4 ms·

It is so frustrating that the EU doesn't have the capacity or the courage to stand up against these unjustified and illegal sanctions. We really are powerless i

by Udik 8y ago

It is so frustrating that the EU doesn't have the capacity or the courage to stand up against these unjustified and illegal sanctions. We really are powerless in the face of the whims of a capricious fool and his warmongering friends.

l24ztj 8y ago
Iran sanctions didn't start with Trump. But you already knew that. The US has been choking Cuba for decades, for example. Also, immoral/unjustified != illegal.
- Udik 8y ago
  At least in part ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice of the UN: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/03/international-court-of-justice-orders-us-to-lift-new-iran-sanctions https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/03/international-... https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/05/us-rejects-international-court-of-justice-ruling-on-iran-continuing-its-isolationist-charge.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/05/us-rejects-international-cou...
  - l24ztj 8y ago
    The UN is completely toothless. Whatever they say is as relevant as if it had been said by a local court in Kazakhstan.
    - jstanley 8y ago
      So are you saying it's not illegal, or are you saying there won't be any consequences for this crime?
      - l24ztj 8y ago
        I am saying it's not illegal because the UN doesn't make law, and I know there will be no consequences for this "crime" because the UN can't enforce anything and no country which is in good terms with the UN will want to piss off the US. Having said that, I do NOT condone sanctions in any form.
    - Udik 8y ago
      This is of course true, as law enforcement depends on what is called "the monopoly of violence". And this is of course impossible when dealing with major powers in the current world.
      - wallace_f 8y ago
        In that sense, it is the US with currently the largest military presence in Europe
    - Jedi72 8y ago
      Doesn't mean it's legal. Plus the UN is not toothless, it has been very effective at achieving what is was founded for, preventing another world war.
    - simonh 8y ago
      The US government action was deemed illegal under the terms of a treaty (in that case the Treaty of Amity of 1955), which the US freely negotiated and entered into and ratified. What is the point of any nation entering into treaties with the US, if it's going to just ignore and violate them at the whim of whoever happens to be president at the time? As a condition of easing sanctions, Iran filled the rector core of it's active nuclear reactor with concrete and was found to be in compliance with all the terms of the agreement. Good luck getting any other nation to enter into negotiations like that with the US in good faith again. The Iranian regime is awful. They're appalling extremists and oppressive tyrants. No argument there, but that's on them. It doesn't justify recklessly violating treaties and unilaterally breaking agreements, and establishing a track record of doing so. If anything, demonstrating a track record of honesty and respect for straight dealing is even more important when dealing with such people.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- matt4077 8y ago
  The specific sanctions mentioned in the article did either begin with Trump, or were revived after previously being dropped as part of the JCPOA. And while the treatment of Cuba is indeed appalling, or at least incongruous in relation to, say, Saudi Arabia, there are rather meaningful differences between the parties. Thawing relations with Cuba was among Obama's signature achievements. This included the reopening of Embassies, allowing travel, and vastly increasing legal avenues for trade and investment. Some (but not all) of this has been delayed or cut back under the current administration. At the same time, Saudi Arabia enjoys unprecedented support and access at a time where they are more hostile in Yemen, Qatar, and The Streisand Lobby at the Istanbul Consulate.
matt4077 8y ago
That's also... largely not true? Europe was the only party that ever had /any/ power. The US did not have much of an economic relationship with Iran to begin with. Therefore, their sanctions were mostly symbolic. It was EU sanctions that eventually forced Iran to the negotiating table and made the nuclear deal possible. As the article shows, the US has the power to be cruel. But the price being paid is humanitarian, not economic. Accordingly, in succeeds only in killing children, not creating pressure. This is best shown by Iran's decision to stay in the JCPOA. The US is being ignored, because it is comparably irrelevant in purely economic terms. The EU has also passed legislation prohibiting EU companies from implement US sanctions and indemnifying them against US fines: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45085205 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45085205. And there's an EU venture to replace US institutions in Iran-bound financial transactions: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/02/04/iran-council-adopts-conclusions/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019...
- cm2187 8y ago
  I understand US sanctions ban any company doing business with the US to also do business with Iran. Companies doing business with the US is pretty much 100% of large companies in the world. So US sanctions did affect all commerce with Iran, not just US commerce with Iran.
  - matt4077 8y ago
    Yes. Read my comment again. Following that US attempt to change longstanding international law is, in turn, illegal in the EU. Companies are indemnified against damages, and the EU will presumably try to claw these back if it ever comes so far. Does something in all this need to give? Yes, definitely. Presumably, the US will shy away from trying to enforce. If not, US courts are actually somewhat likely to uphold long-standing precedents in international law, because the only other possible outcome is a completely unworkable quagmire going forward where no company could simultaneously operate in the EU and the US.
    - Udik 8y ago

by Udik 8y ago

l24ztj 8y ago

Iran sanctions didn't start with Trump. But you already knew that. The US has been choking Cuba for decades, for example. Also, immoral/unjustified != illegal.

