Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Canada has arrested Huawei’s global chief financial officer in Vancouver (theglobeandmail.com)
1081 points by ericzawo on Dec 5, 2018 | hide | past | favorite | 586 comments

Many are lost in technicalities here, if Canada has the right to arrest a businesswoman, if the US can stop a foreign company to do business with another country. Who cares?

I'm partial to Iran because a multi-lateral treaty was signed. Iran stopped nuclear enrichment. In exchange, western countries pledged to provide economic relief and stop sanctions.

It is said that Iran has been developing various weapons, but these weapons do not fall under the treaty, and experts and controllers all agree the nuclear program has been stopped.

It is wrong for the US to walk away from this treaty, in the same way it was wrong to walk away from the Paris accord agreement. You agree on one thing, you have to follow. That is the honourable thing to do.

A few will say that Iran is threatening Middle East Peace. What is obvious is that its Saudi Arabia who's bombing its southern neighbour or sending tanks to Bahrain. If you want peace, you have to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia as well.

What is even wrong for the US is punishing foreign companies wanting to do business in Iran. Perhaps there are technicalities to demonstrate a law in the US is broken. This makes sense for bureaucrats. For the rest of the world, it's just abuse and plain wrong. History will judge.

> It is wrong for the US to walk away from this treaty

The Iran Nuclear Deal and the Paris Accords were not treaties. We have a process to ratify treaties in the US. The president approves a treaty and sends it to the senate to approve or reject.

It's easy for president to make executive order agreements because it doesn't require approval from the senate (something Obama knew he couldn't get for either deal). But all parties should know that these non-treaties can be undone without a second thought by a new president.

The nice thing about the American system is that while treaties are difficult to pass, they are more or less permanent.

No, by international law [1] (and U.S. law [2]) they are treaties [1]. U.S. is not the only country with the notion of ratification [3][5] (not a surprise). Generally, the U.S. distinguishes between "treaties", executive acts or acts of Congress agreements internally, but externally they are treaties.

U.S. treaties are not permanent, and while the statement as ratified, it is law, the U.S. has broken a lot of treaties treaties. See Native American section [4].

I can agree that statements like "It is wrong for the US to walk away..." are strictly moral, with no legal ground, as it was not ratified. Yet this is a treaty that was signed. In the eyes of the world and U.S. law, this is a "broken" treaty. And it doesn't help if we go around breaking treaties. It is not illegal, but you are not building credibility right? It might be only fair if other States start breaking their treaties when convenient. (And some of them do.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_S...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification#Ratification_of_a...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_o...

Edit: This is a nice interesting read, in case you are interested: https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/2/issue/5/international...

Not to go Godwin but a lot of massacres were also wrong on moral not legal grounds. When it comes down to that non-defense things get even uglier very quickly as it turns to "there is no law here against heading there and breaking your face". Even if they thought it was firmly in their domain.

"Their word is law." is a primitive framework but it expresses that enforcement backs laws.

From that link, it is not a treaty in US law. The article uses the blanket term "treaty-related law", but the Iran agreement falls under the "Executive agreement" category. This is in part a long-standing presidential workaround for the similarly-long-standing Congressional unwillingness to bind the US to treaties. But it does come with a bit of deception of foreign partners, because it does not bind the US in the same way that treaties bind other countries under their own domestic law. One of many ways in which the US system is a bit dysfunctional.

What I read from this is: "the US has a convoluted process, which nobody understands, in order to commit to international agreements". It seems everybody, including head of states, thought the US had agreed to the treaties, but they had not (?), because of a technicality. I assume these technicalities can be applied to anything, any time, in order to justify pulling out of international agreements.

Worse, instead of owning to this change of mind, the rationale of technicality is used in order to justify pulling out. This is done in bad faith.

> The nice thing about the American system is that while treaties are difficult to pass, they are more or less permanent.

You say this now. This experience shows that, once you want to pull out, you will find a nice loophole to pull out. That is the "more or less" part.

And there is another aspect: once excuses for pulling out have run out, we know that the US will simply break, whenever and for whatever reason it wants, existing, ratified, seal-proof treaties.

The US is simply untrustworthy. And sneaky.

Oh come on. That is just plain insulting to all the other parties of the agreement. They knew full well that they did not have a ratified treaty with the US and they were explicitly warned of that fact ahead of time.

Just because people on the internet did not understand that doesn't mean the parties involved did not know that.

It is not insulting what so ever. Every single agreement that two parties enter is a temporary agreement that will be broken. The only question is when. The history is littered with the agreements/treaties between countries that were tossed.

Every single diplomat knows it, which is why diplomacy is about horse trading. Parties want to "sort of" maintain the status quo, even if it means giving up some of what is "rightfully their" by the agreement.

This argument reeks of "not my fault you were conned, you should have known I'm a conman"

Iran got their pallet of cash, they knew Obama was making the deal without the support of congress thereby giving the middle finger to US citizens. It would be diplomatic malpractice to not forecast the deal getting revoked, especially if they violated it (and they did)

How did they violate it?

If you find requiring the president to sign and congress to approve a treaty convoluted, what DON'T you find convoluted? Putting together a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is more conceptually complex, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't baffle international leaders, or you.

I don't find convoluted when you say that you take part into an international agreement, and then you stick to your word.

You expect the whole world to be familiar with the intricacies of the US Government. I assume that you have taken the same interest in familiarizing yourself with the technicalities of the Serbian government agreeing to international treaties.

The United States of America has a population over 300 million, we did not agree to take part in the international agreement. Obama knew that the American people would not support the agreement which is why he did it with the stroke of a pen rather than through congress.

Aha you think the American people has the facts and experience enough to be able to make good judgements in foreign policy and even that YOU actually now what their voice is and can represent them completely?

