Trading with Chile

Press, 9 May 1978, Page 24

Trading with Chile

The Chilean ambassador to New Zealand (Mr Ernesto Jobet) said recently, while urging that the embargo on trade between Chile and New Zealand be lifted, that Chile and New Zealand were two countries which had ’ much in common." But those New Zealanders who support the embargo’s being maintained insist, rightly, that Chile has a record in the field of human rights and political freedom which far removes it from New Zealand. A case can be made for lifting the embargo, but if it is lifted. New Zealand must make it clear that does not mean that New Zealand has any sympathy with the way Chile has been governed since September. 1973. The eagerness of the Chileans to see the embargo lifted suggests that they would depict this action as an international closing of the books on a bloody coup and almost five years of savage repression. This is a persuasive argument in favour of maintaining the embargo.

Nor can this argument be countered by claims that the ban is costing New Zealand dear in the form of missed opportunities to export goods. The prospects for trade across the breadth of the South Pacific are not good, certainly not as good as some have suggested. Chile is not an ideal gateway into the rest of

South America, as Mr Jobet claimed; nor is it a prospective purchaser of large quantities of New Zealand manufactured goods or primary products. The trade ban has probably outlived its effectiveness, even as a mark of disapproval. American pressure on Chile may have contributed to President Pinochet’s feeling impelled recently to give an appearance at least of relaxing the military regime’s iron grip on the country. Chile is sensitive about its international reputation, and any gesture that reminds people that the reputation is deserved cannot be dismissed lightly. But New Zealand is probably now looking foolish rather than principled in alone continuing to refuse to trade with Chile while trading with other countries which equally deserve international censure. Trade is not generally construed as approval of policies or methods of government. For this reason alone, the New Zealand labour movement could feel justified in allowing the embargo to lapse. It would do better, perhaps, to put pressure on the New Zealand Government to make the repugnance of most New Zealanders for the methods of government employed in Chile in recent years known in international circles whenever the opportunitv arises.