Economics or Human Rights?

I love the National Security Archive (NSA). It contains all sorts of classified information that has reached its secrecy age and is now available for public review. One of the documents I was reading recently is located in the collection of documentation relating to the US involvement (some may also say support) in the rule (and human rights abuses) of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. The particular document of interest is Department of State, SECRET, "The Secretary's 8:00 a.m. Regional Staff Meeting," December 5, 1974. In it, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger reviews the efforts of the US Congress to restrict foreign military aid (money) to Chile and Pinochet. The Senators, Edward Kennedy mentioned by name, believe that Pinochet's involvement in human rights abuses require that the US stop sending him aid. Kissinger clearly believes that this stance by Kennedy and others is politically motivated, and not a moral dilemma. He talks with aides about the strategy for changing the senator's perceptions: SECRETARY KISSINGER: "I'll see Kennedy." MR. INGERSOLL (Robert Ingersoll, Deputy Secretary of State): "Maybe you can swing him around." SECRETARY KISSINGER: "On Chile I can't swing him around. We have to fight in a general battle, which we do not open by this self-serving human rights attitude. And I don't want to hear that in a large group anyway. I've told you people a hundred times. Our record on human rights is very good, but I won't play that sort of self-serving game by publishing a document...Somebody has to take these things on. They are going to cripple any foreign policy we have." Kissinger wants to argue with Kennedy in a "general battle", not specific to human right abuses. Kissinger does not believe that the human rights issue carrys much weight, and is much more interested in the economic impact of Chile not being "friendly" to the US. He seeks to find reasons why the human rights discussion may be irrelevant: SECRETARY KISSINGER: Also, I'd like to know whether the human rights problem in Chile is that much worse than in other countries in Latin America or whether their primary crime is to have replaced Allende (Allende was the Socialist President of Chile before Pinochet took control in a military coup in 1973) ... Is it worse than in other Latin American countries: MR. ROGERS (William Rogers): Yes. SECRETARY KISSINGER: Well, I think the consequences could be very serious, if we cut them off from military aid. MR. ROGERS: There's no question about it... A little further down, we get into the meat of the subject: SECRETARY KISSINGER: Well, am I wrong that this sort of thing is likely to finish off that government? MR. ROGERS: Yes; I think that's true. SECRETARY KISSINGER: All right. What's going to happen after that? Does anyone know? MR. ROGERS: If they don't get the arms? SECRETARY KISSINGER: No. What will happen if that government (Pinochet) collapses? MR. ROGERS: There are two possibilities. One of them is that you could have a reversion to the Christian Democrats (Read about them here, in Spanish). You know, this government is now in the process of severing its relationship with the Christian Democratic Party. SECRETARY KISSINGER: I don't think they should vote with us in the OAS (Organization of American States) or the UN, and I think it's better than the Allende Government. MR. ROGERS: Well, I agree. SECRETARY KISSINGER: And if the army winds up totally demoralized, that will affect amongst those out of office the whole future of politics. If it becomes clear that the army can ever move again, the left will become immeasurably strengthened; am I wrong? MR. ROGERS: That's true. The question is which part of the left -- the Christian Democratic Party or the Socialist members of the Popular front. The base of that government is not -- SECRETARY KISSINGER: I have no use for that government... Is this government worse than the Allende Government? Is human rights more severely threatened by this government than Allende? MR. ROGERS: Well, I can't say that, Mr. Secretary. In terms of freedom of association, Allende didn't close down the opposition party. In terms of freedom of the press, Allende didn't close down the newspapers. We see repeated questions by Kissinger, trying to find support for his angle that the human rights abuses in Chile under Pinochet are no worse than in the rest of the region. What he is really interested in is using Pinochet's economic policy to the US advantage. He knows that "the left" of which he speaks, Socialists, are not friendly to US capitalistic interests; I talked about this in my post The Conservative Mind, regarding Pinochet's economic policy and the support he received from the US because of it. Economics are more important than human rights because everyone knows that the US decision-makers and leaders have a vested interest in making money, not so much in protecting the rights of poor people half a world away. Kissinger, and his policy of RealPolitik, didn't concern himself with how things were done, only that they were. Lest we think that RealPolitik is a sans-ethics method of leadership and our current "faith-based" leadership couldn't possibly engage in it, reference this. It is Peter Singer talking about Cheney and Rumsfeld on ABC Radio: Peter W. Singer: "I wouldn’t say that Rumsfeld is a neo-conservative, I think he represents a sort of more traditional Realpolitik model. By that I mean the world views of he and Cheney are somewhat different than the views often expressed by what you think of traditional neo-conservative thinkers like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, and the differences really are the sense of idealism involved, and that Cheney and Rumsfeld seem very Realpolitik, power, military power in particular is what matters, protecting American national interests, and that’s all that matters at the end of the day. What drives some of the neo conservative thinkers, in particular Wolfowitz, is actually a surprising bit of liberalism in the traditional sense, in that the way I would describe it is almost Wilsonian imperialism, and that they believe in the power of the idea as much as the power of the gun." This seems to be a pretty accurate analysis to me. Our VP and Secretary of Defense operate in much the same way as Kissinger, using the theory of RealPolitik as their guide. Is there any reason to expect our current leadership is handling things any differently than Kissinger did?