3 ms·
> since the U.S. prohibits any company that does business with the embargoed country from doing business in the U.S. That is not true in this case, or even in
by Turing_Machine 5y ago
> since the U.S. prohibits any company that does business with the embargoed country from doing business in the U.S.
That is not true in this case, or even in general.
Canada trades with Cuba, but is not restricted from trading with the United States.
For example, you can freely purchase Cuban cigars in Canada.
Another example: the U.S. had an embargo against Iran for many years, but that didn't stop Siemens in Germany from selling them uranium centrifuges, nor did it result in a U.S. embargo against Germany.
Edit: here's a Canadian government site encouraging Canadian companies to do business with Cuba.
https://www.tradecommissioner.gc.ca/cuba/index.aspx?lang=eng https://www.tradecommissioner.gc.ca/cuba/index.aspx?lang=eng
- sudosysgen 5y agoReality is more complicated. Generally in order to trade with Cuba or Iran you do have to use financial instruments to insulate yourself. Siemens did not sell centrifuges to Iran when it was during the full embargo. It did so earlier. Even then, sales of this equipment to Iran are done with coordination with the EU that does the footwork to insure the companies and avoid sanctions.
- Turing_Machine 5y agoCan you show me on the Canadian Trade Commissioner site where it suggests that businesses need to "insulate themselves"?
- sudosysgen 5y agoWhy do I need to? It's well documented that the US has secondary sanctions on Cuba : https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/global/en/what/articles/index.page?ArticleID=en/Competition_EU_and_Regulatory/us-lifts-cuba-sanctions-100519 https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/global/en/what/articles... The Canadian government will in effect compensate you for these secondary sanctions though.
- Turing_Machine 5y ago> Why do I need to? Because you're the one making the claim. You claimed that you need "financial instruments" to "insulate" yourself. Do you have an example of this or not? > It's well documented that the US has secondary sanctions on Cuba 1) That's about private lawsuits, not government sanctions, "secondary" or otherwise. 2) It only applies to people who directly traffic in confiscated U.S. property, not to generic trade with Cuba. 3) No one has ever successfully pressed a claim or collected any compensation under that statute.
- syops 5y agoI’m mistaken. The best I could find in support of my claim was this in Wikipedia: The Helms-Burton Act has been the target of criticism from Canadian and European governments in particular, who object to what they say is the extraterritorial pretensions of a piece of legislation aimed at punishing non-U.S. corporations and non-U.S. investors who have economic interests in Cuba. In the House of Commons of Canada, Helms-Burton was mocked by the introduction of the Godfrey-Milliken Bill, which called for the return of property of United Empire Loyalists seized by the American government as a result of the American Revolution (the bill never became law). I don’t know the exact mechanism but I believe our sanctions cause more than just a pain for American companies doing business with Cuba.
- sudosysgen 5y agoHere is a better source, but you were right, the US allows for the lawsuit of anyone that deals with Cuba effectively. The Canadian government as well as the EU do have programs to counterbalance the effects of these sanctions though. https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/global/en/what/articles/index.page?ArticleID=en/Competition_EU_and_Regulatory/us-lifts-cuba-sanctions-100519 https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/global/en/what/articles...
- alentist 5y agoBrazil, Mexico, China, and Russia are also among Cuba's top trade partners.