0

First, some intro:

Recently, after further rising of subway ticket costs in Chile, there were widespread protests. The Chilean president, billionaire Sebastián Piñera, claimed a state of emergency - the first since dictatorship times. The origin of the protests is social and economic inequality - established and increased since dictatorship times - in contrast to Allende's times.

Protests are being suppressed very violently, with the army supporting the police and protesters being killed and injured. In fact, the same way as Pinochet did.

Secondly, a couple of small questions:

  • Why is there no support from western human rights organizations?
  • Were there any warnings from the international community that this use of force is unacceptable?

And the main question:

Was there, after Pinochet, some refreshment in establishment, or are the people in establishment and power the same? The opposition to Pinochet's arrest by president Pinera suggests that the establishment hasn't changed, but maybe I am mistaken?

Small conclusion:

Sadly, about voting mainstream and closevotes, in fact it is a good question.

  • Thanks, @F1Krazy, now it really looks better. – user2501323 Oct 24 '19 at 11:23
  • 2
    Regarding #1, a few examples: amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/10/…, hrw.org/news/2019/10/22/chile-respect-rights-protest-response. HR organizations usually do not "support" protests, but may criticize the government handling of them (which is not the same as supporting the protests). And the fact that they are not first page news does not mean that there are no reactions, you should really try to do some basic research (I just googled "Piñeira human rights"). – SJuan76 Oct 24 '19 at 13:29
  • Yes, there were some silent warnings. But where are sanctions? Department of State bright claims? For example, leaders of Hong Kong protests had even a photo-session with US dept of state members, but Chilean sadly does not. – user2501323 Oct 24 '19 at 13:35
  • 2
    @user2501323 To the best of my understanding, the Department of State is not a "Human rights organization", so I am still wondering why you seem to insist on mixing it with human rights organization. And your first question has been shown (with very little effort) to be based on a false premise. – SJuan76 Oct 24 '19 at 13:38
  • Comments deleted. Please note that Politics Stack Exchange is not a debate website. Comments on questions should focus on how the question could be improved. They should not be used to discuss the subject matter of the question. – Philipp Oct 24 '19 at 16:19
1
  • In international law, succession of a government is understood as taking the rights and responsibilities of the previous government (or regime, if you want to put it that way).
    For instance, Russia has taken over the UNSC seat of the Soviet Union, various treaty obligations, and also embassy buildings.
    The Federal Republic of Germany has paid pension obligations of the Third Reich, the Weimar Republic, and even the Kaiserreich.
    In that sense, the current Chilean government is the successor of previous Chilean governments, including the Pinochet dictatorship.

  • Human rights organizations need time to gather information and then mobilize public opinion. Right now we're watching another crisis in Syria, protests in Hong Kong, and also in Catalonia.
    I'm sorry if you feel that Chile deserves more international attention, but there is a lot going on in the world right now.

  • 3
    I think by "successor" the OP meant that the Piñera government may be close in policies or views to Pinochet's. There was never much repentance over Pinochet's rule on right side of the Chilean political spectrum. bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-24014501 Piñera is the "first right-wing president to be democratically elected since 1958" (Wikipedia). – Fizz Oct 24 '19 at 19:11
  • @Fizz, while terminology in politics is often less clear than, say, engineering, the OP should mean what he asks. – o.m. Oct 25 '19 at 4:18

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .