apak@oddjob.UUCP (apak) (08/21/86)
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
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (08/25/86)
> >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
cda@entropy.berkeley.edu (08/28/86)
In article <1023@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >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 Hey, I've been a Leftist for years and my Masters in Moscow are way behind in their payments so I just don't care anymore what they want me to do.... I'd go out and promote hostility to the Soviet Union except for the fact that it takes all my energy to deal with the government I've got at home. charlotte allen
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (09/03/86)
[I followed up in net.followup because we don't get net.politics] > 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. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ In a country in which access to outside information is denied and the only source of news is a state controlled media it is quite possible for the citizenry to live in the most abominable of conditions, yet believe that they have it good compared to others elsewhere, or that their sacrifices are required in order to "sustain the revolution". At the risk of being somewhat unoriginal - "ignorance is bliss". J.B. Robinson PS Would one of those who believes that political freedom (including free elections) is any less important than other human rights please explain this position?
mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) (09/09/86)
In article <2382@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >PS Would one of those who believes that political freedom (including free > elections) is any less important than other human rights please > explain this position? Free elections yes. Many countries have them. Even in the USSR they have free elections. The choice of candidates is however somewhat limited but everyone can vote. Democratic elections are another matter. Most western countries claim to have democratic elections (at least they are more democractic than the so called elections in the east). All countries with the Anglo Saxon version of elections (including the USA, Britain etc) can hardly be called fully democratic. Look at the turn out at the polls! How is it that Britain has a Conservative majority when the actual majority of the voters voted for other parties? Only countries with some form of proportional representation can claim to be democratic. (By proportional representation I mean a system where the number of seats allocated to each political party is in direct proportion to the total number of votes cast for that party). But then even proportional representation has its problems. It is hard for voters to eliminate undesirable individuals. I don't think one should be so niave to assume that ANY country has complete political freedom (even if one could define what political freedom is). The only thing one can say is that we have more such freedom in the west that they have in the east. Given this perspective I value other freedoms like free speech, freedom to travel a free press much more highly. Mike Williams
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (09/14/86)
In article <1158@erix.UUCP> mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) writes: >In article <2382@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >>PS Would one of those who believes that political freedom (including free >> elections) is any less important than other human rights please >> explain this position? >......................... >....................... >I don't think one should be so niave to assume that ANY country has complete >political freedom (even if one could define what political freedom is). The >only thing one can say is that we have more such freedom in the west that >they have in the east. Given this perspective I value other freedoms like >free speech, freedom to travel a free press much more highly. But there is an interesting point that is being missed. Namely, that *in practice* the best means of guaranteeing such freedoms as free speech is to be able to kick out out of office the government that would take that freedom away. If we look at those countries that do not have free speech, freedom to travel, or a free press we find one glaring common denominator - there is no means of holding the ruling government accountable by way of elections. These governments may do what they desire secure in the knowledge that the citizenry has no recourse. I would thus submit that those freedoms that Mike values above political freedom will in practice only exist if said political freedom (in the form of the people being able to change governments) exists. It is no accident that the west which Mike admits has more political freedom than the east also has more of the other previously mentioned freedoms. As for proportional representation - the impression I get is that leads to there being a thousand and one different parties being represented in Parliament which leads to *unstable* coalition governments. Just my impression which could very well be incorrect. J.B. Robinson
david@ztivax.UUCP (09/19/86)
>As for proportional representation - the impression I get is that leads >to there being a thousand and one different parties being represented >in Parliament which leads to *unstable* coalition governments. Just >my impression which could very well be incorrect. > >J.B. Robinson In reality, isn't any political party some form of coalition? You will certainly find dissent within the ranks of Democrats within any of the elected bodies. Also within the Republicans. The good thing about having a large number of parties, which may have to assemble coalitions to get anything passed, is that the parties can each speak their own ideas during the election process. Therefore, the people can really understand why they are voting for one crook (oops, I mean politician) rather than another. Within the two major political parties in the USA, the candidates really must toe the party line. Even during the Presidential campaign, the platform is developed by the power brokers in the party. Since the candidate is not really saying what he believes, but only what it takes to get elected within his/her party, they are very unlikely to follow the campaign promises. Also, the stress is virtually always on "I'm a good Republican, he/she/it is a grotty Democrat" or vice versa. This tends to attract the ignorant and the bigotted to stay with one party, and therefore the power of the _party_ is more firmly established. But the representaion of the people is drastically eroded. The Israeli government seems rather stable, especially when taken in the context of a country which has been literally fighting for existatnce for 40 years. The Rhodesian government had more or less the same war-like problems as Israel, but they lasted only about 20 years. Rhodesia had two major parties, Israel has a large number (not quite 1001, but close). So, I dunno. I figure the most stable government is one where everyone feels represented, fairly. When this is not the case, terrorism starts, and revolution is close behind. I feel one of the major reasons that the USA tends to be a terrorist target overseas and not within the USA is as above. The way Washington deals with foreign people and governments is repressive. Within the USA, they pretend to be democratic. Keep Thinking! David Smyth uucp: seismo!unido!ztivax!david