New documents link Huawei to suspected front companies in Iran, Syria | Hacker News Reader

New documents link Huawei to suspected front companies in Iran, Syria

reuters.com

148 pointsjmsflknr142 comments

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

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.

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_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)

There were breaking UN sanctions when they were in place.

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 although wikipedia, it clearly states UN had no banking restrictions over iran from 2006.

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.

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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?

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.

> 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?

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.

The US has actively caused many nations to be wiped off the map, including attempting to remove Yemen right now.

I'm not arguing I'm favor of covert attempts to iverthrow foreign governments, but wanting to replace a regime and wanting to murder all _citizens_ is not even remotely the same thing.

No, we have instead started a good dozen coups, and a dozen offensive wars (with varying levels of justification).

I am pretty sure that if the targets of those wars had WMDs, those wars wouldn't have taken place.

Incidentally, how many times has Israel been invaded since it illegally acquired WMDs?

You act like the US is just an innocent judge forced to punish those naughty countries. We have now spent forty years economically attacking Iran, paid people tons of money to kill Iranians, invaded and destroyed a neighboring country, and spent the entire time threatening Iran with nuclear/non-nuclear destruction. Yet they are considered the "bad actor."

These sanctions are not unilateral actions by the US, so no, I don't "act that way". These sanctions we're passed by the UN, of which China is a permanent member.

You were very clearly talking about sanctions in general being an acceptable way of punishing "bad actors," even asking what tools "we" should use. This reply doesn't make sense.

That's fair; I lost context hopping around in comments. You specifically spoke of Iran however. We've made a ton of mistakes in the region. What we haven't done is publically called for the death of everyone in their country, raised children to learn nothing but the Koran and hate for infidels, fund organizations who kill innocent civilians indiscriminantly, killed off thousands of dissenters, or murdered people for cursing Jesus or drinking alcohol or being a homosexual. If you think the US and Iran stand on the same moral ground then you're simply not a reasonable person.

Though I have some issues with your list, none of this gives the US the moral authority to use sanctions on Iran, an act that has led to the hardship and death of Iranian civilians. More so given all these acts are taking place after decades of sanctions.

A few particulars though.

>What we haven't done is publically called for the death of everyone in their country,

How you can view this as worse than the range of US actions that have killed thousands of Iranians confuses me.

>fund organizations who kill innocent civilians indiscriminantly

We funded the Iraq army that killed over a hundred thousand civilians.

>, killed off thousands of dissenters,

SAVAK

>If you think the US and Iran stand on the same moral ground then you're simply not a reasonable person.

This is just a small list of the horrors the US has done to Iran, ignoring what it does elsewhere. I'm not a supporter of the Iranian government, they've done some truly terrible things to their civilians. The US has done far worse to other nation's civilians, the comparison isn't even close.

>So what's your suggestion? Country X won't play nice, what do you do?

Nothing!

>What tools do we have available to us to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and persuade bad actors?

Give up yours, or stop telling others what to do about theirs. The US is not a good actor either.

> 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.

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.

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...

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/27/magazine/were-sanctions-r...

This one looks promising:

https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/report/57jqa...

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.

>>That's a natural result of any sanctions.

Which contradicts the OP's claim that sanctions don't create casualties.

Yes, though it can be a matter of phrasing. Technically, no American killed any of these kids.

You seem a bit disingenuous here. Upthread you needed "a source" for the obvious fact that hospitals are part of a national economy. Now the deaths of children are "a natural result". Which is it, really? Maybe it's just good for USA policy to kill kids, by one way or another? Anyway, sanctions are usually just a pretext for war. (Every military disaster USA has perpetrated during my parents' lifetimes has been preceded by sanctions.) The military-industrial-media complex tells us over and over that sanctions are some sort of peaceful option, but a cursory examination of history proves that is a damnable lie.

"The alternative" is what every president from Washington through Arthur would have advocated: stay on our own continent and mind our own business.

> Upthread you needed "a source" for the obvious fact that hospitals are part of a national economy.

No, I asked for a source for the claim that the US blocked essential medical supplies as part of the embargo.

