Talk:1973 Chilean coup d'état

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ezfaninaz (article contribs).

It cant be argued

One part of the article says that "It can be argued that the resolution called upon the armed forces to overthrow the government if it did not comply, as follows "...To present the President of the Republic, Ministers of State, and members of the Armed and Police Forces with the grave breakdown of the legal and constitutional order ... it is their duty to put an immediate end to all situations herein referred to that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land with the aim of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law."[41]". Nowhere in the resolution cited does it call on the armed and police forces to overthrow the government if it did not comply. The resolution is clearly calling OUT the military and police forces, along with the president and ministers, to end their breach of the legal and constitutional order. It clearly states in section 13: "That the creation of a new ministry, with the participation of high-level officials of the Armed and Police Forces, was characterized by the President of the Republic to be "of national security" and its mandate "the establishment of political order" and "the establishment of economic order," and that such a mandate can only be conceived within the context of full restoration and validation of the legal and constitutional norms that make up the institutional framework of the Republic." This has to refer to the new agency that was created per Decree Law 520 which established a new price and subsistence agency which could request the assistance of the armed forces to enforce its decisions. This agency was used to nationalize businesses in Chile.

Thus, the resolution makes it clear that the armed and police forces were part of the nationalization of businesses and the Chamber of Deputies were against using the armed and police forces for what they called "partisan ends". Furthermore, military members like Carlos Prats were highly loyal to Allende, and held both positions in the Ministers of State, and armed forces. For example, Carlos Prats was both a minister and Commander-in-chief in the military and was highly loyal to Allende. This further shows that the resolution was calling OUT the armed forces to stop participating in the breach and not "upon" the armed forces to overthrow the government. Overall, this resolution is calling OUT the president, the minsters AND armed and police forces to stop their breach and return the republic to the right path, which the "right path" is obviously one that does not involve nationalization of businesses among other things that were mentioned in section 5 to 12. This is why in the quote, the president, the ministers and the armed and police forces are mentioned together, and not by themselves. They will be presented the resolution so that the three institutions can remember their duty and stop the colluded breach.

Saying that the resolution called upon the armed forces to overthrow the government if it did not comply, implies that the armed and police forces were not a part of the breach which they clearly were as stated in section 13. So, why would the Chamber of Deputies call on the armed and police forces to overthrow the government if they did not comply when they were involved in the breach as well? Is the writer making a great leap in interpreting the word "duty" to imply overthrow of the government if they do not comply? It doesnt make any sense. Is the writer misinterpreting what is meant by "immediate end"? Because when they say "immediate end" it is obvious they are talking about the three institutions and not just the armed and police forces, which is why they used plural words such as "responsibilities" and "their"right after mentioning the three state institutions. And if by the phrase immediate end, they were asking the armed and police forces to overthrow the government if it didnt comply, then why did they only mention the ministers by name prior to the phrase "immediate end" and not the armed and police forces specifically? It is obvious that the resolution wanted the THREE institutions to stop the breach and act in conjunction with their responsibilities and duties, as the Chamber of Deputies felt that they were not acting in conjunction with their responsibilities and duties, and not calling on the military and police to overthrow the government. It is completely nonsensical to interpret it that way if you know the background and have read the whole resolution.