What you now is the same as everyone else what’s being sold in the media (even social media). There are lots of hacks like Thomas Friedman being given lots of page space in papers such as NYT to even spread propaganda for powerful interests. In aggregation these hacks represents alignments of powers which even a president cannot surmount in the long term. Obama of course understood this but didn’t give up on what he thought was right, and now Trump does not care about was is right instead he simply surf the waves of narratives spewed by the conservative/alt-right to both winning the presidency and keeping his hold on power and enrich himself in the process, while he claims he’s being backstabbed by the deep state. But it’s clear his bet on the wrong horse is becoming a hazard as more Republicans in Senate are realizing this and changing course to avoid the risk of complete collapse of their party and American morals.

I guess another Vietnam has to happen so that the American people will again learn the real news, but given the assymetry in military power and outsourcing of it to allies like SA I’m not sure if they will learn this time.

I expect the people who make agreements with the Serbian government to have. That's why they do the job instead of me.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [0] is not a treaty. That's not a matter of technicality, but of fact. I don't state this intending to defend the actions of the Trump administration. But when you get the basic facts so patently wrong, you do not do your argument any favors.

The staggering amount of these untruthful statements I read on a daily basis here and elsewhere on the internet is extremely disconcerting and increasing at an alarming rate. Please do not try to criticize Trump unless you are able to do so effectively. Posts like yours only make Trump's deceit and dishonesty harder to challenge, by damaging the credibility of anti-Trump individuals. Worse yet, they do nothing to further the cause of promoting positive change. Because if you want to do good, you do have to get things right.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac...

They were sold a false bed of goods by Ben Rhodes and he bragged to the NYT about how he duped people into thinking it was a ‘treaty’

Seriously? And China is more trustworthy? Look at what they are doing with 1MDB scandal in Malaysia and Hambantota port in Sri Lanka. US is no saint - but it is the best of the worst out there.

Pulling out of a loophole in a treaty is something any country can do. Why is US especial in this?

Wasn't 1MDB to blame on Goldman Sachs, a US company, and Jho Low, a Malaysian?

This is the problem. 1MDB was a money laundering scam. Where do you think the money was laundered from?


What are they doing with 1MDB?

Jo Low is evading arrest, and they say is hiding in China. Makes sense.

Then the US should change their procedures: first get the treaty ratified then get their head-of-state to go and sign the treaty. Otherwise, in the eyes of the rest of the world the treaty has been signed and the US is bound by it, whatever their internal politics. Optics matter. The way it looks now because of this - and many other recent examples - that the US is not trustworthy.

A non-trivial number of countries have separate signing and ratification procedures. This is common enough that no reasonable observer in international politics automatically equates the two. Most of them have procedures that mirror those of the US!

It's worth considering that changing this process from one widely understood to one widely not understood is likely to lead to more confusion about weird internal political processes rather than less.

In any case a US president could always make up a story why the other party has violated a treaty if there’s enough interests which are aligned.

Remember Iraq WMDs?

1. Iran had an election shortly after JCPOA. If that election would have led to a change in government, and under the new president, Iran had decided to abrogate from the agreement, would the argument then be "hey, fair enough, it was not a a treaty"?

2. The senate passing it makes no difference. The Republicans, controlling the House and the Senate, may well have been successfully in passing legislation withdrawing from the treaty. Except - that isn't even necessary. Trump can withdraw from any treaty he likes whenever it pleases him: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/05/0...

All of these are simply internal American processes, and it is up to the Americans to consider wether they want their politicians to run a foreign policy that projects stability, where the decisions of previous presidents are maintained because, being legitimately elected it was their decision to make, and American's word should stand for something - or whether they want their country to be perceived as erratic - which is in fact the case now, whether or not it causes allies such as the EU to ultimately make real changes in the relationship.

Strong political polarization in the US guarantees that going forward there won’t be continuity between presidents because there’s likely to be rapid shifts back and forth across the political spectrum

So,you agree with USA being unreliable partner now? (it might have been always that way, but it really looks different now)

This means that rest of the world can't trust the US on any issue...

This decreases US power. Everyone knows that they just have to wait for the next president and everything will be reset.

> The nice thing about the American system is that while treaties are difficult to pass, they are more or less permanent.

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed in 1987, it is now dead. so by your definition, 30 years is now called permanent? To me, a far better definition of the term permanent can be concluded from the matter of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - US permanently refused to join that convention.

How is the INF dead? Trump announced he is withdrawing the US from it but he has no authority to do so unilaterally and requires the approval of the Senate to actually withdraw. That approval has not happened and, as far as I am aware, the Senate has not even discussed the matter yet. It's just being used to strongarm Russia into complying with the treaty after they violated it at least once (that I am aware of, anyway)

> Perhaps there are technicalities to demonstrate a law in the US is broken. This makes sense for bureaucrats. For the rest of the world, it's just abuse and plain wrong.

(Almost?) All countries have a similar approval process in the parliament. Usually the president has enough votes in the parliament or has an informal arrangement with the opposition leaders to ensure the approval.

For example, Iran never ratified the 2013 treaty with Argentina. It was approved by the Argentinean Parliament, but it was never approved by the Iranian Parliament. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_understanding_be... more info in the Spanish version (autotranslation): https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=es&tl=en&u=htt...

[Disclaimer: I'm from Argentina. I didn't like the treaty, but nobody asked for my opinion.]

You're complicating things: USA has issued an international arrest warrant. X person went to Canada and his name was blinking so he was arrested. End of the story.

A Canadian Court will decide whether the US arrest warrant was based on common Western norms or not. In this case the arrest warrant was not issued for free speech, tax evasion or political activity so almost certain he'll be extradited. End of the story. Canada will determine that the person involved--essentially with billion$ behind her--will get a fair hearing in USA. And she will, laws may be unfair but...

Yes, the US was wrong to abandon the nuclear deal with Iran.

But that's not the whole story with the Huawei CFO arrest.

China and their state-owned and state-controlled companies are stealing trade secrets and military technology instead of developing it on their own.

Chinese companies enjoy open access to Western markets, but Western companies are highly restricted in their access to Chinese markets.

If Huawei illegally sold technology to sanctioned nations, and the US can use that to pressure China on trade and espionage, more power to them.

> China and their state-owned and state-controlled companies are stealing trade secrets and military technology instead of developing it on their own.

