Support this progressive voice and be a part of it. Donate to COHA today. Click here

In an extraordinary step backward a Chilean Court of Appeals granted release and sentence reductions to 17 State actors convicted of crimes against humanity perpetrated against thousands of Chilean citizens during the Pinochet dictatorship, provoking condemnation by survivors and the international human rights community. In the context of several months of relentless and brutal government repression of pro-democracy demonstrations and President Sebastián Piñera’s intransigent commitment to a failed economic model, this show of impunity sends the wrong message to the police forces who have already brutalized thousands of Chileans and undermined the rule of law. These measures violate international human rights law signed by Chile.

COHA republishes this open letter initiated by Chilean concerned citizens in Washington DC, supported by more than one hundred people from different countries, against impunity in Chile.

Chilean residents in the United States and persons of all nationalities express their concern for impunity in Chile for violators of human rights

We the undersigned Chilean residents in the US and persons of all nationalities profoundly condemn the judgement of acquittal and reduction of sentences by the Court of Appeals of Santiago, for 17 violators of human rights, adjudicated for crimes against humanity committed during the military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet.

Minister Juan Cristóbal Mera Muñoz, Minister Mireya López Miranda and member attorney Cristián Lepin Molina, absolved the former agents of the National Directorate of Intelligence (Dirección Nacional de Inteligencia, DINA) Pedro Espinoza, Rolf Wenderoth, Hermon Alfaro, Pedro Betterlich, Claudio Pacheco, Orlando Torrejón, Orlando Altamirano and Eusebio López.  They also reduced the sentences of Ricardo Lawrence, Jorge Andrade, Juan Morales Salgado, Ciro Torré, Sergio Escalona, Juvenal Piña, Jorge Díaz, Gustavo Guerrero y Gladys Calderón to 3 years and 1 day. Pedro Espinoza was an accomplice of the notorious criminal who was the right hand man of Pinochet, Manuel Contreras. Espinoza was the chief of the Villa Grimaldi, a center of torture and forced disappearance. Espinoza was also involved in the operation called “Caravan of death” in which almost 100 persons around the country were assassinated, and he participated in the terrorist attack on Orlando Letelier in Washington DC. All of these criminals had been convicted on July 21, 2017 for 16 kidnappings and one homicide perpetrated in Villa Grimaldi.

The judges’ actions benefit state actors, functionaries of the armed forces and Carabineros police who committed crimes against humanity, including kidnappings, sexual assaults, indescribable tortures and assassinations of Chileans for their political beliefs. According to international law, such crimes constitute acts of state terrorism.

The campaign of impunity has even extended to perpetrators of human rights violations who are completing their sentences in the Punta Peuco prison. Pinochetista legislators are pressuring the Piñera government to grant those among these prisoners who are over 75 years old the benefit of house arrest, measures presently being studied with regard to the coronavirus. The characteristics of Punta Peuco prison, however, considered a place “of luxury” on account of its many benefits, comfortable rooms, and special services, does not justify the application of the same criterion used in the case of overcrowded conditions found in ordinary penitentiary centers.

These very grave deeds of the past few days imply an emotional drama, especially cruel for those family members and loved ones of the thousands of victims of violations of human rights committed by these State agents. Chile has demonstrated an enormous legal ambiguity and  ongoing policy of impunity since the end of the dictatorship. These recent actions, especially the decision of the Court of Appeals, demonstrates that the application of justice in the face of serious violations of human rights continues to be an unfinished task, politicized and debilitated by certain sectors of the society which even confuse the right to defend a political ideology with the necessity to defend, above all, the human life. Also, there ought to be a moral imperative to oppose state terrorism and  bring to justice those who infringe against the dignity of the human personality.

With the decision by the Court, Chile is also out of compliance with international treaties and the jurisprudence of the Interamerican Court of Human Rights (Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, CIDH). The cases of Almonacid, Arellano and others v. Chile, and La Cantuta v. Perú  have established unequivocally the obligation of member states to investigate and prosecute all crimes against humanity, treating them as the most serious violations of human rights. Once responsibility is established, the state, through its judicial branch, ought to apply sanctions commensurate with the gravity of the crimes. These principles of international law  obligate states to avoid any measure that permits amnesty or sets aside the responsibility of the guilty. Chile appears to regress in this regard, abandoning the doctrine that the CIDH has followed for years and forgetting the purpose of these norms of international law related to human rights, laws which are designed to provide a disincentive, under any circumstances, to commit such crimes.

