10 ms·

Many are lost in technicalities here, if Canada has the right to arrest a businesswoman, if the US can stop a foreign company to do business with another countr

by mtw 8y ago

Many are lost in technicalities here, if Canada has the right to arrest a businesswoman, if the US can stop a foreign company to do business with another country. Who cares? I'm partial to Iran because a multi-lateral treaty was signed. Iran stopped nuclear enrichment. In exchange, western countries pledged to provide economic relief and stop sanctions. It is said that Iran has been developing various weapons, but these weapons do not fall under the treaty, and experts and controllers all agree the nuclear program has been stopped. It is wrong for the US to walk away from this treaty, in the same way it was wrong to walk away from the Paris accord agreement. You agree on one thing, you have to follow. That is the honourable thing to do. A few will say that Iran is threatening Middle East Peace. What is obvious is that its Saudi Arabia who's bombing its southern neighbour or sending tanks to Bahrain. If you want peace, you have to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia as well. What is even wrong for the US is punishing foreign companies wanting to do business in Iran. Perhaps there are technicalities to demonstrate a law in the US is broken. This makes sense for bureaucrats. For the rest of the world, it's just abuse and plain wrong. History will judge.

nostromo 8y ago
> It is wrong for the US to walk away from this treaty The Iran Nuclear Deal and the Paris Accords were not treaties. We have a process to ratify treaties in the US. The president approves a treaty and sends it to the senate to approve or reject. It's easy for president to make executive order agreements because it doesn't require approval from the senate (something Obama knew he couldn't get for either deal). But all parties should know that these non-treaties can be undone without a second thought by a new president. The nice thing about the American system is that while treaties are difficult to pass, they are more or less permanent.
- dis-sys 8y ago
  > The nice thing about the American system is that while treaties are difficult to pass, they are more or less permanent. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed in 1987, it is now dead. so by your definition, 30 years is now called permanent? To me, a far better definition of the term permanent can be concluded from the matter of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - US permanently refused to join that convention.
  - apocalyptic0n3 8y ago
    How is the INF dead? Trump announced he is withdrawing the US from it but he has no authority to do so unilaterally and requires the approval of the Senate to actually withdraw. That approval has not happened and, as far as I am aware, the Senate has not even discussed the matter yet. It's just being used to strongarm Russia into complying with the treaty after they violated it at least once (that I am aware of, anyway)
- gonvaled 8y ago
  What I read from this is: "the US has a convoluted process, which nobody understands, in order to commit to international agreements". It seems everybody, including head of states, thought the US had agreed to the treaties, but they had not (?), because of a technicality. I assume these technicalities can be applied to anything, any time, in order to justify pulling out of international agreements. Worse, instead of owning to this change of mind, the rationale of technicality is used in order to justify pulling out. This is done in bad faith. > The nice thing about the American system is that while treaties are difficult to pass, they are more or less permanent. You say this now. This experience shows that, once you want to pull out, you will find a nice loophole to pull out. That is the "more or less" part. And there is another aspect: once excuses for pulling out have run out, we know that the US will simply break, whenever and for whatever reason it wants, existing, ratified, seal-proof treaties. The US is simply untrustworthy. And sneaky.
  - cdash 8y ago
    Oh come on. That is just plain insulting to all the other parties of the agreement. They knew full well that they did not have a ratified treaty with the US and they were explicitly warned of that fact ahead of time. Just because people on the internet did not understand that doesn't mean the parties involved did not know that.
    - ddalex 8y ago
      This argument reeks of "not my fault you were conned, you should have known I'm a conman"
      - creaghpatr 8y ago
        Iran got their pallet of cash, they knew Obama was making the deal without the support of congress thereby giving the middle finger to US citizens. It would be diplomatic malpractice to not forecast the deal getting revoked, especially if they violated it (and they did)
        8y ago
- eftychis 8y ago
