U.S. Dollars Are Again a Factor in Chile Politics : This Time, Money Is Being Used to End Dictatorship and Restore Democracy

Fifteen years after a coup brought down Chile’s elected government in a climate of turmoil that was helped by covert U.S. funding, American money is again a factor in Chilean politics.

This time, however, the funding is not coming through the CIA, but openly, after approval by Congress. The goal now is to end the dictatorship that replaced the last elected government, and to restore democratic rule.

Opposition groups are spending $1.36 million in U.S. aid in the campaign for a “No” vote in a plebiscite late this year on whether the military regime’s candidate should rule for eight more years. A No victory would require open presidential elections within a year.

The military’s candidate is likely to be Gen. Augusto Pinochet, who led the violent coup on Sept. 11, 1973, against Marxist President Salvador Allende, three years after Allende’s Communist-backed coalition was elected. Allende and thousands of his supporters died in the coup and its aftermath.

$13 Million in Covert Action

According to U.S. records, the United States spent more than $13 million for covert action against Allende in the decade from 1963 to 1973, including more than $2.6 million spent by the CIA on behalf of Eduardo Frei, a Christian Democrat who defeated Allende for president in 1964.

After Allende became president in 1970, succeeding Frei, between $6 million and $7 million in covert U.S. funds were spent to support political and media opponents of Allende and his ruling Popular Unity coalition. Opinions differ on the impact and goals of that assistance, but few doubt that it coincided with a surge in political and economic conflict in which a coup became inevitable.

The irony of Americans now aiding those who seek to unseat the coup leader escapes neither Pinochet’s supporters, the opposition groups nor the Americans involved in the program.

Outspent by Government

The Chilean parties aligned in the No Command say the government is outspending the opposition by a 30-to-1 margin. In campaigning for a Yes vote, the government uses its television and radio networks, pro-government newspapers and magazines and an array of billboards and posters portraying its achievements and views.

“Just turn on the TV in the evening: it’s all, ‘Yes for stable democracy,’ ” said Oscar Reyes, spokesman for the No campaign.

In contrast, the opposition has been unable to place its ads with the pro-government media. A state of emergency has been renewed, and about 30 reporters face charges for articles alleged to have violated state security laws. Restrictions on outdoor political gatherings further limit the ability of Pinochet’s opponents to muster potential supporters.

The opposition weighed these barriers against the potential political cost of openly accepting American help. Genaro Arriagada, a prominent Christian Democrat and No campaign leader, said the opposition chose between “the lesser of two evils.”

Publicity Disadvantage

“An American analyst told me the other day that Dukakis couldn’t survive against Bush with a publicity disadvantage of 1.5-to-1,” Arriagada said, referring to the leading candidates in U.S. presidential race, Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis and Vice President George Bush. “How could we win with a 30-to-1 disadvantage?”

Asked whether the U.S. role now might raise concerns about past U.S. intervention, Arriagada said, “The difference is very great. This money is being given and received publicly. This is not a covert action. We accepted it exactly for that reason, that it’s not a secret.”

In addition to the funds for publicity, the No Command is involved in a separate U.S.-funded project to create a computerized vote-counting system that will operate parallel to the government’s system. The purpose is to ensure that there is no fraud.

Other groups receiving funds include the year-old opposition newspaper, La Epoca, the opposition Andante publishing house and a trade union federation. Most of the funds are spread among opposition groups working on a range of voter registration and civic education programs, designed to help people understand their rights and encourage them to take part in the plebiscite.

Endowment Funds

The money is being dispensed by the National Endowment for Democracy, a nonpartisan foundation created in 1983 to support projects that encourage democratic institutions. The endowment, which receives an annual grant from Congress, has funded projects in Chile since 1984, steadily increasing its support from $370,000 that year to $620,000 in 1987.

In December, Congress authorized funds specifically for Chile for the first time, allocating $1 million to go to opposition groups working to end the dictatorship and restore democracy. Another $360,000 from the endowment’s regular annual budget also is going to Chilean groups this year for similar programs.

Harry G. Barnes, the U.S. ambassador to Chile, said the assistance is evidence of “the recognition that the United States shouldn’t be afraid of promoting democracy. . . . On the contrary, there is a certain obligation which every democratic government ought to share in promoting basic human and civil rights.”

He said U.S. support was especially justified “in an equation like Chile, where the situation is so lopsided, and the government has such overwhelming control. If the plebiscite is to have any recognition within Chile, it seems obvious that people have to be free to hear all sides of the situation, to get together and talk about it, and journalists should not fear being thrown into jail.”

Shift in U.S. Policy

Barnes’ arrival in 1985 coincided with a shift in American policy on Chile, emphasizing closer contacts with the opposition, harsher criticism of human rights abuses and stronger support for a transition to democracy. In December, the United States revoked Chile’s preferential trade status.

Pinochet said in April that the No leaders, “with money obtained from abroad, are trying to impose trans-national doctrines, are forming spurious alliances and spending millions in a campaign of hate and lies, trying to seduce the consciences of Chileans, who will not succumb to these songs of Sirens.”

Patricio Vildosola, treasurer of the National Advance, a pro-Pinochet right-wing party, said the No movement is “mortgaging our patrimony. If you want to give me money, it is because you are investing, and I am accepting a debt. That must have a price--the loss of our national independence.”

Carl Gershman, president of the endowment, said in a telephone interview from Washington that the current U.S. support for Chile “is not skewing the process but an attempt to give a certain balance to the political equation. What we’re doing is creating a fairer process. The motivation is to lead to free and fair elections.”