Understanding Kissinger’s Actions Toward Chile
Can an individual influence foreign policy? Based upon the eight years that Henry Kissinger was the Secretary of State it is clear that an individual can (Starr 466). It has become apparent through recently released classified documents that Kissinger played a large role in allowing the brutal Pinochet dictatorship over Chile to take place and allowed massive human rights violations to continually occur during the Pinochet regime. What is continually being attempted to understand is why Kissinger acted as he did towards Chile. The goal of stopping the spread of communism to Latin America is obvious in Kissinger’s actions, but why allow Pinochet to continue to receive United States support while he breaks International Human Rights Laws (Kornbluh 5)?
To understand Kissinger’s actions toward Chile it is necessary to analyze his background. Considering that he was born in Germany and fled to the United States to escape the Nazi’s, there most certainly was previous life experiences that contributed to his foreign policy beliefs (Crapol 260). As a politician, Kissinger gained an extraordinarily high level of popularity for a man of his position. Thus, his dealings with Chile may have been more of an effort to uphold his reputation than an eagerness to do what is best for Chile and the United States. Therefore, it can be considered that Kissinger’s strict realist view and constant attempt to create stability and order was derived from his past experiences as a Jewish Refugee and his actions as a Secretary of State may have been skewed by his desire to keep his popular status in the United States media and public (Starr 467 and 477; Crapol 260-265).
Kissinger’s past experi...
... middle of paper ...
...ton: Houghton Mifflin, 1957.
Kornbluh, Peter. “Kissinger and Pinochet.” The Nation. 268. 12 (1999) p. 5. 1 March 2005.
<http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790ee0b2251d4e53736950e88efc023c1f8fe32ffff8cfa299b4a3021cd16afe477d&fmt=H>.
Starr, Harvey. “The Kissinger Years: Studying Individuals and Foreign Policy.”
International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 24, No. 4. (Dec., 1980), p. 465-496.
10 April 2005. <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0020-8833 %28198012%2924%3 A4%3C465%3ATKYSIA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E>.
Walker, Stephen G. “The Interface between Beliefs and Behavior: Henry Kissinger's
Operational Code and the Vietnam War.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution.
Vol. 21, No. 1. (Mar., 1977), p. 129-168. 10 April 2005. <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici= 00220027%28197703%2921%3A1%3C129%3ATIBBAB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8>.
Steven Hook and John Spanier's 2012 book titled “American foreign policy since WWII" serves as one of the most important texts that can be used in understanding the underlying complexities on American foreign policies. Like the first readings that are analyzed in class (American Diplomacy by George Kennan and Surprise, Security, and the American Experience by John Lewis Gaddis), this text also brings history into a more understandable context. Aside from being informative and concise in its historical approach, Hook and Spanier also critiques the several flaws and perspectives that occurred in the American foreign policy history since World War II.
All of the history of the United States, foreign policy has caused many disputes over the proper role in international affairs. The views, morals and beliefs of democracy in Americans, makes them feel the need to take leadership of the world and help those countries whom are in need. The foreign policies of President Eisenhower will eventually led to the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War. President Eisenhower’s role with these policies were based on his military type strategies to safeguard a victory in the Global Cold War. President Eisenhower’s foreign policies led to an effective involvement in the Cold War and enviably the Vietnam War from an American perspective. President Eisenhower’s foreign policies when implemented would facilitate the goal of containing communism, and also
A. Polis. " The Impact of the Sandinistas on Nicaragua. " Jorian Polis Shutz, 1998.
It seems that the United States has been one of the most dominant, if not the most dominant, countries in the world, since the Declaration of Independence. Yet, on Monday, April 17, 1961, our government experienced incredible criticism and extreme embarrassment when Fidel Castro, dictator of Cuba, instantly stopped an invasion on the Cuban beach known as the Bay of Pigs. President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, his advisors, and many Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officials, made the largest error of their political careers. Once the decision was made to invade Cuba, to end Castro and his Communist government, Kennedy and his administration were never looked at in the same light nor trusted again. Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev was affiliated with Castro, and the two countries made many military decisions together. As Kennedy and the United States tried to stop Cuba and Russia from becoming a threat to the world, an invasion was planned out and executed. The results were a disaster. The Bay of Pigs invasion was the largest military mistake ever made by the United States government and the CIA in the 20th century and brought America to the brink of war with Cuba and Russia. The Bay of Pigs invasion was not a quick decision, many hours of meetings and conferences occurred before President Kennedy gave permission for the attack. President Kennedy was inaugurated on January 20, 1961, and immediately wanted to take the initiative with the Soviet and Cuban governments (Pearson 12). Russia was already under Communist control, and Fidel Castro took over the Cuban government with heavily armed troops and policeman. Castro’s policemen filled the streets, and he ran the newspapers, as well as many assembly buildings (Frankel 60). At the beginning, Castro did not run a Communist government, but once he began to meet with Russian leader, Nikita Khrushchev, Castro started a Communist government (Crassweller 23). Max Frankel, writer for the New York Times, summarizes the situation in Cuba by saying, “Little by little, the vise tightened. Little by little the free people of Cuba came to realize it could happen there. The grim facts of life on an island that became a police state” (Frankel 59). Every day, Castro came closer to controlling every aspect in life in Cuba. Fidel Castro even took control of the schools in Cuba, throwing out any teacher who he thought...