  No, by international law [1] (and U.S. law [2]) they are treaties [1]. U.S. is not the only country with the notion of ratification [3][5] (not a surprise). Generally, the U.S. distinguishes between "treaties", executive acts or acts of Congress agreements internally, but externally they are treaties. U.S. treaties are not permanent, and while the statement as ratified, it is law, the U.S. has broken a lot of treaties treaties. See Native American section [4]. I can agree that statements like "It is wrong for the US to walk away..." are strictly moral, with no legal ground, as it was not ratified. Yet this is a treaty that was signed. In the eyes of the world and U.S. law, this is a "broken" treaty. And it doesn't help if we go around breaking treaties. It is not illegal, but you are not building credibility right? It might be only fair if other States start breaking their treaties when convenient. (And some of them do.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States#Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_S... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification#Ratification_of_an_international_treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification#Ratification_of_a... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_o... Edit: This is a nice interesting read, in case you are interested: https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/2/issue/5/international-agreements-and-us-law https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/2/issue/5/international...
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    Not to go Godwin but a lot of massacres were also wrong on moral not legal grounds. When it comes down to that non-defense things get even uglier very quickly as it turns to "there is no law here against heading there and breaking your face". Even if they thought it was firmly in their domain. "Their word is law." is a primitive framework but it expresses that enforcement backs laws.
  - azernik 8y ago
    From that link, it is not a treaty in US law. The article uses the blanket term "treaty-related law", but the Iran agreement falls under the "Executive agreement" category. This is in part a long-standing presidential workaround for the similarly-long-standing Congressional unwillingness to bind the US to treaties. But it does come with a bit of deception of foreign partners, because it does not bind the US in the same way that treaties bind other countries under their own domestic law. One of many ways in which the US system is a bit dysfunctional.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  Then the US should change their procedures: first get the treaty ratified then get their head-of-state to go and sign the treaty. Otherwise, in the eyes of the rest of the world the treaty has been signed and the US is bound by it, whatever their internal politics. Optics matter. The way it looks now because of this - and many other recent examples - that the US is not trustworthy.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    A non-trivial number of countries have separate signing and ratification procedures. This is common enough that no reasonable observer in international politics automatically equates the two. Most of them have procedures that mirror those of the US! It's worth considering that changing this process from one widely understood to one widely not understood is likely to lead to more confusion about weird internal political processes rather than less.
- kaveh_h 8y ago
  In any case a US president could always make up a story why the other party has violated a treaty if there’s enough interests which are aligned. Remember Iraq WMDs?
- miracle2k 8y ago
  1. Iran had an election shortly after JCPOA. If that election would have led to a change in government, and under the new president, Iran had decided to abrogate from the agreement, would the argument then be "hey, fair enough, it was not a a treaty"? 2. The senate passing it makes no difference. The Republicans, controlling the House and the Senate, may well have been successfully in passing legislation withdrawing from the treaty. Except - that isn't even necessary. Trump can withdraw from any treaty he likes whenever it pleases him: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/05/09/if-the-iran-deal-had-been-a-senate-confirmed-treaty-would-trump-have-been-forced-to-stay-in-nope/?utm_term=.5e70b355d72b https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/05/0... All of these are simply internal American processes, and it is up to the Americans to consider wether they want their politicians to run a foreign policy that projects stability, where the decisions of previous presidents are maintained because, being legitimately elected it was their decision to make, and American's word should stand for something - or whether they want their country to be perceived as erratic - which is in fact the case now, whether or not it causes allies such as the EU to ultimately make real changes in the relationship.
  - Trill-I-Am 8y ago
    Strong political polarization in the US guarantees that going forward there won’t be continuity between presidents because there’s likely to be rapid shifts back and forth across the political spectrum
    - _Tev 8y ago
      So,you agree with USA being unreliable partner now? (it might have been always that way, but it really looks different now)
    - gdfasfklshg4 8y ago
      This means that rest of the world can't trust the US on any issue... This decreases US power. Everyone knows that they just have to wait for the next president and everything will be reset.
austincheney 8y ago
> A few will say that Iran is threatening Middle East Peace. That is widely agree upon largely due to Iran's shipment of weapons and financing of external militant groups actively engaged in various conflicts. I am currently in the Middle East due to one or more of these conflicts. I am not stating any opinion for or against the recent (now ignored) agreement. > What is even wrong for the US is punishing foreign companies wanting to do business in Iran. That is a gross over simplification of how the complexities of global trade does not always align with the interests of international politics. It is within the capabilities of one nation to impose laws that forbid trade and supply to another nation while trading with third party nations trading contingent upon that awareness.
