stuart@genrad.UUCP (stuart) (08/07/84)
Isn't it digusting that the United States is doing commercial trade with a government that considers "punishing" an ailing old women for saying things against that government -- with a "punishment" of THREE YEARS AT HARD LABOR?? I think we should stop making believe that they're another civilized country over there. (They just believe in a different "social structure", you see.) --Stuart {decvax,ihnp4!mit-eddie}!genrad!stuart
rf@wu1.UUCP (08/09/84)
Stuart (genrad!stuart) writes:
Isn't it digusting that the United States is doing commercial
trade with a government that considers "punishing" an ailing
old women for saying things against that government -- with a
"punishment" of THREE YEARS AT HARD LABOR?? I think we should
stop making believe that they're another civilized country
over there. (They just believe in a different "social
structure", you see.)
I should rather trade with them than war with them. There are
several reasons:
- Trade sanctions are not likely to cause their government to
change its policies. I'd guess that trade sanctions will
only encourage their hard-liners. "You're playing into
*their* hands" is an argument heard on both sides of the
ocean.
- Given the enourmous arsenals of nuclear weapons that both
the USA and the Russians have built, we should take steps
that lead away from war, not towards it.
- We cannot lay claim to moral superiority -- Russia is our
competitor, not our congregation. History is likely to
judge *both* sides' claims of moral superiority as empty.
Randolph Fritz
UUCPnet: {ihnp4,decvax}!philabs!wu1!rf
"Sirronde stared at the Goddess. 'Are You saying, then, that You were
wrong to make heroes?'
"'Indeed not,' She said. 'But I should have warned them--if you save
the world too often, it starts to expect it.'"
(Diane Duane, *The Door into Shadow*)
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (08/16/84)
Stuart (genrad!stuart) writes: Isn't it digusting that the United States is doing commercial trade with a government that considers "punishing" an ailing old women for saying things against that government -- with a "punishment" of THREE YEARS AT HARD LABOR?? I think we should stop making believe that they're another civilized country over there. (They just believe in a different "social structure", you see.) Randolph (philabs!wu1!rf) writes: I should rather trade with them than war with them. There are several reasons: - Trade sanctions are not likely to cause their government to change its policies. I'd guess that trade sanctions will only encourage their hard-liners. "You're playing into *their* hands" is an argument heard on both sides of the ocean. - Given the enourmous arsenals of nuclear weapons that both the USA and the Russians have built, we should take steps that lead away from war, not towards it. - We cannot lay claim to moral superiority -- Russia is our competitor, not our congregation. History is likely to judge *both* sides' claims of moral superiority as empty. I (fisher!david) write: - Trade sanctions are as likely to help soft-liners as hard-liners. The negative response by the West to Soviet human rights violations may be used by soft-liners as evidence of deficiency in hard-line policy. Moreover, the lack of sanctions allows hard-liners to argue policy is successful, and that perhaps pushing a bit harder in other areas will also bring no US or Western response. - We should recognize that eager accomadation can be as disasterous for peace as saber rattling. World War I began because Austria and Russia were unwilling (perhaps unable) to seek an accomodation, and France and Germany also lent their allies' hard-line policies full support. However, it is clear that Germany was counting on English neutrality, and had the English stated their intentions firmly, Germany would not have supported Austrian policy unconditionally, and WWI would have not started. Unfortunately, English policy was soft-line at a bad time. Of course, World War II remains the example par exellence of the danger of being perceived by an opponent as too eager to accomadate. - I believe we CAN claim moral superiority. We are not perfect, nor are we consistently good. But to say there is no moral distinction between expansionism and containment, between Democratic Republicanism and Leninist Dictatorship, is to judge the faults of the two superpowers with extreme disproportionality. However, moral superiority is IRRELEVANT in stabilizing US/USSR relations. While I will claim moral superiority for the US, I recognize that such claims will not influence Soviet leaders in a productive fashion. Moral considerations ought to help us select suitable goals, but once these goals are chosen, we cannot expect other nations to be more accomodating BECAUSE of it. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david