Showing posts with label CNI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CNI. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Asociación Ilícita: los archivos secretos de la dictadura

This book review was first published in Chileno here.

Asociación Ilícita: los archivos secretos de la dictadura
Carlos Dorat & Mauricio Weibel
Ceibo Ediciones, 2012

Through now revealed secret government documents, Asociación Ilícita: los archivos secretos de la dictadura details the extent of the far-reaching reign of terror imposed by Augosto Pinochet's dictatorship. Ramona Wadi reviews.


Re-enacting Chile’s dictatorship history is an arduous task, undoubtedly hindered by Augusto Pinochet’s insistence upon oblivion and legally sanctioned by the enacted impunity laws. Seeking to annihilate memory by imposing a reign of persecution, torture, disappearances and exile, the struggle to delegitimize the leftist struggle degenerated into Pinochet’s obsession to legitimise his dictatorship. Evidence compiled by authors Carlos Dorat and Mauricio Weibel reveals a sinister collaboration extending beyond the secret network Dirección de Intelligencia Nacional (DINA) and later Central Nacional de Información (CNI), involving ministries, embassies, diplomats, the FBI, the Vatican and right wing Latin American governments.

Asociación Ilícita: los archivos secretos de la dictadura (Ceibo Ediciones, 2012) examines documents which for some reason, failed to be destroyed by the CNI in 1988 prior to the transition period. The documents, detailing extensive correspondence on behalf of Pinochet, are mainly attributed to Manuel Contreras Sepulveda, Odlainer Mena, Humberto Gordon and Hugo Salas, proving the extent of collaboration between various governmental and international bodies, as well as incursions to divert civilian attempts to shed light upon Chile’s reality. From El Plan Condor to inscribed orders from Pinochet requesting the detention of socialist opponents, terror and diplomatic strategy comprise the analysis of what the authors term ‘a catalogue of horror and intolerance’.

September 11, 1973 unleashed the neoliberal experiment upon Chile, supported by the US which was, in Kissinger’s words, unwilling ‘to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide from themselves’. Following an initial purging of socialism in Chile, the published documents in this book reveal how political strategy, in collaboration with the Vatican, was aiming to install Pinochet as an icon of freedom and anti-communist struggle. Apart from the well known targeting of Communist Party and Movimiento Izquierda Revolucionario (MIR) militants, the military advocated a complete dismantling of social movements, student organisations and embarked upon restricting the Church’s activities. With regard to the latter, correspondence with the Vatican illustrates the alignment of the church oligarchy with Pinochet’s dictatorship, as opposed to priests working in the country who, contrary to what had occurred in other countries, aligned themselves with the left. While the Vatican urged priests to adhere solely to ceremonial roles, Cardinal Raul Silva Henriquez had abandoned the designated conservative role in favour of exposing dictatorship atrocities through the Vicaria de la Solidaridad. Part of the political strategy against human rights groups was to seek invalidation of exposed atrocities by citing Marxist infiltration.

A brief overview of DINA establishes an ideological framework attributed to Jaime Guzman, who fostered a counterinsurgency programme based upon combating Marxism and seeking the annihilation of social movements from the political scene. As DINA’s power intensified, counterinsurgency became central to the stability of the dictatorship, lending the state a channel through which to intensify diplomatic efforts with other right wing governments and repressive bodies, in order to present a formidable opposition to organisations expressing their outrage at the widespread violence. Documents relating to Operaciones Epsilon reveal that former head of DINA, Manual Contreras, was authorised to give orders to various ministries. An 11 page document relating to the assembly of ‘Comision Interamericana de Derechos Humanos’ sought to ‘neutralise worldwide accusations of human rights violations in Chile’, instead proposing an emphasis of human rights disputes in Vietnam and the Soviet Union, among other countries. The neutralisation of any verbal opposition against the dictatorship was to be met with an open and clandestine psychological campaign, in order to preserve Chile’s ‘image’ from any possible ‘discrediting and spreading of false information’.

The political threat was personified in particular by the clandestine Communist Party and MIR, who waged armed resistance against the dictatorship and suffered great losses due to persecution and disappearances of many militants, including the notorious Operacion Colombo. The book states that, according to research carried out by renowned author Manuel Salazar, Contreras had been compiling information about political leaders of leftist organisations since Salvador Allende’s presidency. Related documents published in this book and stamped as confidential outline the activities of several left wing leaders, including Victor Diaz and Luis Recabarren.

‘The problem of human rights’ constituted a major problem for the dictatorship, as it relentlessly sought to portray any internal or external criticism as tarnishing the image of Chile. Despite the extermination of socialist leaders, subsequent regrouping of MIR, Movimiento de Acción Popular Unitario (MAPU) and other left wing groups gave rise to an initiation of protests against the dictatorship, with people demanding the return of their exiled relatives. Hundreds were massacred by the CNI, as the military was deployed to the streets in an effort to stifle dissent. As the dictatorship faced the most difficult years of its era, Guzman advocated an ideology shifting towards permanent military rule.

