Chilean Thieves Hold German Soldiers Hostage
Yesterday a band of Chilean ruffians held nine German soldiers hostage at their accommodation in Chile's northern port city of Iquique.
Local Chilean police Col. Rolf Reiman cited a motive for the assault: "apparently they knew they were foreigners and assumed (they) had money."
The Germans are here to train the Chilean soldiers on their 118 new Leopard IIA4 tanks, which round off an extensive list of Chilean arms purchases reported by the Council on Hemispheric Affairs:
This week, Chilean Defense Minister José Goñi acknowledged a "national willingness" to change the way military funds are allocated. So he's unifying the budgets of each branch of the military so that they can't shortlist on their own, but rather together. That's it?
According to COHA, the Chilean government is essentially powerless before the largely autonomous military:
Chile continues rank among the worst most economically unequal countries. Skeptics, here's the latest data.
Flush with cash and hiring German trainers on its new German tanks for its Prussian-modeled forces, Chile meanwhile reduces its poverty-stricken citizens to acts of thuggery befitting a Banana Republic, imperiling the self-same German soldiers flown in on cash that could be better spent funding schools and increasing educational opportunities for developing human capital domestically.
Why doesn't Chile slash pointless military spending and instead train Chileans to process & implement copper before shipping it overseas, and thus add value to the local economy? For example.
But that's just crazy talk. In the meantime, most Chileans remain uneducated and economically depressed and it follows that foreigners in Chile are still seen as walking banks, (if it's not overt attacks it's rampant, questionable friendliness toward gringos) but how dare I call Chile a Third World country. It's the Prussia of South America (whatever that means).
Local Chilean police Col. Rolf Reiman cited a motive for the assault: "apparently they knew they were foreigners and assumed (they) had money."
The Germans are here to train the Chilean soldiers on their 118 new Leopard IIA4 tanks, which round off an extensive list of Chilean arms purchases reported by the Council on Hemispheric Affairs:
Since around 2000, the Chilean military has gone on a buying spree, spending $2.8 billion for weapons, ostensibly to modernize its old and obsolete equipment. The purchases, which have led to expressions of alarm in neighboring Argentina, Peru and Bolivia, include 10 Lockheed Martin F-16 fighter planes acquired from the United States, 18 second-hand similar warplanes from the Netherlands, frigates, two submarines and 118 Leopard IIA4 tanks from Germany.Based on a 1978 law dictated by military junta Gen. Augusto Pinochet, 10% of copper revenue (not profits, revenue) goes to the Chilean armed forces and they have carte blanche (meanwhile schools go underfunded, and universities are privatized so that profit trumps quality).
This week, Chilean Defense Minister José Goñi acknowledged a "national willingness" to change the way military funds are allocated. So he's unifying the budgets of each branch of the military so that they can't shortlist on their own, but rather together. That's it?
According to COHA, the Chilean government is essentially powerless before the largely autonomous military:
From a practical point of view, the country is not facing any conceivable external military threat. The wide range of military purchases over the past few years demonstrates that the previous Socialist-led administrations of Ricardo Lagos as well as the current one of President Michelle Bachelet, for all their leftist rhetoric, are reluctant to confront the country’s powerful military establishment over how it should spend its budget, and would far rather appease it. This customary appeasement only makes Chile’s military aggressive and demanding, if not belligerent, as it faces its neighbors, but it also illuminates the inherent timorous nature of civilian rule in Santiago, vis-à-vis its voracious uniform services. (Bold font added).Despite not being at war for over 120 years and militarily dwarfing its neighbors, Chile continues to amass might. At best, this is government spending gone out of control. The so-called Miracle of Chile, a model of free market prosperity, turns out to be state-run copper company that severely misallocates funds. Noam Chomsky puts it this way:
Chile is claimed as being a market economy but that's highly misleading: its main export is a very efficient state owned copper company nationalized under Allende. You don't get correlations like this in economics very often. Adherence to the neoliberal rules has been associated with economic failure and violation of them with economic success: it's very hard to miss that. Maybe some economists can miss it but people don't: they live it.In other words, if Chile were powered strictly by the Free Market, things would be a lot worse. Certainly debatable (too bad Bill Buckley's dead), but whether you ascribe Chile's current economic boom to copper or the Free Market, the point is moot for most Chileans:
Chile continues rank among the worst most economically unequal countries. Skeptics, here's the latest data.
