It is written by the victors, apparently. Or at least according to popular idiom. But after visiting the Museum of Human Rights in Santiago today, I am no longer sure. About that and, frankly, about my own, stolidly pacifist, views.
I will explain.
Literally, the Museum of the Memory of Human Rights, (Museo de la Memoria y los Derechos Humanos) the Museum focuses on what my Chilean friend subsequently referred to as 'the truth' of what happened in the years of the Pinochet dictatorship and how the eventual return to democracy was achieved.
The potted history is that the previous socialist president, Salvador Allende, was overthrown by a military coup in 1973, during which he committed suicide after broadcasting a speech of encouragement to the Chilean people, remaining in the palace which was being extensively bombed, and refusing offers of safe passage were he to accept exile. The military government, led by Pinochet, and comprising the chiefs of police, army, navel and air forces, took control of all media, and began a dictatorship. Throughout this dictatorship, huge numbers of leftist supporters and suspected leftist supporters were 'disappeared' or forced into exile. Prisons for the torture or secret execution of such sympathisers were set up all over Chile. Executions were not publicised, with the government either spreading an alternative explanation for their deaths (later proven to be untrue) or simply disposing of the bodies in secret (often into the sea), and asserting that the individuals had never been arrested. Unannounced and random raids on homes began after much attempted retaliation by the Chilean people, and as the people's frustration grew, so did the violence, both in terms of riots and governmental action, as it struggled to retain control, particularly following an assassination attempt on Pinochet himself.
Many protests were organised, or simply happened as frustration and fear bubbled into rage, from the creation of art or posters with the words 'dondé están?', ('where are they?'), the performance of Chilean traditional dance usually danced in couples by single women on their own to symbolise the missing family members all over Chile, one particular protest which began peacefully, escalated and was capped by the shooting of a female student by a government police officer, caught on film, and, famously, the visit by the pope in which the people's spokesperson appealed to the pope for help, and which ended with an explosion of frustration and violence, with the pope surveying the carnage with dismay and calling out to the people that 'love is stronger'.
During the regime, there were three plebiscites, the first two appearing to prove conclusively that the people voted for the Pinochet regime to continue, and the final one, internationally supported, eventually ruling Pinochet out through a majority vote against him in 1988.
The fact that the regime committed acts of atrocity seems conclusive. Research tells me that The Rettig Report found that at least 2,279 persons were conclusively murdered by the Chilean government for political reasons during Pinochet's regime, and the Valech Report found that at least 30,000 persons were tortured by the government for political reasons.
That the US government had been involved in creating the conditions to allow the coup to happen, seems also to be rather clearly substantiated by various historians and documents declassified during the Clinton era.
The conditions of fear and violence during the regime and the fact that many people were extremely poor and close to starving seems also to be substantiated.
The museum itself does not discuss America's possible involvement. It focuses on the coup itself, the conditions of the Pinochet regime, torture and disappearance, the fight of the Chilean people, successful or otherwise, against it, and the final overthrowing of the government and return to democracy. It does not deal with unsubstantiated claims, and it is deeply, deeply moving.
What really strikes me is the indomitable nature of the Chilean spirit. Despite the widespread threat and fearfulness for their own and their family's safety, people continued to protest, stage demonstrations, think up peaceful ways to make their point and generally risk their lives for a next generation which they might, through these actions, not live to see.
And it was, from what I can surmise, and from conversations since with Chileans, as much the non peaceful protests which served to destabilise the government, and gain international attention enough to force a fairer plebiscite which in the end overthrew the dictatorship's strangehold as the more subtle demonstrations of unhappiness.
I am normally whole heartedly opposed to violence of any kind, for any reason, maintaining always that love, as the Pope cried out from his pulpit view over the enraged masses, is stronger.
But would love have worked? Would the peaceful protests alone have garnered international attention?Would they have made the government so increasingly unsure of itself, reacting with increasing violence against its people but also, perhaps with a sense of desperation. And if the answer is no, what part of the blame do we, the United Nations, as international peace keepers, hold for not stepping in sooner or more strongly. Pinochet was purportedly friends with Margaret Thatcher, he lived out some of his last days in England, his presence an open secret until political pressure forced an arrest and a trial.
Why?
Which brings me to my other point, history is not written by the victors, it's written by everybody, and the story looks different each time.
At the time, misinformation in respect of the 'democratic' nature of the ruling government was fed both to the people of Chile themselves, some of whom, according to footage, believed it. Asked what she thought about the raids on houses, one lady is interviewed stating that 'they have to do it because people have guns in their houses and it's a danger to the people', posing the government as a caring, protective father figure over its errant people and entirely sidestepping the widespread military and police brutality which is also well documented. Pinochet himself used the word 'democratic', never admitting, unsurprisingly, to the political status as a dictatorship.
And indeed, there are two plebiscites, the very presence of which argues against a dictatorship. The voting forms were heavily biased towards the 'yes' vote, the box for which was a Chilean flag, with few voting for 'no', the box being a black box, indicative perhaps of what, by then, people were afraid they would be consigned to of they voted 'no'. But this is all small details. Surely the people wanted the regine. They voted it in. Twice.
Accusations of rigging, of police intimidation at voting stations etc were rife, but as far as the outside view provided, Pinochet was running, at least a quasi democratic government.
As for America's apparent hand in staging the coup and destabilising the previous government to avoid a communist presence, if true this is rather awful, but on the other hand, what information did America have in regards to the intent of Pinochet once in power? What, for that matter, were his intentions? Could that at sine point have been honourable? Did power and violence push him from his course?
Speaking to an American traveller he points out that continuing anger against the American government might be understandable but bit helpful, with the current generation of American people having no hand in the decisions made previously, and in fact, little hand, if they were simply citizens and not part of the tiny decision making minority, even then.
This makes some sense. There is also some evidence that conditions, at the point of the coup, were already uneasy, but if it is true that the CIA had a hand in destabilising the previous government and provoking unrest, how much would have been naturally occurring without that intervention? Would Allende have led the country to happier, fairer climes? We may never know.
At the time, in fact at any given time, a dozen histories are taking place, all of them equally true for the people living them.
I was too young to know much about it, but at the time I wonder whether the UK perception, at least at the start, if we saw images of the protests beamed into our homes, was simply that those hot blooded Latin Americans were all up in arms again. I don't know. Certainly later there was much sympathy and much concern that the UN should intervene. But at the time the arrests, the deaths, the disappearances were concealed from all but the immediate victims and their families and friends. Even when known the true extent if it wasn't fully understood until years later, when full investigations took place.
History depends on where you are standing, both at the time and afterwards. It needs a narrative that suits you. How honest are we with ourselves as individuals? How many ideals fail due to not noticing our own double think?
Are horrific regimes like this made possible exactly by that double think?
Is love stronger? Did those brave people who faced terrible potential retribution for the sake of a free Chile, not do that for the love of their children, and their fellow countrymen and women and their descendants? Were those fierce riots the result of pure rage, or was it also love?
Did love win back a true democracy for Chile after all?
After all, history, as we have known for centuries, is incredibly complex. Who is to say that love and rage are not?
No comments:
Post a Comment