> "The alternative" is what every president from Washington through Arthur would have advocated: stay on our own continent and mind our own business.

Wouldn't mind that at all! However, since I don't make these decisions, then I will persist: sanctions are better than the violent killing of war.

We voters don't make either decision; our rulers in the military-industrial-media complex decide when to drag us into war. It's still the case that sanctions are usually just pretexts for war. If sanctions themselves were neutral policies, that might be acceptable. However as documented upthread they kill lots of innocent children directly. Most humans would consider that to be a bad thing.

Sanctions are often an attempt to curb aggression and prevent war.

Take the sanctions against Russia or Iran. Sure, we can be against those sanctions. Then Russia will invade the rest of Ukraine, killing many thousands.

It's the easiest thing in the world to say "I'm just against any sort of killing". Makes you seem benevolent. However, in reality we must choose between alternatives that are often all bad, some just a bit more so.

You keep repeating that (probably because you've heard it repeated a lot), but it isn't true. Sanctions at most times and in most places have been pretexts for future wars. Sanctions are certainly not what have kept Russia from invading Ukraine: Ukrainians with guns and tanks have done that. Sanctions certainly have not caused Russia to give back the Crimea to Ukraine. It's like any disputed territory inhabited by mostly-sane people. The residents who wanted Russian rule are happy, many of those who didn't have moved back to Ukraine, and it's not as though any of the civic institutions really work differently anyway.

I am not "against any sort of killing". If I have a good enough reason to kill I will do it. I have killed lots of animals while hunting and dealing with livestock. I am not "benevolent". However, I am also not evil. It is for that reason that I don't want my tax dollars used to kill innocent children in foreign lands. The killing done by Assad, Qaddafi, Saddam, and the Taliban is on their own heads. (The killing done by ISIS is on ours, because we created and sustained ISIS.) In my parents' lifetimes, we have never improved a situation overseas by invading. By that measure I suppose sanctions are a little better, because it's arguable that e.g. South Africa was improved by sanctions...

> Sanctions are certainly not what have kept Russia from invading Ukraine: Ukrainians with guns and tanks have done that.

The Russians have a ton more guns and tanks.

Like it or not, Russians don't invade Ukraine because of repercussions, and sanctions are part of that.

If we were back in 1940, the Russians would have taken over Ukraine long ago.

> (The killing done by ISIS is on ours, because we created and sustained ISIS.)

Conspiracy theory.

> Like it or not, Russians don't invade Ukraine

Yes, like it or not, they do.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_interventio...

It is largely because of the previous Soviet invasion that Ukrainians would today fight to the last to prevent a future Russian invasion. They themselves didn't feel the same about Crimea, because of course historically it only became a part of Ukraine in 1954, a "gift" of USSR. Russia is today surrounded by nations it theoretically (well, it might depend on the current oil price: yay fracking!) could defeat militarily. Are sanctions protecting all of those? If we assume that's possible, how could we ramp up sanctions from their already absurd levels if Russia started threatening e.g. Azerbaijan or Mongolia? Please, let's live in the real world: USA sanctions against Russia are not sustaining Ukrainian independence. As is always the case, the Ukrainians themselves are doing that.

Conspiracy theory.

AQI developed in Iraq after we had completely destroyed civil society there and created a vacuum of law and order. AQI developed into ISIS after we further disrupted both Iraq and Syria, in those regions of both nations where no one (including armies of USA, Iraq, Syria, Russia...) dared venture. For many years, most of their arms and ammunition came from American-supplied caches "stolen" from the apocryphal "good rebels" that we were repeatedly told actually existed and would kick out Assad real soon now. This is basic recent international history. How is it that you haven't kept up with this?

> It is largely because of the previous Soviet invasion that Ukrainians would today fight to the last to prevent a future Russian invasion.

Read some history of the cold war. USSR was happy to invade and subdue its weak neighbors in the past, in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, all the way up to the 70s. It won't do the same today because of international retaliation, part of which are sanctions.

Russia had no right to invade Crimea. They just did because they had the military might to do so. If your argument is that they should be allowed to do so without consequences, then I strongly disagree. Your position makes you feel morally superior, but in reality it will pave the way to WWIII with Russia increasingly emboldened to extend militarily until an inevitable clash.

