Simple question on sanctions

[Chris Kromm]

Does the left have a consistent policy on sanctions? With South Africa, we
derided "constructive engagement" as being a tool for apartheid and an
excuse for corporate expansion, calling for nothing less than absolute
sanctions and total divestment (even if that did cause some short-term
economic difficulty). But then liberals (and some on the real left) seem to
support something which seems very much like "constructive engagement" for
Iraq, Cuba, etc. etc.

I'm aware that the motives are different in each case. But is there a way of
framing this so that the public doesn't get confused about where we stand?

----- Original Message -----
From: Brad DeLong <delong at econ.Berkeley.EDU>
To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: Election Crisis and Electoral Reform


> >At 03:49 PM 11/19/00 -0500, you wrote:
> >>Here's my proposal. The Greens will bury the hatchet after the Dems
> >>apologize for the thousands of Iraqi children that their leaders have
> >>killed in the past 8 years.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Please stop this nonsense: these children are dying because Hussein won't
> >import the medicines they need. He can sell as much oil as he likes to
> >import medicine and food--he simply refuses to do so, in great part so
that
> >he can call the US child murderers and be believed by people who aren't
> >paying attention. There are lots of things to blame Clinton-Gore for;
this
> >isn't one of them.
>
> A little overstated. But it does seem that calls for an immediate end
> to the Iraqi sanctions regime are in substance calls for the
> replacement of the current oil-for-food program with an
> oil-for-weapons program...
>
>
> Brad DeLong
> --
> J. Bradford DeLong
> Professor of Economics, U.C. Berkeley
> 601 Evans Hall, #3880
> Berkeley, CA 94720-3880
> (510) 643-4027 voice
> (510) 642-6615 fax
> http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/
> delong at econ.berkeley.edu