Do you have any evidence for this? Have we arrested any US citizens for selling/leaking military technology to China?

While there is definitely good reason to believe that is happening, it should be noted that multiple Chinese-American scientists have been subjected to meritless witch-hunts. See e.g. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/feature-chinese-amer... and https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/technology/sherry-chen-na... for examples.

I’m as opposed to current US idiocracy as anybody, but requiring people to relitigate every last fact, and prove even widely accepted moral concepts from first principle, just destroys any honest debate.

I do not know of any place that widely proves that "state-owned and state-controlled companies" are stealing trade secrets.

Individuals, sure. State-owned companies? I would like to know the proof for this.

> Chinese companies enjoy open access to Western markets

please show me how Huawei enjoyed its open access to the US market.

if you like, I can easily show you tons of evidence on how Huawei's competitors say Cisco enjoyed its open access to the Chinese markets.

What that has all to do with the arrest?

She has been arrested for violating a completely unrelated US law (in non-US territory).

You seem to suggest using a political move you disagree with to take hostages to force China to act on an entirely unrelated set of grievances.

Huawei is not open access to US market.

NYT said NSA is hacking into Huawei's server steal information.

Well said, US bias towards Saudi Arabia while both SA and Iran have totalitarian regimes which misbehave in the region shows they are primarily interested in having influence in the region. SA is the one deemed best suited and most willing to at least publicly show support for US foreign policy. Unfortunately affiliation with SA will wreck havoc with any diplomatic mission of US in the region for the future. Russia and China will gain more influence going forward as they don’t have so much moral baggage in the region.

The external situation, and whether you agree or disagree about Iran, has no impact on whether or not it was illegal.

The company traded tech with the US under an agreement not to share said tech with sanctioned countries. They then proceeded in an apparent act of circumventing those trade agreements.

If they didn't like the sanctions against Iran then they shouldn't have been dealing with the US tech for which those sanctions applied in the first place.

Your argument is like saying "it's not theft because the person they were stealing from is a bad person" which isn't how the law works.

> If you want peace, you have to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia as well.

Funny how Israel never gets mentioned by anyone!

That’s probably because Israel is a part of the Western world and nobody in their right mind is concerned about it becoming a military threat or sponsoring radical Islamists.

Israel doesn't sponsor radical Islamists it just creates them by it's disregard for international law in the West Bank and Gaza.

And yet the heavy hitters (Al Qaeda, ISIS and co) never really bothered with Israel. They went directly after other Western nations which supported the Palestinian cause and sponsored Palestinians with billions of dollars.

The concern isn't becoming radical Islamists but becoming no different. The behavior is the ultimate problem. I mean the Shakers are technically a radical Christian sect who doesn't believe in sexual reproduction. Radical Martha Stewart fans deciding to kill people would be just as big of a problem.

Well if there is anything the Middle East can agree on, it’s their hatred of Israel. Probably better for Israel that they fight amongst themselves.

Israel is a bunch of middle European people clinging to a mythology of an omnipotent real estate agent granting them land amongst a bunch of eternally warring tribes. It's not gonna end well. I just wish the U.S. would stay out of that bs.

>I just wish the U.S. would stay out of that bs

You mean the descendants of Europeans who clung to a mythology that the son of that same omnipotent real estate agent granted them manifest destiny over a continent owned by a bunch of tribes?

And whose support for Israel is based, in part, on the belief that Israel as a state has a role to play in ushering in the Apocalypse of the Book of Revelations and the second coming of Christ?

The phrase "not bloody likely" comes to mind. The US is in with Israel for reasons that go far deeper than geopolitics.

political correctness, being called racist and whatnot

> "I'm partial to Iran because a multi-lateral treaty was signed. Iran stopped nuclear enrichment. In exchange, western countries pledged to provide economic relief and stop sanctions."

Iran stopped its nuclear enrichment program, so the sanctions were wavered. Iran continued working on a ballistic missile program (capable of carrying nuclear warheads), and continued destabilizing countries throughout the middle east (through proxy terrorism) - so the sanctions came back.

In other words - temporarily halting the nuclear enrichment program alone should not excuse Iran from being held accountable.

> “continued destabilizing countries”

Pot, kettle, black. The US are continuously destabilising countries they don’t like, Iran included; in fact, most poweful countries do, all the time, from Russia to France to Germany. That doesn’t justify breaking treaties on a whim, like Trump has done.

The US had built up a reputation as a violent and aggressive bully after 2003. Obama worked hard at correcting that, but the new guy has thrown it all away again. The US at the moment look seriously bipolar, from the outside.

> A few will say that Iran is threatening Middle East Peace.

That is widely agree upon largely due to Iran's shipment of weapons and financing of external militant groups actively engaged in various conflicts. I am currently in the Middle East due to one or more of these conflicts.

I am not stating any opinion for or against the recent (now ignored) agreement.

> What is even wrong for the US is punishing foreign companies wanting to do business in Iran.

That is a gross over simplification of how the complexities of global trade does not always align with the interests of international politics. It is within the capabilities of one nation to impose laws that forbid trade and supply to another nation while trading with third party nations trading contingent upon that awareness.

> That is widely agree upon largely due to Iran's shipment of weapons and financing of external militant groups actively engaged in various conflicts.

Where is your proof on this? Where is all of the proof on any of the things claimed about Iran? Just like there were mass destructive weapons in Irak?? Sure, we know how that turned out. It's time for big ol' USA to just stop meddling in affairs it has no business in. They just want to get their hands on all the oil in the world so they can play the boss, and it most likely is not going to stop there either, next it's water, the market, and so on. The USA is just a big bully, it's their way or not at all. And Europe is like the bully's accomplice, too scared to stand up so just joins along in the bullying. Pathetic, more more more, it's always more they want. Protecting the peace, ha, joke. And while we are at it, let's forgive Saudi Arabia for obviously brutally murdering a journalist, afterall, they just invested millions on some of our weapons.


The evidence exists if you care to look. Most of it is in the way of first-hand accounts, however. Seeing as how this particular forum lacks a subpoena power over defected Shi'ite militia members, I have no way of directly presenting you the evidence.

