Trade bans

Press, 25 November 1981, Page 24

Trade bans

Sir,—After keeping up a personal trade boycott of South Africa for 30 years after official apartheid started in 1948, I realised my mistake. Trade boycotts hurt the oppressed as much as — or more than — the oppressors, and cut oft sources of liberal ideas to oppressive ruling groups. Trade contacts differ in effect from social contacts in that the oppressive group gets little or no opportunity for personally spreading illiberal ideas among

susceptible people in the liberal country — hence my opposition to the South African rugby tour. The Chilean regime against whom the Federation of Labour maintains its ban still imprisons and tortures its opposition, as a recent Anmesty International study confirms; but that happens too in South Africa, Iran, Russia, the Koreas and many other countries we trade with. The F.O.L. deserves censure for continuing its trade ban against Chile; so does the Prime Minister for proposing a Commonwealth trade ban against South Africa. — Yours, etc., ROBIN MITCHELL. November 18, 1981.

Sir.—Your closely reasoned and lofty editorial on trade with Chile omitted one essential element — the reason for the ban. Eight years ago Allende’s Government was overthrown and he was murdered. There is strong evidence that the C.I.A. was involved. Since 1973 1500 people have “disappeared.” In 1980,' 2700 were arrested for political reasons; all but 100 were released. Amnesty International has well documented evidence of torture. In July this year the artist Hugo Eduardo Riveres was found stabbed to death. His hands had been tied. Again, there is evidence to suggest security forces were involved in his murder. How do you balance such human suffering against the exports we have lost and maybe a few more people out of work? It is asked, “Does the F.O.L. govern this country?” No, but it seems it is the country’s conscience.— Yours, etc., N. WILKINSON. November 23, 1981.