> AQI developed in Iraq after we had completely destroyed civil society there and created a vacuum of law and order.

By that logic, UK and France are responsible for the Nazi regime and all the evils it has done because they defeated Germany in WWI and created the conditions for the rise of the Nazi party.

There's a fashionable trend to blame the US as "directly responsible" for everything bad that goes on the world, by applying preposterous liability standards that nobody has ever applied to any other nation in history.

You assume a great deal about my moral feelings. I am practical, and I perceive our real enemies. There is no moral component to that. Like Iran, Russia's time as a major world player is limited. It has burned through all its human resources, and now its oil is worth less and less every day. They're not going to take over Europe, and if they were it's not as if USA could stop that with either sanctions or force of arms. The drunken walk of sanctions and other threats we've employed have not served the interests of USA citizens any more than they've served the interests of Russian citizens. They have served someone's interests.

USA get the tiny amount of international criticism we receive because we keep doing the same awful misguided things while claiming that we expect different results. We aren't all crazy, so at least some of us are liars. Indeed those are the same liars who came up with the ridiculous "world police" canard of preposterous liability in the first place. Who kills whom in other hemispheres really doesn't affect us enough that we should waste our wealth and soldiers' lives pretending to do something about it.

At least in military conflict, there is some lip-service paid to avoiding civilian casualties (Geneva Convention, etc.). But sanctions are not allowed even this little fig leaf.

During a war there's typically a lot more casualties. Lip-service is irrelevant.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

A study by Lancet - briefly, that hundreds of thousands of 'excess deaths' were caused by sanctions.

It's not something our intellectual culture is particularly comfortable with - drawing lines between death, and the policies that cause death, perhaps because we don't take statistics as seriously as we do causal stories.

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?

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.

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

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.

This is from 5+ years ago, you gotta ask why this is being released now.

I can see why it's a bad idea to have Chinese gear in our networks, but this is something completely unrelated except in the vague sense of "china bad". You can argue for getting Huawei out of our networks on their own merit without this crap.

This is related to Huawei's CFO's arrest in Canada and pending hearing to decide if she will be extradited to the USA.

Can someone explain how the world is a better place by outlawing business with Iran? Remember, the crime here is selling telecom equipment...

Iran and Isreal don’t get along

So why not punish Israel as well?

I’m not touching that one

Israel is much closer to the western point of view on human rights for one thing.

It's OK for there to be an objective right and wrong in a conflict.

Are you claiming that Israel is objectively right in this conflict? If so, can you clarify what you mean by that?

Many, many people would see the forced formation of a new country over the top of an existing country, against their will, as objectively wrong.

> over the top of an existing country

There was no existing country, it was British territory, and Ottoman, and others. The last time the place was an independent country it was part of the ancient Kingdom of Israel, around 2,200 years ago. And now it's an independent Israel again.

Same place, same people, same name, same capital. Different laws and government though.

There are and were different groups of people who existed there and considered that land their homeland.

"Do you have a flag?" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k

Exactly: arbitrary rules backed by a significant advantage in the use of force.

Everyone who was living in the area that considered the land their homeland were welcome to stay, maintain their private property, and join the fledgling nation. Arabs who stayed and abided by the UN agreement were given first-class citizenship and many went on to become leaders, run successful businesses, and even serve as officers in the IDF. Unfortunately, many rejected the UN agreement and even rejected the terms for a second Palestinian state for the alternative of trusting the call of neighboring nations to flee and fight. Unfortunately those neighboring nations ended up reneging on their word after losing the wars that they started and were not so welcoming towards those who fled, setting the stage for the current quagmire.

To be fair, the people alive now were not in a decision-making position back during the formation of Israel, but I wanted to bring up the historical context since we're discussing the formation period.

More background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_supporters_of_Israel

The world is a better [0] place if less people have nuclear weapons. "Outlawing business" (i.e. sanctions) are being used to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Thus it improves the world [1].