Indirectly, however, you'll find the Internet is pretty replete. You can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...

Given the strident tone of your post, I suspect you'll dismiss those sources. No doubt you'll suspect them of being self-serving. Very well. Evidence of Iran's doings also exists in forms which cut against the U.S. military's interest, such as the fact that they duped the U.S. military into violating U.S. law by providing them weapons.




The fact is that Iranian-sponsored terrorism is so prevalent in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq, that just defeating Daesh is a moral problem... it's become a logistical nightmare to not only perform Leahy vetting but to actually carry out operations without a Shi'ite militia taking part and committing atrocities in the name of the Coalition.

And those Shi'ite militias? "All are directly backed by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps and are notorious among the Sunni minority population for carrying out extrajudicial killings, torture and ethnic cleansing."



You are entitled to your opinion that the "USA is just a big bully," although I personally don't think it's a well-founded opinion. However, the next time you feel inclined to start calling things a "farce" before you've examined any evidence, I'd encourage you to reconsider.

And you think it’s just of US to sell weapons to a authoritarian murderous regime like SA? Previously Saddam in Iraq? And also the Afghan fundamentalists during Russian and Afghanistan war? Eventually US went to war with both Iraq and Afghanistan with the same leadership they supported earlier.

The Shia militias your talking about is no better nor worse than the kind of people both US and SA and other gulf countries have supported in the region. You think ISIS could have existed without certain external help in the ME?

The question is not if Iran is bad they clearly are, but they are not worse than the rest of the regional powers also not worse compared to US given it’s track record in both supporting totalitarian leaders and fundamentalists.

My understanding is that the topic of this subthread is whether there is evidence to support the idea that Iran has done something for which sanctions are appropriate. I think there is sufficient evidence of that.

If you want to debate whether the U.S. should sell arms to Saudi Arabia, I think that is a different topic.

I think the debate is whether you think that Iran has done something that warrants the sanctions and if yes, whether you think sanctions should also be imposed on Saudi Arabia, who has unquestionably done much worse, or is this not an objective standard that the U.S. follows and only select 'rouge' states fall under them, whereas other rouge states do not, as long as they maintain sufficient trading relationships?

Sure it’s a different story. Because it explains everything. How come one country is sanctioned while the other is treated like good friends. This is not a new trend with Yemen and Khashoggi affair either. Saudi Arabia has spread it’s ideology both to Pakistan, Afghanistan, South Asia and also in parts of Africa. That ideology is behind groups such as Al-quaida, Al-shahab, ISIS, Taliban who knows who else. This started in the 80s. Yet because they were allied with US they were treated like friends. Reagan even took a couple of pictures with some of them.

But history and context does not suit a soldier who is only looking at the “facts” given by his superior.

But yes, of course I know Shiite military are active in the middle east. I mean, it is their region, right? I can sense militarism in your terminology. Shiite militia, sunni militia? How about state-sponsored violence in the name of oil? You would not call that ‘militia’ would you? Since you copy pasted some news articles as evidence, here is some articles that argue otherwise for you: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-irrationality-of-am...,



But none of these articles would be enough for you either. I will dismiss arguments that talk about Iran one-sidedly, not the evidence. You can also see more scholarly articles that talk about the complexity of the military and political affairs in the middle east. Not from an over-militarized point of view, but also from a justice, social and anthropological perspective:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1035771060069611... https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2968/065001004?src=r...

the point is, you throw Iran and nuclear and militia around like they are not connected to a people, and the best of you just reduce the situation to a state vs. people point of view. Iranians have the right, just like any other people, to defense and safety. The evidence to Iran being a terrorist state does not exist and what you sent me is a list of politically motivated accusations. The evidence for Iran meddling in the region, yes. I think there is plenty of that, and yes, that’s bad, as long as we don’t compare it to other countries around the world that do a million times worse but are left alone because they are western allies. I don’t think I have to convince anyone about the chaos Western intervention has created in the region. Iran is evil because it does not comply to bullying. O I hope you can also find the time for nuancing your view.

Well, since you accuse me of "throw[ing] nuclear . . . around" when I said no such thing, I hope you'll forgive me if I'm not convinced that it is I who should improve the nuance of my position. Particularly since none of the links you've posted support your position.

Enjoy the rest of your day.


Personal attacks are not allowed on HN, regardless of how strongly you disagree with someone. If you post anything like this again we will ban you.


You are right, you did not throw that around, you is used in plural as well. While you personally didn't throw it around it's just a statement I make to the general public, like I said, it's not all about you and/or I, it's about people, the Iranian people, not trying to generalize or single out.

I'm not attacking anyone or arguing with you in person, just trying to show that I too find evidence and not base my views on personal feelings alone. Enjoy the rest of your day as well.

If you were really interested in evidence I am sure you wouldn't have any trouble finding it yourself.

I'm asking evidence of people claiming things without any proof. And yes, I can find my own evidence, hence my question. How is your comment any relevant?

Then just say you disagree.

Saudi Arabia is known to finance Wahhabism groups around the world, its books for children say it is ok to kill non-Muslims and even Muslims of the “wrong kind”, the terorist behind 9/1/1 were from the country, ISIS got its money from SA and the country is engaged in mayor war in the Middle East. Yet SA is a friend of US and many western countries.

I don't believe this thread is about Saudi Arabia.

So does imposing sanctions have any consistent basis or framework in the U.S? I believe that is very relevant here, because if not, it's basically being a bully.

Reducing international relations to schoolyard concepts like “bullying” leads to a child’s understanding of something that’s actually quite complex.

The U.S. has a history of regime change and subversive actions in every country that does not completely open its markets to it. Whatever you want to call it, it often punishes such countries by imposing sanctions, backing coups etc. because as the world's sole superpower it knows it can do so.

When a significantly more dominant part uses the power it knows it has over other parties to try to get its way, it is indeed buying, or any other synonym describing the same principle you may want to use.

Attempting to impose much greater intricacies to every single issue is rarely the right call.