Flush with cash and hiring German trainers on its new German tanks for its Prussian-modeled forces, Chile meanwhile reduces its poverty-stricken citizens to acts of thuggery befitting a Banana Republic, imperiling the self-same German soldiers flown in on cash that could be better spent funding schools and increasing educational opportunities for developing human capital domestically.
Why doesn't Chile slash pointless military spending and instead train Chileans to process & implement copper before shipping it overseas, and thus add value to the local economy? For example.
But that's just crazy talk. In the meantime, most Chileans remain uneducated and economically depressed and it follows that foreigners in Chile are still seen as walking banks, (if it's not overt attacks it's rampant, questionable friendliness toward gringos) but how dare I call Chile a Third World country. It's the Prussia of South America (whatever that means).
posted by Chileno @ 10:55 AM
Share on Facebook
Search This Blog:
34 Comments:
And if Codelco had also been privatised... wouldn't we be better off now? A clear fallacy by Chomsky, someone who understands 'efficiency' differently than everyone else, unless an 87% hike in costs producing 21% decrease in efficiency is probably the new 'efficiency' concept, even when Congress complains over low productivity.
Even Codelco admit to being rubbish.
If it wasn't for the current unusually high prices (thanks to China), that efficient state owned company (oxymoron) would have been privatised by now. Sadly, this holly cow is here to be efficiently managed by the state for years to come.
I won't even go into the the country is not facing any conceivable external military threat bit, as it can't be serious. I recommend whoever wrote that to watch the news from time to time, because there's been there's been a few problems lately, and it's not gonna change. Have you ever heard about Día del Mar?
This post was coming off as a very intelligent, objective, insightful and welcome entry to your blog. A rarity! But then you had to kill it with that last paragraph.
But that's just crazy talk. In the meantime, most Chileans remain uneducated and economically depressed and it follows that foreigners in Chile are still seen as walking banks, (if it's not overt attacks it's rampant, questionable friendliness toward gringos) but how dare I call Chile a Third World country. It's the Prussia of South America (whatever that means).
1) most Chileans remain uneducated. Define "uneducated." According to the latest Casen poll, over 80% of the population aged 20-24 has finished high school. And the majority of the pop. aged 4-18 are currently attending school. So keep in mind than the younger generations are getting educated thanks in part to that copper revenue. Now if you were to talk about what quality of education they are receiving, that's another matter. Be more specific with the terms that you use.
2) most Chileans remain (...) economically depressed. This is debatable, and highly dependent on what you consider to be a "decent" standard of living, especially coming from a developed country like the U.S. I believe you should exercise more care when using the word "most" because it may lead to unjust overgeneralizations.
3) foreigners in Chile are still seen as walking banks. This is another cartoonish exaggeration. They rob foreigners everywhere. Even in developed countries they rob tourists from undeveloped countries. Do they see them as walking banks there too? You can't make such an unjust claim based on one case. And slippery slope is a fallacy, too.
4) rampant, questionable friendliness toward gringos. Don't believe for one second this applies only to white, blue-eyed, prominent-chin gringos. (I know you did not say or imply this in this post, but you have in other posts.) It's because of a culture of isolation that we celebrate everything and everyone that is foreign. This may include people of any racial background that we find "exotic."
You are clearly an intelligent person, but when you make cheap, sensationalized, simplistic overgeneralizations (or caricaturizaciones as you would say in Spanish) of Chilean society, your blog loses value and credibility, and enters the realm of irrelevancy.
Chile Liberal, your problem is that you blinded by your own neo-liberal ideology. You cannot seem to see things in their own merit.
Copper is a national treasure that belongs to all Chileans, and as such it should be handled by the State. Copper doesn't grow back like trees, you know? It's quite literally a little piece of territory that you are shipping overseas.
I would only support partial privatization if 90% of profits go to taxes.
Even the current 5% royalty on mineral extraction (effective since 2005) is a miserable compensation for the damage inflicted.
@Chile Liberal: if you think a threat from Peru to take a century-long border grudge to the Hague constitutes a "conceivable military threat" then you should have your head checked, from time to time. And neither does your "newsflash" that Bolivia speaks strongly about wanting access to the water constitute a "conceivable military threat". Obviously a certain amount of defense spending is in order for most countries, Chile included. But to say that the latest expenditures are justified is ludicrous.
Indeed while admitting that you foolishly buy the "Bolivian Threat" nonsense hook, line and sinker, you are cheering on wasteful spending for a hugely bloated government agency which has virtually no accountability to voters, or even their elected representatives. And that's the sunny side of the street. I didn't even go into the negatives that a regional arms race spurred by Chile could imply.
