3 ms·

Trump instituted tariffs on any country that sells oil to Cuba, it is effectively a blockade. It’s also in fact preventing ships carrying oil to reach the isla

Trump instituted tariffs on any country that sells oil to Cuba, it is effectively a blockade. It’s also in fact preventing ships carrying oil to reach the island, using their military, I wonder if there is a term for that.

Manuel_D 5mo ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 5mo ago
  What legal justification could there possibly be for imposing a tarrif on Mexico-Cuba trade that doesn't involve the US at any point? What would your reaction be if China imposed tariffs on US-Canadian border crossings and seized American ships over it?
  - Manuel_D 5mo ago
    A tariff is a tax that a country imposes on goods entering its borders. A country can impose a tariff on any country, at any time, for whatever reason (unless they've signed free trade agreements obligating them to refrain from imposing tariffs). > What would your reaction be if China imposed tariffs on US-Canadian border crossings and seized American ships over it? Again, the ships in being sized were flying false flags, which is illegal. If American ships decided to take this criminal act, then China is justified in enforcing the law.
    - vrganj 5mo ago
      "Criminal" according to who? The US? Then why does their law apply here? International law? Like the ICC the US ignores? Or the climate agreements it breaks? Or the Geneva convention it runs afoul of? Sure is convenient the US decided this one specific bit is to be taken extremely seriously. Either way, it stinks of imperialism.
      - lostlogin 5mo ago
        > International law? The one the US constantly chooses to ignore? It’s a little less two faced now though, as this administration ignores US laws too.
    - ceejayoz 5mo ago
      > A tariff is a tax that a country imposes on goods entering its borders. Yes. And that is not what happens here! None of this oil is entering the US at all!
      - Manuel_D 5mo ago
        Correct. But the point remains, the US is free to impose a tariff on countries that sell oil to Cuba.
        ceejayoz 5mo ago
        So it's not "a tax that a country imposes on goods entering its borders" now?
        Manuel_D 5mo ago
        No, a tariff is indeed a tax a country imposes on goods entering its borders. I'm not sure what in my comment you think contradicts this.
        ceejayoz 5mo ago
        > The ships being seized are doing things like flying false flags, to try and trade with Cuba without paying tariffs.
        Manuel_D 5mo ago
        Yes, they fly false flags to avoid triggering retaliatory tariffs. If country X sells oil to Cuba than country X's goods being imported to the the US will be subject to additional tariffs. I can see how this wording makes it sound like the US is charging a tariff on the oil entering Cuba, but that is not the case. The tariff in that quote is referring to the tariffs the US is promising to place on counties that don't participate in the embargo.
        baseballdork 5mo ago
  - defen 5mo ago
    If we're imagining a world where the US can't stop China from doing that, I'd probably go on the internet and complain about it.
  - shimman 5mo ago
    It always boils down to the US ignoring international trade and laws in their favor. As you said there is nothing illegal about two countries trading. The idea the US should have a say is deeply undemocratic and frankly anti-human as well, but that's just the US for you. This podcast does a great job on highlighting how the media plays its role in justifying the imperialism too: https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/shadow-fleets-sanctions-western-medias-international-law-ification-of-arbitrary-us-dictates https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/shadow-fleets-sanctions-w...
    - Sabinus 5mo ago
