6 ms·

Warranted or not, sanctions can be seen as one step before war. It's an effective method to hit them where it hurts (their pockets) without creating casualties

Warranted or not, sanctions can be seen as one step before war. It's an effective method to hit them where it hurts (their pockets) without creating casualties directly. The whole point of sanctions is to drive the enemies GDP down on purpose to "flex your arms". It does not matter whether the sanctioned goods are dangerous or not. Once again, the ultimate goal is to smother their GDP growth. And like all foreign policy tools, it's meant to be political. The US has laws and I expect our justice department to arrest those who break our laws regardless of their nationality if they step into our country (or allies). Just like how the Chinese would arrest any US citizen if we break their laws when we step into their country. The WTO submitted a report last year about the efficacy of sanctions (and it happens to be on Iran) for those curious [1]. [1] https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201803_e.pdf https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201803_e.pdf

rgbrenner 8y ago
Important point, these were UN sanctions that Huawei was violating. That means China also agreed to them.. and not in some minor vote... they are a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and therefore have a veto they could have used to reject it entirely... and they don't need anyones permission to use their veto. So it's safe to say China also agreed to sanction Iran, which they failed to do.
- gcbw2 8y ago
  Doesn't to appear to be a U.N. sanction, maybe it is indeed "only" a US sanction. the last UN resolution lifts all sanctions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolut... > United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 - Passed 20 July 2015. Endorsed the Iran Nuclear Deal and lifted all previous sanctions on Iran provided that Iran remains in compliance with its responsibilities in the nuclear deal. (just went to wikipedia now, not an authority on the subject)
  - free652 8y ago
    There were breaking UN sanctions when they were in place.
    - tempguy095432 8y ago
      UN sanctions were only on nuclear weapon related items. They were breaking US led (EU accepted those as well) sanctions on banking. It's says so in the new report above. Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran although wikipedia, it clearly states UN had no banking restrictions over iran from 2006.
      - rgbrenner 8y ago
        It does have banking restrictions on nuclear weapon related items. Computer equipment is dual use, and can be used to further nuclear weapons research and test nuclear weapon designs. In fact, it's a critical part in developing modern nuclear weapons. And of course the US has laws to enforce the sanctions they agreed (and China agreed) to implement under the UN resolutions.
        tempguy095432 8y ago
        Dual use only contains items which can be directly used in nuclear weapon research and not any other thing. Some computer equipment specific to nuclear research is dual use. It doesn't outlaw for example concrete just because concrete can be used to make nuclear reactors. US sanctions, china never agreed on them. India another example didn't agree on them and traded oil with Iran for other non nuclear related items even during US sanctions. They didn't use US and EU banks to do this but they did indeed trade. The only problem here is Huawei used international banks to do the trade. The items are fine to be traded.
      - free652 8y ago
        The sanctions also restricted dealings with IRGC, if skycom was working with the largest telecom in Iran then they were dealing with IRGC's owned entity - TCI.
boomboomsubban 8y ago
>The US has laws and I expect our justice department to arrest those who break our laws regardless of their nationality if they step into our country (or allies). Do you expect every citizen of a town to be punished because the store ownet broke the law then? As that's the equivalent of sanctions. >The WTO submitted a report last year about the efficacy of sanctions (and it happens to be on Iran) for those curious This report completely ignores the morality of sanctions, waving it away by saying it's preferable to war, and still finds sanctions largely ineffective.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  So what's your suggestion? Country X won't play nice, what do you do? given your moral stance on sanctions I can't imagine you would propose war. So what are the options? What tools do we have available to us to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and persuade bad actors? The world isn't some idyllic place where there's always a solution to every problem which harms no one. Yes, the citizenry often gets caught up in this sort of thing, but again, what are the alternatives? Let them do as they please and hope everything works out?
  - sacheendra 8y ago
    Given the ineffectiveness of sanctions, why is doing nothing not an option? Doing something just for the sake of doing it is bad foreign policy and weakens soft power. Even as it benefits people who propose the action so as to appear to be doing something.
  - vkou 8y ago
    > What tools do we have available to us to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and persuade bad actors? Why would a country sitting on the largest nuclear stockpile in the world consider nuclear proliferation a bad thing? After all, I am frequently told that MAD prevents wars, no?
    - EpicEng 8y ago
      Mostly because we haven't been running around talking about wiping other nations off of the map. Obviously we have our own issues, but you can't honestly be proposing a moral equivalence between the US and Iran.
1024core 8y ago
> It's an effective method to hit them where it hurts (their pockets) without creating casualties directly. That's not always the case. The sanctions against Iraq, put in place around 1991 (after Gulf War 1), lead to the deaths of 1000s upon 1000s of children, as hospitals couldn't acquire critical supplies like incubators.
- dunpeal 8y ago
  Reliable source for that claim? I'll be very surprised if the sanctions blocked hospitals from purchasing medical supplies. If anything, I'd suspect the problem was poverty.
  - TaylorAlexander 8y ago
    Here’s a few google results, but I haven’t checked them for accuracy: https://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill-children-un-reports.html https://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill... https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/27/magazine/were-sanctions-right.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/27/magazine/were-sanctions-r... This one looks promising: https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/report/57jqap.htm#a2 https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/report/57jqa...
    - dunpeal 8y ago
      I skimmed some of these links. The main argument appears to be that the sanctions created economic hardship, and that in turns caused suffering and death. That's a natural result of any sanctions. You may decide to oppose any sanctions to avoid this result, but when the alternative is violent military, there's a good argument to why this is the lesser evil.
      - CryptoPunk 8y ago
        >>That's a natural result of any sanctions. Which contradicts the OP's claim that sanctions don't create casualties.
ZainRiz 8y ago
Would you expect China to arrest you on Chinese soil if you did something in the US that was illegal in China? If China creates a law that says "no one in the world may drive faster than 40 mph" and you, an American citizen, fly to China, can China arrest you for driving 60 mph in the USA?
- glitchc 8y ago
  The analogy is inaccurate. She broke US law and then came to the US. If you break the law in China, for example by calling Tibet (or Hong Kong) a separate state on social media, you should fully expect to be arrested the next time you travel there. Extending further, if instead of China, you travel to a country friendly to China with an extradition treaty (ex. Russia or Nigeria), China is well within its rights to demand your arrest.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
omeid2 8y ago
Accepting laws and punishment without consideration of it's fairness (being warranted) is very cowardly.
CryptoPunk 8y ago
Another way to see is that sanctions are a way to wage war without the problematic optics of direct military intervention, and thus they lower the threshold for inflicting harm on another nation.