[0] Better is somewhat subjective I suppose, but I think we can pretty objectively say "more likely to hold a human civilization 100 years from now".

[1] It also undoubtedly makes the world worse in other ways, whether it improves the world more than it makes it worse is too political for me to be interested in discussing it with strangers on the internet.

There's an easier way to do it that required no effort on the part of the current administration, which is to just not cancel the Iran deal.

> By torpedoing U.S. adherence to the accord, Trump has all but guaranteed its collapse, a move that opens the door to the unfettered resumption of Iran’s nuclear program and unleashes unpredictable escalatory pressures in an already volatile Middle East.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/05/08/a...

> Although the deal didn’t address every concern, it was successfully preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Trump has instead opted for an uncertain future, raising the risks of an Iranian bomb and a U.S-Iranian conflict.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/trumps-iran-dea...

> The United States is left without good options moving forward. It is hard to see how this decision serves U.S. interests or regional stability.

https://www.rand.org/blog/2018/05/the-strategic-fallout-of-u...

In addition I believe there are long term costs for a country to be violating agreements for no discernible benefit.

The deal with Iran is not relevant.. since Huewai's and Meng's actions are from 5+ years ago, when Iran was subject to UN approved sanctions.

You're correct, although I would say the Iran deal is still relevant to Iran sanctions in the general sense.

> "Outlawing business" (i.e. sanctions) are being used to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

If you're talking about the current US sanctions, I think you're wrong. The deal ensured Iran could not develop nuclear weapons, through a strict regime of inspections. Without the deal, there are no inspections anymore and Iran is free to develop said weapons.

It seems that the real purpose of the sanctions is to weaken Iran so that its enemies in the region (Israel, Saudi Arabia) have a freer hand in doing as they please.

I'm talking about the sanctions that the article is, i.e. the pre-deal ones that Meng Wanzhou is accused of violating.

That said, the stated reason for the current sanctions is still nuclear weapons [0]. An accurate evaluation of why the US chose to withdraw from that deal is probably not possible with publicly available information. The limited analysis in your comment seems to assume that the deal was effective, something I don't think we have enough information to reliably evaluate, but I consider unlikely.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/us/politics/trump-speech-...

> That said, the stated reason for the current sanctions is still nuclear weapons

Of course. And I think it's a blatant lie.

> The limited analysis in your comment seems to assume that the deal was effective, something I don't think we have enough information to reliably evaluate

The IAEA opinion is that we do, and that Iran has complied with the terms of the deal.

The IAEA opinion that I've seen is limited to "Iran has complied with the terms of the deal", not "the public has enough information to evaluate that the deal was effective at stopping nuclear weapons", or even "the deal is effective at stopping nuclear weapons development". The latter two (especially the middle one) being outside of the scope of what they discuss.

It's possible I missed something, I would be surprised though since the IAEA is pretty tight lipped. To quote an IAEA statement [0] made a week before the US withdrew from the deal

> In line with standard IAEA practice, the IAEA evaluates all safeguards-relevant information available to it. However, it is not the practice of the IAEA to publicly discuss issues related to any such information.

[0] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/statement-on-i...

The deal was negotiated and signed by US, Russia, China, France, UK, Germany, EU; and it is based on the "IAEA safeguards", a system of inspection and verification of the peaceful uses of nuclear materials as part of the NPT.

To suggest that all the major world powers would have signed a deal that leaves space for Iran to develop nuclear weapons, and that the IAEA might have been happily certifying the compliance to the terms of the deal without bothering to make sure that Iran isn't actually developing nuclear weapons, would be supremely naive.

A more complete quote from the IAEA statement that you quoted is:

"The Agency’s overall assessment was that a range of activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device were conducted in Iran prior to the end of 2003 as a coordinated effort, and some activities took place after 2003. The Agency also assessed that these activities did not advance beyond feasibility and scientific studies, and the acquisition of certain relevant technical competences and capabilities. The same report stated that the Agency had no credible indications of activities in Iran relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device after 2009. Based on the Director General’s report, the Board of Governors declared that its consideration of this issue was closed."

