HANSON’S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER - The authoritative Washington Letter on developments affecting trade and investment in Latin America - No feature

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Noah

HANSON’S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER analyzes U.S. and British diplomatic and economic approaches toward Chile and compares them with treatment of other Eastern European regimes. It describes the British decision to restore normal diplomatic relations with Chile and outlines parliamentary debate on human rights selectivity. It then contrasts U.S. political support for anti-Chilean Soviet aims with economic discrimination against Chile. Economic interest, credit practices, and copper-related expectations for Chile’s purchasing power are discussed alongside the implications for credibility and regional policy choices.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages5

Reading Time13 min

AccessFree to download

Developments affecting trade and investment in Latin America

Restoration of normal diplomatic relations with Chile

Export credits and human rights selectivity

Contrast between U.S. and British policy toward Chile

HANSON’S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER # The authoritative Washington Letter on developments affecting trade and investment in Latin America WASHINGTON 9 February 1980 Dear Sir: Number 1821 "Over recent months we have beenconsidering all aspects of our re-lations with Chile. We have nowdecided that we should restore ourrelations with Chile to the normaldiplomatic leve1,in line with thoseof our major allies." ...Mr.Nicholas Ridley,Minister of Statefor Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The British Export Credit GuaranteeDepartment has released details of itsfirst two major lines of credit toChile since 1972." ...The Financial Times(London) "Foreign Minister Hernan Cubillossaid that the U.S.measures(suspensionof Exim Bank financing and withholdingof guarantees for private investment)were 'confirmation of the attitude thatPresident Carter's government has hadagainst Chile for some time,'but thatChile can withstand the pressure becauseit is 'politically firm,economicallysound,and militarily secure.'"..Associated Press. When the British Government announced the restoration of normal diplo-BRITISHmatic relations with Chile,the Minister of State for Foreign and Com-RESUMPTIONmonwealth Affairs reminded Parliament that "if we were to base exchangeOF CREDITSof ambassadors upon countries whose regimes or records on human rightsTO CHILEwe approved,we would have many fewer ambassadors.It is not thisgovernment's policy to be selective as Labour was." He added:"Medium term credits were restored by the Export Credit Guar-antee Department last June.We did not however change our minds about the previousgovernment policy because of losing greatly on trade." When Mr.Callaghan,leader of the opposition,and Mr.Shore,oppositionOPPOSITIONspokesman on foreign affairs protested that "human rights in Chile hadVIEWdeteriorated in the past year(which of course Freedom House denies andeven the liberal Council on Hemispheric Affairs concedes that "the mostflagrant violations of human rights have lessened.")"the selectivity ofthe previous government's policy was only accentuated. For,it was recalled that Mr.James Callaghan had,when the Shah of Iranwas in power and when the Labour Party's national executive committee statement hadnoted that "in the last few weeks in Iran unarmed men,women and children have beenshot in the streets without mercy,a far larger number than is admitted by that gov-ernment according to counts of victims'graves,"Mr.Callaghan had had the BritishAmbassador in Teheran deliver a message to the Shah in person expressing sympathywith the Shah and speaking warmly of the Shah's progress toward industrialization andof the need for a stable and prosperous Iran." At that time the National Executive Committee expressed its belief thatthe support for the Shah had been prompted by "the importance to British Petroleumof the Shah's staying in power." The contrast with the U.S.position is curious.In Washington,policyCONTRASTis directed politically at support for the Soviet drive to overthrow theWITH U.S.Chilean regime;and economically it consists of discriminating againstPOLICY:Chile and in favor of such regimes as Rumania whose regime is the "mostCONTRASTbrutal"in Eastern Europe and yet has been rewarded with most-favored-WITHIN U.S.nation treatment in trade,and hundreds of millions of financing fromPOLICYExim and other agencies where the U.S.support is vital. Note,first,the selectivity among violators of human rights: Freedom House Ratings Status of FreedomPolitical RightsCivil LibertiesRumaniaNot Free76ChilePartly Free and6improving 5 Key:The lower the rating number,the more satisfactorythe performance. And note also the magnitudes involved in the preferential treatmentaccorded to Rumania as compared with Chile: 11 Minthons979 do1aTsad U.S.Exports U.S.Balance U.S.Imports Rumania $442 $307 $132 Chile 797 388 409 But there is more to be said: The Chilean market is on the road toWHERE DOESe

FAQs

What decision regarding Chile does the letter describe?

It states that relations with Chile have been restored to the normal diplomatic level, aligning with the approach of major allies.

How does the letter compare British and U.S. policy toward Chile?

It says British trade denials are paired with credit actions, while U.S. policy is described as politically supportive of Soviet aims against Chile and economically discriminatory against Chile in favor of other regimes.

What economic factors does the letter cite for Chile’s prospects?

It points to Chile’s market expansion and the scale of projected investments, also noting that forecasts around copper in the 1980s indicate large prospective external purchasing power.

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Noah