HANSON'S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER - Part 1844 - Editorial letter about Chilean courts and the Carter Doctrine

Sep 21, 2026

Letter dated 19 July 1980 (No. 1844) addresses U.S. criticism of the Chilean Supreme Court and the broader implications of the Carter Doctrine for Latin America. It argues the State Department’s renewed denunciation, opposition to Chilean sovereignty, and actions regarding exile returns reflect a confrontation between courts and U.S. authority. The letter compares reactions in Chile, Argentina, and Mexico, warns of escalating security risks, and references the Letelier case and congressional discussion on oil-spill liability.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryReligion & Spirituality

FormatPDF

Pages5

Reading Time13 min

AccessFree to download

IS CHILE

ENTITLED TO
HAVE ITS OWN

COURT?

COSTS OF BALKING AT STATE DEPARTMENT CONTROL OF LATIN JUDICIAL SYSTEMS

READINESS TO RISK NATIONAL SECURITY

WHAT IF A CHILEAN CASE?

HANSON'S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER Washington 19 July 1980Number 1844 Dear Sir: "Habla Lopez Portillo de la 'falta derespeto'en las relaciones de EE.UU.y Mexico." ..Diario las Americas. "La conducta de la corte suprema dechile fue juridicamente inobjetable.".La Prensa,Buenos Aires. "The problem of people disappearingunder mysterious circumstances hasvirtually stopped in Chile and sloweddown in Argentina,but it is now croppingup in Mexico,Afghanistan and Uganda."..The Times(London). The State Department has distributed a renewed denunciation of the Su-preme Court of Chile for not allowing the State Department to make thefinal decisions on law in Chile. In out lining the costs it has imposedon Chile as a result of Chile's insistence on its sovereignty,it has re-duced the problem virtually to a confrontation between the Supreme Courtof Chile and the State Department. # IS CHILE ENTITLED TO HAVE ITS OWN # COURT? The State Department notes that it is not only the unsatisfactory behaviorof the Chilean Supreme Court in the Letelier case which is at issue. It notes thatthe United States is not satisfied with the judgment of the Chilean Supreme Court inupholding internal banishment for those who participated in proscribed activities.Again,the United States is concerned that "the Chilean courts continue to side withthe Government in prohibiting the return of exiles that the Government of Chile doesnot want."And of course,in acting as the supreme court of a sovereign nation indenying the U.S.extradition request for the three officers in the Letelier case,the Chilean Supreme has in effect placed its function above the capacity of theAttorney General of the United States to control,something that the U.S.does notaccept under the Carter Doctrine. So that all Latin America may understand what wil1 happen in their ownTHE COSTScountries if the insistence on sovereignty is maintained,the State De-0F BALKINGpartment points out that it terminated all new economic developmentAT STATEassistance to Chile,voted "no on all Chilean loans at the multilateralDEPARTMENTbanks since 1977,terminated all new military assistance and sales sinceCONTROL OF1976,supported resolutions at the UN and OAS criticizing Chile.A11LATINthis because the Chilean Supreme Court has dared act as an independentJUDICIALfocus of the judicial system of a sovereign nation.SYSTEMS And all this even as the State Department concedes that "cases of pro-longed arbitrary arbitrary detention are down in Chile;"and "there havebeen no disappearances since 1977;"and "there is relative freedom to speak out andcriticize the government;"and "the courts and the press are taking more interestin defending human rights." A weekly lete for burinessmew pmisbed privsdy in Wasbington,D.C. In Argentina,the widely respected La Prensa is surprised at the willing-READINESSness of the State Department to carry the fight against the Chilean Su-TO RISKpreme Court to the point of endangering the security of the hemisphereNATIONALby rejecting Chilean participation in the South Atlantic naval manoeuvers.SECURITYAfter all,former Secretary of State Vance,enunciating Carter Doctrine,had said that "we must maintain our ability to conduct essential businesswith governments -even those we consider unpopular -in countries wherewe have inportant security interests." So that what we are seeing is the basic judgment of the State Departmentthat Latin America is not important,that we do not have important security interestsin Latin America,that therefore we can afford the 'falta de respeto"which so disturbsthe President of Mexico. Even Mexico cannot consider itself free from the U.S.presumptions in theWHAT IF AChilean case.What f a trigger-happy State Department decides to broadenTRIGGER-its campaign on the basis of findings of Amnesty International aboutHAPPY STATE"people disappearing under mysterious circumstances"and takes as its guideDEPARTMENTthe listing of countries by the Times(London

FAQs

What is the main issue raised about Chile’s Supreme Court?

The letter claims the State Department objects to Chilean Supreme Court decisions, including how U.S. authorities should have influence over law and extradition matters.

How does the letter link the situation to the Carter Doctrine?

It argues that Carter Doctrine logic is being applied to justify U.S. pressure on sovereign nations, portraying the dispute as part of a wider policy pattern toward Latin America.

What warnings does the letter make about broader consequences for Latin America?

It warns that expanding the U.S. campaign based on external findings could threaten hemisphere security and undermine independent legal systems across countries, not just Chile.

Sep 21, 2026

Upload by Theodora