In fact, what IAEA is diplomatically saying is "we don't give a damn what Netanyahu claims, we have reports and information that proves that the claims are not true and we don't have to discuss it any further".

> we have reports and information that proves that the claims are not true

I don't this is an accurate summary, rather it says

> we don't have reports and information that proves Iran is continuing to develop weapons.

And why would they? They aren't a spy agency, they are a monitoring agency. Assuming for the sake of argument that Iran was actively developing nuclear weapons they would have had to fuck up for the IAEA to be aware of it. The IAEA's purpose in all this is to force them to be circumspect, not to catch them if they are being sufficiently circumspect.

But wouldn't the development of weapons require the diversion of nuclear materials? Surely the IAEA are monitoring that very closely. I would have thought that to be one of their primary responsibilities.

The United States also ignored the results of the IAEA's nuclear weapon investigation in Iraq, and invaded them anyway [0]. The United States never found any nuclear weapons, and sentiment of the appropriate subject matter experts today still remains that there were never any nuclear weapons.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#Pre-war_events

We absolutely have enough information to judge the deal effective: Has Iran detonated a bomb? No.

Before the deal (5 years ago), we were hearing that Iran was ~18 months away from a bomb. Yet, no bomb so far. Looks like the deal has been in the black for at least 3.5 years, to me.

The reason for pulling out of the deal had everything to do with domestic politics and, on a disorganized level, a bunch of yahoos' power fantasies. Nothing to do with Iran's behavior.

The metric of "has Iran detonated a bomb yet" is far to simplistic. What we should care about isn't how quickly Iran gets a bomb, but the probability that it ever does.

To see this via a argument to absurdity suppose that we had an alternate deal that was magically enforced and said "Iran will cease development of nuclear weapons for 10 years, and then we will give them an ICBM or two with warheads on top".

And, I mean, it's certainly possible that it was just a bunch of yahoo's and the deal was effective. It's also possible that the USes various spy agencies have information that made people legitimately concerned about the status quo. It would be outright negligent of the government to tell us (and thus Iran) which it is.

But they were on pace to have a bomb by now. And they don't.

So the deal is, at the absolute least, better than not having a deal. Or at least it was until we unilaterally tore it up after getting what we wanted.

Yup we can only achieve world peace if it's just us who owns nuclear weapons. If the goal is really that, the U.S. wouldn't be flashing its nuclear arsenal.

The more people there are who can choose to use nuclear weapons, the greater the chance that someone will actually choose to use them.

Could the same argument apply to personal firearms?

Especially when one of the countries has vowed, time and time again, to wipe another country off the map.

Admittedly it's a very small sample size, but fwiw history directly contradicts this assertion.

Very true. When only one nation had atomic weapons, 100% of the nations with nuclear capabilities utilized them.

That will certainly be from a North American viewpoint.

From the other countries perspective, it is a tremendous power imbalance.

The fact that any city of your country could be destroyed by an invading force in 3 seconds at zero cost for the invaders is for sure not very reassuring.

That actually happened in the US territory with native people, they were exterminated by outsiders with superior technology leaving almost not trace behind. This was costly for the invaders because the technology difference being great was not that great.

Right now, with the US(spaceX) able to put a rocket in any part of the world in 30 minutes with a nuclear head, the power imbalance is extreme. They do not have to risk a single life to destroy an entire city or nation!!

This is something that no country on earth should tolerate and they will not tolerate if if they have enough technology.

The goal of most sanctions, from a diplomatic perspective, is to place enormous financial pressure on an economy so that the population revolts agains the government in question. It's believed that when the "price of onions" becomes too high for a society to tolerate, revolution occurs.

I'm not saying the world is/isn't a better place, just explaining the common beltway logic re: Iran sanctions.

Sanctions often have the reverse effect by entrenching state power and creating a outside force upon which to blame the problems. I.e. these onions cost a fortune because of the evil Americans.

Also the US does not have a great track record with inciting revolutions in Iran.

Actually the US has a stellar track record of inciting revolutions in Iran.

(just not intentionally)

Foreign advisories have all kinds of failed/stupid strategies for inducing revolution! Hasn't stopped America from a never-ending sanction game with Iran or Russia from a never-ending election game with America or China from... the list goes on and on.