Just because someone doesn’t agree with a law doesn’t mean that they should be able to break it without consequences. If she knowingly tried to export to Iran knowing it was forbidden by law, then she got what was coming to her.

> What is even wrong for the US is punishing foreign companies wanting to do business in Iran. Perhaps there are technicalities to demonstrate a law in the US is broken. This makes sense for bureaucrats.

Sanctions are powerful tools that benefit the country applying them in the same way that you benefit by not handing over ammunition to your enemies.

She is a citizen of a foreign country. She is not subject to US law.

Extra-territorial application of law is a nightmare.

How would the US react if a US businessman was arrested for trading with Israel in Turkey?

it should be Iran not Turkey , trading with israel is not forbidden in Turkey

> She is a citizen of a foreign country. She is not subject to US law.

If a tourist travels to another country and breaks that country's laws, they will be subject to the consequences of breaking those laws. So why should a foreigner that willingly conspires to use Huawei's US business to break the US laws be free from punishment? The fact that they are a foreigner is irrelevant.

She was arrested in Vancouver.

It's not completely unusual that criminals get arrested in allied countries through mutual cooperation, then get extradited for trial. This is happens with other countries as well besides the US.

As to whether or not that's right, I personally think it's reasonable. Most all countries seek to enforce their laws regardless of location, especially when they deem a serious crime was committed against them.

No, most countries don’t try to enforce their laws like that. If she has “committed” these acts while in China, obeying Chinese law, there is simply no crime.

This is not “robbed a bank in country X and then fled to Y”, which is what international law-enforcement cooperation was built for. This is like “copied Windows in a country where piracy is legal”. It’s a massive overreach by US and Canada, but then again, they are not new to this (see Kim Dotcom et al).

If you commit a major crime against Chinese law, and then visit China, they are within their rights to arrest you for it.

Similarly, if you commit a major crime against Canadian law and visit Canada, they can arrest you for it. And if you also committed a crime against US law, the US can petition for you to be extradited after the Canadians arrest you.

I fear I don't understand where the overreach is. I've clearly missed an important and nuanced detail. Can you help me?

How can you commit a crime under US law when you are not under US law at all? If I pass a law that bans eating cornflakes, you then have breakfast and enter my country, am I justified in putting you under trial?

International law is never simple - although I suppose having the biggest stick might drive people to ignore certain nuances.

> How can you commit a crime under US law when you are not under US law at all?

What makes this complicated is that Huawei does have a registered company in the US (with multiple offices), and therefore at least some part of Huawei ought to be subject to US laws. By making the choice to establish a US presence they ought to be willing to comply to the local regulations.

> If I pass a law that bans eating cornflakes, you then have breakfast and enter my country, am I justified in putting you under trial?

Yes, though the problem is that this example is trivial. If I pass a law that bans cyber attacks on my country's infrastructure, and you perform attacks in a country where it is legal and travel to my country, I'm well in the grounds to arrest you.

If cornflake eating were against the law, the solution would be to avoid traveling to that country in the same way that some people might not travel to North Korea for fear of being arrested unfairly.

You're absolutely right! That's an absurd scenario and it makes no sense in any way under a basic understanding of how laws work.

It may be worth considering that laws are not always strictly confined to physical borders in what actions they can apply to. In this case, there are nuances that could be worth paying some attention to about Canadian laws and trade embargoes.

It was not on US soil. The world is not American.

> If a tourist travels to another country and breaks that country's laws.

For god sake Huawei did business with Iran as "China to Iran" not "USA to Iran" why they had to comply with US stupid laws? the business never occurred in USA. US is shooting it self with stupid laws that try to sanction the wrong nation while still supporting Saudi and Israel a clear terrorists nations.

And the funny thing that Israel and Saudi regime are the ones that pushed Trump to cancel Iran deal with the US.

She's been arrested for circumventing US laws by exporting items _made in the US_ to Iran (via intermediate countries).

While I don't agree with the US sanctions, she is not being charged with shipping goods made in China to Iran. Obviously the US has no say in that.

> Just because someone doesn’t agree with a law doesn’t mean that they should be able to break it without consequences.

I'd argue this is not as self evident as you imply for such "worldwide" laws. It's at the very least debatable whether a country should have the ability to make laws that apply to foreigners in foreign countries.

> It's at the very least debatable whether a country should have the ability to make laws that apply to foreigners in foreign countries.

That's a fair point. However if Huawei has a physical presence as a business in the US (which it does) then it should certainly be subject to obeying US laws. The one responsible for violating that law should be held responsible for breaking the law, whether they are a foreigner or not, in the same way that a tourist traveling to another country is still subject to that country's laws.

sanctions always benefit the oppressor (read the dictator). While sanctions (in theory) make it harder for a regime to earn money - in practice it leads to more poverty and hardship among the poor people (who don't care about politics). Sanctions usually lead to more anti-foreign sentiments and a boost to the radical power-bases within the sanctioned country. Walking a country (society) back from the effects of sanctions is incredibly tricky and requires more than just undoing the sanction.

Ask the Apartheid states how sanctions benefited them. Always is a bit of a strong word.

I think "justification" internally matters for the internal role. If the people view the actions and its consequences as unjust nothing changes to benefit opinion wise.

However even if (they think) it is totally unfair that they are being sanctioned want to just because they burnt a few evil witches/abolished slavery they are still weakened internationally.

> Just because someone doesn’t agree with a law doesn’t mean that they should be able to break it without consequences.

Like those charged under the Russian laws living in Europe? Do you see how problematic this idea is?


Keep in mind that US sanctions against foreign companies doing business with Iran are opposed by:

The United Nations International Court of Justice, which ordered the US to withdraw sanctions, to which the US responded by pulling out of international agreements.

The European Union, which has attempted to block its companies from complying with US sanctions.

With that said, the US is free to sanction anyone for its own interests, that's its right as a sovereign state. It is also its right as a sovereign state to refuse market access and trade to any company that violates its sanctions.

