On 11 September 1973, the Chilean military violently removed the elected government of Salvador Allende and installed a dictatorship under Augusto Pinochet. UK-manufactured arms were used in the coup, and prime minister Margaret Thatcher would go on to call Pinochet a “true friend” and lobby against his persecution for war crimes.
Less known, however, is how UK officials discussed Chile’s coup behind closed doors. Declassified foreign office documents published by historian Mark Curtis shed light on how UK officials discuss foreign policy when nobody’s watching.
Disregard for human life
UK planners were quite aware of the bloody nature of the coup. On 14 September 1973, UK ambassador to Chile Reginald Secondé noted:
The coup was carried out efficiently and with a cold-blooded, surgical approach untypical of the Chilean character… It is likely that casualties run into the thousands, certainly it has been far from a bloodless coup…
The extent of the bloodshed has shocked people.
Three days later, he added:
in view of the bloody nature of the coup, the Chilean armed forces are likely to have a poor international image…
On 13 September, foreign secretary Alec Douglas-Home told Secondé that, despite the bloody nature of the coup:
We still have enough at stake in economic relations with Chile to require good relations with the government in power.
Secondé then embarked on a campaign to “reassure public opinion at home”, and sought the permission of Chile’s new foreign minister Ismael Huerta to publish a statement on the situation. Huerta, however, was reportedly “not able to accept reference to deaths of many Allende followers or [the] large number of people arrested”. Secondé left these parts out in the final statement issued to the British public, for which Douglas-Home thanked him:
The statement helped us to defend our relatively early recognition of the new government against domestic criticism.
The UK government didn’t want to step on the toes of Chile’s new dictatorship for fear that it would affect potentially lucrative business opportunities. Indeed, as Secondé wrote one week after the coup:
Most British businessmen… will be overjoyed at the prospect of consolidation which the new military regime offers…
Now is the time to get in.
On 1 October, Secondé doubled down on his preference for a business-friendly dictatorship:
The military have no political experience and are likely to be heavy handed. Circumstances also will push them into directions which British public opinion will deplore. But this regime suits British interests much better than its predecessor. [emphasis added]
And one month later, the UK Latin American Department told Secondé that arms sales to Chile would “quietly” continue:
Existing defence contracts will be met (ships and aircraft). New enquiries will also be expected, but we shall wish to play these as quietly as possible for some time to come…
We shall not try to get landed with any large number of refugees from Chile, but we shall support UNHCR efforts to resettle them wherever else they want to go…
In other words, the UK government was well aware of the widespread abuses committed during the weeks following Chile’s coup. Indeed, UK-made arms played a pivotal role. UK officials nonetheless misguided the British public in order to score better relations for UK business.
UK officials also seemed deeply concerned about the symbolic threat posed by Allende’s socialist government in Chile. If Allende could succeed in peacefully building a more equal society in Chile, they feared, then other countries might follow suit.
the United States must view the prospect of a moderately successful extreme left-wing regime in Chile with considerable misgiving if only because of the effect this might have elsewhere in Latin America.
A JIC report written later in 1971 reads:
The success or failure in economic terms of the Chilean ‘experiment’ could have considerable significance for developments elsewhere on the continent
A month after the coup in 1973, meanwhile, Secondé quite shockingly reported back to Douglas-Home that:
a successful outcome to the Chilean experiment would have repercussions beyond Latin America by offering a pattern to be followed in other countries, particularly France and Italy.
So not only did the Chilean example threaten neighbouring Latin American countries, but UK officials worried it may spread as far as mainland Europe.
UK officials thus saw the survival of global capitalism as of higher importance than human life, and saw socialist governments – however moderate – as a credible threat to global capitalism.
We could learn a great deal about contemporary statecraft from these documents.
Featured image via Kena Lorenzini/WikiCommons
We need your help to keep speaking the truth
Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.
Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.
We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.
In return, you get:
* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop
Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.
With your help we can continue:
* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do
We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?