The goal of the sanctions is to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The sanctions cause economic harm, forcing Iran to the negotiating table.

It's not anyone's goal to overthrow Iran. No one want to clean up the mess. There are already enough messes in that region already (afghanistan, iraq, syria, yemen).

America has been diligently trying to overthrow the Iranian government for nearly 70 years, _long_ before Iran started their nuclear program in 1970:

In 1953, the CIA baited the Iranian coup d'état by covertly supporting pro-shaw groups. The shaw was then overthrown in 1979, bringing Khomeini to power as the Supreme Leader. Our role in the later Iranian revolution isn't as clear, yet. After that the 2009 Persian Awakening was additionally supported by the states.

Fighting Persia goes back quite a way before 70 years ago...

s/their nuclear program/our nuclear program.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RS21592.pdf

The US puppet planning to start building 23 nuclear power plants in the 70s were based on US support to create a US friendly power-base in the middle east.

I wouldn’t say it isn’t anyone’s goal. For one, John Bolton, NatSec Advisor, openly advocates it. And it’s not like the US hasn’t done it before.

But we already had a deal with Iran on weapons. A deal that they were honoring, which we reneged on.

Any proof they were honoring it?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/01/opinion/tehran-nuclear-sa...

Not detonating a bomb is the proof. They were allegedly 18 months from a bomb. It's been 5-6 years. No bomb.

...It's really worrying to me that the New Left seems to embrace nationalism and American exceptionalism just like the right. It means nobody is pushing back against creating wars. A lot of people will die for it unless people wise up.

Pompeo and Bolton probably both want to overthrow Iran.

Wait, so the U.S. is hoping for Iranians to revolt against a system it helped put in place? Hmmm

Yeah, exactly.

They supported the Iranian revolution expecting they will be able to control the outcome. That was ending the British relationship and starting an only American one with their oil.

This worked out pretty well in Saudi Arabia, which was very primitive and had very small population.

In the end,though,in Iran they are Muslims first and Iranians second, with a long History. They could have accepted all the money from infidels that they could get, and promised whatever to them, but their own religion says they could(and should) lie to infidels. So they did it.

(This scenario of popular revolt has never actually transpired.)

The point of sanctions is not necessarily to incite revolution; as duaoebg pointed out, regimes like their scapegoats, and anyways modern historical anecdotes show that popular unrest is insufficient to incite revolution if the military remains loyal to the regime e.g. Tehran summer 2009.

Rather, sanctions attempt to align financial incentives of those in power with the country issuing sanctions. It may seem (thankfully) foreign to those in the West, but in autocratic places like Russia, Iran, and China, the people who control the policy of the state are generally also the people who have large stakes in the major economic engines of the state. Given that autocrats tend to be motivated by wealth at least as much as they are motivated by power, sanctions can force autocrats to try to negotiate with sanctioning countries, wherein the autocrat tries to adopt his policy as little as possible to the sanctioning country (so as to keep a grip on power) in order to get wealth flowing again.

The crime is violating sanctions not exactly selling equipment.

the goal of sanctions is to place strong pressure on a country that does something we're strongly opposed to (ie try to build nuclear weapons) without having to have a military intervention

Replace Iran with South Africa under apartheid and ask the same question.

If you don’t understand the role of Iran in funding terror groups such as Hezbollah or their long, long history of terror support, notwithstanding their overt threats to “push Israel into the sea,” then explaining how it isn’t just about “selling telecom equipment” isn’t worth the time it would take.

What a joke, if companies in unrelated countries don't want to play by sanctions, I see no reason to hold it against them. Unrelated states should have no power over this. The amount of hate Huawei gets just for this from otherwise reasonable people is rather excessive.

So a company's business practices should supersede a country's laws. Does this apply to only to sanctions? How about environmental laws?

This isn't a country's laws - Huawei is a Chinese company, it's not Chinese prosecutors going after Huawei.

Companies should not be subject to the laws of arbitrary countries. Would you say US copyright laws should be applied globally too?