      >there is nothing illegal about two countries trading No, there isn't. There also isn't anything illegal about the USA threatening to tarrif it's own trade with countries that trade with Cuba. If a vessel fakes it's flag to avoid that attribution, it is then stateless, and the USA is allowed to board it.
  - ibejoeb 5mo ago
    Good question, and you'd be right that in that situation it wouldn't hold up to scrutiny. That's not what's going on, though. Instead, the tariff applies to trades American trade when it is determined that the other party is also trading with Cuba. The parent is correct; Mexico, or any other country, is free to trade with Cuba, but then it will be subject to American tariffs on American trade. It has to make the choice. There is certainly pressure, but it's on independent states to decide.
- luizfzs 5mo ago
  Trade in US Dollars with other countries need to go through US banks, which can be subject to prohibitions, which can be done by political motivation. Also, the issue of the PetroDollar complicates things internationally as well. US throws a tantrum when small countries (or countries it can bully) trade Oil in other currencies. That is very important to keep themselves relevant and with some control over international trades. Yet another aspect is that if any goods, regardless of who is selling it, contains more than 10% of components, technology, produced by a US company, such seller requires an US Export license to trade such goods with Cuba. So it's not as simple as that. https://shippingsolutionssoftware.com/blog/products-subject-to-us-export-regulations https://shippingsolutionssoftware.com/blog/products-subject-...
- iAMkenough 5mo ago
  Paying a tariff to a third-party government doesn’t mean the third-party government is obligated to stop pirating ships under the guise of “flying false flags.” It’s a shakedown, meant to harm Cubans.
  - akramachamarei 5mo ago
    What is the motive to harm Cubans?
    - iAMkenough 5mo ago
      You’d have to ask them. Also curious about US motive behind blowing up fishing boats and school children.
      - akramachamarei 5mo ago
        I think the Iranian school bombing was pretty clearly a mistake, given its proximity to an IRGC base, and (IIRC) the previous usage of that plot of land for military purposes, suggesting an issue of outdated target intelligence. That compounds with the lack of a plausible motive, and numerous demotives for hitting it deliberately. Which is not to present the action as significantly less blameworthy; it's a heinous negligence. Gotta have dirty bits in your cache, so to speak.
        Paradigm2020 5mo ago
        Agreed on the school... Manslaughter not murder and some heads should still roll. Now explain the fisherman boats...
        iAMkenough 5mo ago
        I’m curious what the “demotives” are considered, since the strike killing hundreds of children happened on day 1 of the military strikes, and I haven’t seen any meaningful action to address the “mistake.”
- pibaker 5mo ago
  By the same logic Iran is not blockading the strait of Hormuz — just send them 25 BTC and your oil tanker too can pass. By the same logic the mafia aren't disrupting your business when they ask for a protection fee — just pay up and the same mafia won't empty a clip into your store during business hours. By the same logic street muggers are not actually taking your stuffs by force — just hand them your wallet and you get to keep your jacket and your life.
  - Manuel_D 5mo ago
    No, that logic doesn't apply. The US will not sink ships that send oil to Cuba. Nor will they charge any fee to the country sending oil to Cuba. Unlike your examples, there is is no threat of violence at hand here. What is being threatened is that the US will charge Americans higher tariffs on goods imported from the countries sending money to Cuba. Fundamentally, an embargo is an economic lever, whereas your examples are threats of military action. There's a very substantial difference between: "If you don't pay us money we'll shoot missiles at your ship and sink it." and "If you send oil to Cuba we'll charge tariffs when Americans import your country's goods."

