Allende, death of a Marxist dream (Book, 1981) [WorldCat.org] Find more libraries Librarian? Claim your library to Allende, death of a Marxist dream Author: Westport, CT : Arlington House, ©1981. Edition/Format: Print book : Biography : English View all editions and formats Database: WorldCat Summary: When Salvador Allende took power in Chile a decade ago, he was the world's first freely-elected Marxist president. Major newspapers sized it up as the most important event in Latin America since Fidel Castro, nearly a dozen years earlier, had swept down from the Sierra Maestra to seize power in Havana. Three years later Allende died in the rocket-blasted rubble of his presidential palace. He would rise from the dead to be transformed into what English writer David Holden would describe as the world's most potent cult figure since Che Guevara. - Jacket flap. Read more... Rating: You are connected to the University of Washington Libraries network Hide local services for this item OCLC FirstSearch Add library to Favorites Please choose whether or not you want other users to be able to see on your profile that this library is a favorite of yours.

Allow this favorite library to be seen by others Keep this favorite library private Find a copy in the library Finding libraries that hold this item... Details ix, 230 pages : illustrations ; 22 cm Responsibility: James R. Whelan. Abstract: When Salvador Allende took power in Chile a decade ago, he was the world's first freely-elected Marxist president. Major newspapers sized it up as the most important event in Latin America since Fidel Castro, nearly a dozen years earlier, had swept down from the Sierra Maestra to seize power in Havana. Three years later Allende died in the rocket-blasted rubble of his presidential palace. He would rise from the dead to be transformed into what English writer David Holden would describe as the world's most potent cult figure since Che Guevara. - Jacket flap. Reviews Add a review and share your thoughts with other readers. Be the first. Add a review and share your thoughts with other readers. Be the first.

Tags Latin America's leftist leaders - Rear Vision - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) Latin America's leftist leaders Broadcast: Sunday 31 August 2008 8:30AM Since the election of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela ten years ago, left-leaning leaders have been elected in half a dozen other Latin American countries. What has caused this political wave and what are the implications for the United States, long a player in the region? Transcript Keri Phillips: Hello, this is Rear Vision on ABC Radio National. I'm Keri Phillips. Reporter: Paraguay's ruling party, the longest-serving political party in the world, has been displaced after 62 years in power, by a former Roman Catholic bishop. LANGUAGE Translation: You have decided that Paraguay is going to be an independent and free country. Thanks, thanks, to you all. Keri Phillips: That's Fernando Lugo, who, in April this year, became Paraguay's first freely-elected leftist President. He joins a string of left and centre-left leaders elected in Latin America during the last decade in Venezuela, Bolivia, Uruguay, Ecuador, Brazil, Chile, and Argentina.

Today on Rear Vision we'll look at how this tilt to the left happened and what it means for the region's relationship with the United States, long a player, sometimes covertly, in Latin American affairs. During a recent trip to Washington, D.C., I spoke to Professor Philip Brenner, a specialist in U.S. policy toward Latin America. He told me that the US started to take an interest in Latin America in the early 19th century when Spain began to give up its colonies, and it soon developed the policy that still underpins its approach to its southern neighbours. Philip Brenner: The formal recognition of U.S. interests in Latin America is the famous Monroe Doctrine of 1823, and in that statement, President Monroe said that the Americas were different than Europe, and that the Americas ought to be protected from Europe by the United States. There are several elements of the Monroe Doctrine that very grating for Latin Americans. One is a paternalistic idea that the Latin Americans can't take care of themselves; and the second is that the Monroe Doctrine was issued unilaterally. The Latin Americans hadn't asked for it. The Monroe Doctrine still governs the way in which the United States thinks about Latin America.

It has no bearing in law, it's just a statement of intent, but the idea of Monroeism that we are responsible for Latin America, meaning that we should control Latin America, still is evident in US policy. Keri Phillips: European colonial powers had not left behind societies in which democracy could flourish. Philip Brenner: Latin America did not have a tradition of democratic rule. In some cases there were military leaders who took charge; in some cases there were authoritarian leaders backed by the military; in some cases there were church leaders who dominated. Always it was the large landholders though, who were the people who were protecting their large landholdings and those landholdings were created by the Spanish. So it was really the material conditions, the circumstances of a kind of feudal arrangement for the development of the continent that led Latin America to have authoritarian governments. Unlike the United States, in Latin America there tended to not be as much settler colonialism. And settler colonialism often brings with it a sense of rights that the European settlers felt they ought to have, and that didn't quite exist in Latin America.

Keri Phillips: These small political and economic elites, composed of land-owners, the military and the Catholic Church, lined up as either liberals or conservatives, divided only by gradations in their commitment to the old colonial values. But Professor Greg Grandin, a historian at New York University, says that the demand for democracy had been part of the political debate, even in the 19th century. Greg Grandin: Well democracy was an issue but there were different notions of what democracy entailed. For elites it would be very procedural democracy with a limited franchise. But throughout Latin American history in the 19th century there's been these mass movements that have always tried to democratise, that are pushed to democratise society in a much more social direction. In Mexico, the Mexican Revolution, the peasant movements associated with Emiliano Zapata, had a notion of peasant democracy that would entail continued access to land held on a communal basis. And so democracy was very much at stake in a lot of these struggles and what was often being fought over was the meaning of democracy. Keri Phillips: During the 1940s, democracy flourished in Latin America, but the end of World War II was followed by an era of dictatorship and political repression.