The authors describe the oppression as methodical – indeed the documents reveal statistical data of ‘terrorist activity’ and ‘manipulation of conduct’. The constant preoccupation and compilation of data enabled the dictatorship to enact legislation according to the circumstances, in order to ensure a continuation of impunity. A trend of state terrorism is easily gleaned from the documents produced in the book, as well as the analysis provided by the authors. The ‘Caravan of Death’, the ‘Plan Condor’, which was carried out in collaboration with other Latin American countries, ‘Operacion Colombo’ – also known as the Case of the 119, ‘Operacion Epsilon’ and the collaboration with the US regarding ‘the distortion of Chile’s truth in favour of Marxism’ gave rise to the tracking of dissidents' and exiles' activity abroad, in order to prevent the possibility of the formation of a government in exile. Embassies were also authorised to keep copies of any published material relevant to Chile, in particular reports concerning human rights violations. The exercise was described as ‘censorship of negative information’. However, the dictatorship’s targeting of any person suspected of harbouring leftist sentiment, even through association not related to political activity and irrespective of nationality, led to disclosure of torture practices in international media. The case of Sheila Cassidy – a British doctor suspected of having offered medical assistance to Pinochet’s opponents led to international outrage, which in turn the dictatorship tried to stifle by refusing to issue working permits for journalists travelling to Chile in order to report on human rights. State organisations were also forbidden to comment about Chile without prior permission granted through formal official channels. At least 761 journalists were prohibited from reporting about human rights violations in Chile and their details were included in the dictatorship’s archives.

Hostility against the media was enhanced by the fact that culture – an integral part of Allende’s campaign and perhaps synonymous with the nueva canción movement, was not to be stifled. Inti Illimani and Illapu, together with other singers in exile such as Angel Parra, Isabel Parra and Patricio Manns maintained their political stance and disseminated their convictions through music. The literature of Ariel Dorfman and Antonio Skarmeta was banned in Chile, as was the political thought of Eduardo Galeano and Karl Marx.

Perhaps the significance of this book lies in the fact that it is yet another sliver in Chilean memory elucidating the callous ideology behind the committed atrocities. By analysing this archive of documents, Dorat and Weibel have succeeded in reassembling the fragments of the dictatorship, most importantly eliminating the gap between the experienced violations and the dictatorship laws which ravaged the lives of thousands of Chileans.

Friday, January 27, 2012

Chile's Government Wages War on Historical Memory and Truth

This article was first published in Upside Down World here.
In his public ‘Letter to Chileans’ in 1998, Augusto Pinochet sought to reinforce oblivion by portraying the dictatorship as a memory of salvation from socialism, generating a justification amongst right wing sympathizers of the dictatorship. Prominent historians issued a ‘Manifesto of Historians’ in the newspapers, which challenged the portrayal of the coup as a legitimate military intervention which allowed the perpetrators to disassociate themselves from the atrocities committed under the dictatorship.[1]

The practice of countering memory by oblivion has been innovatively applied to the Chilean primary education system. The Minister of Education, Herald Beyer, approved a change in the primary education curriculum[2], stipulating that from the first through the sixth year of education, the term ‘military dictatorship will be obliterated from students’ history, geography and social sciences textbooks, to be replaced with ‘military regime’. Beyer, who was involved in Pinera’s presidential campaign, also formed part of the committee drafting the Ley General de Educacion (LEG)[3] during Michelle Bachelet’s presidency. According to a report in La Nacion, human rights lawyer and member of the Chilean Communist party Hugo Gutierrez is quoted as saying, "I have a document stating that at the time of former President Michelle Bachelet several universities were proposing the elimination of terms such as military dictatorship and human rights in education, to be replaced with 'essential rights'.”[4] The decision is due to be reviewed after it sparked an intense furore amongst Chileans.

The reason given for using ‘military regime’ in reference to the 1973 – 1990 era was, according to Beyer, to give a more general view of what happened in Chile. According to El Mostrador[5], the proposal states the necessity of imparting “different versions of what happened in Chile, the breakdown of democracy and subsequent restoration in the end of the 20th century, considering the different experiences of people during this time and the current consensus on the value of democracy.”

