Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!oddjob!apak
From: apak@oddjob.UUCP (apak)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: S.A., Soviets, & Sanctions
Message-ID: <1462@oddjob.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Aug-86 22:23:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: oddjob.1462
Posted: Wed Aug 20 22:23:45 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Aug-86 03:43:56 EDT
References: <225@mdivax1.UUCP> <334@ubc-cs.UUCP> <2368@hcrvx2.UUCP>
Reply-To: apak@oddjob.UUCP (apak)
Organization: Aesthetes and Poets Against Karate
Lines: 57

In article <4360@gatech.CSNET> jeff@gatech.UUCP (Jeff Lee) writes:
> In article <1446@oddjob.UUCP> apak@oddjob (apak) writes:
>>                 There are many variables which affect the morality of
>>sanctions, of which the repugnance of the relevant government is only
>>one. The Soviet government is not going to be brought down by economic
>>or military force, and it would be both dangerous and counter-productive
>>to try. The South African government is going to be overthrown; the only
>>questions are when? and at what human cost? If you believe, as I do, that
>>the participation of the West in removing the present system will make it 
>>happen quicker and with less suffering, then you should support economic
>>and military action to that end. 
>violations of human rights. If we are going to be idealistic, then let's
>go all the way. If we are going to be laissez faire, then let's leave
>people alone. Let's stop landing rights, no selling of grain, no
>purchasing of vodka, wine, or gold, etc...
>The previous article seems to suggest, though, that we should modify
>our enthusiasm by doing this only to
>	1) Countries that are weaker than we are, thus eliminating
>	   any possibility of successful retaliation;
>	2) Countries that are already in bad shape (hit them while
>	   they're down).
>In these cases, it is "morally" right to support economic and militaristic
>action to force these countries to do our bidding.

Wrong. I suggest we should impose economic sanctions only on countries that:
(1) have governments which are immoral and which are perceived to be immoral
by a majority of their population.
(2) are likely to be affected for the better by such action.

I don't understand (or hope I don't) your lament about how unfair this would
be on the poor South African government, which you somehow confuse with the
country. Nor do I see why it's inconsistent to support particular remedies
against tyranny when and only when they're effective. The Soviet Union will
have to be dealt with, as best we can, by other means. Sanctions won't be
widely supported in the world, and wouldn't change the system for the better
if they were. 

>This is as cowardly a policy as I
>have seen in a long time. At least be consistent in your idealism.
>I have much more respect for someone that believes in an idea and takes
>it to its logical conclusion despite the fact it will make them
>"uncomfortable" than someone who does it only when it can't hurt them
>or it's convenient.

The idea is clear and consistent. Fight tyranny as best you can. The sensible
means depend on the situation. Lobbing grenades at invading troops may be
useful; lobbing grenades at aircraft on bombing runs probably isn't. Agreed?





-- 
                                ihnp4!oddjob!apak
         |                      oddjob!apak@lbl-csam.arpa
                                oddjob!apak@UChicago.bitnet
This is not a pipe              apak%uk.ac.cambridge.phoenix@ucl-cs.arpa