In the post-war period, as the fight for social justice intensified across the region, the United States became more active in both protecting its financial investments and ensuring stability, no matter what the cost. Greg Grandin: Between 1944 and 1946 there's this enormous explosion of democracy in Latin America. One country after another embraces not just democracy but some form of social democracy. In 1944 there's only five countries that could be considered democratic. Two years later, in '46, there's only five countries that can't be considered democratic. But by 1948 those numbers flip again. By 1948 there's been this right-wing backlash, conservative backlash, which corresponds exactly to the beginning of the broader international Cold War in which these local conflicts become caught up in the politics of anti-communism. Philip Brenner: The American interest was fuelled in the 1950s and '60s by a desire for control, for domination.

It perceived that communism, it put the opposition to US domination in Cold War terms, calling it Marxist, Communist, because that was the language the opponents had, not necessarily they were allied with the Soviet Union, but they used the language of opposition, and the language of opposition at the time was Marxist, and in the United States there is not much sophistication about that. So the opponents were simply called Communists, Soviet dupes, and so the Cold War seemed to dominate. But what was really underlying that was a US interest in domination. Remarkably in the early 1960s there were democracies throughout Latin America, and the United States, fearing that there would be a spread of Castroism, the kind of revolution that occurred in Cuba, initiated the Alliance for Progress. The Alliance for Progress had two aims: one was development of the countries economically, and even President Kennedy and the people in the Alliance for Progress, recognised that the disparities in Latin America were a source of difficulty and instability. But at the same time, they wanted to protect the society from what they thought were guerrillas who were attacking the existing governments. And so they gave a lot of money to the militaries in Latin America. They had both essentially a carrot and a stick.

Those militaries were very closely allied with the very oligarchs who were preventing equality in those countries, and by the end of the 1960s, in virtually every country in Latin America, democracies had been overthrown and they were military dictatorships. Keri Phillips: Perhaps the most notorious example of American interference in the democratic process in Latin America was the coup against the Socialist government in Chile in 1973. Presenter: As we were saying earlier, the military takeover in Chile has ousted Salvador Allende who had been the world's one and only elected Marxist President. Reporter: Allende had long blamed the United States for much of his strife, and in particular, the CIA. The Marxist President charged Washington with trying to isolate and finally strangle Chile economically, while at the same time providing encouragement and financial support to Allende's political enemies. The Nixon Administration denied having any such involvement, though it made clear its opposition to Marxism in Latin America in any form. Keri Phillips: And the election of President Ronald Reagan in 1980 ushered in an era of even greater interference, especially in Central America.

Reporter: According to reliable estimates, close to 10,000 people have died in El Salvador in the past year, in fighting between left and right-wing guerrillas, and at the hands of the security forces. The election of Ronald Reagan has also become an element in the increasingly complex equation. According to some observers, the accession of Mr Reagan has provided encouragement to the extreme right in El Salvador. Red Harrison: The tiny Central American country of Nicaragua is voting this morning in an election already dismissed by President Reagan as a Soviet-style sham. Of course Mr Reagan isn't altogether impartial on this issue, because America is training and financing right-wing rebels who are trying to overthrow the left-wing Sandinista government. Greg Grandin: Domestically, the Reagan Administration represented the coming to power of a kind of new right, or new conservative movement. What that meant in practice was a much more willingness on the Republican Party to use overt violence in order to achieve its goals. So what you saw in Central America was a much more direct engagement where previously the US would work behind the scenes.

The Reagan Administration was openly supporting these very - you know, the Contras in Nicaragua which were insurgents made up by the remnants of Somoza, the ex-dictator's National Guard who were particularly vicious and brutal. The same is true of the governments in Guatemala and El Salvador that the US supported, which killed hundreds of thousands of people and disappeared tens of thousands more. Central America, really, it was one of the Cold War's last killing fields. Philip Brenner: If I could go back a second: recall that the Cuban Revolution of 1959 was not a communist revolution, in fact the communists in Cuba opposed the revolution. Castro ultimately became a communist as he gained aid from the Soviet Union, but it was his own version of communism. But yes, the Castro-Soviet alliance did contribute to the US fears. By the 1980s that was much less a concern, particularly as the Soviet Union was in decline. Except, in Central America, the Reagan Administration continued to articulate a fear of a Soviet beach-head and pointed to the Sandinistas who were not communists, they were socialists, Social Democrats in fact, as the enemy.

They did receive some aid from the Soviet Union, not very much, they received much more aid from Cuba, in fact. They received aid from France and Britain, countries that were allied to the United States, but from the Washington perspective, a very simplistic Manichaean good versus bad point of view, the countries in Central America were still part of that Cold War mentality. South America was different, because in South America, there weren't the same kind of movements, except in Colombia and in Peru, and so in South America the focus was largely on actually promoting democracy, and by the late 1980s most of the countries in South America had once again returned to democracy. Keri Phillips: Just as the Cold War had transformed US-Latin American relations, so too did the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the 1980s. During the Clinton Administration, as repressive military dictatorships gradually gave way to democratically elected governments, the US helped usher in a brave new economic era. Greg Grandin: Things had already started to change.

I mean the terror that was launched during the Cold War against the left and against nationalists and against Democrats in Latin America had effectively narrowed the set of options available to Latin Americans, and the United States and countries like Chile began to support the return to democracy, but a very narrow definition of democracy in which democracy was defined not through any kind of social redistribution of wealth, but through proceduralism and political rights, and also began to support what Latin Americans called neo-liberalism, a kind of opening up of Latin America's economy to international capital. International capital in this sense being specifically US capital, because of Latin America's subordinate role to the United States in the hemisphere, and so those became the twin policies of Clinton, which was basically some form of return to democracy but a very restricted form of democracy, and market economics and a lot of that stuff becomes codified in WTO and NAFTA and GATT, international contracts and agreements. Presenter: Argentina, under the presidency of Carlos Menem this decade has undergone perhaps the most radical rationalisation program of any Latin American nation, with wholesale privatisations of State-owned enterprises, pegging the currency by law to the US dollar, and reducing hyper-inflation to just 3%.