Re: Copper. So even if it was privatized? And that added to the current miraculous effect that what is free market already has on Chile. You think somehow inequality levels would improve? I agree with Anonymous #2. It belongs to the people. But even so it's misallocating revenue by blindly pouring 10% into military spending.
@Anonymous #1. Number by number:
1) >>>...Now if you were to talk about what quality of education they are receiving, that's another matter. Be more specific with the terms that you use.
Duh. I am talking about quality of education, and quantity: high school degrees don't cut it. Where I come from "educated" means Bachelor Degree or above. Of course, here I'm also talking about human capital so a vocational degree from a capable tech institute that could feed engineers or highly skilled workers into local industry to process Chile's raw materials like copper. Or whatever. Educate Chileans so they're marketable to high tech firms setting up shop in Chile. Etc. The government should have a roll in establishing and developing that culture of real, worthwhile education. It's got resources, but it throws tons of them into a military sinkhole. When copper dries up, Chile will have lost its chance. It's pretty sad.
2) Most Chileans are economically depressed. I am careful, this is not a generalization. It's you who need to do your research. I've cited Marcel Claude repeatedly - he's a local economist who explains clearly how 400,000 pesos or less is the household income for 80% of Chile.
That's under US $1000/month for a family of four. Santiago, which has close to 40% of Chile's population, is the most expensive city in South America. So YES, MOST Chileans ARE economically depressed. And NO, I'm not imposing my values and no I won't take your fucking cultural sensitivity courses. I'm calling it like I see it. I'm not going to applaud an economy which is one of the world's most unequal, that lets most of its population scrape by under constant stress and quite often extreme consumer credit card debt. Look at it this way: consumerist North American values are already being imposed. But you'll let that slide while wagging your finger at me because I advocate more equality and somehow that makes me some sort of chauvnistic imperialist? You gotta choose your battles better.
3). Re: "Walking banks" I'm sorry dude but you have to recognize that Chile has a problem if the only people considered to have money are foreigners. You're right that tourists are easy targets everywhere, but these guys aren'tt tourists. They're professional military trainers staying at a hotel. They were targeted because they were foreigners, and foreigners are the only ones with money.
Why rob a Chilean if he's gonna be broke anyway? Why is every Chilean broke? That's the question.
4) >>>It's because of a culture of isolation that we celebrate everything and everyone that is foreign. This may include people of any racial background that we find "exotic."
Frankly, I'm insulted. You claim to have followed my blog yet you think I'm dumb enough to buy this crap? Chileans HATE Peruvians and make no bones about it. Plenty Chileans hate gringos, too. If you're gonna keep it up take your slimy PR campaign elsewhere. That said, I accept that friendliness toward gringos isn't necessarily just someone trying to scam a buck. Furthermore it's often not gringo-adulation, but genuine interest, etc. Me too I've often been pulled toward people from other cultures than my own and obviously plenty of Chileans have similarly innocent motives. But you can't deny an implicit power relationship when someone from a first world country comes to a third world country - or whatever you wanna call Chile, it's poorer than the US.
Anonymous At 11:17
Of course a corporate tax needs to be applied. Not sure if a 90% royalty would make it an attractive investment, but hell we would save money not keeping employed all sort of parasites living off the Holly Cow, and just asking the investors to pay the tax bill.
It is crazy to think of such a massive company in the hands of the state.
You say: Copper is a national treasure that belongs to all Chileans. That's the problem. It belongs to everybody, so nobody can claim it, hence it is a waste.
@Chileno: I believe you don't know that a war broke up in 1995 between Peru and Ecuador, that a war was almost declared recently, or the serious incidents between Argentina and Uruguay, or that a Chile-bashing candidate
was running for President in Peru. Don't forget the incidents with former president Carlos Mesa, and if you watched the clip I linked in the comment above, you may recall that Bolivian president Evo Morales has vowed to recover their 'sovereign access to the Pacific'. A conflict with any of our neighbours will ignite and trigger conflicts with the other 2, as it has historically happened.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking for an increased military spending or a regional arms race, but Chile's geography (it's mainly a border zone) and the complex geopolitics of Latin America demand Chile being serious about defence. In the late 70s and early 80s Chile almost went to war with the three neighbours. It is completely legitimate and highly desirable to have the armed forces up to date and properly trained up.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
@Chile Liberal: Dude, you have yet to cite a "conceivable external military threat". A "Chile-bashing candidate" doesn't cut it nor does anything else listed. Furthermore, you're grasping at straws to validate the idea of real external military threats, in the context of our discussion about excessive military spending. Since I've already conceded that a modicum of defense spending is indeed appropriate. So the only logical stance you can be taking is to defend the excessive arms build-up. But then you turn around and say you don't defend excessive spending. You are completely contradictory. You type a lot, please try to think more.