- Down_n_Out 8y ago
  > That is widely agree upon largely due to Iran's shipment of weapons and financing of external militant groups actively engaged in various conflicts. Where is your proof on this? Where is all of the proof on any of the things claimed about Iran? Just like there were mass destructive weapons in Irak?? Sure, we know how that turned out. It's time for big ol' USA to just stop meddling in affairs it has no business in. They just want to get their hands on all the oil in the world so they can play the boss, and it most likely is not going to stop there either, next it's water, the market, and so on. The USA is just a big bully, it's their way or not at all. And Europe is like the bully's accomplice, too scared to stand up so just joins along in the bullying. Pathetic, more more more, it's always more they want. Protecting the peace, ha, joke. And while we are at it, let's forgive Saudi Arabia for obviously brutally murdering a journalist, afterall, they just invested millions on some of our weapons. Farce.
  - austincheney 8y ago
    If you were really interested in evidence I am sure you wouldn't have any trouble finding it yourself.
    - Down_n_Out 8y ago
      I'm asking evidence of people claiming things without any proof. And yes, I can find my own evidence, hence my question. How is your comment any relevant?
dlhw 8y ago
Just because someone doesn’t agree with a law doesn’t mean that they should be able to break it without consequences. If she knowingly tried to export to Iran knowing it was forbidden by law, then she got what was coming to her. > What is even wrong for the US is punishing foreign companies wanting to do business in Iran. Perhaps there are technicalities to demonstrate a law in the US is broken. This makes sense for bureaucrats. Sanctions are powerful tools that benefit the country applying them in the same way that you benefit by not handing over ammunition to your enemies.
- olalonde 8y ago
  > Just because someone doesn’t agree with a law doesn’t mean that they should be able to break it without consequences. I'd argue this is not as self evident as you imply for such "worldwide" laws. It's at the very least debatable whether a country should have the ability to make laws that apply to foreigners in foreign countries.
  - dlhw 8y ago
    > It's at the very least debatable whether a country should have the ability to make laws that apply to foreigners in foreign countries. That's a fair point. However if Huawei has a physical presence as a business in the US (which it does) then it should certainly be subject to obeying US laws. The one responsible for violating that law should be held responsible for breaking the law, whether they are a foreigner or not, in the same way that a tourist traveling to another country is still subject to that country's laws.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- sien 8y ago
  She is a citizen of a foreign country. She is not subject to US law. Extra-territorial application of law is a nightmare. How would the US react if a US businessman was arrested for trading with Israel in Turkey?
panarky 8y ago
Yes, the US was wrong to abandon the nuclear deal with Iran. But that's not the whole story with the Huawei CFO arrest. China and their state-owned and state-controlled companies are stealing trade secrets and military technology instead of developing it on their own. Chinese companies enjoy open access to Western markets, but Western companies are highly restricted in their access to Chinese markets. If Huawei illegally sold technology to sanctioned nations, and the US can use that to pressure China on trade and espionage, more power to them.
- eh78ssxv2f 8y ago
  > China and their state-owned and state-controlled companies are stealing trade secrets and military technology instead of developing it on their own. Do you have any evidence for this? Have we arrested any US citizens for selling/leaking military technology to China?
  - ummonk 8y ago
    While there is definitely good reason to believe that is happening, it should be noted that multiple Chinese-American scientists have been subjected to meritless witch-hunts. See e.g. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/feature-chinese-american-scientists-crosshairs https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/feature-chinese-amer... and https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/technology/sherry-chen-national-weather-service.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/technology/sherry-chen-na... for examples.
  - matt4077 8y ago
    I’m as opposed to current US idiocracy as anybody, but requiring people to relitigate every last fact, and prove even widely accepted moral concepts from first principle, just destroys any honest debate.
    - eh78ssxv2f 8y ago
      I do not know of any place that widely proves that "state-owned and state-controlled companies" are stealing trade secrets. Individuals, sure. State-owned companies? I would like to know the proof for this.
kaveh_h 8y ago
