SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) — In Chile, leftists were tortured, tossed from helicopters and forced to watch relatives be raped. In Argentina, many were “disappeared” by members of the brutal military dictatorship that held detainees in concentration camps.
It all happened with the endorsement of Henry Kissinger, the former U.S. secretary of state who died Wednesday at age 100.
As tributes poured in for the towering figure who was the top U.S. diplomat under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, the mood was decidedly different in South America, where many countries were scarred deeply during the Cold War by human rights abuses inflicted in the name of anti-communism and where many continue to harbor a deep distrust of their powerful neighbor to the north.
“I don’t know of any U.S. citizen who is more deplored, more disliked in Latin America than Henry Kissinger,” said Stephen Rabe, a retired University of Texas at Dallas history professor who wrote a book about Kissinger’s relationship with Latin America. “You know, the reality is, if he had traveled once democracy returned to Argentina, to Brazil, to Uruguay — if he had traveled to any of those countries he would have been immediately arrested.”
There is likely no starker example of Kissinger’s meddling with democracy in the region and then supporting brutality in the name of anti-communism than Chile.
Advertisement
In Chile, Kissinger played a key role in the efforts to do everything in the United States’ power to undermine and weaken the socialist government of Salvador Allende, who was elected president in 1970. Kissinger then used his sway to prop up the military dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet, who rose to power in a 1973 coup, repeatedly refusing to call attention to the numerous human rights violations of Pinochet’s regime, which murdered opponents, canceled elections, restricted the media, suppressed labor unions and disbanded political parties.
Chile’s President Salvador Allende in Buenos Aires, Argentina, May 26,1973. Leftists in Chile were tortured during the military dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet, and in Argentina, many were “disappeared” by members of the brutal military dictatorship that held detainees in concentration camps. It all happened with the endorsement of Henry Kissinger, the former U.S. secretary of state. Many countries were scarred deeply during the Cold War by human rights abuses inflicted in the name of anti-communism and where many still harbor a deep distrust of their powerful neighbor to the north. (AP Photo/Eduardo Di Baia , File)
FILE – Gen. Augusto Pinochet, head of he Santiago, Chile military garrison, announces measures for the state of emergency installed by the government after rioting in downtown Santiago last night and this morning, Dec. 2, 1971. Leftists in Chile were tortured during the military dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet and in Argentina, many were “disappeared” by members of the brutal military dictatorship that held detainees in concentration camps. It all happened with the endorsement of Henry Kissinger, the former U.S. secretary of state. Many countries were scarred deeply during the Cold War by human rights abuses inflicted in the name of anti-communism and where many still harbor a deep distrust of their powerful neighbor to the north. (AP Photo/Bill Nicholson, File)
Advertisement
Kissinger long alleged that he wasn’t aware of the human rights abuses that were committed in the region, but records show that this wasn’t the case, said Peter Kornbluh, a senior analyst at the National Security Archive that is in charge of its Chile project.
“The declassified historical record, the documents that Kissinger wrote, read and said, leave no doubt that he was the chief architect of the U.S. policy to destabilize the Allende government and that he was also the chief enabler of helping the Pinochet regime consolidate what became a bloody, 17-year infamous dictatorship,” Kornbluh said.
Kissinger was “somewhat obsessed” with Allende’s government, fearing that the rise of a socialist government through democratic means could have a contagion effect in the region, said Chilean Sen. José Miguel Insulza, a former secretary general of the Organization of American States who served as a foreign policy adviser in Allende’s government.
“For him, any action that meant defending the national interest of the United States seemed justifiable,” Insulza said.
Advertisement
Kissinger feared what Allende’s government could mean for the world.
“In geopolitical terms, Kissinger considered the rise of a left-wing coalition to power through democratic means even more dangerous than the example set by Cuba. Indeed, this could be replicated in Western countries with powerful communist parties in terms of electoral influence, such as in Italy,” said Rolando Álvarez, a history professor at the University of Santiago, Chile.
Kissinger was seemingly unaffected by tales of suffering at the hands of military officers, even though his own family arrived in the U.S. as refugees who had to flee Nazi Germany in his teens.