The decision to manipulate history and memory through primary education is reminiscent of Pinochet’s calls for practicing oblivion ‘to move forward’ and reinforces Chile’s split memory – vanquishing those who suffered by suffocating any possible mention of atrocities committed during the dictatorship. The decision sparked both outrage and acquiescence. Carlos Larrain of Renovacion Nacional[6] defended the National Council of Education and the Ministry of Education’s decision, saying that “... historical situations are subject to interpretation.” Larrain denied the existence of the dictatorship and stated that Chilean history should be taught “in a respectful manner”; also that Marxist socialism abused the concept of culture for political ends. Elizabeth Lira, from the National Council of Education stated that the change is “legitimate, since the government is formed of 50 percent of people who supported Pinochet.” A self-declared Pinochetista, Ivan Moreira from Unión Democrata Independiente (UDI), declared that eliminating the term ‘military dictatorship’ from the text books is “more just”. [7]

In an article published in El Quinto Poder[8], professor and historian Alberto Harambour expounded upon the ramifications of this controversial decision. Coercing language into neutrality translates into intentionally decreasing the power of vocabulary. This restriction, combined with the intention to eradicate the reality of Pinochet’s dictatorship, creates a violation of a person’s right to memory.

The shift from military dictatorship to military rule is an effort at raising a generation of people within the concept of oblivion. Politically, the term ‘military rule’ displaces blame, making it easy for students to view the soldiers as the sole perpetrators of violence while conveniently providing society with a euphemism for the dictatorship.

As Harambour states in his article, forcing students to deny any existence of the dictatorship threatens the stability of Chilean society – students are indoctrinated through the education system, lessening their social consciousness while damaging their right to creativity and memory. The decision will also serve to alienate young students from the generation who witnessed and endured horrors which the current government, through various methods, seeks to stifle while showing leniency towards many perpetrators of injustice who still wield power in Chile.

Amongst the National Council for Education members responsible for the curriculum changes is former CNI agent, General Alfredo Ewing Pinochet, who according to Gutierrez, was also head of the Chilean Army’s Intelligence. Gutierrez denounced Ewing Pinochet’s involvement in the issue as a conspiracy, stating that the inclusion of this former officer in educational matters “invalidates any reinterpretation of national history; particularly anything related to the dictatorship.”[9]

Vice President of Partido Radical Socialdemócrata (PRSD), Patricio Tombolini, accused the government of intentionally eliminating “Chile’s darkest historical period.”[10] Tombolini reiterated that students had the right to know about torture, concentration camps, human rights violations, genocide and exile. Instead of being ascertained that such atrocities must never happen again, the government has chosen to stifle 17 years of military dictatorship.

Senator Eduardo Frei of Democracia Cristiana (DC) also accused the government of attempting to change the collective memory of Chilean Society.[11] Frei’s father, former President Eduardo Frei, died during the dictatorship's tenure, enforcing his son’s belief that he was assassinated.

Echoing Alicia Lira, President of Agrupacion de Familiares de Detenidos Desaparecidos (AFDD), who described the changes as “a serious offence to the victims of state terrorism.” [12], Lorena Fríes, National Institute of Human Rights Director, expressed concern about the lack of transparency surrounding the decision to change the terminology. The political move is significant as it deviates from the formation of citizenship and the exercise of human rights as “...democracy implies knowing what happened during the dictatorship.”[13] Fríes added that negating the military dictatorship’s existence is a central theme for the institute, which strives to promote the education of human rights.

Since Jan. 5, an open letter to Minister Harald Beyer has been circulating online, garnering 5,000 signatures so far from civilians opposed to the elimination of dictatorship terminology. The letter calls on Beyer to retain the definition of Pinochet’s era as dictatorship, briefly citing the brutal repression, torture and extermination carried out by DINA and CNI “beyond all legality and ethics”. The letter deems the negation of the dictatorship as absurd (a view endorsed also by Chilean historian Gabriel Salazar) and an educational blunder which “prevents students from properly distinguishing the characteristics of dictatorship and democracy; a deficiency which hurts their civic education...What cannot be accommodated is the denial or trivialization in the curriculum of a fact as obvious and painful as the existence of a dictatorship in Chile between 1973 – 1990.”[14]

Senator Guido Girardi[15] has called for a special session in Parliament, hastening to add that “a minister who is an accomplice and wants to hide the fact that human rights were violated in Chile cannot remain Minister of Education.” He added that while the Council of Education may have made a mistake, an endorsement by the minister accepting the denial of human rights violations is unacceptable. [16]

In the latest developments, several Chilean students protested in Santiago against the attempt to eradicate the memory of the dictatorship. An organizer of the demonstration stated, “We wanted to make this public intervention to protest the Ministry of Education’s decision to change the meaning of what was experienced during the dictatorship period”. [17] The march ended, appropriately and significantly at Londres 38 – a detention and torture center during Pinochet’s dictatorship

Notes:
[1] Reckoning with Pinochet by Steve J Stern. Duke University Press, 2010
[5]http://www.elmostrador.cl/noticias/pais/2012/01/04/polemica-por-decision-del-mineduc-de-cambiar-el-termino-dictadura-por-gobierno-militar/