We must be realistic about boycotting US products as a type of sanctions against the USA. Sanctions are notoriously weak as instruments of change. They are useful as political statements and tend to fail, unless accompanied by contingent boycotts and bans that hit to seat(s) of power.
Consider the following:
The USA have had sanctions agains Cuba for more than 30 years - they still have not had Castro's resignation
Most Arab countries have had some type of sanctions against the State of Israel for decades - Israel remains intact (of course, with a lot of help from its friends)
The UN, presumably at the behest of the USA and some European Allies, have had sanctions against Iraq for more than 10 years - Hussein is still in power.
The USA have had sanctions against Iran for a long time - Iran continues.
Now consider the following:
Most of teh world had economic sanctions against apartheid SOuth Africa, BUT, it was accompanied by
a) a cultural boycott - which prevented prominent (mainly white) artists from travelling and performing abroad
b) an academic boycott.
c) diplomatic sanctions - towards the end of the 1980s, the ANC had more offices abroad than Pretoria
d) a sports boycott - which prevented whites from sending competing in international tournaments (the Afrikaners LOVED rugby.
So, apply sanctions against the US... unless EVERYONE, at EVERY POSSIBLE LEVEL sanctions teh United States ... forget about it.
There's a great line in the Melian dialogue that goes (something like): The powerful do to the weak what they choose to and can and the weak have no choice but to accept this.
Ismail
--------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Get personalised at My Yahoo!. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20020423/efdf55c3/attachment.htm>