[WVDXA] 5A7A -- the Untold Story

[Clark L. Stewart]

Hal,

      I believe you missed the point of my response entirely.  I was making 
a very narrow comment about just ONE sentence of Ron's email.  You say, "No 
one is blaming the operators for following the rules . . " and that is 
EXACTLY what I was pointing out.  Ron said "I fault the dxpedition ops as 
much as anyone else for allowing this to happen."  So it appears he felt 
the DX'pedition operators were somehow to blame for this and I was ONLY 
pointing out they had no say about the rules which were placed on their 
license.  I was NOT making any argument that it was "right" for this to 
happen.  In fact, I agree with you that it is not right and I applaud your 
attempt to affect a change in this situation.

      But, being the world traveler that you are, I'm certain you know of 
conflicts which currently exist between many countries around the 
world.  The Peoples Republic of China (BY) does not recognize the Republic 
of China (BV), Israel (4X) does not recognize Palestine (E4), South Korea 
(HL) considers North Korea (P5) to be part of its territory, not a separate 
country and at least 20 Muslim countries do not recognize Israel.  Can you 
tell me that each of these countries DOES allow their amateurs to 
communicate with the other?  Or, might there be some regulation that 
prevents say a ham in Syria, Saudi Arabia or Iraq from communicating with a 
ham in Israel?  I don't know, do you?

      As for your quiz, I can name one other DX station who has been denied 
a QSO with another amateur station due to a licensing restriction in 
another country?  5A7A.  And the country imposing the restriction is 
Libya.  The Libyan ham operators can not contact the country of Israel and 
thus can not get DXCC credit for a 4X QSO.  It is a two-way street.

      However, none of this has anything to do with what I was attempting 
to point out.  I agree with you that this is not "right" but it IS the 
regulation placed upon the DX'pedition operators.  That is ALL I was trying 
to say.  I made no argument whatsoever that because it has been done in the 
past that it was "right" either then or now.  I only took issue with Ron's 
comment that he felt the DX'pedition operators were at fault for ". . 
.allowing this to happen."  We all have to play by the rules and many times 
they are not fair.  But, they are the rules - until we can change them.

      When Thailand was on the banned country list the ARRL would not 
credit for DXCC any QSO's a U.S. ham made with Thailand but a station in 
Canada or most any other country could count such a contact.  Same 
situation now with the 5A7A.  Not "right" then, or now, but that is the way 
the world works.  The country issuing the license has the right to permit 
or not permit what the ham operator can do with that license.

      My only purpose in joining this discussion was to educate those 
DX'ers who may not have been aware of the history of DX'ing on this issue 
and of the control the issuing country has over what the licensee can 
do.  W8DL and K8MN further elaborated on my point earlier today.

      If you still do not understand my position on this, contact me off 
the list either by phone, email or in person and I'll do my best to explain 
my position.  I'll say no more about it on the reflector.

      And Ron, I wasn't picking on you.  Your comment is one I have seen 
from others as well.  That's why I decided to comment on it so that 
everyone could have a better understanding of the issue.


73, Clark, W8TN
No QSO's made with 5A7A
so I have no stake in this issue.


At 06:48 PM 2/7/2007 -0500, you wrote:

>Sorry Clark, I don't see things any differently.  Just because things were 
>done this way "several years ago" doesn't make it right.  We could have 
>all kinds of fun with that logic.  Let me simply ask you to participate in 
>a little quiz with a two part question:
>1) It is December 2006, aside from amateur radio operators in Israel, 
>please identify by callsign, one DX station who has been denied a QSO with 
>another amateur station due to a licensing restriction in another country?
>2) Please identify the country imposing that restriction?
>
>No one is blaming the operators for following the rules, but I do question 
>their personal integrity and the fact that they succumbed to the political 
>demands of the Libyan officials so they could participate in this 
>operation.  But I see that the QSLs are arriving and most of the DX world 
>is happy.  That's all that really matters isn't it?
>
>And GW, I appreciated your response.  Good to hear from you on any subject 
>OM.  We miss you!
>
>73,
>Hal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wvdxa.org/pipermail/wvdxa_wvdxa.org/attachments/20070208/e644db26/attachment.html