Trade with Chile

Press, 17 July 1980, Page 14

Trade with Chile

Sir, — in your editorial (July 14) the argument you use to call for cessation of the trade ban with Chile revolves around how beneficial it will be for New Zealand economically to renew trade links with Chile. How selfish. There are moral reasons that money cannot buy relating to right and wrong that suggest that this particular action is of the utmost importance to the vast majority of Chilean people who still dream of a democratic future. It is also of considerable importance to New Zealand people who consider justice to. be a central virtue. in their lives. Have we forgotten the blood that flows daily from the harshness of the military regime’s measures against the poor? The tens of thousands who have “disappeared”? The banning of all free trade unions? The .tremendous pressure on the Church to conform? The thousand's of Chileans forced to flee their country from the terror of Pinochet and DINA? — Yours, etc., The Rev. JIM CONSEDINE. July 15, 1980. . Sir, — If the Federation of Labour was the elected government of New Zealand, one could accept a situation whereby a ban was placed on New Zealand exports to Chile. However, the Federation of Labour, is not the government of this country. In order to strengthen New Zealand’s economy one of our greatest needs is a continued increase in our exports, and thereby creating a higher standard of living and a greater number of job opportunities. New Zealand already exports .to a large number of countries whose internal philosophies

and ways of life differ from our own. By attempting to ban New Zealand exports to Chile, the Federation of Labour is not only doing its own members a disservice, but acting irresponsibly in New. Zealand’s interests. I believe the correct and only action for Government is to overrule the Federation of Labour and to take a firm stand. — Yours, etc., P. F. POLSON. July 16, 1980.

Sir, — I was amazed and disgusted by your editorial on the Chilean trade ban. It was so full of sweeping statements and half truths that I wonder if the writer has vested interests in either getting the trade ban lifted or attracting the patronage of Mr Templeton. Doubtless visitors can go to Chile and think it booming and “not notably cruel.” I prefer the evidence of people who live there or.have been forced to leave for they do not make money from telling lies. As for political prisoners, the number given (54) is absurd whether the “Economist” quotes it or not. Chilean refugees living here in Christchurch would refute that “recent extensive report” with names and places they know personally. Finally, I ask who is the New Zealander who is being hurt by the ban and on whose behalf we should mortgage our already compromised consciences? Not the ordinary citizen, but a few frustrated exporters. — Yours, etc., KATHLEEN T. SCOTT. July 15, 1980.

Sir, — In your editorial (July 14) you claim “the regime which the military displaced was probably at least as violent and was certainly much less efficient, than Chile’s military rulers.” In its 1974 report on Chile, Amnesty International was able to cite only two specific allegations of torture during the three years of Allende’s rule, and it is a fact that both political and nonpolitical strikes continued throughout his Government. It is then "clear that individual and corporate freedom was respected. Decree No. 2346, October 17, 1978, of the present regime declared seven trade union federations illegal, so that more than 500 unions were thus dissolved. The huge numbers of Chileans killed and injured by Pinochet’s regime are common knowledge, to say nothing of the 1 million exiles. How then can the two regimes be compared? As for efficiency — Hitler was efficient too. ■ — YOurs, etc CORAL AND MAX BROAD- . BENT, ' Christchurch Group Eight, ' Amnesty International. July 14, 1980.

’Sir, — In its last free election (March 1973) Chile re-elected President Allende with a popular vote increased by almost 8 per cent. Your leading article (July 14) says Allende brought Chile almost to ruin with inflation pushed to 600 per cent. You failed to mention ’that the international American-dominated banking system cut off all Allende’s credits, but has since lent Pinochet ’ 12 times the amount . Allende originally enjoyed. . . How would “The Press” as a business perform let alone remain viable if all its credits for inward and outward payments .were cut off for three years and its fleet of delivery vehicles constantly disrupted by out-side-fomented strikes? That is what Allende faced and tried to overcome in a nation over 3000 miles long "and less than 200, miles wide. If you must put trade considerations before human values, may I respectfully suggest that you should make more effort to give both sides of the story? — Yours, etc., .' ! M. T. MOORE; July 16, 1980.