On the downside, unemployment's nudging 20% and taxes are up, including a whopping 21% sales tax, and four consecutive years of growth have stalled. But there's a palpable sense of stoicism among Argentineans that they'll keep taking the Menem medicine, rather than avoid returning to the days of repression, hyper-inflation and uncertainty. Keri Phillips: Although the period of neo-liberalism had left the economies of several countries in ruins, the machinery of democracy had largely been restored, and by the end of the 1990s voters in many Latin American countries took the opportunity to start putting in charge the wave of left and centre-left leaders we see in the region today. Philip Brenner: Ironically the return of democracy was the necessary condition to allow the rise, because the right-wing military governments were quite repressive and wouldn't allow any space for this kind of movement. And the varieties of left in South America, from people like Lula in Brazil who are largely willing to work with the United States, although from a position of respect, demanding a kind of equal treatment.

And the same in, I'd say, the case of Michelle Batchelet in Chile to much more strident opponents like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, they all share a history of opposition to the oligarchs that the United States had once supported. And so there is a distancing from the United States even in cases where countries are willing to work with the United States, the kind of fear that once dominated Latin American leaders of the United States, I think doesn't exist any more. There is a sense that they can extract from the United States things that they want without having to give up their soul, that they can work with the United States to develop their economies, but not be totally dependent on the United States. There's an extraordinary maturity on the part of the left leaders in Latin America, and to some extent, they benefit. People like Lula and Batchelet benefit from the stridency of an Hugo Chavez that make them seem more moderate. Keri Phillips: Nikolas Kozloff is the author of several books on Latin America, the most recent of which is 'Revolution! : South America and the Rise of the New Left'.

Nikolas Kozloff: When Hugo Chavez first emerged in 1998 even though he'd been on the Venezuelan political scene even before that, but basically he won the presidency in 1998 and that's when he came to prominence and I think at that time, a lot of people probably thought that Hugo Chavez is some kind of anachronistic throwback; at that time many South American countries were in the midst of the so-called neo-liberal reform, based on the dictates of the International Monetary Fund and large international financial institutions backed by Washington. Few I think suspected though that in a way, Chavez was ahead of the curve, and I think that certainly after 2001 when the United States became more concerned with developments in the Middle East, that opened up the possibility for other left-leaning regimes emerging in Argentina, as a result of the financial collapse in 2001, in Brazil under Lula da Silva, Ecuador, most recently Paraguay, and so I think with the United States distracted in the Middle East, that in part, not entirely, but I think in part, that explains the fact that there was an opening at least, a political opening for a lot of these forces to emerge.

Keri Phillips: Dr Wayne Smith, Visiting Professor of Latin American Studies at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, says that the election of so many left-wing leaders in Latin America is also in part a response to the election of George W. Bush in the United States. Wayne Smith: I think the trend was there already. We were seeing a trend in Latin America towards breaking away from the United States, not following the path indicated by the United States any longer. We saw that in the last years of the Clinton Administration and the US Congress was already taking measures, sort of unilateral measures that offended other countries, and was I would say, beginning the process. But then George Bush comes in and begins a policy of unilateralism, sort of the United States will do what it wishes, we won't necessarily follow international law, we won't necessarily follow what United Nations indicates, and it really I think offended other countries. But more than that, got them to thinking you know, We have to look out for ourselves; we can't depend upon the United States any longer, we can't depend upon its adjustments, can't depend upon what it believes is in the best interests of all, we have to follow our own inclinations, independent of the United States.

So I'd say the trend which had already begun, has been tremendously accelerated by reaction to the Bush Administration. Keri Phillips: Throughout the second half of the 20th century, successive US governments had viewed those opposed to the governments they supported as Marxists and Communists. But these new leftist leaders in Latin America are not throwbacks to the Cold War, even though some of them, like Hugo Chavez, specialise in anti-US rhetoric. What then does it mean to be 'left wing' in Latin America? Philip Brenner: Well in fact some of them are, have a Marxist orientation in the sense that they've read Marx, they focus on issues of worker exploitation, of exploitation of poor by the rich. You know, Latin America has the worst disparities of wealth of any place in the world, and so it's easy to see that in Marxist terms, and after all, most of left leaders of Latin America even when they're not schooled in Marxism, do focus on the poor, even the Liberation Theology, which developed in Latin America, talked about having a privileged position for the poor. What the left leaders in Latin America have in common is putting a priority on reducing the inequality in the region.

Wayne Smith: Most of them are insistent upon going their own way, and trying to find their own way to make a better life for their people. There was a time of course when you said leftist you probably had that in mind. They'd be Marxist or Communist. Not any more, except to some extent in Cuba I suppose probably Raoul Castro still considers himself to be a communist. But otherwise, they're all to the left, in other words they don't believe in private enterprise as some sort of a sacred totem, they're all willing to have State intervention in the economy, to some extent or another. And all believe in social welfare. The idea is not simply that companies and individuals make a buck, and enrich themselves, no that's not it. The idea is that you have a system which provides for the people, to one degree or another, some are more successful at it than others to be sure. But that's the general idea. Greg Grandin: Latin Americans want some kind of economic system in which it's not just about absolute growth for its own sake, but that democracy entails some kind of quality or social welfare, and so you're seeing that in one country after another.