Salvador Allende promised to redistribute Chile's income (only two percent of the population received forty-six percent of the income), nationalize major industries (especially the copper companies), and to expand relations with socialist and communist countries. Allende's presidency presented a threat to the United States; a man with such aspirations would have to stray from United States policies and the policies of all other countries. Allende would neither respect nor consider the work the United States had done for them in the past. The United States would no longer be able to act as a parasite, sucking the money out of Chile. The U.S. decided it must stop this man from rising to power as soon as possible.
...es when it comes to implementing controversial foreign policy decisions that directly affect Americans and those in different countries. The main aspect of the affair that greatly influences the United States’ government is ensuring that its past imperialistic motives do not become an integral part of American affairs once again.
Prados, John. Safe for Democracy The Secret Wars of the CIA. Chicago, IL: Ivan R Dee, Publisher, 2006.
Rabe Stephen. The Killing Zone The United States Wages Cold War in Latin America. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Over the course of the history of the United States, specific foreign policies have affected the methods in which the U.S. involves itself around the globe. Specifically, certain policies have affected U.S. involvement in Latin America.
“Just as the Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev and Chinese leader Mao reinforced armed revolutions against colonial or U.S.-aligned states, American power would now reassure and upkeep rebels against communist states” (“The Reagan Doctrine”, and for some of the rebels who were rendering efforts, with the aid of the U.S., to banish the Soviet supported regimes in their individual nations. The practical implementation of some of the policies of the doctrine prompted confusion in the U.S. political dominion itself. If one would examine, to turn the doctrine’s theory into practice Reagan allowed the sale of weapons to Iran, and the profit of such trade was meant to provide monetary aid to the contras – the anti-Sandinista rebels who were secretly trained by the U.S. Special Forces (“The Reagan Doctrine”, n.d.). Additionally, as the contras were both supported and tactically developed by the U.S. and were used against the Soviet supported regimes, the “Exposure of the Iran-Contra affair in late 1986 provoked a chief congressional examination. The scandal seriously weakened the influence of the president” (“The Reagan Doctrine”, n.d.).
In foreign policy, decision making is guided by different a leader that is from presidents, cabinets, parliaments and groups such as communist party of Soviet Union and the standing committee of the communist party of china and Central Intelligence Agency of USA. One cannot run away from the fact that a leader’s personality can affect foreign policy. Maoz and Shayer believe that one cannot underrate or ignore the role of personality in decision making as it plays a huge role. By examining ones foreign policy, we can understand foreign policy better (Jensen, 1982). If a leader is aggressive then there are certain traits he will exhibit such as paranoia, manipulation, thirst for power high intensity of nationalism, (Hermann, 1980). Hitler was one leader who led to world war when he challenged the treaty of Versailles by adopting an aggressive foreign policy. The opposite is true for a mild leader for example George Washington who told Americans to avoid entrapping alliances.
Soyinka, Wole. “Every Dictator’s Nightmare.” The Arlington Reader: Contexts and Connections. 2nd ed. Ed. Lynn Z. Bloom and Louise Z. Smith. Boston: Bedford, 2008. 475-80. Print.
Klein, throughout various accounts of U.S. involvement overseas, explains that the U.S. commonly engages in a practice of ‘shock therapy.’ The U.S. brings bloodshed and warfare to foreign nations in order to restructure their economies and governments to serve U.S. interests. In the case of Chile, Klein argues that the U.S., in the midst of Cold War paranoia, wanted to maintain its political and economic hegemony in South America. Washington accordingly whipped the Chilean army into an anti-Allende, anti-communist frenzy, bringing about the bloodshed of ‘the Caravan of Death’ as well as the years of tyrannical military dictatorship. Also significant was the fact that the neoliberal economics implemented in Chile were taught to Chilean economists of the junta by Americans at the University of Chicago.
Higgins' book begins with a brief review of the way United States presidents dealt with Latin America during that era. It starts with President Franklin D. Roosevelt leasing Guantanamo Bay and President Dwight D. Eisenhower invading Guatemala in Operations Fortune and Success, which became the model for President John F. Kennedy's Bay of Pigs operation. The book provides more in-depth information on how Eisenhower's tactics and plans set up the invasion of Cuba, which was later altered, modified, and approved by President John F. Kennedy. The book addresses how the United States intervened around the world to combat communism. The United States focused specifically on Latin America, indicating the imperialistic mentality of the United States during that era, which I believe continues to this day.
American foreign policy directed and influenced its activities in Chile. United States although contradicted its firm belief of democr...