Well said, US bias towards Saudi Arabia while both SA and Iran have totalitarian regimes which misbehave in the region shows they are primarily interested in having influence in the region. SA is the one deemed best suited and most willing to at least publicly show support for US foreign policy. Unfortunately affiliation with SA will wreck havoc with any diplomatic mission of US in the region for the future. Russia and China will gain more influence going forward as they don’t have so much moral baggage in the region.
xtrapolate 8y ago
> "I'm partial to Iran because a multi-lateral treaty was signed. Iran stopped nuclear enrichment. In exchange, western countries pledged to provide economic relief and stop sanctions." Iran stopped its nuclear enrichment program, so the sanctions were wavered. Iran continued working on a ballistic missile program (capable of carrying nuclear warheads), and continued destabilizing countries throughout the middle east (through proxy terrorism) - so the sanctions came back. In other words - temporarily halting the nuclear enrichment program alone should not excuse Iran from being held accountable.
- toyg 8y ago
  > “continued destabilizing countries” Pot, kettle, black. The US are continuously destabilising countries they don’t like, Iran included; in fact, most poweful countries do, all the time, from Russia to France to Germany. That doesn’t justify breaking treaties on a whim, like Trump has done. The US had built up a reputation as a violent and aggressive bully after 2003. Obama worked hard at correcting that, but the new guy has thrown it all away again. The US at the moment look seriously bipolar, from the outside.
anad7 8y ago
> If you want peace, you have to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia as well. Funny how Israel never gets mentioned by anyone!
- saiya-jin 8y ago
  political correctness, being called racist and whatnot
- flyinglizard 8y ago
  That’s probably because Israel is a part of the Western world and nobody in their right mind is concerned about it becoming a military threat or sponsoring radical Islamists.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    The concern isn't becoming radical Islamists but becoming no different. The behavior is the ultimate problem. I mean the Shakers are technically a radical Christian sect who doesn't believe in sexual reproduction. Radical Martha Stewart fans deciding to kill people would be just as big of a problem.
  - digianarchist 8y ago
    Israel doesn't sponsor radical Islamists it just creates them by it's disregard for international law in the West Bank and Gaza.
    - flyinglizard 8y ago
      And yet the heavy hitters (Al Qaeda, ISIS and co) never really bothered with Israel. They went directly after other Western nations which supported the Palestinian cause and sponsored Palestinians with billions of dollars.
      - dbuder 8y ago
        Because Israel doesn't fuck around, Israel sends a murder squad.
gus_massa 8y ago
> Perhaps there are technicalities to demonstrate a law in the US is broken. This makes sense for bureaucrats. For the rest of the world, it's just abuse and plain wrong. (Almost?) All countries have a similar approval process in the parliament. Usually the president has enough votes in the parliament or has an informal arrangement with the opposition leaders to ensure the approval. For example, Iran never ratified the 2013 treaty with Argentina. It was approved by the Argentinean Parliament, but it was never approved by the Iranian Parliament. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_understanding_between_Argentina_and_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_understanding_be... more info in the Spanish version (autotranslation): https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=es&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fes.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMemor%C3%A1ndum_de_entendimiento_Argentina-Ir%C3%A1n https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=es&tl=en&u=htt... [Disclaimer: I'm from Argentina. I didn't like the treaty, but nobody asked for my opinion.]
stevespang 8y ago
Are you Iranian ? Highly coincidental to your argument you do not mention the glaring evidence of Iran's involvement on the ground with advisors and supplying military hardware in the Yemen crisis,Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, etc. opposing the UAE, the Saudis, and the US.
onetimemanytime 8y ago
You're complicating things: USA has issued an international arrest warrant. X person went to Canada and his name was blinking so he was arrested. End of the story. A Canadian Court will decide whether the US arrest warrant was based on common Western norms or not. In this case the arrest warrant was not issued for free speech, tax evasion or political activity so almost certain he'll be extradited. End of the story. Canada will determine that the person involved--essentially with billion$ behind her--will get a fair hearing in USA. And she will, laws may be unfair but...
wybiral 8y ago
The external situation, and whether you agree or disagree about Iran, has no impact on whether or not it was illegal. The company traded tech with the US under an agreement not to share said tech with sanctioned countries. They then proceeded in an apparent act of circumventing those trade agreements. If they didn't like the sanctions against Iran then they shouldn't have been dealing with the US tech for which those sanctions applied in the first place. Your argument is like saying "it's not theft because the person they were stealing from is a bad person" which isn't how the law works.

