Modern terrorism in Chile is mostly minimal, especially when compared to the rest of South America. Most terroristic activity consists of minor bombings which the Chilean government believes to be the work of anarchists, mostly because responsibility for the bombings is rarely taken by any one group. According to a 2011 US Department of State report on terrorism, there were only around 23 IED’s found or detonated in Chile that year. Most of these were in Santiago, the Capitol of Chile and were usually made of gunpowder in a fire extinguisher, placed in a public place. The only casualty during this time was a would-be bomber whose device exploded prematurely and killed him. The US Department of State didn’t included Chile in the reports for 2012 and 2013, which would seemingly indicate that terrorism in Chile was not significant enough to be reported. However, a recent bombing in Sept. 2014 injured 14 people in underground mall restaurant. It is being considered the most significant bombing in years, prompting the Chilean government to prosecute the crime using their harsh anti-terrorism laws.

These anti-terrorism laws have been having issues with their continued use. The most contested use of the laws have been their implementation against the indigenous Mapuche people in Chile. The Mapuche have had most of their indigenous land taken from them by the Chilean government. They have been protesting this injustice and fighting for the land’s return through methods such as occupying public buildings, food strikes, and destruction of property (usually arson). The Chilean government considers these protests to be terrorist acts, which makes them feel justified in using the anti-terror laws to prosecute and prevent these crimes. The organization Human Rights Watch has weighed in on the issue. They consider the anti-terrorism laws to be in violation of basic trial rights and international treaties. There are also multiple committees within the UN which have also expressed concern over the laws. Human Rights Watch has recommended ways in which the Chilean government can fix some of the issues with the law, such as making only severely violent and deadly crimes able to be subjected to the anti-terrorism law.

There are two main types of terrorism that are a part of Chile’s modern history. The state spent many decades in the mid and late 1900s attacking its citizens, and for the past few decades leftist groups have been setting off petty bombs in public places while the Mapuche people have been engaging in mostly harmless protest.

The most important thing to understand about terrorism in Chile in regards to our class is which of Cronin’s solutions works best for each situation and why.

• Decapitation
  • Past Terrorism
    • Decapitation may have worked, and it even possibly did. The issues started under specific rulers and seemed to end when they left power, which was likely the best option for terrorism during this time period in Chile.
  • Present Terrorism
    • Decapitation is likely not the best option for change at this point. There is no real ruler still fighting for any of the state sanctioned terrorism, and the goals and organization of anarchist bombings are unclear, so there are no leaders to take out there either. This may work on indigenous crimes, but again there is no clear leader.
• Negotiation
  • Past Terrorism
    • Would have likely been ineffective for the issues of the time. State sanctioned terrorism existed because of a paranoid ruler who would not have been receptive to negotiations. It likely would have been hard for the public to come up with anyone with enough authority to do the negotiating with such a ruler.
  • Present Terrorism
    • Negotiation may be effective for current issues. The modern government is much more receptive to needs of the people and has shown signs of a willingness to change and compromise.
    • The anarchists have no extreme zeal, so they may be open to negotiations.
    • The indigenous peoples are already mostly nonviolent and have a clear goal, but are not extremists.
• Success
  • Past Terrorism
    • Success could have worked, but was highly unlikely. The state sanctioned violence may have eventually quashed all resistance, however, it’s more likely to have kept building generations of local resentment and international tension. It would have been unlikely to succeed, and success would likely have been viewed internationally as human rights tragedy.
  • Present Terrorism
    • The outcome for success currently depends on which group is being analyzed. The modern government is not as terroristic, so it is unlikely to engage in behaviors that would demolish all opposition. They are even currently in the process of debating change in anti-terror laws.
    • The anarchists are unlikely to succeed due to lack of direction and organization, however, success would likely end most of the bombings as they’re already relatively minor.
    • For the indigenous peoples, this is probably the best option. They have one clear goal – to regain stolen land – so their actions would likely discontinue after success, particularly because most of their protests are nonviolent.
• Internal Disintigration
  • Past Terrorism
    • This would have been very unlikely. Anyone who was deemed to be an internal threat was removed and replaced by the people engaging in the terrorist acts. Since it was the state, the “legitimate” ruler was able to use his power to invoke his will; by putting only supporters in his government, internal disintegration was unlikely.
  • Present Terrorism
    • Again, the outcomes depend on the who is being analyzed. For the modern government, which is relatively cohesive and open to change, there is no need or probability for disintegration.
    • The anarchists probably experienced internal disintegration as the issue progressed. The bombings are more destructive than violent, indicating a lack of organization or cohesion.
    • For the indigenous peoples, internal disintegration is unlikely as the group is tightly bonded through their ethnic background and share the same goals and values.
• Lack of Support
  • Past Terrorism
    • This was probably the biggest contributor to end of Pinochet’s reign. He was eventually voted out of office by the people and put on trial for his crimes. Once he lacked public support, he lost office and losing office ultimately led to lack of support for his anti-terrorism laws, which were the main cause of state sponsored terrorism.
  • Present Terrorism
    • The modern government would definitely be impacted by this – and has been. International pressure has led to change in policy that effects any state sponsored terrorism.
    • The anarchists already have a big lack of support. This is likely a major causal factor in lessening the frequency of their terroristic acts over the years.
    • For the indigenous peoples, lack of support would likely stop the problem, but it probably won’t happen. There is too much international support for their cause which will probably help them succeed.
• Suppression
  • Past Terrorism
    • Suppression would have been unlikely to work because the terrorism was coming from the government itself, which would have been very difficult to suppress. The ruler behind the terroristic acts ruled with an iron fist and imprisoned, killed, or disappeared any dissenters.
  • Present Terrorism
    • The modern government is, again, not likely to be suppressed which makes this unlikely.
    • For the anarchists, it is a viable option because there is not much public support or internal organization so the groups may crumble under the pressure.
    • Suppression would be unlikely to work on the indigenous peoples because of international support. The suppression of an indigenous population usually draws support for their cause.