a) activists in some countries want more not less economic sanctions against their illegitimate, oppressive regimes (e.g. Burma, or apartheid South Africa);
b) some of the sanctions noted below are no doubt the result of lobbying by 'progressive' social forces (especially trade unions and NGOs that have put riders on congressional budget allocations that forbid investments in child labour, eco-damage, etc etc) - so the challenge is to find out whether *those* sanctions come with the approval of the people adversely affected (which for labor's Social Clause strategy is not always the case) and whether they are strategically effective...
I'm just putting together a co-edited book "Foreign Policy, Bottom-Up" about SA activists' strategies for social justice, against a subimperialist government in Pretoria. Some of those activists have called for sanctions, in a sense, against themselves by advocating *against* funding tied to brand-name antiretroviral medicines, and against the inflow of some forms of capital - e.g. Barclays Bank - into South Africa (for reasons of reparations and apartheid debt). So it's not an academic matter.
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> There is no aid that Washington gives with no strings attached...
> BTW, before thinking about aid, it would be better to remove US
> unilateral sanctions. Both American capitalists and third-world
> advocates of human development, who rarely agree with each other, hate
> them.
>
> <blockquote> HALF THE WORLD HIT BY US UNILATERAL SANCTIONS
> l>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pbond.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 185 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <../attachments/20060905/15d747ac/attachment.vcf>