But arresting foreign nationals in other countries for violating US sanctions? That's the equivalent of Russia arresting American business executives and extraditing them to China for violating Chinese sanctions against Taiwan - and yes, there are sanctions against Taiwan, which are regularly ignored by the US, of course. This is a massive escalation and will undoubtedly cause a major international crisis. Stay tuned.

> But arresting foreign nationals in other countries for violating US sanctions?

In this case, the other country in question is Canada, which has made its own sovereign decision to also sanction Iran.

Extradition treaties, including the US-Canada one, require that the conduct involved be a crime in both jurisdictions. If the Canadian courts decide that what she did is not a crime under Canadian law, she will get off. Simple as that.

Worth mentioning that Canada has its own history of concerns with Huawei due to the Nortel debacle: https://www.afr.com/technology/web/security/how-chinese-hack...

it is all the FVEY countries that have issues with Huawei. UK, Australia & NZ have played a big role in disseminating US anti-China propaganda. I say this as somebody who has been criticizing Huawei for years. There is no denying their products are not only of poor quality (competing on price), that they bribed their way through Africa, and that the founders have strong ties to the military and party. Yet it would be hypocritical to not call this anything but a political move.

> There is no denying their products are not only of poor quality (competing on price)

Huawei Mate 20 Pro starts from 1049 Euro and Mate 20 start from 800 Euro, last time when I checked, 1049 Euro is almost $1200 USD, common sense tells that when an Android phone has a price tag of $1200 USD, it is anything but competing on price.

I have Mate 20/Mate 9/P8, the top ranking build quality has been repeatedly confirmed by numerous reviews world wide. I never ever had any issue with my Huawei Mate 20/10/P8. Labelling Huawei products as poor quality without proof is not helping on anything.

that is true but Huawei isn't just consumer products. Their radio and core network products absolutely suck. Their O&M plane is a disaster no NOC wants to put up with. And their Huawei cloud offering that positions itself as a carrier-grade cloud is worse than digital ocean. Operators choose Huawei because it's cheap not because their features and interoperability and acceptance tests were of better quality then another vendor. They're able to compete below price precisely because they are heavily government funded, and because they stole a lot of IP from the established players and could leapfrog many years of innovation done for them by competitors. Ericsson, Nokia have seen this coming long ago which lead to all these M&A's (starting in the late 90ies till just recently). The only players left now are Nokia, Ericsson, Huawei & ZTE. It doesn't look good for Nokia & Ericsson considering how lazy and half-arsed their presence is in standardization activities and how much of it is actually driven by CENELEC (the Chinese standards-compliance arm of ETSI).

As for consumer products, yes of course they will have to get their money back somewhere. If you're running on one end a shady operation that is to cut the price to levels nobody can compete with and deliver shitty products only developing countries or banana republics want to afford, ... then you need to make up for this somewhere else in order not to expose the whole racket.

I just saw news that millions of mobile users in UK and Japan got kicked off the net by those high quality carrier-grade Ericsson carrier equipments.


> They're able to compete below price precisely because they are heavily government funded.

so you are arguing that rather than funding carefully selected new businesses with good potentials, or those state owned established companies with full government control in the same area such as ZTE, Chinese government is heavily funding the most profitable private high tech company Huawei?

sounds like the Chinese government is on a self destruction mission to me.

I find your comment very misleading.

There is no indication that this arrest is related to U.S. policies to sanction foreign companies for selling to Iran.

Rather, the arrest is far more likely related to "US law [that] prohibits exports of certain US-origin technologies to certain countries" (from nytimes article). Huawei purchased certain technology from the US with the promise not to sell it to certain countries like Iran, and then proceeded to shamelessly violate the agreement.

Without laws like this, sanctions are far less powerful, because any foreign company not affected by the sanction can act as a middleman between the origin country and the sanctioned country.

What the UN International Court of Justice and European Union think about US sanctioning foreign companies that do business with Iran is completely irrelevant, since this arrest is not related to that policy.

nappy on Dec 6, 2018 [flagged]

The author of this comment has a history of apologizing for Chinese crimes:

>>LOL, kill thousands of its own citizens in protests? The Chinese government never did that (even the famous tank man was unharmed and was not arrested), the truth is, many soldiers got killed because they were not allowed to fire at citizens. Even the Chinese government did kill its own citizen they learnt from the US (1932 Bonus Army, 1970 Kent state massacre, Jesus that was only 48 years ago, not mentioning almost every day someone is being shot by the police somewhere in the US. The funny thing is one shot won't even make it to the newspaper now.)

>>In a word, you have been brainwashed by your media. I know it's hard to wake up someone who pretends to be asleep, but it's good for you.

The fact that the parent is pro-chinese is pretty clear, I don't see what digging into their post history adds to the discussion, especially since in this case it's tangential at best.

It's always good to know the other parties agenda/ideology as that will (consciously or unconsciously, often the latter) influence what they feel deserves or doesn't deserve being mentioned.

Because astroturfing has utterly subverted discussion on hot-button issues on all social media platforms (including this one), whether you choose to believe it or not.

We've spent a lot of time working on this, and the actual astroturfing that we've found is small compared to the frequency with which users fire this accusation at each other merely because they hold opposing views. That's why the site guidelines ask people not to bring this toxic trope up without evidence. Some users holding opposing views to yours is not evidence of astroturfing, only of divided views.

Perhaps you or someone else knows more than we do about this on Hacker News, but in that case you should be telling us at hn@ycombinator.com so we can look into it. That's in the guidelines as well. When there's real information, we take it very seriously. Unfortunately, though, this trope is driven mostly by imagination, not information.


I wonder if there are solutions to astroturfing that have not been explored.

this is really challenging as it is something I have been thinking about a long time and each idea I have I find a way that it would simply not work.

Do you have a substantive point relevant to what the parent said here?

Seems like pretty relevant context to me.

Why? The argument stands on its own legs, how is the commenter's post history relevant?


What evidence do you have for that? Someone having an opposing opinion doesn't count as evidence. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18622054 and https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Plenty more at https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20astroturfing&sort=by....

I've spent a lot of time looking into this. We are always open to new information and when we find evidence of abuse, we ban accounts and then some. We have low tolerance for actual abuse on HN.