rgbrenner 8y ago

Important point, these were UN sanctions that Huawei was violating. That means China also agreed to them.. and not in some minor vote... they are a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and therefore have a veto they could have used to reject it entirely... and they don't need anyones permission to use their veto. So it's safe to say China also agreed to sanction Iran, which they failed to do.

gcbw2 8y ago
Doesn't to appear to be a U.N. sanction, maybe it is indeed "only" a US sanction. the last UN resolution lifts all sanctions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolut... > United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 - Passed 20 July 2015. Endorsed the Iran Nuclear Deal and lifted all previous sanctions on Iran provided that Iran remains in compliance with its responsibilities in the nuclear deal. (just went to wikipedia now, not an authority on the subject)
- free652 8y ago
  There were breaking UN sanctions when they were in place.
  - tempguy095432 8y ago
    UN sanctions were only on nuclear weapon related items. They were breaking US led (EU accepted those as well) sanctions on banking. It's says so in the new report above. Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran although wikipedia, it clearly states UN had no banking restrictions over iran from 2006.
    - rgbrenner 8y ago
      It does have banking restrictions on nuclear weapon related items. Computer equipment is dual use, and can be used to further nuclear weapons research and test nuclear weapon designs. In fact, it's a critical part in developing modern nuclear weapons. And of course the US has laws to enforce the sanctions they agreed (and China agreed) to implement under the UN resolutions.
      - tempguy095432 8y ago
        Dual use only contains items which can be directly used in nuclear weapon research and not any other thing. Some computer equipment specific to nuclear research is dual use. It doesn't outlaw for example concrete just because concrete can be used to make nuclear reactors. US sanctions, china never agreed on them. India another example didn't agree on them and traded oil with Iran for other non nuclear related items even during US sanctions. They didn't use US and EU banks to do this but they did indeed trade. The only problem here is Huawei used international banks to do the trade. The items are fine to be traded.
    - free652 8y ago
      The sanctions also restricted dealings with IRGC, if skycom was working with the largest telecom in Iran then they were dealing with IRGC's owned entity - TCI.

