This really has nothing to do with Iran specifically. The core issue is, whether America has the right to unilaterally subject other countries to its own rules and law.
The most current Iran sanction doesn’t have the backing from our allies. EU even set up some distorted legal entities to protect their firms so they can still do business with Iran.
If you say only America has the right to rule the world, then why? Because we are the biggest? Well 10 or 20 years later we may not be the biggest. Then what? We all need to follow Chinese law?
That’s why it’s a very dangerous and slippery slope to go down.
This does have to do with U.S. laws because if they signed a contract promising not to resell to Iran then they should abide by it. Even if it was an informal agreement, they should keep it. I still think the company should be sanctioned rather than the individual.
Signing contracts have nothing to do with it. Why was Huawei compelled to sign contracts? Because otherwise America will punish it for violating its own rules and laws.
We are back to square one, why America has the unilateral right.
It’s like saying the mafia has the right to kill me because I signed a contract with them a number of years ago. Well, why did I sign that contract? Maybe that gun pointing at my head had something to do with it…
I like to read Cowen. He’s a little bit libertarian so his viewpoints are often different from my other media diet. But he’s always thoughtful and nuanced. His podcast is also excellent by the way.
But the procedural normality of the arrest is precisely what scares me. There are so many international laws, and so many are complex or poorly defined, and there are a couple hundred countries in the world. Arguably most multinational corporations are breaking some law in some manner or another, and thus their senior executives are liable to arrest. If I were a top U.S. tech company executive, I would be reluctant to travel to China right now, for fear of retaliation.
In the longer run, bringing charges against Meng is likely to accelerate the division of the world into two competing systems of law, technology and commerce — namely those of China and the U.S. That will encourage international relations to develop along the dimension of power — what can you get away with? — rather than law or orderly cooperation. The West’s dirty little secret is that the rule of law works well only when tempered with a high degree of discretion.
China has made strategic mistakes and tactic mistakes.
Strategically, China should become an ally with US, just like Europe, South Korea, Japan. Why not ally with the world’s superpower and enjoy the benefit of having a powerful friend?
Tactically, China has made a mistake to anger Trump by targeting agricultural products. Howeve, Huawei case may not even be Trump’s brainchild. Xi does not understand Trump and probably his advisors were educated at Ivy Leagues and were brainwashed to believe the media and underestimated Trump.
Free trade is hard to be achieved because nations are at different development phase and have different comparative advantages. We can’t force another nations to comply with our laws unless we are prepared to take care of them. Every nations have the rights to do whatever to survive and progress. Telling other nations what to do is going against our principle of not to be told by British what to do.
If China were an American ally from the get go it will still be dirt poor.
America likes to impose its own half baked ideologies on other countries, regardless of specific situations on the ground. Like it “advised” the former USSR to undergo some “shock therapy” to change to market economy overnight. Result was economic collapse.
Latin America and Africa have been US allies on and off and they are still poor. Remember how Bush wanted to implant democracy in the Middle East? Instead we got civil wars and rabid terrorisms.
Say for one case, If high-speed computers or highly rated telecom equipment, that Uses US technologies by contract, moved to Iran, North Korea, they can be used for Missile launching. Same way, Enriched Uranium can be moved from US, France, Canada…etc
That is why US has clear ban on exports (and every country has it). US, Euro and Japan are very strict on such contracts.
So you deflect and change topic instead of providing any examples of what you claimed. Ericsson isn’t violating the law unless they include US technology that’s protected by law.
If so why all the complaints about “forced tech transfer” by China? If western companies want to do business in China, they have to sign away their IP. Fair? Mutual agreement achieved.
Chris Rock said it the best. Legality is fundamentally about power.
That’s not even close to what it’s about. The law is about tech developed in America by American companies. Huawei could have built it’s products without that technology, and then they’d be free to sell the products to whoever they want. When they bought those components, they signed contracts. No one forced them to use those components.
If we start a tech cold war, US monopoly on certain technology will be quickly lost. People will always find a second source when they develop their products, they would help the #2 country and keep them on the path. China, Korea, Japan and Europe can gain more from this.
