Don’t Get Lost

1. Don’t Get Lost • Why do we care about Chile?: • Our central question is political and economic stability/instability in Latin America • Argentina helps us to understand problems of economic instability: • intra-elite conflicts (coalitions) generating instability • Chile helps us to understand problems of political instability: • polarization/ external influence  political instability

2. Chile: Summary • Political stability (1800s-1960s) Why? • Agreements within elites (mining and agriculture sectors) • Inclusion (co-optation) of middle class; working class (preempt conflicts) • Democratic politics (coalitions) during 1930s-1950s • Political Instability (1960s-1970s) Why? • International context (Cold-War) • Polarization among political parties (Right-center-left) • Electoral system allowed government of minority • Anti-democratic politics • Enduring military regime (1973-1990) Why? • External factors favored Pinochet • Management of the economy • Strategies toward opposition

3. Guardian Democracy in Chile1990-2001 • Chile is not a full-democracy. Three legacies or “authoritarian enclaves:” • 1) 1980 Constitution restrictions to popular sovereignty • Appointed Senators (17% of the Senate appointed by NSC) • Electoral System favor minority parties (right-wings parties) • 2) Human rights legacy • 1978 Amnesty law • 3) Military Autonomy. • Pinochet continued as commander-in-chief of the army (1990-1998) • The President cannot remove commander-in-chief of AF (fixed for 4 years) • The military received a minimum budget by law • The President cannot remove or promote officers without commander-in-chief consent.

4. Guardian Democracy Dealing with authoritarian “enclaves” • First problem: The new government (Concertacion) accepted the “rule of the game.” They disagree but they have to play the game • Second problem: Right-wing parties supported the idea of having a “Guardian Democracy.” Right-wing parties + appointed senators = controlling majority of the Senate. • Third problem: The coalition of center-left have different approaches regarding the way those enclaves could be changed. • Outcome: After 11 years of democracy, no much change in Chile regarding the “enclaves.” We will observe just one example: Human Rights

5. Dealing with the Human Rights problem • Concertacion’s programmatic objectives: Re-establishment of Truth, reparation to the victims, and Justice • But, • Achieving truth, reparation and Justice was highly problematic, why? • Concertacion’s actual policy was “Truth, reparation, justice to the extent it is possible.” • Concertacion’s strategy: maintaining stability and achieving the most they could in terms of truth, reparation, and justice. • Aylwin’s strategy (1990-1994): • Dealing with authoritarian enclaves separately • Commission of Truth/ reparation to the victims • Strong symbolic policy/ Confrontational strategy toward the military • Frei’s strategy (1994-2000): • Pragmatic approach. Avoid human rights issues • Cooperative strategy toward the military

6. The Pinochet’s affair • Background: • 1973-1990: Pinochet head of the military regime and commander-in-chief of the army • 1990-1998: Pinochet left power but, according to 1980 Constitution he could stay as commander-in-Chief of the army for 8 years. He decided to stay in the army “to protect my men” • March 1998: Pinochet left the army but, according to the 1980 Constitution he could assume as senator-for-life (immunity issue). He decide to be senator, “to protect the Constitution” • October 1998: Pinochet decided to go to London for a personal reason. He is arrested in London. Why?

7. The Pinochet’s affair: the problem • 1) In 1996, a Spanish Judge (in Spain) decided to open an investigation for the assassination of three Spaniard citizens in Chile in 1973. • 2) In October 1998, knowing that Pinochet was in England, this judge asked interpol (International Police) to arrest Pinochet while he requested the extradition of Pinochet from England to Spain. • 3) England accepted to arrest Pinochet but England has to decide whether Pinochet could be extradited to Spain. • 4) In March 1999, the England Court decided that Pinochet could be extradited to Spain. • 5) But in February 2000, the British government decided Pinochet could not handle a trial for medical reasons. Pinochet was sent back to Chile.

8. The Pinochet Precedent • (a) UN Human rights agreement: no immunity for crimes against humanity (Massive crimes such as Nazis, military regimes, etc.) • (b) Governments have tended to incorporate this principle in their internal legislation. • (c) Thus, governments accept that in crimes against humanity, the international law is the norm. • (d) As Chile could not prosecute Pinochet, the Spanish Judge prosecuted Pinochet in Spain for the murder of 3 Spaniards. • In 1973, 3 American citizens were murdered by the military regime. Should the US ask for the extradition of the authors of such crimes? (Think about Osama)

9. The Pinochet Precedent • But, the US did not support Pinochet extradition to Spain...why? • US Reaction toward the case: • American ServiceMembers’ Protection Act 2000 (ASMP Act) • (Helms, Warner) • In July 1998, 120 countries approved in Rome the treaty establishing an International Criminal Court (ICC) --7 countries rejected. • The ICC could prosecute and imprison persons accused of ‘war crimes” “genocide” and “crimes against humanity.” • What the ASMP Act is suggesting?

10. The Pinochet Precendent • March 2000: Ricardo Lagos took office as President (Center-left coalition) • March 2000: Pinochet is prosecuted by national courts because of more than 200 lawsuits against him. • January 2001: The armed forces recognized human rights violations and provide information regarding the location of some bodies (30 bodies). • February 2001: the Courts found out that the information provided by the armed forces was incorrect. • July 2001: The Court decide to close the case against Pinochet. Again, the medical argument.

11. Chile: slow change • High military Autonomy + Political support of right-wings parties = • No major change in terms of human rights and in terms of making Chile more democratic.