But I can tell you with confidence that most people accusing "paid propagandists" are simply imagining the nastiest about those who happen to disagree with them. Both sides do this on divisive issues. That's not acceptable either.

Dang, I really respect you; you are a pretty amazing and patient moderator. However, the odds of there being paid propagandists here are extremely high, even without glaring evidence. HN is probably the most influential technology / startup / venture capital forum on Earth. Many important people and groups read this site daily. Those factors alone make it a target for influence campaigns. So, it would be extremely unlikely for HN to be completely free from it, especially given the current state of world affairs and that it’s well known that online influence campaigns are very effective.

That’s not a rip on you, the previous poster, or anyone. It’s just a statement that, yeah, sometimes it is important to highlight a poster’s potential bias. Why would you not want to?

Also, I’m curious: what technologies do you guys use to identify bad actors? Maybe if I understood the sophistication of your methods, I would have more trust. There are a lot of smart people here (much smarter than me) who may want to help.

I'm not seeing a big disagreement here, except that in my view you're badly underestimating how common, and how toxic, it is for users to hurl these accusations at others simply because they disagree with them. That's a cheap, vulgar move that has nothing to do with actual astroturfing, it's by far the most common phenomenon in this space (and growing), and it poisons the community. Therefore people aren't allowed to do that on HN.

"Sometimes it's important to highlight a poster's potential bias" is covered by the site guideline that asks you to send such concerns to hn@ycombinator.com rather than posting them in the threads. In the vast majority of cases that I see, it's not hard to establish that the accusation of shillage is wrong and that the user was just expressing their personal view—unless you think the Chinese government planted people on HN years ago to establish posting histories about Julia or whatever.

Legit HN users have a right not to be dressed down or have their histories hauled out by a flash mob that doesn't like what they said. If you're concerned that someone is breaking the site guidelines or otherwise abusing HN, please contact us privately.


Paid propagandists? I genuinely find this hard to believe. Maybe I'm naive

How is a commenter's potential conflict of interest not relevant?

A conflict of interest would mean that they have an undisclosed interest in pushing that narrative (say, that they have stock in Huawei, that they're a Chinese official or something like that). The parent comment discloses no such thing. Having an opinion is not a conflict of interest.

At worse you could argue that the poster is biased, but then in this types of geopolitical discussions who isn't? Certainly not me.

Everyone technically has a conflict of interest or premeditated motivation. An argument should stand on its own merit, regardless of who makes it. Analyzing anything other than the argument is immature.

Analyzing anything other than the argument is immature.

Yet sometimes it leads to a better outcome than just analysis of the argument alone. Context is real. Context matters. Automatically disregarding real information on the grounds of "maturity" ideology can lead to a worse outcome, so it doesn't seem like the best course.

While context is important, I’ve found that the context of who someone is personally is rarely beneficial when being objective. If anything, this approach is anti-ideology, as you are not taking ideological bias into account...and there’s way too much ideological bias in discussions these days. I think that’s what I meant by maturity.

Calling someone's argument or stance immature is immature.

With that mindset nobody should use that word. We should wipe it from the dictionary.

Subtract the OP's posting history. Is what they wrote still relevant and valid? Yes? There's your answer.

It's not because there may be a conflict of interest that he's wrong. He's mainly just explaining the legal background of this event.

I don't have a history of doing that and came to comment very similar things. US sanctions against Iran are motivated solely for geopolitical realpolitik.

The author of this comment has a history of attacking the Chinese government:

>This is ridiculous equivocation between a democratic society with a rule of law and an authoritarian regime. You're kidding yourself if you don't think the Chinese government has an interest in data owned by foreign nationals that they could gain access to.

Ad hominem?

Just as much as the poster I replied to.

What I'm posting under this thread is based on fact. So you want to criticize me for irrelevant things?

It looks like you've been using HN primarily for nationalistic political comments. That breaks the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Could you please review those and use HN as intended, i.e. for intellectual curiosity, from now on?

The test we apply is whether an account has crossed the line of using HN primarily for political battle. If that is the case, we ban the account, regardless of which politics or nation they're fighting for or against. That is because these battles have a way of consuming everything if allowed to, and therefore must not be allowed to.

Further explanations of how we moderate this are here for anyone who wants more: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20primarily%20test&sor...


Posting like this breaks the site guidelines and will get you banned here regardless of what another commenter is doing. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't do this again.

There's plenty of explanation of https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20astroturfing&sort=by... if you want to understand why we make a big deal about this on HN.

Is this reddit?



5 points have been deposited in your social credit account

Edit: why did you censor yourself? At least own up to what you post.

HN should shut down nation state's propaganda accounts.

>But arresting foreign nationals in other countries for violating US sanctions? That's the equivalent of Russia arresting American business executives and extraditing them to China for violating Chinese sanctions against Taiwan - and yes, there are sanctions against Taiwan, which are regularly ignored by the US, of course.

No, it isn't. They're only equivalent if the American executive's company in question is selling, say, Huawei networking equipment (assuming it is banned; I don't know if it's the case) to businesses in Taiwan -- probably under an arrangement where the intention to sell to Taiwan was never made clear and likely actively concealed.

That's circumvention of export controls and likely fraud at the expense of the sanctioning country -- an entirely different beast than merely passive business between the sanctioned and a separate third-party.

>will undoubtedly cause a major international crisis.

It will, but it has less to do with any escalation by the US than it does with China's own, well, unique political environment. If a similar case occurred to CFO of e.g. Yandex, I have a hard time seeing Russians/Russia reacting nearly as strongly as I expect Chinese/China to.

You basically repeated what the OP said and making it look like it meant the opposite. Which it does not.

No, that comment is pointing out that OP left out the key fact that Huawei was selling American products to Iran. That changes the situation from the OP’s claim of “Huawei was doing business with a country the US is sanctioning” to “Huawei was actively working to subvert US export restrictions”.

I don't support the Iran sanctions either. But a key detail is buried in the middle of the article.

