Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!caip!sri-spam!parcvax!hplabs!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: S.A., Soviets, & Sanctions
Message-ID: <1023@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Aug-86 12:59:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: kontron.1023
Posted: Mon Aug 25 12:59:23 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Aug-86 20:38:38 EDT
References: <225@mdivax1.UUCP> <334@ubc-cs.UUCP> <2368@hcrvx2.UUCP>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Mt. View, CA
Lines: 46

> >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.

So you wouldn't argue for sanctions against a country like Nazi Germany.

> (2) are likely to be affected for the better by such action.
> 

"...likely to be affected for the better by such action" is a pretty
vague statement.  Can you see why a lot of people could argue that 
sanctions against South Africa might not fit this definition?  Can
you see why a lot of people aren't sure what you are trying to 
achieve.

> 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. 

Sanctions affect the population first -- the government last.  Economic
hardships ALWAYS fall on the people hardest, and usually the poorest
people.  The South African government will just raise taxes if it finds
itself in need of more money.

> 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

Just don't argue for sanctions on a "moral" basis -- argue for them
pragmatically.  (Of course, you can't generate the same level of self-
righteous anger that way.)

> 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. 
> 

If there was the same amount of energy being spent by the Left to promote
hostility to the Soviet Union that is currently being spent on South
Africa, sanctions WOULD be widely supported in the world.  Of course,
the Left wouldn't be allowed by their masters in Moscow to start such
a campaign.

Clayton E. Cramer