Sixty percent of the people in Chile make less than $40 a month. There is 30 percent unemployment and absolutely no welfare, not even unemployment or health insurance. Food is shared communally to fend off starvation. The military does not dare enter the barrios, which are almost in a state of civil war. The slumdwellers have organized themselves and send out groups to ambush patrolling soldiers. But the poor have nothing, neither food nor guns, only their rage and their stones.

The social stratification in Santiago is reminiscent of apartheid in South Africa. The upper city of neat shops and bright ads is predominantly populated with people of European descent, the lower city with a more indigenous population. The boundaries are not enforced by any legal code, but their effect is just as pronounced.

Of course, poverty existed in Chile before the last decade, but the two-city split is new to this era of military rule. There is no mingling even in the marketplace, and the gap between the wage of the average unskilled worker and that of the typical white-collar professional is about 100 times what it is in the U.S.

SANTIAGO. In one half of the city, the illusion of freedom: shops, ads and "free speech"--except for the midnight threats, tortures, beatings and disappearances which keep life on the edge. In the other more than half of the city, paper-board shacks with dirt floors, blinding smog, and growing organization and rage.

What conclusions are we to draw? It is true that for the upper middle class who make no waves and think no subversive thoughts, Chile may be a better place to live than a typical Soviet client-state. But the U.S. is not going to change the Soviet system by our support or non-support. We may persuade them to reunite a few spouses or release a dissident or two, but our overall policy must be based on the recognition that we have to work with the Soviets as they are.

In Chile, however, the United States has not only enormous influence, but tremendous responsibility. We can take a large part of the credit for both the birth and life of the junta under Pinochet. But we also have the potential to be a force for good.

The token actions of the new U.S. ambassador--holding a candle at a funeral for a "disappeared" Chilean, and mentioning the words "human rights" to Pinochet--triggered an outburst of hopeful speculation in Chile that is hard to believe. According to Apsi, because of Ambassador Barnes actions and the recent demonstrations, the junta will fall within a year.

Apsi's assessment may be naive, but there is no doubt that events are coming to a head in Chile as they have recently in the Philippines. The Chilean resistance, like the regime it opposes, is not what it seems. America will soon face a dilemma with Pinochet similar to the situation we are in now with Marcos. It is time we looked to the part of Chile that is too often hard to see: the people who quietly struggle for freedom, and those who struggle just to survive.