What makes it possible to a large degree, a lot of people like to blame the Iraq War as a distraction, but that's not really what I think was causing it. I think that what you saw happening in the last 20 years is building up of alternative sources of capital in the Middle East, in China in particular, in Russia, in Europe, alternative markets outside of the US in those same countries, and a deepening integration among Latin American countries that have allowed Latin American countries some 'wiggle-room' which the United States doesn't have as much predominant power as it used to have in order to set the terms of debate so it allows some kind of political autonomy. And in many ways, there're not particularly left-wing, they're not talking about a radical transformation, I mean Chavez does talk a little bit about 21st century socialism, but for the most part, left-wing basically in this sense just means it's most specific referent is in relationship to the United States, a set of policies that are trying to weaken the United States' predominant influence in the region.

One of the things that's interesting about Latin America now is that if you look at the array of left-wing leaders, there's somebody represents every single one of Latin America's left tradition. You have the unionist in Brazil, you have the radical priest now in Paraguay, you have the indigenous leader in Bolivia, you have a left-wing economist in Ecuador, you have an ex-guerrilla leader in Nicaragua, you have a left-wing military nationalist in Venezuela, and you have a Social Democratic feminist in Chile. So what you see in Latin America is this whole cross-section of the history of the Latin American Left in government. Keri Phillips: Professor Greg Grandin from New York University. We also heard from Dr Wayne Smith, Nikolas Kozloff, and Professor Philip Brenner from American University in Washington, D.C. Timothy Nicastri is the technical producer for Rear Vision today. I'm Keri Phillips. 'Bye till next time.

Guests Leftist Salvador Allende elected president of Chile - Oct 24, 1970 - HISTORY.com Leftist Salvador Allende elected president of Chile Share this: Leftist Salvador Allende elected president of Chile Author Leftist Salvador Allende elected president of Chile URL Publisher A+E Networks Salvador Allende, an avowed Marxist, becomes president of Chile after being confirmed by the Chilean congress. For the next three years, the United States would exert tremendous pressure to try to destabilize and unseat the Allende government. Allende’s election in 1970 was his third attempt at the presidency. In 1958, and again in 1964, Allende had run on a socialist/communist platform. In both elections, the United States government (as well as U.S. businesses such as International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT), which had significant investments in Chile) worked to defeat Allende by sending millions of dollars of assistance to his political opponents. In 1970, the United States again worked for Allende’s defeat, but he finished first out of the four candidates.

However, since he had garnered less than 40 percent of the popular vote, the final decision had to be made by the Chilean congress. The United States worked feverishly to derail Allende’s selection but the election was upheld on October 24, 1970. Allende immediately confirmed the worst fears of U.S. officials when he extended diplomatic recognition to North Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba, and also began to take action to nationalize the holdings of U.S. corporations in Chile, notably ITT and Kennecott Copper. U.S. officials also believed that Allende was supporting revolutionary activities in Latin America and viewed him as a significant threat to hemispheric security and U.S. economic interests in Chile. Yet, Allende posed an interesting problem. Unlike Castro, he had come to power peacefully and democratically. Thus, the United States could hardly launch a Bay-of-Pigs-like attack on the Allende regime. Undaunted, the administration of President Richard Nixon began to formulate plans to destabilize the Chilean government and see to the removal of Allende.

These plans came to fruition in 1973 when a coup by the Chilean military overthrew Allende and assassinated him. Related Videos Chile: History History History Early History Before the arrival of the Spanish in the 16th cent., the Araucanians had long been in control of the land in the southern part of the region; in the north, the inhabitants were ruled by the Inca empire. Diego de Almagro , who was sent by Francisco Pizarro from Peru to explore the southern region, led a party of men through the Andes into the central lowlands of Chile but was unsuccessful (1536) in establishing a foothold there. In 1540, Pedro de Valdivia marched into Chile and, despite stout resistance from the Araucanians, founded Santiago (1541) and later established La Serena, Concepción, and Valdivia. After an initial period of incessant warfare with the natives, the Spanish succeeded in subjugating the indigenous population.

Although Chile was unattractive to the Spanish because of its isolation from Peru to the north and its lack of precious metals (copper was discovered much later), the Spanish developed a pastoral society there based on large ranches and haciendas worked by indigenous people; the yields were shipped to Peru. During the long colonial era, the mestizos became a tenant farmer class, called inquilinos; although technically free, most were in practice bound to the soil. During most of the colonial period Chile was a captaincy general dependent upon the viceroyalty of Peru, but in 1778 it became a separate division virtually independent of Peru. Territorial limits were ill-defined and were the cause, after independence, of long-drawn-out boundary disputes with Peru, Bolivia, and Argentina. The movement toward independence began in 1810 under the leadership of Juan Martínez de Rozas and Bernardo O'Higgins . The first phase (1810–14) ended in defeat at Rancagua , largely because of the rivalry of O'Higgins with José Miguel Carrera and his brothers.

In 1817, José de San Martín , with incredible hardship, brought an army over the Andes from Argentina to Chile. The following year he won the decisive battle of Maipú over the Spaniards. The New Nation O'Higgins, who had been chosen supreme director, formally proclaimed Chile's independence Feb. 12, 1818, at Talca and established a military autocracy that characterized the republic's politics until 1833; O'Higgins ruled Chile from 1818 until 1823, when strong opposition to his policies forced him to resign. During this time the British expatriot Lord Cochrane, commanding the Chilean navy, cleared (1819–20) the coast of Spanish shipping, and in 1826 the remaining royalists were driven from Chiloé island, their last foothold on Chilean soil. The colonial aristocracy and the clergy had been discredited because of royalist leanings. The army, plus a few intellectuals, established a government devoid of democratic forms.

