1. _The Marshall Islands_ fall under U.S.A. jurisdiction because they use U.S.A. financial services
2. The U.S.A. therefore "confiscated" the ship and oil for breaching their own sanctions and then ...
3. The U.S.A. sold the fucking oil that was in breach of their sanctions?!
That's some dystopian empire level shit right there. Or am I misunderstanding something?
The Republic of the Marshall Islands is the closest thing to being a US Protectorate without being a US posession.
It is officially an Associated State with a Compact of Free Association with the US. Its (non-naturalized) citizens have a right to work in and live in the US, equal access to welfare programs (that even green card holders don't have), and many US domestic agencies provide services there (the US Post office, and FEMA amongst others). And of course they have DoD protection (Edit: for Marshallese owned ships only), and use the US Dollar.
But it's even true in places which are _definitely_ not US proxies. Note that the US financial sanctions have an insanely wide reaching effect, given the need to be able to transact in US dollars.
Because of the US sanctions against Carrie Lam, the previous Chief Executive of Hong Kong, she had to withdraw her own salary from the Hong Kong SAR government in cash, because no bank in Hong Kong could deal with her and also offer US dollar denominated services.
Is there a particular reason to underline/emphasize _The Mashall Islands_? And it is not like the U.S. is the only entity with various sanctions against Iran:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_agains...
...which part is the most dystopian to you?
If I send a package via DHL and DHL is found guilty of something and the package is confiscated by the US government in the process, can the US government just sell my stuff?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_sanctions_agains...
Yes, the reason is that I didn't know the Marshal Islands had anything to do with the U.S.A. Though now that I know the relationship, it's no less shocking (it's part of the U.S.A. but not part of the U.S.A.?)
> And it is not like the U.S. is the only entity with various sanctions against Iran
Sure, but I didn't know / think the Marshal Islands did.
> ...which part is the most dystopian to you?
All of it! It's like something out of a sci-fi book where the world is governed by a Romanesque empire. Maybe this kind of thing only offends people outside the U.S.A. since it's not normalised elsewhere. If the Netherlands did something like this for example, people in the country would freak out.
https://www.government.nl/topics/international-sanctions/pol...
Smarter because they can safely hide behind bureaucracy and deny they're any such thing. More terrifying because this means they'll get away with it until the end of days.
Doesn't seem too wildly different from the various former Dutch colonies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suriname_(Kingdom_of_the_Nethe...
2. Trying to get around the sanctions and then entering a place the US could nab it, yeah.
3. What should they have done with it? The point's not to eliminate the oil, but to discourage evading sanctions, and the seizure already accomplishes that.
If you want to be the country that sends a clear message that all you need to do is to follow the rules of capitalism you don't go around and seize assets by your enemies. If you do that then all what people conclude is that you're just doing what the fuck you want and benefit your friends and crush your enemies and so they are morally free to do the same.
It's still possible to apply pressure and sanctions while keeping up with your principles. Otherwise you're missing the whole point and become an international joke, which sadly is what is increasingly happening to the US despite the best intentions of many (and thanks to the worst intentions of many others)
Or has the US declared war on Iran?
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/10/1223906769/yemens-houthis-red...
Did Iran already get paid for the oil? If so, they certainly don't need it back. If not, they should do better due diligence in the future, when handing their goods to others without cash-in-hand. Weird to trust something so valuable to some company without better awareness of how they operate. Cough.
> If you want to be the country that sends a clear message that all you need to do is to follow the rules of capitalism
I disagree with much of what follows, in part because I don't think this describes something we are actually trying to do, now or historically, so the rest is built on a premise that I believe to be shaky. I'm not aware of "all you need to do is to follow the rules of capitalism" being either an explicit or implicit message of US foreign policy, ever (though I'm open to evidence to the contrary!) Pro-capitalism and pro-free-market (especially for foreign capital investment) policies are things we have pursued and advanced, yes, but there's always been a lot more going on, too, and I don't think those other parts have been covert or otherwise something that anyone on the international stage could have failed to appreciate.
> It's still possible to apply pressure and sanctions while keeping up with your principles. Otherwise you're missing the whole point and become an international joke
Giving countries a do-over when they "accidentally" (wink, touch nose) get involved in evading sanctions takes you to "international joke" territory real quick, too, though. Is this particular action a betrayal of principle, or following through on plainly-stated intentions, pragmatically and consistently?