“By the end of 1976, State Department aides were telling Henry Kissinger, a Jew, that Jews were being targeted in Argentina,” Rabe said. “And Kissinger just didn’t do anything.”
In Chile’s neighbor, Argentina, a military junta rose to power in 1976 vowing to combat leftist “subversives.” Kissinger made clear he had no objections to their brutal tactics and repeatedly ignored calls from other State Department officials to raise more concerns about human rights violations.
Advertisement
FILE – U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger greets Argentina’s Foreign Minister, Alberto J. Vignes, as Ismael Huerta Diaz, right, foreign ministers of Chile, looks on during break in Latin Foreign Ministers Conference in Mexico City, Feb. 22, 1974. Leftists in Chile were tortured during the military dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet and in Argentina, many were “disappeared” by members of the brutal military dictatorship that held detainees in concentration camps. It all happened with the endorsement of Henry Kissinger, the former U.S. secretary of state. Many countries were scarred deeply during the Cold War by human rights abuses inflicted in the name of anti-communism and where many still harbor a deep distrust of their powerful neighbor to the north. (AP Photo/Ed Kolenovsky, File)
In a June 1976 meeting, Kissinger had a message for Argentina’s foreign minister, Admiral César Augusto Guzzetti: “If there are things that have to be done, you should do them quickly.” He later reiterated that support during a meeting in October 1976 — a time when Argentine officials were worried the U.S. would raise human rights concerns amid increasing reports of torture and disappearances.
Guzzetti was “overjoyed” at the meetings, and “had felt that Kissinger had given him the signal that the United States had no objection to wholesale slaughter,” Rabe said.
Advertisement
Kissinger had a similar attitude toward other military dictatorships in the region, including in Uruguay and Brazil, and never raised objections to what was known as Operation Condor, a clandestine program that allowed military regimes in that part of the world to illegally pursue, detain, torture and assassinate political dissidents who fled their countries.
That attitude made a lasting imprint on Latin Americans’ psyche.
FILE – Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger hosts a luncheon at the State Department for guests and Latin American Foreign Ministers in Washington, April 17, 1974. Leftists in Chile were tortured during the military dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet and in Argentina, many were “disappeared” by members of the brutal military dictatorship that held detainees in concentration camps. It all happened with the endorsement of Henry Kissinger, the former U.S. secretary of state. Many countries were scarred deeply during the Cold War by human rights abuses inflicted in the name of anti-communism and where many still harbor a deep distrust of their powerful neighbor to the north. (AP Photo, File)
Advertisement
“At least here in Latin America, what I perceived in Henry Kissinger’s vision is very negative because it’s a kind of anything goes mentality. No matter how brutal the dictatorship is that must be supported, it doesn’t matter,” said Francisco Bustos, a human rights lawyer and professor at the University of Chile.
Decades later, the effects of that policy are still being felt in a region that feels the U.S. would go to any lengths to support its interests.
“There is a segment of political parties and movements in Latin America, including Chile, where the relationship with the United States is essentially marked by anti-imperialism. This perspective essentially sees any U.S. administration, whether Democratic or Republican, liberal, progressive, or ultraconservative, as more or less the same,” said Gilberto Aranda, an international relations professor at the University of Chile.
Although U.S. intervention in a region that was often referred to as “America’s backyard” has a long history, Kissinger seemed to take that into overdrive.
It’s no surprise then that one of the harshest reactions to Kissinger’s death came from a Chilean official.
Advertisement
“A man has died whose historical brilliance never managed to conceal his profound moral misery,” Chile’s ambassador to the United States, Juan Gabriel Valdes, posted on the social media platform X. Chile’s leftist President Gabriel Boric then retweeted the message.
Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the world
To grasp a party’s true values, study its budget. By that test, Donald Trump’s Republicans loathe science, medical research, victims of overseas disasters, food stamps, education for all age groups, healthcare for the poor and clean energy. Each are severely cut. On the other hand, they love the Pentagon, border security, the rich and allegedly those for whom the rich leave tips. They have no desire to reduce America’s ballooning deficit. What Trump wants enacted is the most anti-blue collar budget in memory. Call it Hunger Games 2025. It is an odd way of repaying their voters.