Udik 8y ago
At least in part ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice of the UN: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/03/international-court-of-justice-orders-us-to-lift-new-iran-sanctions https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/03/international-... https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/05/us-rejects-international-court-of-justice-ruling-on-iran-continuing-its-isolationist-charge.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/05/us-rejects-international-cou...
- l24ztj 8y ago
  The UN is completely toothless. Whatever they say is as relevant as if it had been said by a local court in Kazakhstan.
  - jstanley 8y ago
    So are you saying it's not illegal, or are you saying there won't be any consequences for this crime?
    - l24ztj 8y ago
      I am saying it's not illegal because the UN doesn't make law, and I know there will be no consequences for this "crime" because the UN can't enforce anything and no country which is in good terms with the UN will want to piss off the US. Having said that, I do NOT condone sanctions in any form.
  - Udik 8y ago
    This is of course true, as law enforcement depends on what is called "the monopoly of violence". And this is of course impossible when dealing with major powers in the current world.
    - wallace_f 8y ago
      In that sense, it is the US with currently the largest military presence in Europe
  - Jedi72 8y ago
    Doesn't mean it's legal. Plus the UN is not toothless, it has been very effective at achieving what is was founded for, preventing another world war.
  - simonh 8y ago
    The US government action was deemed illegal under the terms of a treaty (in that case the Treaty of Amity of 1955), which the US freely negotiated and entered into and ratified. What is the point of any nation entering into treaties with the US, if it's going to just ignore and violate them at the whim of whoever happens to be president at the time? As a condition of easing sanctions, Iran filled the rector core of it's active nuclear reactor with concrete and was found to be in compliance with all the terms of the agreement. Good luck getting any other nation to enter into negotiations like that with the US in good faith again. The Iranian regime is awful. They're appalling extremists and oppressive tyrants. No argument there, but that's on them. It doesn't justify recklessly violating treaties and unilaterally breaking agreements, and establishing a track record of doing so. If anything, demonstrating a track record of honesty and respect for straight dealing is even more important when dealing with such people.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
matt4077 8y ago
The specific sanctions mentioned in the article did either begin with Trump, or were revived after previously being dropped as part of the JCPOA. And while the treatment of Cuba is indeed appalling, or at least incongruous in relation to, say, Saudi Arabia, there are rather meaningful differences between the parties. Thawing relations with Cuba was among Obama's signature achievements. This included the reopening of Embassies, allowing travel, and vastly increasing legal avenues for trade and investment. Some (but not all) of this has been delayed or cut back under the current administration. At the same time, Saudi Arabia enjoys unprecedented support and access at a time where they are more hostile in Yemen, Qatar, and The Streisand Lobby at the Istanbul Consulate.

matt4077 8y ago

That's also... largely not true? Europe was the only party that ever had /any/ power. The US did not have much of an economic relationship with Iran to begin with. Therefore, their sanctions were mostly symbolic. It was EU sanctions that eventually forced Iran to the negotiating table and made the nuclear deal possible. As the article shows, the US has the power to be cruel. But the price being paid is humanitarian, not economic. Accordingly, in succeeds only in killing children, not creating pressure. This is best shown by Iran's decision to stay in the JCPOA. The US is being ignored, because it is comparably irrelevant in purely economic terms. The EU has also passed legislation prohibiting EU companies from implement US sanctions and indemnifying them against US fines: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45085205 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45085205. And there's an EU venture to replace US institutions in Iran-bound financial transactions: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/02/04/iran-council-adopts-conclusions/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019...

cm2187 8y ago
I understand US sanctions ban any company doing business with the US to also do business with Iran. Companies doing business with the US is pretty much 100% of large companies in the world. So US sanctions did affect all commerce with Iran, not just US commerce with Iran.
- matt4077 8y ago
  Yes. Read my comment again. Following that US attempt to change longstanding international law is, in turn, illegal in the EU. Companies are indemnified against damages, and the EU will presumably try to claw these back if it ever comes so far. Does something in all this need to give? Yes, definitely. Presumably, the US will shy away from trying to enforce. If not, US courts are actually somewhat likely to uphold long-standing precedents in international law, because the only other possible outcome is a completely unworkable quagmire going forward where no company could simultaneously operate in the EU and the US.
  - Udik 8y ago