Countries that enforce American sanctions do so because they're signatories to various treaties. Similarly, countries that enforce American copyright laws are also signatories. It's opt-in, often under real-or-perceived economic duress, but it's not like it's totally arbitrary.

Doesn't change the fact that it should be up to that country's prosecutors to do the enforcement - not the governments of Canada or the USA.

International treaties should not override a country's laws - Canada for example is already in brazen violation of internation drug treaties.

If US authorities want them on these charges, they should be presenting legitimate evidence to Chinese prosecutors and arguing over the treaty in question, not playing world police.

No. If every person was legally immune, save for their own country, then each country could simply refuse to persecute citizens that violate treaties. Under your proposed scheme, treaties wouldn't be worth the paper they're written on.

Of course, but then they'd have to contend with the country in question - basically, the US should be revoking whatever benefits China gains from such treaties, not prosecuting them directly.

Yes, copyright is a good analogy: I don't get to legally torrent non-American works just because they're foreign. And if I did breach the copyright laws of a country with which the US has no extradition treaty, I absolutely could be persecuted if I travel to that country.

That's not quite the same because we recognise the copyright in domestic law. American copyright laws aren't being directly applied in other countries - different countries can have different laws on dealing with copyrighted material.

Sure, but if you violate those laws and then travel to that country they're completely allowed to persecute you. That's what happened to the Huawei exec (or to be more specific, she traveled to a country with extradition treaties with the US).

Nope, you cant. This is like saying if I smoke weed in a country where it is legal and then go to a country B where it is illegal. Country B can arrest me because I broke their law.

Copyright law is a domestic law. You cannot be prosecuted for break US copyright law if you broke the law in an unrelated country B and you are not US citizen. Also B doesn't recognize US's jurisdiction to enforce copyright law in that country.

> This is like saying if I smoke weed in a country where it is legal and then go to a country B where it is illegal. Country B can arrest me because I broke their law.

This is the case for several countries, such as South Korea: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/23/bong-arm-of-th...

In Huawei's case even domestic law doesn't apply to them. Its like a canadian citizen being arrested in South Korea for smoking weed in Canada

Huawei broke international treaties. My understanding is that violation of such treaties is enforceable by any signatory. It's more like someone laundering money in one country and getting arrested in another country that is a signatory of an international anti-laundering law.

If this weren't the case, then international treaties would be pointless. Countries just wouldn't bother enforcing them against their own citizens.

I dislike American copyright law and despise how it’s so broadly enforced around the world. Having said that I’m unmoved by the “Chinese company” argument. Practically speaking most companies are effectively stateless multinationals, and even state entities like Huawei do business around the world.

It’s not shocking that a country with the muscle to flex would say “If you want to do business with us, follow these rules.” No one forces a company of country X to do business in country Y, and they knew the score when they decided to expand to a given market. Add to that the fabric of treaties and obligations tying countries together and all told it’s a reality of a modern world which sought to avoid a Third World War. Sure it’s annoying when the US acts like a BSD on behalf of its moneyed interests, but the underlying structure of international obligation is better than the alternatives.

Huawei didn't break any laws in China or Iran. They're not at war, China isn't sanctioning Iran. Huawei isn't even allowed to do business in the US at the moment, so they shouldn't be subjected to US laws, yet here we are, with the US attempting to force their sovereignty over others. Surprised that China hasn't retaliated yet, they could do some major damage to US interests if they wanted.

China agreed to sanction Iran when they voted in favor of multiple UN sanctions. As a permanent member of the UN security council, they could have vetoed it.

> Huawei, U.S. authorities assert, retained control of Skycom, using it to sell telecom equipment to Iran and move money out via the international banking system. As a result of the deception, U.S. authorities say, banks unwittingly cleared hundreds of millions of dollars of transactions that potentially violated economic sanctions Washington had in place at the time against doing business with Iran.

> [...] In the United States, Meng would face charges in connection with an alleged conspiracy to defraud multiple financial institutions, with a maximum sentence of 30 years for each charge.

It seems like the sanctions are only part of the story. The charge is to do with defrauding the banks into violating the sanctions.