Some Republicans, like Josh Hawley, the rightwing Missouri senator, warn that this budget could “end any chance of us becoming a working-class party”. Steve Bannon, Maga’s original conceptualiser, says the Medicaid cuts will harm Trump’s base. “Maga’s on Medicaid because there’s not great jobs in this country,” says Bannon. The plutocracy is still running Capitol Hill, he adds. It goes against what Trump promised his base — a balanced budget that did not touch entitlements. Indeed, these were the only two fiscal vows he made during the campaign.
In practice, Republicans in the lower chamber have written a plutocratic blueprint. Their bill was temporarily defeated last Friday by a handful of conservative defectors who complained the draft did not cut spending on the poor enough. They wanted to slash Medicare further and end all clean energy incentives. But what they voted against contains most of their priorities. In addition to the renewed Trump tax cuts, the bill would raise the zero inheritance tax threshold to $30mn for a couple. It would also scrap the tax on gun silencers. These are not cuddly people.
Advertisement
On the surface, it looks as if Elon Musk is out, while Bannon is still around. But rumours of a divorce between Trump and Musk are exaggerated. More likely is that they are taking a marital break. And to judge by the results so far, Musk’s libertarian fiscal instincts are prevailing over Bannon’s.
The two agree on “deconstructing the administrative state”, Bannon’s original phrase that Musk operationalised with his so-called Department of Government Efficiency. But Musk is more ruthless in his libertarianism than Bannon is in his economic populism. Musk thinks most federal payouts are fraudulent and that he and other corporate titans are victims of the deep state. That is in spite of the $38bn his companies have received in subsidies and federal contracts. Trump’s budget suits Musk’s tastes.
Bannon’s blue-collar agenda, on the other hand, takes rhetorical centre stage with Trump but a back seat when it comes to policy. Bannon and a handful of Maga Republicans are opposed to Trump’s tax cuts for the top brackets. He wants a 40 per cent tax on the highest earners. He also wants to regulate Musk and the other big AI titans. “A nail salon in Washington DC has more regulations than these four guys running with artificial intelligence,” Bannon says. But no AI regulation is in sight.
To be fair, some of Bannon’s agenda is going ahead. Trump’s prosecutors are squeezing Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta and attempting to break up Alphabet. But tough settlements could conclude in a Trump shakedown rather than the Silicon Valley trustbusting Bannon wants. The vice-president, JD Vance, appears to side with the anti-monopolists yet is also a protégé of Peter Thiel, who champions a bizarre form of corporate monarchism. My bet is that any adverse ruling against Google or Meta would be a transaction opportunity for Trump. He has no consistent view on competition policy.
On America’s core economic problems — inequality and the middle-class squeeze — Bannon talks a convincing game. But there are two glitches. The first is that he is a fan of cutting back the Internal Revenue Service, which collects taxes. Few things please Trump’s big donors more than the budget item that slashes IRS funding. Second, Bannon’s call for Trump to suspend habeas corpus so that at least 10mn illegal immigrants can summarily be deported seems likelier to hit home than his pro-middle class economics. Trump militantly agrees with Bannon’s dark side. He pays lip service to the light.
Advertisement
Of course, whatever budget is passed by the House of Representatives may be amended in the Senate. But any changes would probably be marginal. People who share Musk’s interests are feeding those of needy Americans into the proverbial woodchipper. Could that potentially split Maga? By the end of Trump’s second hundred days, we will find out how much populist economics matter to Bannon and co.
The NBA Conference Finals begin Tuesday. Depending on the outcome, several years-long title streaks will come to an end. (Left to right): Anthony Edwards of the Minnesota Timberwolves, Tyrese Haliburton of the Indiana Pacers, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander of the Oklahoma City Thunder, Jalen Brunson of the New York Knicks
Ellen Schmidt/Getty Images; Lauren Leigh Bacho/NBAE via Getty Images; Garrett Ellwood/NBAE via Getty Images; Brian Fluharty/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Advertisement
Ellen Schmidt/Getty Images; Lauren Leigh Bacho/NBAE via Getty Images; Garrett Ellwood/NBAE via Getty Images; Brian Fluharty/Getty Images
The NBA’s parity era is officially here.