by mtw 8y ago

nostromo 8y ago

> It is wrong for the US to walk away from this treaty The Iran Nuclear Deal and the Paris Accords were not treaties. We have a process to ratify treaties in the US. The president approves a treaty and sends it to the senate to approve or reject. It's easy for president to make executive order agreements because it doesn't require approval from the senate (something Obama knew he couldn't get for either deal). But all parties should know that these non-treaties can be undone without a second thought by a new president. The nice thing about the American system is that while treaties are difficult to pass, they are more or less permanent.

dis-sys 8y ago
> The nice thing about the American system is that while treaties are difficult to pass, they are more or less permanent. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed in 1987, it is now dead. so by your definition, 30 years is now called permanent? To me, a far better definition of the term permanent can be concluded from the matter of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - US permanently refused to join that convention.
- apocalyptic0n3 8y ago
  How is the INF dead? Trump announced he is withdrawing the US from it but he has no authority to do so unilaterally and requires the approval of the Senate to actually withdraw. That approval has not happened and, as far as I am aware, the Senate has not even discussed the matter yet. It's just being used to strongarm Russia into complying with the treaty after they violated it at least once (that I am aware of, anyway)
gonvaled 8y ago
What I read from this is: "the US has a convoluted process, which nobody understands, in order to commit to international agreements". It seems everybody, including head of states, thought the US had agreed to the treaties, but they had not (?), because of a technicality. I assume these technicalities can be applied to anything, any time, in order to justify pulling out of international agreements. Worse, instead of owning to this change of mind, the rationale of technicality is used in order to justify pulling out. This is done in bad faith. > The nice thing about the American system is that while treaties are difficult to pass, they are more or less permanent. You say this now. This experience shows that, once you want to pull out, you will find a nice loophole to pull out. That is the "more or less" part. And there is another aspect: once excuses for pulling out have run out, we know that the US will simply break, whenever and for whatever reason it wants, existing, ratified, seal-proof treaties. The US is simply untrustworthy. And sneaky.
- cdash 8y ago
  Oh come on. That is just plain insulting to all the other parties of the agreement. They knew full well that they did not have a ratified treaty with the US and they were explicitly warned of that fact ahead of time. Just because people on the internet did not understand that doesn't mean the parties involved did not know that.
  - ddalex 8y ago
    This argument reeks of "not my fault you were conned, you should have known I'm a conman"
    - creaghpatr 8y ago
      Iran got their pallet of cash, they knew Obama was making the deal without the support of congress thereby giving the middle finger to US citizens. It would be diplomatic malpractice to not forecast the deal getting revoked, especially if they violated it (and they did)
      - 8y ago
eftychis 8y ago
No, by international law [1] (and U.S. law [2]) they are treaties [1]. U.S. is not the only country with the notion of ratification [3][5] (not a surprise). Generally, the U.S. distinguishes between "treaties", executive acts or acts of Congress agreements internally, but externally they are treaties. U.S. treaties are not permanent, and while the statement as ratified, it is law, the U.S. has broken a lot of treaties treaties. See Native American section [4]. I can agree that statements like "It is wrong for the US to walk away..." are strictly moral, with no legal ground, as it was not ratified. Yet this is a treaty that was signed. In the eyes of the world and U.S. law, this is a "broken" treaty. And it doesn't help if we go around breaking treaties. It is not illegal, but you are not building credibility right? It might be only fair if other States start breaking their treaties when convenient. (And some of them do.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States#Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_S... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification#Ratification_of_an_international_treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification#Ratification_of_a... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_o... Edit: This is a nice interesting read, in case you are interested: https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/2/issue/5/international-agreements-and-us-law https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/2/issue/5/international...