Yet with the centralistic constitution of 1833, fashioned largely by Diego Portales on Chile's particular needs, a foundation was laid for the gradual emergence of parliamentary government and a long period of stability. During the administrations of Manuel Bulnes (1841–51) and Manuel Montt (1851–61) the country experienced governmental reform and material progress. The war of 1866 between Peru and Spain involved Chile and led the republic to fortify its coast and build a navy. Chileans obtained the right to work the nitrate fields in the Atacama, which then belonged to Bolivia. Trouble over the concessions led in 1879 to open war (see Pacific, War of the ). Chile was the victor and added valuable territories taken from Bolivia and Peru; a long-standing quarrel also ensued, the Tacna-Arica Controversy , which was finally settled in 1929. Chile also became involved in serious border troubles with Argentina; it was as a sign and symbol of the end of this trouble that the Christ of the Andes was dedicated in 1904.

With the exploitation of nitrate and copper by foreign interests, chiefly the United States, prosperity continued. The Transandine Railway was completed in 1910 (closed 1982), and many more railroads were built. Industrialization, which soon raised Chile to a leading position among South American nations, was begun. Meanwhile, internal struggles between the executive and legislative branches of the government intensified and resulted (1891) in the overthrow of José Balmaceda . A congressional dictatorship (with a figurehead president and cabinet ministers appointed by the congress) controlled the government until the constitution of 1925, which provided for a strong president. Former president Arturo Alessandri (who had instituted a program of labor reforms during his tenure from 1920 to 1924, and who commanded widespread popular support) was recalled (1925) as a caretaker until elections were held. Radicals vs. Conservatives Although Chile enjoyed economic prosperity between 1926 and 1931, it was very hard hit by the world economic depression, largely because of its dependence on mineral exports and fluctuating world markets.

Large-scale unemployment also had occurred after World War I when the nitrate market collapsed. The rise of the laboring classes was marked by unionization, and there were many Marxists who advocated complete social reform. The struggle between radicals and conservatives led to a series of social experiments and to counterattempts to suppress the radicals (especially the Communists) by force. During Arturo Alessandri's second term (1932–38) a measure of economic stability was restored; however, he turned to repressive measures and alienated the working classes. A democratic-leftist coalition, the Popular Front, took power after the elections of 1938. Chile broke relations with the Axis (1943) and declared war on Japan in 1945. Economic stability, the improvement of labor conditions, and the control of Communists were the chief aims of the administration of Gabriel González Videla, who was elected president in 1946. He ruled with the support of the Communists until 1948, when he gained the support of the Liberal party and outlawed the Communists.

His efforts, as well as those of his successors, Carlos Ibáñez del Campo (1952–58) and Jorge Alessandri (1958–64), were hampered by chronic inflation and repeated labor crises. In the 1964 presidential election (in which Eduardo Frei Montalva was elected) and in the 1965 congressional elections, the Christian Democratic party won overwhelming victories over the Socialist-Communist coalition. Frei made advances in land reform, education, housing, and labor. Under his so-called Chileanization program, the government assumed a controlling interest in U.S.-owned copper mines while cooperating with U.S. companies in their management and development. Allende, Pinochet, and Present-Day Chile In 1970, Salvador Allende Gossens , head of the Popular Unity party, a coalition of leftist political parties, won a plurality of votes in the presidential election and became the first Marxist to be elected president by popular vote in Latin America. Allende, in an attempt to turn Chile into a socialist state, nationalized many private companies, instituted programs of land reform, and, in foreign affairs, sought closer ties with Communist countries.

Widespread domestic problems, including spiraling inflation, lack of food and consumer goods, stringent government controls, and opposition from some sectors to Allende's programs, led to a series of violent strikes and demonstrations. As the situation worsened, the traditionally neutral Chilean military began to pressure Allende; he yielded to some of their demands and appointed military men to several high cabinet positions. In Sept., 1973, with covert American support, the armed forces staged a coup during which Allende died by his own hand; it also led to the execution, detention, or expulsion from Chile of thousands of people. Gen. Augusto Pinochet Ugarte took control of the country. The economy continued to deteriorate, even though the government sought to return private enterprise to Chile by denationalizing many industries and by compensating businesses taken over by the Allende government. In 1974, Pinochet became the undisputed leader of Chile, assuming the position of head of state, and in 1977 he abolished all political parties and restricted human and civil rights.

Unemployment and labor unrest grew, although the economy improved steadily between 1976 and 1981 with the help of foreign bank loans and an increase in world copper prices. In the early 1980s, the country was plagued by a recession and foreign debt grew significantly, but the economy leveled off late in the decade. The 1981 constitution guaranteed elections in 1989, and in the 1980s political parties began to re-form despite Pinochet's opposition. In Oct., 1988, the electorate voted against the extension of Pinochet's term to 1997. In 1989, Patricio Aylwin Azócar , a member of the Christian Democratic party who headed a coalition of 17 center and left parties, was elected president by popular vote. However, under the military-drafted constitution, Pinochet remained head of the army. Under Aylwin, Chile again turned toward democracy; the country's economy strengthened, as its exports were increased and its debt lowered.

