4 ms·

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/Lis

by 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.
rgbrenner 8y ago
That occurred years after Hauwei and Meng's actions. You're referencing future events. Since you already have the list, go back and click on each of the sanctions the UN passed before then.. and you'll see China voted in favor.

by gcbw2 8y ago

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.

rgbrenner 8y ago

That occurred years after Hauwei and Meng's actions. You're referencing future events. Since you already have the list, go back and click on each of the sanctions the UN passed before then.. and you'll see China voted in favor.