sources say “China was the single mostrnimportant supplier of equipment andrntechnology for weapons of mass destructionrnworldwide . . . and . . . a key supplierrnof nuclear technology to Iran.”rnCritics of sanctions do have a validrnpoint. Foreign policy should be basedrnon national interest, rather than on idealisticrntheories of human rights. But thernadministration is caught on the horns ofrna dilemma that it has helped to create.rnIn recent years, sanctions have been usedrnagainst Iran, Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq,rnChina, Burma, and Cuba (among otherrncountries), usually on the grounds of humanrnrights violations. In fact, however,rnsanctions are often used not as an instrumentrnof human rights but as a tool ofrnAmerican foreign policy. The governmentsrnof Cuba and Burma have bothrncommitted atrocities against their ownrncitizens, but their record of abuse is trivialrncompared with what the rulers of Chinarnhave done over the past 50 years. Andrnyet China has received Most FavoredrnNation status.rnChina’s defenders like to focus on thernTiananmen Square massacre and arguernthat, since then, the Chinese governmentrnhas pursued a program of liberalization.rnBut the attack on the prodemocracyrnprotesters was a minorrnincident in a history of oppression thatrnincludes tens of millions of Chineserncitizens killed during the Cultural Revolution,rnto say nothing of the Chineserngovernment’s program of forced sterilization,rncompulsory abortion, and infanticide.rnSome sanctions have been aimed atrnaggressor nations that invade their neighborsrnor export terrorism — Libya and Iraq,rnfor example. But China is unexcelled inrnaggression. Since the 1960’s, the Chinesernhave been involved in border clashesrnwith the Russians, and they have aidedrnthe bellicose North Koreans. Theyrnshelled Taiwanese islands and tried torneliminate traditional Mongol and Turkishrncultures within their own territory.rnAfter conquering Tibet, they have donerntheir best to destroy the religion and culturernof its people.rnBut whatever its crimes, China is forgivenrnbecause it offers opportunities tornAmerican military industrialists down onrntheir luck. Iraq and Yugoslavia are not sornlucky. In those countries, the people arernheld accountable for the crimes of theirrnleaders. Food and medicines have beenrnsubject to a de facto blockade. The resultsrnin Iraq have been catastrophic —rnperhaps a million civilian deaths sincernthe end of the Gulf War, half of themrnchildren.rnLet us be honest. “Sanction” is now arneuphemism for embargo, and the U.S.rngovernment uses the two words interchangeably.rnAn embargo is either an actrnof war or a preparation for war. It hasrnnothing to do with human rights or humanitarianism.rnA real sanction is “thernspecific penalty enacted in order to enforcernobedience to a law.” But the UnitedrnStates does not have the authority tornimpose, unilaterally, a legal penalty onrnforeign countries. Nonetheless, our governmentrnnot only declared its own sanctionsrnagainst Yugoslavia, over and abovernthe U.N. sanctions, but it also reservesrnthe right, as a member of the SecurityrnCouncil, to reimpose the U.N. sanctionsrnthat have been suspended.rnYugoslavia’s recent attempt to repressrna rebellion in Kosovo has resulted in therncall to reactivate sanctions, but Turkey,rnwhich is carrying out a wholesale exterminationrnof the Kurds, is not even criticized.rnThe Turks are, after all, our alliesrn—and good customers, too.rnIn calling for a more pragmatic approachrnto sanctions. Bill Clinton is oncernagain throwing sand in the eyes of thernAmerican people. The truth is, he wantsrnto sell military technology to the bloodiestrnregime of the 20th century. At thernsame time his government is denyingrnfood and medicine to the children ofrnIraq. Will he get away with this brutalrnhypocrisy? Of course. Missiles to Chinarnmean jobs and votes, and if there is anyrnmoral dimension to the deal, that isrnstrictly between the President and hisrnwife.rn—Thomas FlemingrnJ E A N – M A R I E L E P E N is in troublernagain. Imagine if Pat Buchanan had justrnscored a major political success, whichrnhad put him within reach of real politicalrnpower—and then, just as he was reachingrnout to taste the fruits of years of hardrnwork, political opponents threw a minorrnlegal charge at him. Conviction on thisrncharge would disqualify Buchanan fromrnholding any political post, lumber himrnwith a suspended prison sentence ofrnthree months, and stiip him of his civicrnrights for two years. Would not the timingrnseem a little too convenient to be coincidental?rnThis is what Jean-Marie LernPen’s friends, and liberal Frenchmen ofrnall parties, are now saying about the ancienrnregime’s latest assault on the NationalrnFront (FN).rnIn the last general election, Le Penrnwas helping his daughter, Marie-rnCaroline, to canvas in the Mantesla-rnJolie district. During a walkabout, thernFN contingent was spotted by a Socialistrnmob, who showed their commitment tornfreedom of expression by threatening thernmuch smaller FN group. In the frontrnrow of the mob was the Socialist candidate,rna harpy named Peulvast-Bergealrnwho, according to Le Pen, was threateningrnand lunging at his daughter. Le Pen,rnan impulsive and chivalrous man, claimsrnthat he merely tried to fend off the jmazon,rnwho was not hurt at all by the “assault,”rnjust even more aggrieved thanrnusual.rnThe TV cameras which follow Le Penrneverywhere in the hope of just such imagesrncaptured the undignified moment.rnBecause this was Le Pen, and not just arnrun-of-the-mill member of what has virtuallyrnbecome the Caullist-Socialist-rnCommunist coalition, nobody wasrnwilling to overlook this minor (if undoubtedlyrnunpleasant) incident, inrnwhich there was fault on both sides. Inherentlyrndisposed in favor of litigationrn(like all leftists), Peulvast-Bergeal gleefullyrnsued Le Pen for assault and won therncase.rnLe Pen’s legal setback, if it is upheld,rnwill mean —in addition to a brief jailrnterm—that he will be unable to hold officernor take part in politics. He does,rnhowever, retain his “civic rights” until hisrnappeal can be heard. This latest legal attackrnon Le Pen is an obvious attempt tornundermine the FN and to weaken hisrnown position within the party—althoughrnsome journalists, like the London Times’rnBen Macintyre, find the prospect of anrnFN run by Bruno Megret, Le Pen’s obviousrnsuccessor, even more terrifying (seern”Softly, Softlv, Speaks the Fascist,”rnTimes,April22, 1998).rnThis assault charge is but the latest politicallyrnmotivated frame-up in a numberrnof unedifying attempts to close down thernFN and disenfranchise the 15 percent ofrnthe French population who now regularlyrnvote for it. The voting system was alteredrnin 1988, cutting the number of FNrnmembers of parliament from 35 to justrnone; more recently, the left and so-calledrn”right-wing” parties created the “RepublicanrnFront” in an attempt to defeat thernFN at Strasbourg and elsewhere (theyrnfailed). The Republican Front was revivedrnin March, when the FN becamern6/CHRONlCLESrnrnrn