Índice de cartas bilingües inglés español...

TEMA: Dos cartas que hablan de la guerra en Afganistán y que hacen una comparación entre el atentado del Palacio de la Moneda en Santiago, Chile. PC: Bin Laden, Pinochet...

HISTORICAL STATISTICAL APPENDIX

Tuesday, September 11, 2001
Bombing of WTC in NYC and Pentagon in Washington DC, USA

DAMAGE:  Human and Physical, Economic and Political
Dead and Missing  7,000  - more than half NON nationals of the USA, WTC destroyed, Pentagon damaged, existing economic recession deepened, existing political power strengthened.

RESPONSIBILITY personal: Unknown.
Suspected: possibly Osama bin Laden, but unproven
Behind the Scenes [not much] : possibly Al Quaida
State harbouring [suspect]: Afghanistan
Indictment before trial by international or neutral court: none
State responsible: None proven, nor even to anybody's knowledge

RESPONSE: Massive bombing of Afghanistan by US & UK

---------------------------

Tuesday, September 11, 1973
Bombing of Presidential Palace La Moneda in Santiago Chile

DAMAGE : Human and Physical, Economic and Political
Dead and Missing - about 30,000, almost all Chileans
Thousands tortured, 100,000 plus driven into exile
Moneda Palace damaged [by destruction and fire]
Economy seriously damaged, unemployment tripled, inflation quadrupled,income vastly lowered and very much more unequally distributed, political power changed by military coup and decade and a half military dictatorship

RESPONSIBILITY personal:Chilean General Augusto Pinochet and Military Junta,
[behind the scenes] U.S. President Nixon & Secretary of State Kissinger
Responsible State : Chilean and United States of America
States harbouring [proven perpetrators] Chile, U.S., UK [no extradition but returned to Chile and not tried as indicted in several countries

RESPONSE: Car bomb in Washington DC, killing ex Chilean ambassador to US and a US national,with proven responsibility of Chilean DINA secret police with CIA backup

QED

Dear John

They say that the first casualty of war is truth and I suppose that could be said to be as relevant during a Cold War as now. I won't dispute your interpretation of Ben Laden's role in Afghanistan but merely add that truth is a relative thing comprised of the facts that we choose to believe in. The whole truth is when absolutely everyone agrees what these facts are!  A rare commodity.
I have no allusions about the roles played by Ben Laden before and after the Russian intervention in Afghanistan, his opportunism if not treachery, but that doesn't change the relevance of my two statements. Ben Laden was supported by the Americans because they saw in him a convenient counterweight to forces supported by Russia. One can dispute who was right in this conflict but as I remember it, Russia intervened in this benighted country at the request of the "legitimate" government, which some would call a "client" regime. No matter, they did not intervene, to my knowledge, to overthrow the existing government and replace it with one they liked better. This is certainly what happened in Chile. The actions of the CIA through their proxy, Pinochet, brought down a democratically elected government. Therefore, I repeat, the Americans tried through their proxy, Ben Laden, to subvert the Afghan state in just the same way they intervened in Chile with more success. Should they therefore be surprised if an enemy tries to subvert them?

Ben Laden is in deep self-delusion, not least, because he believes as do his followers, that he is doing God's work and that a better life beckons in the hereafter. In that respect, he is not greatly different from many Christians. But he is dangerous because he cares so little for this life that he is prepared to take all of us with him into the next. In that sense, he must be pursued and isolated.

America is now embarking on what it is best at, solving problems by force, acting unilaterally without the international community and, in the process, it is going to stoke up a whole load of trouble for itself in the future.

Steve

Dear Mary

Reactions over here have been a bit mixed, initial shock, of course; the scale and audacity of the attack, the enormous loss of life, that no war had been declared as such and that such a thing should have happened in the States of all places. Commentators were quick to point out that it was doubly worse for Americans who have had no direct experience of war on American soil since the middle of the 1800's [with the exception of Pearl Harbour] Any acts of extreme violence against the population at large have been conducted as at Oklahoma by Americans themselves.

As the press reacted and commented on the events, it was quickly clear that, notwithstanding the strong feelings of solidarity with the American people, there would be no unequivocal and unconditional support for American leaders. Talk of all-out war, crusades, Good against Evil, did nothing to help foster unanimity of opinion. It was suggested that to criticise America was disloyal and that if you weren't with us then you must be against. The right wing Press, very much in the majority here, has generally been supportive of the Bush administration and accepts that we, the British, the "special partners", are duty-bound to intervene militarily at your side. But there have been questioning voices on the left who defend the right to offer a different perspective of events if only because, without it, then what kind of democracy do we live in.

That, of course, has also figured in the debate. What are the values that we are supposed to be defending? Liberty, Democracy, have often been invoked but our record in the West at home and abroad has not always been an elevating one. We laud our own standards of civilisation and have offered them to the world as if there could be no other model. But in the pursuit of our own interests, we have supported hideous, authoritarian regimes, toppled states, meddled in others' affairs and exported a culture model seen to be exploitative and domineering. We profess great concern for humanity as a whole but our interventions on its behalf are piecemeal and not a little self-serving. Our unhealthy interest in the Middle East is dictated purely by oil and our almost unconditional support of the Israeli government is born partly of guilt and disproportionately influential electoral pressures at home. And then there are voices that speak of the "superiority" of our culture over Islam .......

Which brings us to religion. The problem being not the essence, the theory, the history, but rather the interpretation. What passes for Islam in some countries in the World is an abomination but there have been, and still are, apparently Christian societies with scarcely a better record. One has only to think of the barbarism of the Inquisition, the Klu Klux Klan ......

What has saddened me not a little in all the soul-searching that has taken place since September is how little attention seems to have been paid to not WHO but WHY? Terrorists don't act without a motive, good or bad but I have scarcely noted any attempt to address this problem, which is fundamental in resolving conflicts of all kinds. This is not to appease, to surrender, to concede, but merely an act of humility, an attempt to understand different cultures, different viewpoints, to accept, to tolerate ..........

I tell myself that good may yet come out of this, once the ritual of revenge is over. International co-operation, working together to find answers to common problems, may well be reinforced and, in this respect, if I have one criticism of the present American administration, it is that it has distanced itself from major international accords [Kyoto, land-mines, small arms] and retreated into relative isolationism, impossible for the most powerful nation on Earth. I hope, too, that globalisation will also be subjected to serious re-appraisal. There is widespread scepticism about the benefits and there are notorious but ill-publicised contradictions in the application of free access to all markets. The West has been slow to remove its own barriers to free trade where its own interests are at stake but quick to prosecute poorer nations for resisting Western commercial pressure. Globalisation has had a bad press not least because it is seen to serve the interests primarily of the rich and powerful. In the same way, GM foods, while possibly a force for good in the world, have not been enthusiastically embraced because they are seen to be a weapon of control by rich trans-national corporations.

Rest assured that, in common with the many people around the world who have shown the strength of their revulsion for the perpetrators and their solidarity with your nation, we, too, are appalled by the inhumanity shown by fellow human beings and the enormity of a crime committed in the name of a common God.

Steve