That’s really the same thing though. It is quite a stretch of the definition of fraud. Nobody was out any money. They just lied to the bank about how they were using the money. It seems like that is not the bank’s concern anyway, and the bank suffered no harm. If there is more to it than that, I’d be curious to know.

In what way is that not fraud?

Fraud - wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

No one has to be "out any money" for fraud to occur.

No, there's less to it than that:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1344

You aren't allowed to lie to the bank if you're getting money out of them, even if they are made whole. Them being made whole may prevent them from exercising a number of tortious claims against you, but that doesn't mean what you've done isn't independently illegal.

Sorry, what? Reasonable people aren't okay with fraud.

If companies in unrelated countries don't want to play by sanctions, all they need to do is not do business in countries that require them to abide by sanctions.

I don't think anyone has an issue with that position.

In this case, if the allegations are accurate, Huawei committed fraud in order to gain access to both the sanctioning and sanctioned markets, and the arrest which put them front and center in the news is directly related to the violation discussed in this thread.

In large international procurement deals, it's often the case that bidding companies provide certificates indicating that they're acting like good corporate citizens. It's common to have a FCPA certificate (or national equivalent), and sometimes there's a seperate sanctions compliance certificate as well.

This isn't something that large corporations dealing with state-level procurement aren't aware of. They knew they were acting in violation of the sanctions and actively took steps to conceal it. This is brazen fraud.

These were UN sanctions passed by the UN Security Council. China is a permanent member of the SC and has the ability to unilaterally veto any action. They voted in favor of the sanctions that Huawei violated. So Huawei violated Chinese law and US law (by involving US companies)... it's just that the Chinese don't care to enforce the sanctions they agreed to.

These were not UN sanctions. If you read the report it clearly says these were regulations placed by Washington.

UN had no banking restrictions on Iran if the activity was unrelated to nuclear proliferation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran

Computer equipment can be used to run simulations for nuclear weapons (in fact, this is how nuclear weapons have been tested for decades.. and why we don't detonate them any more), and therefore is prohibited under the UN sanctions.

Additionally, the UN sanctions also prohibit banking services for prohibited items.

This is what Meng is accused of: attempting to transfer HP computers to Iran, and using the US financial system to do it. Both of these activities are prohibited by the UN sanctions.

Please reread the UN resolutions if you're unsure of this.

Edit: The bank fraud part is a US law, not under the UN sanctions.. But still that just means she committed bank fraud under US law in addition to breaking the sanctions.

The sanctions should include pencils too, since they can be used to do math which can be used to figure out nuclear equations, thus violating the nuclear sanctions

and power cables because they can power those computers and are obviously dual purpose.

Do you have any sources? The only relevant information I was able to find is Canada's list of nuclear-related dual-use items:

https://www.international.gc.ca/controls-controles/about-a_p...

Which was used for its enforcement of the UN sanctions.

The list only includes very specialized computer hardware that can operate at very low temperatures or high radiation environments.

None of the news reports I've seen state that Huawei is being accused of violating UN sanctions. The US justice department sought Meng's extradition on the grounds that she committed fraud by lying to banks.

The violation of the sanctions would have been part of the extradition request if they were UN sanctions, as that would meet the dual-criminality bar, so given they're not, it's very likely these were US-specific sanctions, and the extradition request was made on the grounds of the fraud charge because, unlike the sanctions violations, it could potentially meet the requirement of dual-criminality.

Good job, warmongers. You've convinced me to buy Huawei. Maybe I can't do anything to encourage our politicians and media to seek peace and prosperity rather than war and kickbacks from armaments lobbyists. However, I can spend $229 on a mobile phone that definitely doesn't have an FBI backdoor installed at the factory. Maybe that's enough for now?

Yeah, and ISIS has been fighting with American weapons for years. Hypocrisy much?

The stupid part is: Why is Iran forbidden from buying telecommunication equipment? God forbid evil Iranians using using smartphones or the Internet.

The embargoes are to force regime change.

Because that is what the sanctions define.

The good people at Huawei would never allow/enable the evil government of Iran to spy on the Iranian people.

Holy dumb!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com