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Not to go Godwin but a lot of massacres were also wrong on moral not legal grounds. When it comes down to that non-defense things get even uglier very quickly as it turns to "there is no law here against heading there and breaking your face". Even if they thought it was firmly in their domain. "Their word is law." is a primitive framework but it expresses that enforcement backs laws.
- azernik 8y ago
  From that link, it is not a treaty in US law. The article uses the blanket term "treaty-related law", but the Iran agreement falls under the "Executive agreement" category. This is in part a long-standing presidential workaround for the similarly-long-standing Congressional unwillingness to bind the US to treaties. But it does come with a bit of deception of foreign partners, because it does not bind the US in the same way that treaties bind other countries under their own domestic law. One of many ways in which the US system is a bit dysfunctional.
jacquesm 8y ago
Then the US should change their procedures: first get the treaty ratified then get their head-of-state to go and sign the treaty. Otherwise, in the eyes of the rest of the world the treaty has been signed and the US is bound by it, whatever their internal politics. Optics matter. The way it looks now because of this - and many other recent examples - that the US is not trustworthy.
- Kalium 8y ago
  A non-trivial number of countries have separate signing and ratification procedures. This is common enough that no reasonable observer in international politics automatically equates the two. Most of them have procedures that mirror those of the US! It's worth considering that changing this process from one widely understood to one widely not understood is likely to lead to more confusion about weird internal political processes rather than less.
kaveh_h 8y ago
In any case a US president could always make up a story why the other party has violated a treaty if there’s enough interests which are aligned. Remember Iraq WMDs?
miracle2k 8y ago
1. Iran had an election shortly after JCPOA. If that election would have led to a change in government, and under the new president, Iran had decided to abrogate from the agreement, would the argument then be "hey, fair enough, it was not a a treaty"? 2. The senate passing it makes no difference. The Republicans, controlling the House and the Senate, may well have been successfully in passing legislation withdrawing from the treaty. Except - that isn't even necessary. Trump can withdraw from any treaty he likes whenever it pleases him: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/05/09/if-the-iran-deal-had-been-a-senate-confirmed-treaty-would-trump-have-been-forced-to-stay-in-nope/?utm_term=.5e70b355d72b https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/05/0... All of these are simply internal American processes, and it is up to the Americans to consider wether they want their politicians to run a foreign policy that projects stability, where the decisions of previous presidents are maintained because, being legitimately elected it was their decision to make, and American's word should stand for something - or whether they want their country to be perceived as erratic - which is in fact the case now, whether or not it causes allies such as the EU to ultimately make real changes in the relationship.
- Trill-I-Am 8y ago
  Strong political polarization in the US guarantees that going forward there won’t be continuity between presidents because there’s likely to be rapid shifts back and forth across the political spectrum
  - _Tev 8y ago
    So,you agree with USA being unreliable partner now? (it might have been always that way, but it really looks different now)
  - gdfasfklshg4 8y ago
    This means that rest of the world can't trust the US on any issue... This decreases US power. Everyone knows that they just have to wait for the next president and everything will be reset.

austincheney 8y ago

> A few will say that Iran is threatening Middle East Peace. That is widely agree upon largely due to Iran's shipment of weapons and financing of external militant groups actively engaged in various conflicts. I am currently in the Middle East due to one or more of these conflicts. I am not stating any opinion for or against the recent (now ignored) agreement. > What is even wrong for the US is punishing foreign companies wanting to do business in Iran. That is a gross over simplification of how the complexities of global trade does not always align with the interests of international politics. It is within the capabilities of one nation to impose laws that forbid trade and supply to another nation while trading with third party nations trading contingent upon that awareness.

