From: George Bogavac <K2GT@UNB.CA>
Subject: Re: Why not Baghdad (chess as art)
Organization: University of New Brunswick
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:10:55 GMT

In article <CUBAN.92Jul29193436@w20-575-33.mit.edu> cuban@athena.mit.edu (Federico A Garcia) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.214035.29145@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> gilles@damrod.mcrcim.mcgill.edu (Gilles Fayad) writes:
>
>#   May I remind you that the UN task is to avoid war, not to make peace,
>#   and surely not to intervene in a country's internal affairs, or to
>#   "guarantee the transportation of the belligerents heavy artillery".
>#   Many more Somalians are dying, and wars, atrocities and occupations
>#   are going on all over the world. Would Somalia be as close to Western
>#   Europe as Yugoslavia, or as wealthy as Irak, you can be sure you would
>#   hear it on the "entertainment news", and the "security council" would
>#   have imposed sanctions.
>
>Yes, the UN can not interfere in a country's internal affairs.  That
>is why countries like Iraq and Yugoslavia that attempt to invade and
>occupy their neighbors are singled out for sanctions even though there
>are many brutal regimes throughout the world.  These countries export
>their brutality to their neighbors as well as to their people.
>
>#   Following your logic, sanctions should be imposed on all the permanent
>#   members of the UN, as "great perpetrators of atrocities" throughout
>#   history.
>
>Please, I think its quite obvious that there is a difference between
>atrocities carried out in the past (often by different governments
>from the ones now in place) that can no longer be remedied and
>atrocities that are going on right now and which we can do something
>about in the present.  After all, I have no problem with lifting the
>sanctions against Yugoslavia *after* it has stopped trying to occupy
>parts of Bosnia and Croatia.
>
>#   Never forget that winners write history, and that the world is not as
>#   "black and white" as a chessboard.
>
>True, but if one takes moral relativism far enough, eventually nothing
>is wrong and nothing is to be condemned.  I don't think this should be
>so.  Just because there are many shades of gray around many other
>issues in the world doesn't obscure the blackness of what is going on
>in Yugoslavia.
>
>Also, in response to phr@soda.berkeley.edu:
>
>#I think I am missing something in this discussion about sanctions vs.
>#the match.  If the sanctions are in place, how is the match going to
>#bring money into Yugoslavia?  Fischer and Spassky are getting paid a
>#lot, but that is a flow of money OUT of Yugoslavia.  It could be that
>#the bank will make some money from Yugoslav spectators, tv, etc.
>#(i.e. cause some money to move around INSIDE Yugoslavia), but how
>#could sanctions prevent that kind of motion?  The bank may also make
>#some money from outside Yugoslavia later (no one expects the war or
>#the sanctions to last forever, I hope), but why is that so bad?
>#I don't see how the match helps prolong the war.
>
>The match will bring money to Yugoslavia in the long run even though
>money will be flowing out as a result of the match.  If the match goes
>on and is not condemned by the world, then other corporations and
>individuals wishing to do business in Yugoslavia will simply point at
>the match and ignore the sanctions.

No, because there is a difference in companies/countries doing
business and two *INDIVIDUALS* playing a chess game! There is
no law that can prevent them from doing so. Morality is another
issue, however... if you are so worried about the symbolism,
well, the US has signed a contract with the Chinese to sell $140
million worth of automobiles just yesterday. I didn't hear anybody
mention Tienanmen Square ( "shhhhh, we need the jobs, there's an
election comming soon...")
So, if "uncle Sam", the great protector of freedom and democracy
throughout the world, can turn a blind eye in pursuit of
economic gain, how about giving old Bobby Fischer a break, huh?

Regards,
George Bogavac