Chileno: I see a contradiction at your end, this is what you quote in your article:
to modernize its old and obsolete equipment.
I see no problem in modernizing, quite necessary when facing three problematic neighbours, in a continent where conflicts easily flare up.
Watch this
The quote was:
ostensibly to modernize its old and obsolete equipment
Christ you are the most disingenuously selective quoter. While again I appreciate very much that you like to discuss things, please consider whether you are adding anything new to the discussion before posting here. False representation of the document I quoted and yet-another-nationalistic youtube video does not constitute "New Material." It's about being respectful to my readers. I welcome new ideas to this thread, not rehashes of your previous comments.
Yikes. I can't believe you quoted Chomsky. The whole of his worthwhile contribution to the world has been much debatable theories of linguistics, but his political views are decidely lilliputian in intellectual rigor. I don't begrudge him having an opinion, but to see him quoted as if he is somehow an expert in political economy rubs me entirely the wrong way. That's like quoting Shockley as an expert on eugenics because of his contribution to transistor theory.
Otherwise, interesting article.
Tim
Really I could care less about your sensibilities regarding Chomsky. I don't rank myself among the die-hard fans of his politics but I thought the argument he was making fit well in the overall discussion, and I emphasized that it was up for debate.
Hey how bout you crack a book once in a while. Chomsky invented linguistics as we know it. Sure his premises are up for debate just like Galileos' were, but what is studied in academia is largely the system he introduced to the world upon publishing "Syntactic Structures" in 1958 while at MIT. Discounting his views on linguistics just because you disagree with his politics proves you to be nothing more than a knee-jerk conservative.
Hey how bout you crack a book once in a while.
lol. Yessir! I wasn't really talking about his linguistics, though I'd certainly argue the point. But not here. I'll have a hard time arguing with your ad hominems. Your blog - your rules. Sorry to piss in your backyard. Bye.
If you weren't talking about linguistics, then why'd you bring it up? Based on your comments, not your hominem, it appears you like to see yourself type rather than contribute anything substantive to the discussion. You had a knee-jerk reaction to the name "Noam Chomsky" and that's the extent of your prattling. I'm sorry if you take it personally, but remember that wasting time and space here is far more discourteous than any of my perceived ad hominems. If you can't add value here, then good riddance.
Isn't it just great how the internet has brought everyone together so they can spit out phrases like ad hominem as if they ever used these in real life? Seriously, yet another blog comment trend that needs to recede quickly, but that's not my point... My question is whether Chile has some form of conscription (which includes opting out for civil service duties) or if the army is a volunteer run for-profit corporation.
Hey Blaark, Chile's army (and entire military, I suppose) is all volunteer. Not sure how/if they profit, might get something from my friend Tomas' post on the subject.
Thanks for the info... The profit portion was mostly just a snarky dig at Chile Liberal's blathering tho I would certainly think of 10% of the copper revenue as a profit right from the get go...
As for the military being voluntary, well I don't know if that's really any better or worse than conscription insofar as how changes might come about from the younger, post Pinochet generation... Less rioting in the streets I would imagine, tho what change that has ever brought is debatable...
Still rioting.
Lots of riots in the 80's too, lots of punk music. The leftist cause was a lot clearer when Pinochet was president. Someone was commenting a while back about the built up resentment between cops and rioters, the latter of which are typically a vocal minority among largely peaceful protesters. That said in the slums of Santiago it often means pitched warfare with handguns shooting at cops, echoing the more militant sectors like La Legua that were points of resistance and intense fighting during the dictatorship. I was reading, I think in the The Clinic (a magazine), how today's violence toward cops in the slums is more nihilistic or something while before it was political.
Anyway, besides the fact that they're not killing/torturing political dissidents of European descent anymore, there's hardly anything "Post-Pinochet" about Chile today. For all the single mother, doctor-ness of Bachelet, she doesn't flinch before sending water cannons and teargas out to quell a planned peaceful demonstration among labor unions.
Local poet Mauricio Redoles, who was tortured under the Pinochet junta and exiled to England, calls Chile's current government a "second dictatorship".