Down_n_Out 8y ago
> That is widely agree upon largely due to Iran's shipment of weapons and financing of external militant groups actively engaged in various conflicts. Where is your proof on this? Where is all of the proof on any of the things claimed about Iran? Just like there were mass destructive weapons in Irak?? Sure, we know how that turned out. It's time for big ol' USA to just stop meddling in affairs it has no business in. They just want to get their hands on all the oil in the world so they can play the boss, and it most likely is not going to stop there either, next it's water, the market, and so on. The USA is just a big bully, it's their way or not at all. And Europe is like the bully's accomplice, too scared to stand up so just joins along in the bullying. Pathetic, more more more, it's always more they want. Protecting the peace, ha, joke. And while we are at it, let's forgive Saudi Arabia for obviously brutally murdering a journalist, afterall, they just invested millions on some of our weapons. Farce.
- austincheney 8y ago
  If you were really interested in evidence I am sure you wouldn't have any trouble finding it yourself.
  - Down_n_Out 8y ago
    I'm asking evidence of people claiming things without any proof. And yes, I can find my own evidence, hence my question. How is your comment any relevant?

dlhw 8y ago

Just because someone doesn’t agree with a law doesn’t mean that they should be able to break it without consequences. If she knowingly tried to export to Iran knowing it was forbidden by law, then she got what was coming to her. > What is even wrong for the US is punishing foreign companies wanting to do business in Iran. Perhaps there are technicalities to demonstrate a law in the US is broken. This makes sense for bureaucrats. Sanctions are powerful tools that benefit the country applying them in the same way that you benefit by not handing over ammunition to your enemies.

olalonde 8y ago
> Just because someone doesn’t agree with a law doesn’t mean that they should be able to break it without consequences. I'd argue this is not as self evident as you imply for such "worldwide" laws. It's at the very least debatable whether a country should have the ability to make laws that apply to foreigners in foreign countries.
- dlhw 8y ago
  > It's at the very least debatable whether a country should have the ability to make laws that apply to foreigners in foreign countries. That's a fair point. However if Huawei has a physical presence as a business in the US (which it does) then it should certainly be subject to obeying US laws. The one responsible for violating that law should be held responsible for breaking the law, whether they are a foreigner or not, in the same way that a tourist traveling to another country is still subject to that country's laws.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
sien 8y ago
She is a citizen of a foreign country. She is not subject to US law. Extra-territorial application of law is a nightmare. How would the US react if a US businessman was arrested for trading with Israel in Turkey?

panarky 8y ago

Yes, the US was wrong to abandon the nuclear deal with Iran. But that's not the whole story with the Huawei CFO arrest. China and their state-owned and state-controlled companies are stealing trade secrets and military technology instead of developing it on their own. Chinese companies enjoy open access to Western markets, but Western companies are highly restricted in their access to Chinese markets. If Huawei illegally sold technology to sanctioned nations, and the US can use that to pressure China on trade and espionage, more power to them.

eh78ssxv2f 8y ago
> China and their state-owned and state-controlled companies are stealing trade secrets and military technology instead of developing it on their own. Do you have any evidence for this? Have we arrested any US citizens for selling/leaking military technology to China?
- ummonk 8y ago
  While there is definitely good reason to believe that is happening, it should be noted that multiple Chinese-American scientists have been subjected to meritless witch-hunts. See e.g. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/feature-chinese-american-scientists-crosshairs https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/feature-chinese-amer... and https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/technology/sherry-chen-national-weather-service.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/technology/sherry-chen-na... for examples.
- matt4077 8y ago
  I’m as opposed to current US idiocracy as anybody, but requiring people to relitigate every last fact, and prove even widely accepted moral concepts from first principle, just destroys any honest debate.
  - eh78ssxv2f 8y ago
    I do not know of any place that widely proves that "state-owned and state-controlled companies" are stealing trade secrets. Individuals, sure. State-owned companies? I would like to know the proof for this.

kaveh_h 8y ago

Well said, US bias towards Saudi Arabia while both SA and Iran have totalitarian regimes which misbehave in the region shows they are primarily interested in having influence in the region. SA is the one deemed best suited and most willing to at least publicly show support for US foreign policy. Unfortunately affiliation with SA will wreck havoc with any diplomatic mission of US in the region for the future. Russia and China will gain more influence going forward as they don’t have so much moral baggage in the region.