We call upon the Supreme Court, the government authorities, and legislators to forcefully exercise their full legal and political authority to urge Chile to fulfill its international obligations with regard to human rights and vigorously oppose these acts of impunity for crimes so serious that they have affected and continue to affect generations of citizens of our country.

Signatures

1. Abril Viscaya, Venezuela
2. Ada Troncoso, US
3. Adam Kaluba, US
4. Adolfo Guidali, France
5. Adriana Bolívar, Argentina
6. Alejandra Barrueto, Chile
7. Alejandra Montecino, Chile
8. Alex Main, US
9. Alicia Bustillo, US
10. Alicia Soto, US
11. Alma Torres-Martinez, US
12. Ana Laura Pereira, US
13. Anahí Arizmendi, Venezuela
14. Andrea Rojas, US
15. Andrés Habella, US
16. Andrew Vavrunek, US
17. Angelica McInerney, US
18. Ayla Bailey, US
19. Blanca Flor Bonilla, El Salvador
20. Bonnie Fox, US
21. Bonnie McCrimmon, Canada
22. Brenda Choi, US
23. Camila Rojas, Chile
24. Camilo Soria, Chile
25. Carlos Alejandro Morales Mateluna, US
26. Carlos Morales Mateluna, Switzerland
27. Carmen Paz Nunez Hoffmann, US
28. Carolina Cucumides, US
29. Carter Carlson, US
30. Cecilia Morales, Chile
31. Cecilia Toledo Gonzalez, US
32. Celestino Barrera, US
33. Cheryl LaBash, US
34. Cindy BelloweBellowe, US
35. Clayton Lee, US
36. Cloe Soria, Chile
37. Cristian Foerster, Chile
38. Cristian Gamboa, US
39. Darlene Hebert, Canada
40. David Paul, US
41. Demetrus Jackson, US
42. Deyanira Garza, US
43. Dianne Budd, US
44. Edalis Mejia, US
45. Elena Hildreth, US
46. Evelyn González, US
47. Estefania Del Real, Chile
48. Fabiana Gallardo, Chile
49. Felipe Fredes , US
50. Francesca Emanuelle
51. Frederick Mills, US
52. Gema Casanova, US
53. Gonzalo Valerio Soto, Honduras
54. Héctor Sepúlveda, US
55. Ignacio Shinya, Chile
56. Isabel Pizarro, Chile
57. Isella Calderon, Chile
58. Jill Clark-Gollub, US
59. John Moriarty, US
60. Jorge Consuegra, US
61. Jorge Pizarro, US
62. Jorge Ramírez, Chile
63. Julia Stover, US
64. Juliana Barnet, US
65. Karen Morales, US
66. Karina Armenta, US
67. Katrina McBrian, US
68. Laura Franco, Venezuela
69. Laura Soria, Chile
70. Leonardo Flores, US
71. Leonardo Vera, US
72. Leslie Salgado, US
73. Lidia Soto, Chile
74. Liliana Cannobbio, Chile
75. Lilly Macier, US
76. Luis Soria González-Vera, Chile
77. Márcia Cury, Brasil
78. Marco E., US
79. Maria Cristina Urquieta Aranciabia, US
80. María Paz González, Chile
81. Marta Pizarro, Chile
82. Martha Allen, US
83. Merrill Cole, US
84. Michelle Ellner, US
85. Miriam Manresa, US
86. Monica Navarro, US
87. Morelia Reali, US
88. Natalie Deriu, US
89. Nora Pizarro, US
90. Pamela Alejandra Weitz, US
91. Pamela Cecilia Molina Toledo, US
92. Pamela Molina, US
93. Pamela Zúñiga Grandi, US
94. Patricia Cifuentes, Chile
95. Patricia Edith Pizarro Toro, Chile
96. Patricio Zamorano, US
97. Phoenix Oaks, US
98. Rebecca Ellner, US
99. Robinet Castillo-Zarate, US
100. Rodrigo López, Chile
101. Ronald Gallardo Duarhtt, Chile
102. Sergio Galikea, Chile
103. Taigan Wright, US
104. Teresa aybar Carbajal, US
105. Teri Matson, US
106. Timothy Brett, Canada
107. Vanessa Asenjo, Mexico
108. Walter Gustavo Weitz Marholz, US
109. Yela Andarcia, Mexico
110. Yu-Ting Chu, US
111. Yvonne Mcdonald, US
112. Zarko Retamal Yacsich, US

