Is this straight up misinformation? I’ve been through 6 articles now and I can’t find any other source on this outside of Skwawkbox.
All I can find is stuff about him being a major person behind the Good Friday Agreement and HK + Chagos Islands handovers.
Even the Telegraph and fucking GB News – both of which try to paint Labour/Starmer in the worst light possible – don’t say anything about Pinochet. Where does this alleged link come from?
Looking into it, Skwawkbox has been caught lying multiple times, predominantly about the Grenfell Fire. They’ve also lost a libel case against one Labour MP and breached reporting standards about another. They, and I’m really not joking here, describe themselves as a non-traditional publication aimed at “aunties and uncles on Facebook”.
If anybody has any other sources please correct me on this.
I just assume every skwawkbox link is misinformation.
If not in an absolute sense then always by ommission.
Skwawkbox links to this Guardian article, which itself is sourced from a book from the time. It doesn’t seem that far-fetched that a renowned negotiator would be involved with a negotiation.
This article Guardian article, on top of just being an allegation in a book, doesn’t accuse Powell of doing what Skwawkbox says he did.
Literally all it says is that the press chief of the 1999 Chilean government (i.e. 10 years and 2 governments after Pinochet stepped down) had meetings with Powell. That’s it. Seems normal to me. I imagine the UK government would be chatting to Chile if they arrested David Cameron tomorrow.
Frei and his government, by the way, was anti-Pinochet. During his presidency, he indicted and arrested Pinochet.
I don’t know how you could read that and think it’s a confirmation that Powell negotiated release for Pinochet.
It absolutely argues that:
Frei argued to Blair that neither government would benefit if Pinochet were to die in England and that he could be tried in Chilean courts. […] Blair undertook to do what he could within the law provided the exchanges between the two leaders were kept secret. The authors claim that Blair suggested setting up a ‘back channel’, with two people appointed to liaise between the leaders’ private offices.
Also, those claiming to have no source on Powell being on the team that negotiated Pinochet’s release, only prove they’ve not only not actually gone looking for one, but haven’t even read op article, where the source is linked:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/07/chile.pinochet
And it isn’t the only contemporary source, either:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2001/08/chil-a30.html
As well as sources that confirms that Powell promoted deals with Saudi Arabia for a company that also paid £1m to Pinochet:
https://caat.org.uk/news/2005-09-27-2/
You can make as many excuses as you want to make yourselves feel better, but it will never magic these people in to being on our side as citizens.
This article Guardian article, on top of just being an allegation in a book, doesn’t accuse Powell of doing what Skwawkbox says he did.
Literally all it says is that the press chief of the 1999 Chilean government (i.e. 10 years and two governments after Pinochet stepped down) had meetings with Powell. That’s it.
Frei and his government, by the way, was anti-Pinochet. During his presidency, he indicted and arrested Pinochet.
I don’t know how you could read that and think it’s a confirmation that Powell negotiated release for Pinochet.
Stop spreading misinformation.
Thank you.
The guardian article is also the second result for “Jonathan Powell pinochet” on google.
Sure thing, the lengths some people will go to to defend their cognitive dissonance is ridiculous…
All the article states is that Powell had meetings with the chief of press for President Frei’s government… the government that indicted and arrested Pinochet.
The government that engineered his escape from standing trial for genocide, then indicted him for “kidnapping” only to dismiss the case.
Never forget 9/11/73
*11/09/1973
For fuck sake.
If it makes you feel any better, the Pinochet link seems to be an outright fabrication by Skwawkbox. At least I’ve been unable to find anything so far.
He was indeed an ex-blair adviser though. Involved in the HK handover and the Good Friday Agreement.
Not a good look Keir.
It’s the only look he’s got.
Typical centre-right shenanigans.
I guess a silver lining here is that he must be good at negotiating if he managed to free that monster.
Why would a PM who saved his party from a popular leftist movement have sympathy for Pinochet? It makes no sense.
There’s nothing to suggest he does.
Powell worked on the Good Friday Agreement as well as a handful of other things, so presumably Starmer wants him for his experience.
The thing about him negotiating release for Pinochet has no backing.
Germany’s ruling coalition falling apart; trump winning; macron caucusing with the far right instead of the election winners; Italy’s civil rights regression with its new far right govt; and now this makes me think that we’re in for a wild ride in the West for the next few decades and I wonder if I should try to leave now or wait until the shooting starts.
Leave the west and go where? Outside the western world is objectively worse and far less tolerant.
And for what it’s worth, this article is a straight up lie. There isn’t a link between Powell and Pinochet that I have been able to find.
… objectively worse and far less tolerant.
True for now; but how much longer?
My ruling class either miscalculated our response to the election choices they gave us or decided that excelerationism was in our best interests. In both cases they’re going to have to double down to maintain their control and that means more facism or another distraction war.
Both majority parties have shifted towards the right end of the political spectrum since 2016 and the dnc’s unwillingness to accept the reasons why they lost this election like they did after 2016 guarantees that they will continue to follow republicans in their shift rightwards towards facism.
History has plenty examples of calms before storms like this and my existence at the intersection of several vulnerable minorities guarantees that at least one of them will be popularly scape goated. I have no intention of serving that role and one of my identities affords me an easy-ish path outside of this country.
So the question for me isn’t to where but which one and I know through experience that they’re all already sufficiently tolerant. whether or not there’s a link with pinochet doesn’t matter much to me since starmers’ few controversies so far already suggest that a pinochet link is plausible.