xtrapolate 8y ago

> "I'm partial to Iran because a multi-lateral treaty was signed. Iran stopped nuclear enrichment. In exchange, western countries pledged to provide economic relief and stop sanctions." Iran stopped its nuclear enrichment program, so the sanctions were wavered. Iran continued working on a ballistic missile program (capable of carrying nuclear warheads), and continued destabilizing countries throughout the middle east (through proxy terrorism) - so the sanctions came back. In other words - temporarily halting the nuclear enrichment program alone should not excuse Iran from being held accountable.

toyg 8y ago
> “continued destabilizing countries” Pot, kettle, black. The US are continuously destabilising countries they don’t like, Iran included; in fact, most poweful countries do, all the time, from Russia to France to Germany. That doesn’t justify breaking treaties on a whim, like Trump has done. The US had built up a reputation as a violent and aggressive bully after 2003. Obama worked hard at correcting that, but the new guy has thrown it all away again. The US at the moment look seriously bipolar, from the outside.

anad7 8y ago

> If you want peace, you have to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia as well. Funny how Israel never gets mentioned by anyone!

saiya-jin 8y ago
political correctness, being called racist and whatnot
flyinglizard 8y ago
That’s probably because Israel is a part of the Western world and nobody in their right mind is concerned about it becoming a military threat or sponsoring radical Islamists.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  The concern isn't becoming radical Islamists but becoming no different. The behavior is the ultimate problem. I mean the Shakers are technically a radical Christian sect who doesn't believe in sexual reproduction. Radical Martha Stewart fans deciding to kill people would be just as big of a problem.
- digianarchist 8y ago
  Israel doesn't sponsor radical Islamists it just creates them by it's disregard for international law in the West Bank and Gaza.
  - flyinglizard 8y ago
    And yet the heavy hitters (Al Qaeda, ISIS and co) never really bothered with Israel. They went directly after other Western nations which supported the Palestinian cause and sponsored Palestinians with billions of dollars.
    - dbuder 8y ago
      Because Israel doesn't fuck around, Israel sends a murder squad.

gus_massa 8y ago

> Perhaps there are technicalities to demonstrate a law in the US is broken. This makes sense for bureaucrats. For the rest of the world, it's just abuse and plain wrong. (Almost?) All countries have a similar approval process in the parliament. Usually the president has enough votes in the parliament or has an informal arrangement with the opposition leaders to ensure the approval. For example, Iran never ratified the 2013 treaty with Argentina. It was approved by the Argentinean Parliament, but it was never approved by the Iranian Parliament. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_understanding_between_Argentina_and_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_understanding_be... more info in the Spanish version (autotranslation): https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=es&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fes.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMemor%C3%A1ndum_de_entendimiento_Argentina-Ir%C3%A1n https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=es&tl=en&u=htt... [Disclaimer: I'm from Argentina. I didn't like the treaty, but nobody asked for my opinion.]

stevespang 8y ago

Are you Iranian ? Highly coincidental to your argument you do not mention the glaring evidence of Iran's involvement on the ground with advisors and supplying military hardware in the Yemen crisis,Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, etc. opposing the UAE, the Saudis, and the US.

onetimemanytime 8y ago

You're complicating things: USA has issued an international arrest warrant. X person went to Canada and his name was blinking so he was arrested. End of the story. A Canadian Court will decide whether the US arrest warrant was based on common Western norms or not. In this case the arrest warrant was not issued for free speech, tax evasion or political activity so almost certain he'll be extradited. End of the story. Canada will determine that the person involved--essentially with billion$ behind her--will get a fair hearing in USA. And she will, laws may be unfair but...

wybiral 8y ago

The external situation, and whether you agree or disagree about Iran, has no impact on whether or not it was illegal. The company traded tech with the US under an agreement not to share said tech with sanctioned countries. They then proceeded in an apparent act of circumventing those trade agreements. If they didn't like the sanctions against Iran then they shouldn't have been dealing with the US tech for which those sanctions applied in the first place. Your argument is like saying "it's not theft because the person they were stealing from is a bad person" which isn't how the law works.