To the Editors of The Crimson:

In a "broadminded" community such as Harvard, with its international reputation of "liberalism," I have quickly found out that these terms apply only when the cause is a leftist one. "Freedom of speech" is a beautiful ideal, so long as this right is reserved for such groups as the New American Movement and prohibited for others such as the supporters of the Chilean military junta. For instance, Eduardo Frei (the Chilean president before Salvador Allende, and leader of the Christian Democrat Party) was unable to speak before a symposium for the Center for Latin-American Development Studies (CLADS) at Boston University in mid-October because of violent student disruptions. Quoting from The Daily Free Press (October 17, 1974): "The crowd of approximately 75 protesters rushed into the empty auditorium tables. Cries of 'fight back' and 'down with the junta and the CIA, no free speech for Eduardo Frei' filled the room as the crowd settled into seats...." It is ironical to note that Frei, a liberal politician (who actually started the Agrarian Reform expropriations and the nationalization of American companies in Chile) was labeled by these cliche-ridden protesters as "fascist" merely because he actively supports the junta. Another example of this took place a few weeks ago when I spotted a man in Harvard Square wearing a tee-shirt with the Chilean flag and the words: "Chile libre." I walked up to him and struck up a conversation. When he learned that I favored the junta, he turned purple with disbelief and screamed: "Man, your head is full of shit, you fascist pig!" After this experience and some other futile attempts to convince people of the justification for the military coup, I made some cynical conclusions about Harvard's "open-mindedness" and decided that the safest course of action was to remain quiet. But there was only so much I could tolerate.

As a Chilean citizen, I was deeply offended and disturbed by James LeMoyne's editorial entitled "March 1972: Prelude to a Coup" (Crimson, December 4). First, there are several factual errors as well as unsupported generalizations. LeMoyne writes about Allende being killed and also says: "...the U.S. did all in its power to bring about conditions that would aid a coup...thereby insuring Allende's downfall and his death." Nowhere does the author mention that Allende actually committed suicide--ironically, with the gun he received as a gift from Fidel Castro--after refusing to surrender. The President was given several opportunities to evacuate La Moneda (the Presidential Palace), but after calling on the Chilean people to come out with arms in his aid, he cowardly placed Castro's gun in his mouth and shot himself. Allende would have otherwise been offered exile. The way LeMoyne words it, it sounds as if the U.S. were to be blamed for somehow assassinating Allende! The author also makes some unsupported generalizations such as the statement about E1 Mercurio, the opposition paper, being "funded by the CIA and ITT." I wonder what LeMoyne's sources are for saying this? The Communist Journal perhaps? During the entire editorial, he also criticizes American intervention in Chile. However, he also criticizes American neutrality during the coup itself. This is obviously an ideological contradiction. He seems to believe that American intervention in Chile would have been all right if they would have aided the Socialists rather than the military!

But these examples of card-stacking and contradictions are not my main objection to the editorial. We Chileans--speaking not only for myself but also for the vast majority of my compatriots--are extremely proud of our military junta. The date in which the coup took place, September 11, 1973, will always be remembered with gratitude by the Chilean people. We would like to think ourselves totally responsible for the takeover. Unfortunately we have to admit receiving $8 million from the CIA (proof that the entire sum was used against Allende is debatable). The United States's justification for giving this money is questionable, but that is not the point of this letter. What is disturbing is that he virtually says that the U.S. Intervention was the only reason for Allende's downfall! The author of this editorial must have an extremely low opinion of the Chilean people if he thinks that a mere $8 million is sufficient to cause a drastic revolt. Nowhere in his editorial does LeMoyne mention the Chilean people's support of the military coup, which drowns out any pragmatic effect of the American aid. The author's derogatory implications are clear in the following sentence: "The end product of the policies of the U.S. government towards Chile was the military coup that occurred in September 1973." Not mentioning how insignificant the $8 million really was in relation to the Chilean effort is extremely offending. Furthermore, LeMoyne talks about money being available to bribe Chilean Congressmen into voting against Allende. But PLEASE do not insinuate that the Chilean politicians are corrupt--especially since they refused to accept the bribes (a fact which LeMoyne, of course, does not mention).

In short, James LeMoyne may be right in criticizing American intervention in Chile; but he is insulting all Chileans by stating that this said was actually responsible for the military coup. Nicolas Billikopf