In 1994, Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle, the son of Allende's predecessor, a Christian Democrat, and the leader of another center-left coalition, became president. Frei's free-market policies led to a massive flow of foreign investment. Pinochet stepped down as head of the army in 1998 and was made a senator for life. Later that year, during a visit to London, Pinochet was arrested and held for possible extradition to Spain, on charges stemming from his repressive regime; he was released for health reasons and returned to Chile in Mar., 2000. Falling copper prices, exacerbated by an Asian economic crisis, caused economic and social problems in 1998 and 1999. Ricardo Lagos Escobar narrowly defeated Joaquín Lavín of the right-wing Alliance for Chile in a runoff election in Jan., 2000. Lagos, the candidate of the Christian Democratic–Socialist coalition, became Chile's first Socialist president since Allende. A moderate leftist, he appointed a cabinet consisting largely of nonideological technocrats. The military violence of the Pinochet era remains an incompletely resolved issue in Chilean society.

Under Lagos investigations into human rights cases proceeded to a greater extent than his two civilian predecessors, although not with the vigor demanded by some leftists and rights advocates. In 2000 prosecutors successfully brought human-rights-related charges against Pinochet, but they were dismissed because of health issues. A new criminal investigation began in 2004, and revelations of hidden offshore bank accounts led to tax evasion charges as well; this time the charges were not dismissed, but his death in 2006 ended all attempts to try him. A government report (2004) on the Pinochet regime denounced its widespread use of torture and illegal imprisonment and led the Chilean congress to enact a compensation program for the victims of military rule. In addition, the army accepted institutional responsibility for the human rights abuses that occurred under Pinochet. Since 2004 a number of former senior military officers in Pinochet's régime have been convicted of crimes relating to murders and other human rights offenses following the coup. In 2005, the constitution was amended to reduce the national influence of the military and reassert civilian control over it, eliminating the vestiges of Pinochet's dictatorship that had been preserved in the document.

Also in 2005, the border with Peru again became a source of international tension as Peru laid claim to offshore fishing waters the Chile controlled. Michelle Bachelet , a Socialist and a defense minister under Lagos, was elected president in Jan., 2006, after a runoff; she was the first woman to be elected president of Chile. Bachelet, the center-left candidate, won more than 53% of the vote, defeating conservative business entrepreneur Sebastián Piñera . The center-left coalition also won majorities in both houses of the Chilean congress. In June, 2006, Chile saw massive protests over secondary school funding, some of which resulted in clashes with the police, and in early 2007, there were significant protests in Santiago over the disruption caused by a new public transportation system. The nation weathered the 2008–9 global financial crisis and recession relatively well as the government used financial reserves from the 2003–8 copper boom for a stimulus program.

Twenty years of center-left rule ended in 2010 when Piñera defeated Frei Ruiz-Tagle, the former president who was the center-left candidate, in a January runoff election. Piñera's coalition also won a plurality in the lower house of the congress, but lost the upper house. In Feb., 2010, the country was struck by a devastating earthquake, and significant aftershocks occurred in subsequent weeks. The worst damage was in Concepción and surrounding areas, but significant damage also occurred in Santiago and Valparaiso. Areas along the central coast also suffered from tsunamis. Deaths from the temblor were in the hundreds, but damage was estimated to be $30 billion. Some 220,000 homes were destroyed, and the wine and fishing industries were particularly affected by the earthquake. By mid-2012, however, the Chilean government estimated that three fourths of the needed reconstruction had been completed. In the 2013 presidential election, Bachelet ran for a second term and, after falling short of an outright victory in the first round, handily won the runoff, defeating conservative Evelyn Matthei Fornet.

Bachelet's coalition also won majorities in both houses of the Chilean congress. Sections in this article: Salvador Allende Salvador Allende ▼ Primary Sources ▼ Salvador Allende Salvador Allende was born in Valparaiso, Chile , in 1903. As a medical student he became involved in radical politics and he was arrested several times while at university. In 1933 Allende helped to found the Chilean Socialist Party , a Marxist organization that was opposed to the Soviet Union influenced Communist Party . Allende was elected to the Chamber of Deputies in 1937 and served in the government of Pedro Aguirre Cerda as Minister of Health (1939-41). He was also senator between 1945 and 1970. Allende was an unsuccessful candidate for president in 1952, 1958 and 1964. When he was elected as president in 1970 he became the first Marxist to gain power in a free democratic election. The new government faced serious economic problems. Inflation was running at 30 per cent and over 20 per cent of the male adult population were unemployed.

It was estimated that half of the children under 15 suffered from malnutrition. Allende's decide to take action to redistribute wealth and land in Chile . Wage increases of around 40 per cent were introduced. At the same time companies were not allowed to increase prices. The copper industry was nationalized. So also were the banks. Allende also restored diplomatic relations with Cuba , China and the German Democratic Republic . The CIA arranged for Michael V. Townley to be sent to Chile under the alias of Kenneth W. Enyart. He was accompanied by Aldo Vera Serafin of the Secret Army Organization (SAO). Townley now came under the control of David Atlee Phillips who had been asked to lead a special task force assigned to remove Allende. The CIA attempted to persuade Chile's Chief of Staff General Rene Schneider , to overthrow Allende. He refused and on 22nd October, 1970, his car was ambushed. Schneider drew a gun to defend himself, and was shot point-blank several times. He was rushed to hospital, but he died three days later.