Photo credit: Museo de la Memoria, Santiago of Chile

As the fog clears, three options emerge for the 2017-2020 government:

·         conservative: National and New Zealand First (English or Peters as PM)

·         Peronista: Jacinda Ardern (as Evita) and Winston Peters (as Peron)

·         progressive: Labour, Green, Māori (Ardern as PM)

Whichever of these we get, I would like to see a government true to its parties’ philosophies, and with good twenty-first century income tax policies.

The progressive option is looking much more probable than at any other time since 1999. Jacinda Ardern can act now to make this outcome both more likely and more authentic.

Understanding the reality of the economic struggle of low- and middle-income households is critical. Among other things, these people need more money, unconditionally. No bureaucracy, no abatements. Unconditional benefits have always been delivered in liberal democracies through the income tax system. These tax benefits, in the past, have taken the form of allowances, exemptions and progressive graduations.

The Present

What can Labour announce this week, to replace the Budget 2017 income tax adjustments? It needs to do something in addition to extending existing bureaucratic benefits. A political party representing ordinary people, with a good ear for their people, would hear that the bureaucracy around the benefit system is even more frustrating than the penury of those benefits.

The following simple remedy will work for Labour in the 2017 election campaign:

·         Remove the 30% income tax bracket by joining it with the 33% bracket.

·         Reduce the rate on the first bracket from 10.5% to zero, and lower the threshold to $9,370.

Why?

This will give ‘tax cuts’ to everyone earning less than $70,000 per year, while leaving all persons earning more than $70,000 at 2017 levels of taxation. More specifically, it would give everyone earning from $14,000 to $48,000 an extra $12.69 per week of unconditional cash, over and above any other benefit increases Labour would like to provide. This would make it a policy – albeit a tentative policy – that acknowledges everyone on struggle street.

Perhaps more importantly, as a guide to future income tax policy, please note the following simple tax formula:

• weekly after-tax personal income equals 67% of gross earnings, plus $175

This formula is the present reality for every New Zealander earning $70,000 or more per year. The simple tax change suggested above extends that formula to every New Zealander earning $48,000 or more per year, while delivering symbolically important unconditional tax benefits to every New Zealander earning less than $48,000 per year. Further, it does nothing to antagonise anybody. It raises nobody’s income tax, from 2017 levels.

Let’s do this.

The Near Future

By following the same principle, the other middle tax bracket at present (the 17.5% bracket) can also be eliminated (for example in Budget 2019). This would mean having a zero-tax bracket upto incomes of $27,500 and a 33% marginal rate on all income in excess of $27,500. (This would also displace the present Independent Earner Tax Credit.)

As a result, everybody earning above $27,500 would be subject to the simple tax formula above. This would deliver significant unconditional tax benefits to people whose annual incomes are in the $20,000 to $40,000 range; benefits to the precariat, Labour’s new natural constituency.

Just Beyond the Near Future

As productivity increases progressively, the ratio of capital income (income arising from what we own) to labour income (income arising from what we do) must increase. So, say in Budget 2021, raise the tax rate from 33% to 35%, and raise the threshold from $27,500 to $32,000. The simple tax formula, which would apply to all persons earning over $32,000 per year, would become:

·         weekly after-tax personal income equals 65% of gross earnings, plus $215

Further, extend this simple tax formula to all independent people under 25 years of age, displacing youth benefits, student allowances, and student loan living allowances. (Young adults with dependent children or with disabilities would continue to be eligible for indexed Work and Income benefits. Eligibility for accommodation benefits would not change.)

It’s not rocket science. It is the twenty-first century. Let’s do these, one simple step at a time.