The country Pinochet created is very much in full gear today. A great starting point for understanding the "socialist" and "democratic" Chile of today is Marc Cooper's bestseller Pinochet and Me, a quick read.
I'll try and read that book, you have mentioned a few times.
Talking about Punk music and riots, it's interesting to note that Chile's beloved rock band Los Prisioneros, with their strong political flavour and working-class attitude, wrote many songs against 'the system' in the 80s. If we listen to them today, the protest songs are still valid.
However, calling Chile a 'second dictatorship' is typcal from the Loony Left, people who worship Castro but talk against the Pinochet dictatorship.
Chile's a flawed democracy, according to the Democracy Index by The Economist a and its institutions are strengthening so it should eventually join "functioning democracies" circle. People are more educated today and the economy is growing fast, not fast enough thouh, but hey, when have pinkos ever created wealth?
Don't pay too much attention to those commies.
Right, I just read about the student riots across Chile... Damn weekends ruining my recall...
Still, the nihilistic violence towards police runs tandem with the pointless social activity that has become protesting so far as a I can tell living in the group hug capital of the world...
Thanks for the recommended reading... I'll set about finding a copy when I'm next looking for books...
However, calling Chile a 'second dictatorship' is typcal from the Loony Left, people who worship Castro but talk against the Pinochet dictatorship...but hey, when have pinkos ever created wealth?...Don't pay too much attention to those commies.
Reagan is dead. Did you forget? You can trade in your stone-washed jeans for a pair of fatigues, the conservative catchword today is "Muslim" m'kay?
Now that you're updated a few decades, can you give me concrete examples of the Castro-worshiping tendencies (and the relevance of those tendencies if/when applicable) of those who criticize Chile's current government for being a rubber stamp to practically every policy of Pinochet? Obviously there are differences between now and then, like political imprisonment for ethnically European Chileans - that doesn't happen like it did in the old days - and there are more daycare centers. But I think calling it "Second Dictatorship" resonates, and not one to easily discount like you do.
A small-minded literalist will take issue with the 2nd Dictatorship terminology, of course. But the overall point being made is, sadly, overwhelmingly valid. And it has absolutely nothing to do with Castro. But you would, considering how your response to Chile's wasteful military spending is to slap of Youtube videos of Evo Morales.
Your man Redolés can easily be found in this kind of online shitholes, where you can read plenty of idiocy on Comrade Allende, Comrade Castro, Comrade Evo, and of course Comandante Chávez.
Calling Bachelet's government a 'second dictatorship' when actually she's been elected by a vast majority of the electorate, doesn't resonate. It just sounds downright idiotic. But I believe those people call 'democracy' the Cuban system, and when they say freedom they're thinking freedom but the Chávez way (FARC are not terrorists but freedom fighters, you know).
Chile's current government for being a rubber stamp to practically every policy of Pinochet
I'm sorry but they were not elected to change the model. They were elected to reform Chile's conservative society, that's why they voted for an agnostic single mother, who learned during the campaign what the Central Bank does and I fear she still doesn't have a clue.
And about Evo Morales, when I hear that after 170 years they still claim some of our lands, I feel like renovating obsolete defence material. I presume you've never heard about the 'Chile factor' in the Gas War?.
It's not nationalism, it's actually to deter a potential agression from them.
So you found Redoles mentioned for his participation in an event that was covered online. Bravo. You pass lesson one "how to create a hyperlink". A+
Lesson 2: "irrelevant links - and arguments - bore us".
You still have made no clear connection between Redoles and his views about Castro. Do you know what he actually thinks about Castro? And regardless of what he thinks about it, how is that relevant? Castro is your darling red herring. I'll wait till you gobble it up, doggy, before moving on. Done? Good.
So you think the term "Second Dictatorship" is ridiculous. Fine. I think your passive aggressive urge to pick up a gun when you see Evo on TV is also pretty ridiculous.
What I don't think is ridiculous is calling the current government a "Second Dictatorship" when Bachelet doesn't flinch before sending riot police out into the street to tear gas and spray down peaceful protesters with high powered water cannons when the CUT and other labor unions marched last year to demand better conditions for Chile's working class. That's democracy? She condemned the whole demonstration as "violent". Yes there was violence, but much of the police abuse was targeting peaceful protesters, there's ample footage of that.
So obviously nobody's saying that the current government wasn't democratically elected. Only a literalist would interpret "second dictatorship" as signalling such a notion.