Manuel_D 5mo ago

[flagged]

ceejayoz 5mo ago
What legal justification could there possibly be for imposing a tarrif on Mexico-Cuba trade that doesn't involve the US at any point? What would your reaction be if China imposed tariffs on US-Canadian border crossings and seized American ships over it?
- Manuel_D 5mo ago
  A tariff is a tax that a country imposes on goods entering its borders. A country can impose a tariff on any country, at any time, for whatever reason (unless they've signed free trade agreements obligating them to refrain from imposing tariffs). > What would your reaction be if China imposed tariffs on US-Canadian border crossings and seized American ships over it? Again, the ships in being sized were flying false flags, which is illegal. If American ships decided to take this criminal act, then China is justified in enforcing the law.
  - vrganj 5mo ago
    "Criminal" according to who? The US? Then why does their law apply here? International law? Like the ICC the US ignores? Or the climate agreements it breaks? Or the Geneva convention it runs afoul of? Sure is convenient the US decided this one specific bit is to be taken extremely seriously. Either way, it stinks of imperialism.
    - lostlogin 5mo ago
      > International law? The one the US constantly chooses to ignore? It’s a little less two faced now though, as this administration ignores US laws too.
  - ceejayoz 5mo ago
    > A tariff is a tax that a country imposes on goods entering its borders. Yes. And that is not what happens here! None of this oil is entering the US at all!
    - Manuel_D 5mo ago
      Correct. But the point remains, the US is free to impose a tariff on countries that sell oil to Cuba.
      - ceejayoz 5mo ago
        So it's not "a tax that a country imposes on goods entering its borders" now?
        Manuel_D 5mo ago
        No, a tariff is indeed a tax a country imposes on goods entering its borders. I'm not sure what in my comment you think contradicts this.
        ceejayoz 5mo ago
        > The ships being seized are doing things like flying false flags, to try and trade with Cuba without paying tariffs.
        Manuel_D 5mo ago
        Yes, they fly false flags to avoid triggering retaliatory tariffs. If country X sells oil to Cuba than country X's goods being imported to the the US will be subject to additional tariffs. I can see how this wording makes it sound like the US is charging a tariff on the oil entering Cuba, but that is not the case. The tariff in that quote is referring to the tariffs the US is promising to place on counties that don't participate in the embargo.
        baseballdork 5mo ago
- defen 5mo ago
  If we're imagining a world where the US can't stop China from doing that, I'd probably go on the internet and complain about it.
- shimman 5mo ago
  It always boils down to the US ignoring international trade and laws in their favor. As you said there is nothing illegal about two countries trading. The idea the US should have a say is deeply undemocratic and frankly anti-human as well, but that's just the US for you. This podcast does a great job on highlighting how the media plays its role in justifying the imperialism too: https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/shadow-fleets-sanctions-western-medias-international-law-ification-of-arbitrary-us-dictates https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/shadow-fleets-sanctions-w...
  - Sabinus 5mo ago
    >there is nothing illegal about two countries trading No, there isn't. There also isn't anything illegal about the USA threatening to tarrif it's own trade with countries that trade with Cuba. If a vessel fakes it's flag to avoid that attribution, it is then stateless, and the USA is allowed to board it.
- ibejoeb 5mo ago
  Good question, and you'd be right that in that situation it wouldn't hold up to scrutiny. That's not what's going on, though. Instead, the tariff applies to trades American trade when it is determined that the other party is also trading with Cuba. The parent is correct; Mexico, or any other country, is free to trade with Cuba, but then it will be subject to American tariffs on American trade. It has to make the choice. There is certainly pressure, but it's on independent states to decide.
luizfzs 5mo ago
Trade in US Dollars with other countries need to go through US banks, which can be subject to prohibitions, which can be done by political motivation. Also, the issue of the PetroDollar complicates things internationally as well. US throws a tantrum when small countries (or countries it can bully) trade Oil in other currencies. That is very important to keep themselves relevant and with some control over international trades. Yet another aspect is that if any goods, regardless of who is selling it, contains more than 10% of components, technology, produced by a US company, such seller requires an US Export license to trade such goods with Cuba. So it's not as simple as that. https://shippingsolutionssoftware.com/blog/products-subject-to-us-export-regulations https://shippingsolutionssoftware.com/blog/products-subject-...
iAMkenough 5mo ago
Paying a tariff to a third-party government doesn’t mean the third-party government is obligated to stop pirating ships under the guise of “flying false flags.” It’s a shakedown, meant to harm Cubans.
- akramachamarei 5mo ago
  What is the motive to harm Cubans?
  - iAMkenough 5mo ago
    You’d have to ask them. Also curious about US motive behind blowing up fishing boats and school children.
    - akramachamarei 5mo ago
      I think the Iranian school bombing was pretty clearly a mistake, given its proximity to an IRGC base, and (IIRC) the previous usage of that plot of land for military purposes, suggesting an issue of outdated target intelligence. That compounds with the lack of a plausible motive, and numerous demotives for hitting it deliberately. Which is not to present the action as significantly less blameworthy; it's a heinous negligence. Gotta have dirty bits in your cache, so to speak.
      - Paradigm2020 5mo ago
        Agreed on the school... Manslaughter not murder and some heads should still roll. Now explain the fisherman boats...
      - iAMkenough 5mo ago
        I’m curious what the “demotives” are considered, since the strike killing hundreds of children happened on day 1 of the military strikes, and I haven’t seen any meaningful action to address the “mistake.”
pibaker 5mo ago
By the same logic Iran is not blockading the strait of Hormuz — just send them 25 BTC and your oil tanker too can pass. By the same logic the mafia aren't disrupting your business when they ask for a protection fee — just pay up and the same mafia won't empty a clip into your store during business hours. By the same logic street muggers are not actually taking your stuffs by force — just hand them your wallet and you get to keep your jacket and your life.
- Manuel_D 5mo ago
  No, that logic doesn't apply. The US will not sink ships that send oil to Cuba. Nor will they charge any fee to the country sending oil to Cuba. Unlike your examples, there is is no threat of violence at hand here. What is being threatened is that the US will charge Americans higher tariffs on goods imported from the countries sending money to Cuba. Fundamentally, an embargo is an economic lever, whereas your examples are threats of military action. There's a very substantial difference between: "If you don't pay us money we'll shoot missiles at your ship and sink it." and "If you send oil to Cuba we'll charge tariffs when Americans import your country's goods."