Hacker News Reader

Comment by syntaxing | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

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.

> 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.

>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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com