To address your point about people not electing Bachelet to change the system well great. Concertacion is the only viable option on the left and it's the whipping boy of entrenched military, business and church powers fed steroids during 17 years of non-democratic military rule. So let's give a golf-clap for "democracy" in which Chileans vote in the furthest left viable candidate who is virtually powerless. Except, of course, when they are advancing the rightist agenda like Lagos did.
So yes there is a vote, but the effects of Pinochet's dictatorship continue to thrive in Chile, are aided and abetted by the furthest left possible governing coalition - "Second Dictatorship" is extremely apt. And you can't call me "pro-castro" you already ate that.
Let me stop for a second on Evo Morales and the defence material purchased by Chile.
It's not that I want to have a gun to kill him. You obviously didn't watch the video I linked. What a pity. In Bolivia, it's a state policy to teach children that Antofagasta and the 2nd Region are Bolivian lands under Chilean occupation. All poverty in Chile boils down to Chile's fault: they won't export anything unless it's done through a sovereign Bolivian port (poor Bolivians, they got angry when we privatised our ports).
A highly flammable country like that one demands Chile being militarily strong to DETER any agression. Just think for a moment all recent conflicts in Latin America and you will see my point. With Argentina we almost went to war 20 years ago, after they ignored the first agreement on the Beagle Channel. Same thing with Peru, and we don't have diplomatic relations with Bolivia.
Due to Chile's odd geography, we're never too far from a border. The very existence of Chile is explained thanks to a sense of national defence. Any conflict with either of our neighbours means the other 2 will claim whatever they want from us. While Chile was dealing with the Argentine problem back in the 80s, Bolivia was prepared to invade and get Antofagasta back.
Just watch the reacion now with the James Bond film set in the 2nd Region and you will see that this runs very deep in the national psyche. Ask anyone from Antofagasta if they think their lands are up for discussion, and you will see the reaction. A central government not worried about defence, will surely lose an election. The conflict with Peru currently in the Hague is the best example. We had closed off all disputes with them, and now came up with ANOTHER. There's no end to this, so spending money in defence is necessary (note that I use the word "defence", as in to defend, not to attack).
The FIDAE for instance is just organised to show off to them and prove the point: don't mess with us.
Thanks for all the content but I can't really find any new material in your latest comment. I've repeatedly acknowledged that defense spending is necessary. Obviously there must be a legitimate counterbalance to Bolivian saber-rattling.
But when I decry the Chilean military as a bloated, unaccountable government agency amped up on misallocated copper revenue, spending excessively at the expense of domestic economic development, then it's not at all necessary for you to underscore the Bolivian "threat". Yes, their feelings are no secret, and your newsflashes are no revelation.
Yes, we agree that defense spending is necessary. But you seem to justify giving the military carte blanche, whereas I say it's excessive.
And don't patronize me I know what Chile's been through militarily. There has not been ONE war since the War of the Pacific ended circa 1883.
The Beagle Channel dispute was solved through diplomacy, the Vatican, and so Argentina moved on to get slaughtered in the Falklands.
The other night I was starving so I ducked into a picada in Providencia and sat down at the bar next to some ultra-centrist like you, whose breath was rank with Escudo beer and nicotine, who had a pamphlet with Allende's picture on the front, described the showman Lagos as a "statesman", described Bachelet as "muy inteligente" and was trying to explain to me that Chile is like Israel, surrounded by hostile countries. You would no doubt jump on that argument as well. So I say to you, as well as him:
BULLSHIT. Yes, both Chile and Israel are surrounded by countries who would move in when given a chance. But there's a small difference. Israel has been attacked, repeatedly, since its inception 60 years ago. Chile has gone TWICE that long without being in battle, and the War of the Pacific was a huge victory for Chile, quite possibly orchestrated by Jonathan North, the Nitrate King, in cahoots with Valparaiso bankers.
My friend: I have the feeling that finally you are getting close to Chile´s essential, what is a country created from a variety of people with common interests. As you said: Valparaíso bankers, some inmigrants, a few militars. What Joaquín Edwards Bello used to call "la fronda aristocrática".
In our history has been a few times when Chile has been threatened by a variety of enemies in many times: Perú in 1907 and 1974 tried to attack us, with Velasco Alvarado as president, helped by Cuba and URSS. This thing ended when USA sent a huge militar aid as A-37 and F-5 fighters.