When the postseason’s conference finals begin Tuesday night, four different title droughts are on the line — meaning one of them is guaranteed to come to an end next month when the NBA Finals wrap.
Three of the teams remaining in the playoffs — the Indiana Pacers, the Oklahoma City Thunder, and the Minnesota Timberwolves — have never won a title in their current hometowns. And the fourth team — the New York Knicks — haven’t taken home a championship in more than half a century.
Advertisement
The New York Knicks have not taken the title since 1973, and it’s beenmore than 25 years since they reached the Finals. Oklahoma City hasn’t tasted the title series since 2012 — and if you count the achievements of the Seattle SuperSonics before the team moved to Oklahoma in 2008, then the Thunder are the most recent remaining franchise to win it all, with a title in 1979.
The Pacers were a powerhouse in the American Basketball Association in the early 1970s but haven’t won a ring since joining the NBA. The Timberwolves, founded in 1989, have never reached the Finals.
“It’s one of the most wide open years that we’ve seen,” Indiana head coach Rick Carlisle said after the Pacers’ series-clinching win over the Cleveland Cavaliers. “We’ve got to look at this thing as — just being very opportunistic.”
The NBA has long struggled with parity. Since the 1980s, one dynasty has often simply given way to another — from the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers to the Chicago Bulls to the Lakers again to the Miami Heat to the Golden State Warriors. In total, 23 of the NBA’s 78 champions have been back-to-back winners. Another 14 teams won a title a year after losing in the Finals.
But those numbers have plateaued since 2019, when the Toronto Raptors unseated the Golden State Warriors.
Advertisement
Pascal Siakam, a 31-year-old forward with the Pacers, got a taste of glory that year. That was his third season in the NBA, and Siakam assumed he’d reach the Finals againwith the Raptors, he recalled earlier this month. But the Raptors weren’t able to repeat, and he was traded to the Pacers last year.
“I can sometimes sound like I’m trying to kill the party, where everyone wants to be excited and I’m just like, ‘Man, I want more,’” Siakam said. “We have a real opportunity, and we can’t take it for granted.”
Many of the remaining players are fresh faces, too. This is a Conference Finals round with no Steph Curry, no LeBron James, no Kevin Durant, no Anthony Davis or Russell Westbrook or James Harden.
Instead, the four teams are fronted by a younger generation of superstars: 28-year-old Jalen Brunson (New York), 26-year-old Shai Gilgeous-Alexander (Oklahoma City), 25-year-old Tyrese Haliburton (Indiana) and 23-year-old Anthony Edwards (Minnesota).
Gilgeous-Alexander was still in high school when the Thunder last reached the Conference Finals. Ahead of last Sunday’s series-deciding Game 7 against Denver, he said afterward that the pressure had started to feel intense.
Advertisement
“I turned my phone off, honestly. I wanted to, as best as I could, block out all the noise,” Gilgeous-Alexander said after the Thunder’s clinching win over Denver. “The nerves sat in my stomach for the two days [off].”
The Thunder and Timberwolves tip off for Game 1 of the Western Conference Finals on Tuesday at 8:30 p.m. ET. On Wednesday, the Pacers and the Knicks open the Eastern Conference Finals. The winners of each best-of-seven series will advance to the NBA Finals, which begin June 5.
Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown. All times on the map are Pacific time.The New York Times
A minor, 3.8-magnitude earthquake struck in Southern California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.
The temblor happened at 12:09 p.m. Pacific time about 15 miles south of Bakersfield, Calif., data from the agency shows.
As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.
Aftershocks in the region
An aftershock is usually a smaller earthquake that follows a larger one in the same general area. Aftershocks are typically minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.
Advertisement
Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles
Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.
When quakes and aftershocks occurred
Advertisement
Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, May 19 at 3:14 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, May 19 at 4:24 p.m. Eastern.