The Chilean Coup

1159 Words5 Pages
The United States can be noted for its few, yet drastic, changes in foreign policy. From the birth of the nation to the late 19th century, the United States tended to stay isolationist, whereas, in the 20th and 21st century, the United States had become increasingly involved in foreign affairs. However, the actions that were taken in the 20th century were different in both their cause and how they were handled by the United States, factors which can be used to deem these events as either failures or successes. For example, the Chilean coup was performed due to fears of communism in Cuba and was performed relatively subtly. On the contrary, the United States’ involvement in the Bosnian Conflict was performed as a result of humanitarian concerns…show more content…
It would also imply an immediate effect of war and death. These are all effects of the 1973 Chilean Coup D’etat (Latin America's Wars Volume II: The Age of the Professional Soldier, 1900-2001), which was sponsored and assisted by the United States. The coup, although successful in its execution, was a failure regarding all aspects after its occurrence. This involvement has been denied in part by the Central Intelligence Agency, yet documents have been released by the United States government, which contradict these statements, such as the Military Coup Planning for Morning of 11 Sept Secret (National Security Archive), which explicitly states that the military coup will rely on United States support. This presents the first large-scale problem within this event; if a country is doing something right, why should they hide it? It could be argued that a national security risk is present, but the threat would have been long gone at this point in time, so what exactly could be the point of covering such involvement in the coup? For example, the United States does claim involvement in the coup of Saddam Hussein, so it cannot be because it was a coup. However, there is a difference between Salvadore Allende and Saddam Hussein, the same difference between the Bosnian Conflict and the coup of Salvadore Allende. The coup of Saddam Hussein and involvement in…show more content…
intervention in the Bosnian COnflict. Unlike the Chilean coup, the U.S. took a role in the Bosnian conflict due to humanitarian concerns, and teamed up with other countries in NATO, as to de-escalate the problem. The Bosnian conflict emerged after the split of Yugoslavia, and the Muslim Bosniaks wanted independence. Their plea for independence was rejected and thus a genocide in Bosnia began, with over 80,000 Bosniak casualties, making it the largest genocide in Europe since the Holocaust (United States Holocaust Museum). The United States took part in the war after humanitarian issues became a concern, with the casualties of Bosniaks, and NATO joined them. They (the U.S) did not only take a military stance but helped civilians in other ways as well, such as dropping food to civilians (Los Angeles Times: U.S. Airdrop of Aid to Eastern Bosnia). This is one of the primary reasons that this was such a success; the United States did not act in secret or alone, it acted alongside other nations and in humanitarian interests rather than personal. It is important to note that the United States played an incredibly crucial role in the war; in ending it. U.S. Diplomat Richard Holbrooke (Foreign Policy: The Bosnian War Cables) played an essential role in writing and was the chief architect for the Dayton Peace Accords, which ended the 3-year Bosnian war and genocide by splitting the 3 ethnic groups: the Muslim
Open Document