Argentina in 1892, when Chile lost every pretension over Patagonia and Atlantic coast; 1956, Snipe Island incident; 1965, Laguna del Desierto incident, when Chile lost the connection with its extreme south territory; 1978, Beagle conflict, with a few real combats that ended with the argentinian fleet running away to Atlantic Ocean from Chilean warships; 1984, a real combat between fighters and finally, may be 1994, when an asian naval task force was detected trying to invade Eastern Island.
Remember when Fujimori said after the Peru-Ecuador war in 1996: "we are preparing for a war against Chile".
if you think chile has huge problems now, look elsewhere, and look back to the past, to get some perspective...
just saw in fact a very interesting posting on chile and other countries based on the new york times story the other day about allende's experiment to plan the economy with 7 computers and 500 telex machines... see www.thekaufmannpost.net
10% to the military, how much goes to education?
I bet more.
You may want to check out Chile's history, but they won it by building and maintaining a competent military.
I'd be more impressed if you were slamming Chavez for spending lavishly on arms, while people are standing in food lines...
I care little to impress you. Since when should a blog about Chile spend its time bashing Chavez? Anyway, speaking of your un-referenced assertion that Chile's schools get more money than the military, let me put it this way. High school kids took to the streets in 2006 protesting the dismal state of education in Chile and polls showed most Chileans sided with them. If the armed forces were that disgruntled, Chile would have had another successful military coup.
A little background.
Chilean laws linking copper revenue to military funding predate Pinochet by several decades. What Pinochet did was he modified an existing law to establish a 10% tax on export revenue from Codelco.
The law establishes that these funds can only be used to purchase military equipment and nothing else, and there's a guaranteed minimum of around US$75 million (in 2004, it changes anually) for each of the three branches of the Armed Forces.
In 2002, then Defense Minister Michelle Bachelet, managed to hand over control of excess funds (those beyond the minimum guaranteed) collected in this way, to the Defense Ministry from the Armed Forces. This was only known in 2004, due to the secret nature of the law.
According to the 2008 nation budget, 6.6% goes to Defense (US$2.7 billion at today's exchange rate) and 20% to Education (US$8 billion).
The 10% given by Codelco isn't included in the budget. Codelco gave US$1.3 billion to the military in 2007. Therefore, presumably, the entire Defense budget for 2008 is approx. US$5.7 billion.
Now, if we break down the Education budget, we find that US$5 billion (out of the US$8 billion) go to school subsidies alone (62%).
So, in short:
-Defense gets US$2.7 billion in nation's budget
-Copper Law adds US$3 billion more for arms purchases
-Armed Forces only exert control over US$250 million of the total gained via Copper Law
-Education gets US$8 billion in nation's budget
-School subsidies amount to US$5 billion (62% of Ed. budget)
In conclusion:
-Copper Law adds an obscene amount of money for arms purchases.
-Fortunately, Armed Forces are limited into how much they can spend from it. No carte blanche here.
-The Defense Ministry controls excess funds from Copper Law according to its view of priorities. One condition: that it be spent on weapons systems.
-School subsidies take a bigger slice of the pie than the whole Defense budget, or Copper Law money, separately.
Caveats:
-Budget figures originally in 2008 pesos. Copper Law figure possibly in 2007 pesos. Copper Law floor possibly in 2004 pesos.
-I'm not an expert on the subject, so there could be some errors.
Cheers.
Thanks for your help, buddy!
(UPDATE: I made a few errors in my previous comment. Here's an updated version, with corrections. You can delete the old one if you wish.)
A little background.
Chilean laws linking copper revenue to military funding predate Pinochet by several decades. What Pinochet did was he modified an existing law to establish a 10% tax on export revenue from Codelco.
The law establishes that these funds can only be used to purchase military equipment and nothing else, and there's a guaranteed minimum of around US$75 million (in 2004, it changes anually) for each of the three branches of the Armed Forces.
In 2002, then Defense Minister Michelle Bachelet, managed to hand over control of excess funds (those beyond the minimum guaranteed) collected in this way, to the Defense Ministry from the Armed Forces. This was only known in 2004, due to the secret nature of the law.
According to the 2008 nation budget, 6.6% goes to Defense (US$2.7 billion at today's exchange rate) and 20% to Education (US$8 billion).
The 10% given by Codelco isn't included in the budget. Codelco gave US$1.3 billion to the military in 2007. Therefore, presumably, the entire Defense budget for 2008 is approx. US$4 billion.
Now, if we break down the Education budget, we find that US$5 billion (out of the US$8 billion) go to school subsidies alone (62%).
