Whether it is hypocritical to support sanctions against South Africa
while not opposing the sale of wheat to the USSR at bargain prices
depends on what the alleged hypocrites see as the purpose of the
sanctions. There seem to be two commonly given reasons for taking
punitive actions against other countries:
1) They are evil, and so deserve to be punished.
This is usually the point being made when people dwell at length on
some government's mibehaviour, using highly emotional language.
Once we are convinced that the government in question is evil, it is
then supposed to follow that we have a duty to harm them, even when
doing so can't be reasonably expected to do anybody any good. In
this view, then it follows that punishing SA but not USSR is
hypocritical.
2) The sanctions (or other punitive action) will result in good.
If it is believed that the sanctions against South Africa will
likely lead to the government improving its treatment of blacks
(presumably in return for an end to the sanctions), while it is
believed that punitive actions against the USSR will not have any
such beneficial effect on that government's victims, then it makes
perfect sense to punish the South African government while
continuing to sell the USSR cheap wheat.
In a nutshell, one policy is based on judging people morally and
hurting those we disapprove of in the name of punishment, the other is
based on attempting to help their victims and/or reduce the numbers of
future victims.
Subscribers to the first view seem to me to be motivated by a desire
for justice (of the retributive variety). They feel obliged to take
certain actions even if those actions benefit nobody and harm some
people. Subscribers to the second view seem to be motivated by concern
for the welfare of others. They judge their actions by the results,
ie. Machiavelli's standard.
Pick one. Choose carefully.
--
David Canzi
"Freedom of speech does not mean that you can simply say what you
want to say or what you like saying." -- The People's Daily, Peking