken from discourse because of its marxist connotation-think proletariat- and replaced with "la gente" to refer to the general population. Probably the equivalent of "the public.." in english.) eased up and credited Pinochet for saving Chile. They found him trustworthy with their money (Latin America is well-known for corrupt politicians-almost every election in LA to this day has would-be presidents promising to be honest and not siphon money away into personal accounts). Oscar S. somewhat cynically pointed out that 3,000 dead in the past (for justifiable reasons: Chile, along with the US, was fighting an elusive communist foe which frequently manifested itself as subversive leftist movements in Latin America) was unfortunately just the price to pay for stability and money in their pockets now.
When the money scandals were uncovered, the Chilean public felt shocked and betrayed. Many Pinochet supporters defected to the other side and supported his trials. However, according to Oscar S., the public support for bringing Pinochet to justice is far more passive in Chile than in the rest of the world. He noted that when Pinochet dies, it will probably have more effect abroad than in Chile. Oscar S. went on to assert that Chileans have moved on with their lives and it is a very small amount of people ("muy poco") that are continuing to hold active demonstrations (according to him, less than 200 at any given time.) This mostly includes family members of the disappeared or very focused human rights groups.
The interview with Oscar S. leads me to believe that my initial hunch that international factors were more prevalent in bringing about the trials of Pinochet (and other militares) may not be too far off the mark. It seems that a broad based movement in Chile was not something that was going on throughout the 90s.
However, there is a sticking point. The public, though not parading in the streets against their former dictator, have been voting for socialist candidates since 2000 (Ricardo Lagos, now Michele Bachelet.) Both candidates have been supported by the Concertacion (broad-based center-left coalition brought together of the course of the 80s to defeat Pinochet in the 1988 plebiscite) which means it could just be inertia that has the population voting this way. I am not sure how much it means to them to put socialists back in power (Allende was from the Socialist Party). The question is whether this represents an active democratic decision or just a default position on the part of the voting population. We'll see.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home