Military courts in Chile found that Schneider's death was caused by two military groups, one led by Roberto Viaux and the other by Camilo Valenzuela . It was claimed that the CIA was providing support for both groups. Allende's attempts to build a socialist society was opposed by business interests. Later, Henry Kissinger admitted that in September 1970, President Richard Nixon ordered him to organize a coup against Allende's government. A CIA document written just after Allende was elected said: "It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup" and "it is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG (United States government) and American hand be well hidden." David Atlee Phillips set Michael V. Townley the task of organizing two paramilitary action groups Orden y Libertad (Order and Freedom) and Protecion Comunal y Soberania (Common Protection and Sovereignty). Townley also established an arson squad that started several fires in Santiago. Townley also mounted a smear campaign against General Carlos Prats , the head of the Chilean Army. Prats resigned on 21st August, 1973.

On 11th September, 1973, a military coup removed Allende's government from power. Salvador Allende died in the fighting in the presidential palace in Santiago. General Augusto Pinochet replaced Allende as president. (1) Larry Rohter, New York Times (13th February, 2000) With a trial of General Augusto Pinochet increasingly unlikely here, victims of the Chilean military's 17-year dictatorship are now pressing legal actions in both Chilean and American courts against Henry A. Kissinger and other Nixon administration officials who supported plots to overthrow Salvador Allende Gossens, the Socialist president, in the early 1970's. In perhaps the most prominent of the cases, an investigating judge here has formally asked Mr. Kissinger, a former national security adviser and secretary of state, and Nathaniel Davis, the American ambassador to Chile at the time, to respond to questions about the killing of an American citizen, Charles Horman, after the deadly military coup that brought General Pinochet to power on Sept. 11, 1973.

General Pinochet, now 85, ruled Chile until 1990. He was arrested in London in 1998 on a Spanish warrant charging him with human rights violations. After 16 months in custody, General Pinochet was released by Britain because of his declining health. Although he was arrested in Santiago in 2000, he was ruled mentally incompetent to stand trial. The death of Mr. Horman, a filmmaker and journalist, was the subject of the 1982 movie "Missing." A civil suit that his widow, Joyce Horman, filed in the United States was withdrawn after she could not obtain access to relevant American government documents. But the initiation of legal action here against General Pinochet and the declassification of some American documents led her to file a new suit here 15 months ago. William Rogers, Mr. Kissinger's lawyer, said in a letter that because the investigations in Chile and elsewhere related to Mr. Kissinger "in his capacity as secretary of state," the Department of State should respond to the issues that have been raised. He added that Mr.

Kissinger is willing to "contribute what he can from his memory of those distant events," but did not say how or where that would occur. Relatives of General René Schneider, commander of the Chilean Armed Forces when he was assassinated in Oct. 1970 by other military officers, have taken a different approach than Mrs. Horman. Alleging summary execution, assault and civil rights violations, they filed a $3 million civil suit in Washington last fall against Mr. Kissinger, Richard M. Helms, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and other Nixon-era officials who, according to declassified United States documents, were involved in plotting a military coup to keep Mr. Allende from power. In his books, Mr. Kissinger has acknowledged that he initially followed Mr. Nixon's orders in Sept. 1970 to organize a coup, but he also says that he ordered the effort shut down a month later. The government documents, however, indicate that the C.I.A. continued to encourage a coup here and also provided money to military officers who had been jailed for General Schneider's death.

"My father was neither for or against Allende, but a constitutionalist who believed that the winner of the election should take office," René Schneider Jr. said. "That made him an obstacle to Mr. Kissinger and the Nixon government, and so they conspired with generals here to carry out the attack on my father and to plot a coup attempt." In another action, human rights lawyers here have filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Kissinger and other American officials, accusing them of helping organize the covert regional program of political repression called Operation Condor. As part of that plan, right-wing military dictatorships in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay coordinated efforts throughout the 1970's to kidnap and kill hundreds of their exiled political opponents. (2) Stansfield Turner , Secrecy and Democracy (1985) The most adverse exposure was a series of revelations about more than ten years of CIA interference in Chile, from 1963 to 1973. This was one of the most massive campaigns in US intelligence annals.

The earliest effort was an attempt to shape the outcome of the 1964 presidential election in Chile, when the CIA underwrote more than half of the expenses of the Christian Democratic Party's campaign. This support was directed at defeating the communist candidate, Salvador Allende. It was probably not known to the Christian Democratic candidate, Eduardo Frei. In addition to funding Frei, the CIA waged an extensive anticommunist propaganda campaign, using posters, the radio, films, pamphlets, and the press, to convince the Chileans that Allende and communism would bring to their country Soviet militarism and Cuban brutality. As part of this campaign, hundreds of thousands of copies of an anticommunist pastoral letter of Pope Pius XI were distributed. Frei won handily, but allegations of CIA involvement seeped out. As a result, the CIA was reluctant to play as large a role in the next Chilean presidential election, in 1970. Not only was its role smaller; it did not support a specific candidate. The effort was directed strictly against Allende and was based primarily on propaganda, employing virtually all Chilean media and some of the international press as well.

The program failed when Allende won a plurality, though not a majority, of the popular vote. Under Chilean electoral law, that threw the choice to a joint session of the legislature some seven weeks later. At the direction of the White House, the CIA moved to prevent the selection and inauguration of Allende. It attempted to induce his political opponents to manipulate the legislative election up to and including a political coup. Some 726 articles, broadcasts, editorials, and similar items were sponsored in the United States and Chile, and many briefings were given to the press. One of those, to Time magazine, reversed the magazine's attitude toward Allende. The overall effort failed, however, because of the unwillingness of the appropriate Chilean politicians to tamper with the constitutional process. Complementing the CIA effort, the US government exerted economic pressure on Chile, again to no avail. A second approach, entirely under CIA auspices, encouraged a military coup. President Richard Nixon directed that neither the Departments of State and Defense nor the US Ambassador to Chile be informed of this undertaking. During a disorganized coup attempt that took place on October 22, the Chief of Staff of the Chilean Army was murdered.