boomboomsubban 8y ago

>The US has laws and I expect our justice department to arrest those who break our laws regardless of their nationality if they step into our country (or allies). Do you expect every citizen of a town to be punished because the store ownet broke the law then? As that's the equivalent of sanctions. >The WTO submitted a report last year about the efficacy of sanctions (and it happens to be on Iran) for those curious This report completely ignores the morality of sanctions, waving it away by saying it's preferable to war, and still finds sanctions largely ineffective.

EpicEng 8y ago
So what's your suggestion? Country X won't play nice, what do you do? given your moral stance on sanctions I can't imagine you would propose war. So what are the options? What tools do we have available to us to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and persuade bad actors? The world isn't some idyllic place where there's always a solution to every problem which harms no one. Yes, the citizenry often gets caught up in this sort of thing, but again, what are the alternatives? Let them do as they please and hope everything works out?
- sacheendra 8y ago
  Given the ineffectiveness of sanctions, why is doing nothing not an option? Doing something just for the sake of doing it is bad foreign policy and weakens soft power. Even as it benefits people who propose the action so as to appear to be doing something.
- vkou 8y ago
  > What tools do we have available to us to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and persuade bad actors? Why would a country sitting on the largest nuclear stockpile in the world consider nuclear proliferation a bad thing? After all, I am frequently told that MAD prevents wars, no?
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    Mostly because we haven't been running around talking about wiping other nations off of the map. Obviously we have our own issues, but you can't honestly be proposing a moral equivalence between the US and Iran.

1024core 8y ago

> It's an effective method to hit them where it hurts (their pockets) without creating casualties directly. That's not always the case. The sanctions against Iraq, put in place around 1991 (after Gulf War 1), lead to the deaths of 1000s upon 1000s of children, as hospitals couldn't acquire critical supplies like incubators.

dunpeal 8y ago
Reliable source for that claim? I'll be very surprised if the sanctions blocked hospitals from purchasing medical supplies. If anything, I'd suspect the problem was poverty.
- TaylorAlexander 8y ago
  Here’s a few google results, but I haven’t checked them for accuracy: https://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill-children-un-reports.html https://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill... https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/27/magazine/were-sanctions-right.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/27/magazine/were-sanctions-r... This one looks promising: https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/report/57jqap.htm#a2 https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/report/57jqa...
  - dunpeal 8y ago
    I skimmed some of these links. The main argument appears to be that the sanctions created economic hardship, and that in turns caused suffering and death. That's a natural result of any sanctions. You may decide to oppose any sanctions to avoid this result, but when the alternative is violent military, there's a good argument to why this is the lesser evil.
    - CryptoPunk 8y ago
      >>That's a natural result of any sanctions. Which contradicts the OP's claim that sanctions don't create casualties.

ZainRiz 8y ago

Would you expect China to arrest you on Chinese soil if you did something in the US that was illegal in China? If China creates a law that says "no one in the world may drive faster than 40 mph" and you, an American citizen, fly to China, can China arrest you for driving 60 mph in the USA?

glitchc 8y ago
The analogy is inaccurate. She broke US law and then came to the US. If you break the law in China, for example by calling Tibet (or Hong Kong) a separate state on social media, you should fully expect to be arrested the next time you travel there. Extending further, if instead of China, you travel to a country friendly to China with an extradition treaty (ex. Russia or Nigeria), China is well within its rights to demand your arrest.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

omeid2 8y ago

Accepting laws and punishment without consideration of it's fairness (being warranted) is very cowardly.

CryptoPunk 8y ago

Another way to see is that sanctions are a way to wage war without the problematic optics of direct military intervention, and thus they lower the threshold for inflicting harm on another nation.