Are nation sanctions possible? - Dynamics of boycott have changed

Though it's nearly 40 years since America's Jimmy Carter led a boycott of the Moscow Olympics over the invasion of Afghanistan that sanction, which was supported by 66 countries but not Ireland, raises relevant questions - especially as we approach the do-or-die end of soccer's World Cup in Russia.

Russia' behaviour today is no better or no worse than it was then so one of two conclusions apply: Firstly, the principles behind that 1980 boycott are not as important to the West as they once were or, secondly, there is an acceptance that boycotts are not effectual.

There are far too many examples of how the West has diluted if not abandoned principles once presented as sacrosanct to argue that virtue, or even morality, is as influential as we might wish it were - or that we might need to defend it as righteously we once did.

Since the Irish Government, under that paragon, Charles Haughey tried unsuccessfully to prevent Irish athletes competing in Moscow or Irish rugby players touring South Africa with the Lions that same year, our attitudes towards the acceptance of immigrants, environmental destruction, financial regulations like America's Glass-Steagall laws designed to protect consumers and many other benchmark rules underpinning social progress, have changed so dramatically that it is hard to see how most Western leaders might today propose a boycott of anyone and retain a degree of credibility.

That, however, did not prevent the EU organising a kind of boycott-lite of Russia over its machinations in Crimea and Ukraine. Ironically, that half-hearted sanction strengthened Putin's position among his wildest nationalist supporters.

That hard-nosed boycotts, or the seizure of funds enthusiastically laundered in western banks, have not been enacted in reaction to Russia's cyberwar on Western democracy tells its own story too.

That may be how these issues play out in today's Grand Game but today, July 4, America's Independence Day brings those issues to our doorstep albeit in a far lower key. Some prominent politicians, including ministers and party leaders, decided not to attend last night's traditional celebrations at the American embassy in Dublin.

Their decision, no doubt highly-motivated, will hardly register on Washington's Richter Scale - a sad reality confirmed by the fact that the Bud 'n burger knees-up was hosted by a civil servant because President Trump, despite being in office for nearly 20 months, has yet to appoint an ambassador to this country.

Some, but maybe not all, of the politicians who did attend, would assuredly condemn President Trump's behaviour, especially his treatment of immigrant families, but they would also insist that their attendance was not an endorsement of those policies.

In the cold, absolute light of day that seems a version of the Brexiteers' have-your-cake-and-eat-it delusion. Like most worthwhile things in life, you can't have it both ways.

This raises other questions - are boycotts a top-down process only feasible if the powerful boycott the weak? Are they just empty virtue-signalling of the kind beloved of the chattering classes?