The CIA had originally encouraged the group responsible, but sensing that this group was likely to get out of control, the Agency had withdrawn its support a week earlier. Allende was installed as President on November 2. Over the next three years, until 1973, the National Security Council authorized the CIA to expend some $7 million covertly to oppose Allende with propaganda, financial support for anti-Allende media in Chile, and funding for private organizations opposed to Allende. Other agencies of the US government applied economic and political pressure. On September 11, 1973, the Chilean military staged a coup in which Allende died, reportedly by suicide. The CIA did not sponsor this coup, but how much its encouragement of the 1970 coup and its continued liaison with the Chilean military encouraged the action is honestly difficult to assess. With Allende gone, the decade-long covert action program was phased out. More was at stake, though, than covert action in Chile.

The coup-related deaths in both 1970 and 1973 and the exposure of the role of the United States in helping to topple a democratically elected government, albeit a Marxist one, brought intense scrutiny to the ethics of using covert action to change the political complexion of other countries. As a result, such covert action came to a near halt by the mid 1970s. (3) Julian Borger, The Guardian (6th July, 2001) A judge in Santiago has drawn up a list of questions for the US statesman and Nobel laureate, Henry Kissinger, about the 1973 killing of the American journalist Charles Horman, whose execution by forces loyal to General Augusto Pinochet was dramatized in the Hollywood film, Missing. The questions, drawn up by the investigating magistrate Juan Guzman and lawyers for the victims of the Pinochet regime, were submitted to Chile's supreme court, which must now decide whether to forward them to the United States. The list is under seal but it is thought to cover the extent of Mr Kissinger's knowledge of the Horman case.

Horman's family have repeatedly claimed that the Nixon government, in which Mr Kissinger was national security advisor and secretary of state, knew more about what happened when the journalist was murdered in Chile than it has ever admitted. Mr Kissinger, awarded the Nobel peace prize for his role in bringing the Vietnam war to an end, is now under increased scrutiny for his leading role in a number of controversial US actions abroad, including the bombing of Cambodia and Washington's support for authoritarian rightwing governments such as Gen Pinochet's. Charles Horman's widow, Joyce, said yesterday that Mr Kissinger was "ultimately the one who has to answer the questions for the disappearance of my husband". She added: "He was really calling the shots, as far as I'm concerned, in questions of state and the CIA, with regard to the protection and knowledge of what happened to Americans there." Encouraged by the success of international human rights cases against Gen Pinochet and Balkan war crimes suspects, human rights activists have recently drawn up allegations against Mr Kissinger. While visiting Paris in May, Mr Kissinger was subpoenaed by a French judge to answer questions about the death of French citizens under the Pinochet regime.

Mr Kissinger refused to appear in court to answer the questions, saying he had a prior engagement. This year, a Washington-based British journalist, Christopher Hitchens, published The Trial of Henry Kissinger, in which he accused the veteran proponent of realpolitik of conspiring to sabotage 1968 Vietnam peace talks and pursuing an illegal war in Cambodia, among other charges. Mr Kissinger called the book "contemptible". (4) The Boston Globe (12th December, 2006) In America, the danger is not that too much is remembered of the Pinochet era but that too much of the American role in helping to foment those old horrors may be forgotten. There is a deceptively comforting story line that sequesters the present from the past, disguising any continuity between the regime change produced in Chile on Sept. 11, 1973, and other American experiments of that nature. In that reassuring historical narrative, Pinochet was perhaps guilty of trampling on democratic niceties and of kidnapping, torturing, and killing socialists and Marxists , but he represented, after all, the lesser of two evils.

The alternative evil was commonly depicted as Soviet influence, left-wing radicalism, the expropriation of private property, and falling pro-American dominoes across Latin America. The former US ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick, who passed away three days before Pinochet, once propounded a theory to justify American backing for military dictatorships in Latin America. Her rationale rested upon a distinction between totalitarian states like those in the communist world and mere authoritarian regimes. The latter were supposed to be more tolerable because, in contrast to the communist states, they left open the possibility of eventually permitting a return to democracy. It was a theory that failed the test of time, as demonstrated by the nearly bloodless implosion of communism and the flowering of democracy in Poland, Hungary, and the former Czechoslovakia. Reflecting the spirit of such Cold War notions, a CIA document from the month after Allende was elected president on Sept.

11, 1970, says, "It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup" and "it is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG" - US government - "and American hand be well hidden." Whatever the details of US complicity in Pinochet's eventual seizure of power, Americans must not forget that their own democratic leaders share complicity in the disappearances, torture, and killings perpetrated after 1973 by their man in Chile. (5) Jeremy McDermott, The Scotsman (12th December, 2006) The human-rights abuses committed under Pinochet's military junta were widely known throughout the country. Rights groups estimate that more than 3,000 people were killed after 1973 when Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president, was overthrown and allegedly took his own life with a gun given to him by his friend, Fidel Castro. Most of the murders took place in the first year of military rule, when Santiago's National Stadium was turned into a detention and torture centre.

Pinochet was facing charges over the "Caravan of Death" in 1973, when it is alleged a military death squad rounded up suspected leftists from prisons around the country and murdered them. However, it was not such abuses that led to his support eroding - it was allegations of corruption, in 2005, when undeclared foreign bank accounts containing some £15 million were traced to him and members of his family.

Question: Who was the first freely elected Marxist president in Latin America?
Answer: Allende