Ron,
I hesitated to respond to your email but after giving it much
thought, I'd like to comment on one item. I am responding to the list
because I think many others may have the same feelings as you and I hope
this response might let them see things differently.
You made the statement "I fault the dxpedition ops as much as anyone
else for allowing this to happen." I can not see any way in which the
DX'pedition operators are at fault here.
Several years ago the FCC published a "Banned Country List" and U.S.
amateurs were forbidden to contact hams in those countries. Some of the
countries that have been on that list were: Austria, Cambodia, Laos,
Vietnam, Iran, Jordan, Romania, and Thailand. If you, as a U.S. ham radio
operator, were to communicate with those countries, you were violating the
rules of the FCC. In the words of the FCC, "to do so would result in
"grave consequences" to the amateur."
Amateur radio operators in other countries were also forbidden to
contact hams in the U.S. China is one that comes immediately to
mind. There was no FCC ban on working China but Chinese hams were not
allowed to work U.S. hams for many years.
Any amateur radio operator in any country of the world only operates
because that country "permits" him to do so. That "permission" is usually
codified in laws, rules and regulations. To operate outside those rules
subjects you to the loss of your license at the very least.
If a ham from one country travels to another country, (a DX'pedition
if you will), he must obey the rules of the country he is visiting. So, if
the Libyan government says, "As a condition of your license to operate from
Libya, you are not allowed to communicate with any ham operators in
Israel." Then, the DX'pedition operators MUST obey that requirement. To
do so would subject them to the loss of their license and possibly
expulsion from the country or even imprisonment.
If the DX'pedition operators felt that they could not obey the rules
of the country they wanted to visit, then their options were basically to
not go and operate from there if they felt they could not obey the
rules. To do otherwise would be foolish.
I agree that in this day and age it is ridiculous to put such
restrictions on hams but, to blame the DX'pedition operators is not what we
should do. In my eyes they had little they could do in this situation but
follow the rules of the country they were visiting.
Hal stated in his original email that the 5A7A Team Coordinator,
Andy, DJ7IK, said, "I'm very sorry that we are not able to send QSL to
4X-stations, as we got our license with the restriction not to work with
4X. Because we like to keep in touch with our partners in 5A to support
the growth of ham radio in Libya, we accepted this restriction, knowing
that this is not hamlike!" This appears to me that the DX'pedition
operators may have a longer range idea of trying to foster ham radio in
Libya. Maybe by doing so they can begin to break down the barriers to
communicating with Israel. If the DX'pedition had refused to follow the
rules laid down to them, they may have caused the Libyan authorities to
simply stop all future ham radio in that country. Who can say?
In any event I feel you really can not blame the DX'pedition
operators for following the rules given them with their license.
Clark, W8TN
At 04:29 PM 2/4/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>Hal,
>
>I just became aware of this situation after reading your e-mail. I did
>not work this 5A7A operation because I had confirmed Libya
>previously. Now, I am very glad that I didn't work them. Your comments
>were superb and right on.
>
>There is no place for this crap in Ham Radio. I fault the dxpedition ops
>as much as anyone else for allowing this to happen.
>
>In any event thanks for you comments and bringing this matter to my attention.
>
>73,
>Ron, KG8GW
>