So, in short:
-Defense gets US$2.7 billion in nation's budget
-Copper Law adds US$1.3 billion more for arms purchases
-Armed Forces only exert control over US$225 million of the total gained via Copper Law
-Education gets US$8 billion in nation's budget
-School subsidies amount to US$5 billion (62% of Ed. budget)
In conclusion:
-Copper Law adds an obscene amount of money for arms purchases that could be better spent elsewhere.
-Fortunately, Armed Forces are limited into how much they can spend from it. No carte blanche for the entire US$1.3 billion.
-The Defense Ministry controls excess funds from Copper Law according to its view of priorities. One condition: that it be spent on weapons systems.
-School subsidies take a bigger slice of the pie than the whole Defense budget and Copper Law money combined.
Caveats:
-Budget figures originally in 2008 pesos. Copper Law figure possibly in 2007 US dollars. Copper Law floor possibly in 2004 pesos.
-I'm not an expert on the subject, so there could be some errors.
Cheers.
Looks like my estimate for education was pretty good huh?
Like all leftists you ignore chavez or the chinese kicking around the poor tibetans.
Your only venom is for the free enterprise system, and disdain for funding the military that keeps nations sovereign.
>>>Looks like my estimate for education was pretty good huh?
My position that the military is getting too much and education too little remains unrefuted.
Try again.
>>>Like all leftists you ignore chavez or the chinese kicking around the poor tibetans.
You are incoherent. If you want blogging about Chavez and China, then don't tune into a blog about Chile. Also:
A) Many leftists do rebuke both Chavez and China. Have you watched the news lately, dude????
B) I agree with a lot of their points.
You lose.
i like this post... and i do agree that without further advances in the educational systems, chile will never actually change it's ways... the rich stay rich and the poor get poorer
there are only two types of decisions: decisions that have long term goals and affects, and decisions that are made for urgencies. The only long term goals the chilean government wants to make concern building dams for electricity... as clearly demonstrated by the comments Bachelet made in california with governor shwarzenager (does he even have a college degree?)
wealthy people in chile exploit the cheap cost of manual labor... and instead of investing their money into long term projects to benefit chile... they help out their families and their own children by building apartment buildings with cheap labor to supply the demand of population increase fueled by the poorest populations... ie, santiago the city of 200 houses.... in this way they are making money with returns over a couple years... not generations... have you noticed it only takes them a month to build a building here?
as far as processing copper... once again the same interest is involved.... noone will privately invest their money into copper processing because the amount of investment is too high and the returns would be too far in the future... so... the government would have to make those investments... BUT... the government is too focused on the dam projects and the ¨urgent¨ issues... which of course are always tied up in legal battles as is (nature lovers, and the greedy investors and all)
and yes... chile, i would say, is the son of pinochet still (even though the chileans will get very upset with you for saying that and will whole-heartedly not agree)... so the military of course gets heavily funded...i mean, with their ¨military threats¨ and all...(jajaja) ... honestly, of course the bolivians are upset over losing their connection to the ocean when chile ROBBED them of it... and argentina when england ROBBED the islas malvinas... just like the hawaiians when the americans ROBBED them of it.... how many examples are there?... but can you say the racist hawaiians are a ¨military threat¨ to the states?
bolivia now doesnt have an international port.. think about how much money they lost in that... money which the country would have to better themselves.. arica and antofagasta... that's money, and bolivians currently live a MUCH simpler lifestyle than chileans for these very reasons... imagine their exports to brazil, paraguay from chinese and asian imports...
BUT.. this discussion isn't to point out that greed exists in humans and that humans can do very ugly things
so... next comment
the copper processing is very similar to the steel processing in the united states... very few steel refineries exist in the states because of the larger and older companies in europe... the returns are too far in the future to appeal to investors now
you need to also remember.... the few rich chileans that do exist and have adecuate power to change things... they dont want to be rich in chile... they want to be rich as compared to rich people of the world.... so when inflation occurs... of course they will raise their prices of goods... but the workers will never see an increase in wage... happens in the US as well, the US just happens to have a slightly better legal system
and finally... yes... chileans do view ALL foreigners as walking banks
hell... if you made 400 US monthly and had children... well... i flew in a plane to chile... maybe in santiago the people who do labor jobs get payed more than 200 mil pesos a month, but here on the coast... shit, 30 mil goes towards solamente las micros... and to pay for your child's school bus on top of that?
wealthy chileans are bastards
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home