> Since at least 2016, U.S. authorities have been reviewing Huawei’s alleged shipping of U.S.-origin products to Iran

Huawei is free to export all their Chinese origin products to Iran. The allegation here is that us-origin products are not following us export laws. This seems more like a case of "when in Rome, follow Roman laws".

Keep in mind that a lot of network equipment for 4G network (eg.) requires US patents, Qualcomm chips. So even if you build 99% of the equipment yourself if you use a single transistor that requires a US patent of is manufactured in the US the US will upkeep it's sanctions.

This case is much more straightforward - it involves a company she chaired, which used Huawei slides and so was probably a Huawei front, offering to be a straw purchaser for HP hardware (buy it and immediately resell it to Iran).

I didn't know patents crossed international borders.

China is a member of the World Intellectual Property Organization, which exists to ensure that patents cross international borders.


They arrested the founder's daughter! I think it would be a good idea for American execs in China to take a long vacation home until this cools down. No one wants to become collateral damage between a great power rivalry.

Meng Wanzhou is a the CFO of Huawei[0]

[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-huawei/huawei-f...

Not to make light of the subject, but reminds me of the movie "Sicario: Day of the Soldado" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicario:_Day_of_the_Soldado) where an agent provocateur recommends to the US Government: "You want to start a war? the fastest way is to kidnap a prince"

She’s both

Ughg, what the previous poster is insinuating is that she wasn't arrested because she's the daughter of Huawei CEO, but because of her role as CFO of the company violating US sanction.

I would be very curious to know if there were other high level executives (C-suite) who were not arrested when they entered a country (not just Canada) with whom the US has an extradition treaty.

That would resolve the question of whether she was arrested solely because of her role as CFO, or if it was also an attempt to send a personal message.

I assume that is what is being discussed.

You make it sound as if she’s not a company executive and this is some political maneuver, arresting a family member rather than a company employee.

Or Chinese execs in America.

>>But arresting foreign nationals in other countries for violating US sanctions?*

You steal a car in Belgium. Belgium investigates, charges you and issues an arrest warrant. In some cases it goes to Interpol or EU-wide systems. You go to Germany for a vacation and your name is flagged. Yes, you are arrested by Germany for violating Belgian laws and the extradition process starts.

You can challenge the arrest on a few basis (such as "Iran wants to jail me for criticizing Mullahs") but other than that, countries do help each other catch criminals. "Violating US sanctions" is apparently a crime in USA and Canada more or less has the same view on major international relations so he is likely screwed. (I think the arrest is almost automatic everywhere, but then courts and justice dept decide on whether to extradite.)

Doubtful about massive and major. The US and China have a complicated relationship over Taiwan a la sovereignty -- replace Taiwan with, say, Japan and you have a better but still imperfect analogy.

Plus the arrested party is the daughter of the founder; I can't separate that fact when trying to infer intention here.

I definitely feel anxious..

>>>Meng, one of the vice chairs on the company’s board and the daughter of company founder Ren Zhengfei, was arrested on Dec. 1 at the request of U.S. authorities and a court hearing has been set for Friday, a Canadian Justice Department spokesman said. Trump and Xi had dined in Argentina on Dec. 1 at the G20 summit.

She works for the company in question.

That's obvious to everyone but you. It's literally the headline.

I think this is an extremely dangeruous move on the side of the Trump administration.

This is supposed to be about Iran? Arresting the daugther of Huawei's founder definately makes it seem like there is more going on.

How is any significant American business man flying through Hong Kong airport supposed to feel right now?

And I am pretty sure that the mullahs in Tehran are laughing in their beards over the US picking fights with China (and maybe the EU) over the Iran boycots. At least when this is the way it is done.

Well, the world is laughing, including the clergy men in Dharmashala.

Pretty sure the mullahs have bigger fish to fry regarding the future of their country

> Keep in mind that US sanctions against foreign companies doing business with Iran are opposed by:

They may be but US is on the right side of history on this one. And I say this as an European.

As a Jewish born Iranian atheist refugee to the states who protested against Iran a few years ago in Iran, I'd have to say, you're pretty wrong on this one.

I hate Islamic Republic with every single cell in my body but you're just wrong.

* U.S. plain and simply fucked Iran up with a coup at 1953.

* Then helped Islamic Republic gain power in 1979. (This is up for debate though)

* Then helped Saddam Hussein attack Iran.

* Then sanctioned the country to the verge of bankruptcy.

* Then made a deal and backed out of it for no reason (Internal politics?)

Iran was already fucked up of its own doing before the 1953 coup. For the last few centuries Iran's history had been alternating periods of civil war and regional agression on Iran's part.

The late 19th century was marked by occupation by Russia and the Ottoman empire. Following defeats in wars which Iran generally had provoked.

Once Iran became a constitutional monarchy in the early 20th century political instability reigned as forces loyal to the monarchy fought for power with those with a more democratic bent. Between 1947-1951 Iran had 6 different prime ministers. The coup itself was really a continuation of this political battle with the US helping the forces loyal to the monarchy.

Iran also didn't help itself during WW2 by choosing to technically remain neutral while allowing a large German presence and German utilization of the oil fields. This led to a joint British and Russian occupation to drive the Germans out.

Even today Iran's economic woes although made worse by sanctions is mostly rooted in economic policy decisions and large scale corruption which feeds money to those backed by the revolutionary guard at the expense of the people.

But it is easier to blame the big bad West for all your woes rather than take an introspective look at your own culpability.

Path to democracy is not easy, specially in an oil-rich country like Iran.

We've had our moments that we were getting close. Now those moments are quite fragile. Every single time the U.S. has kicked us in the nuts in those moments.

Examples are this very same moment, where the economic sanctions and the reformists finally convinced the hardliners to talk to the U.S.

Supreme Leader finally gave it a thumbs up. And he raised his concerns back then that the U.S. cannot be trusted but if that's what people want it's OK to do it.

He was right. The U.S. could not be trusted. Now reformists have lost all credibility. In 2 years we have another election and for sure a batshit crazy like Ahmadinejad is going to be elected.

Same happened around 9/11. We had a really strong reformist movement and government. Then, out of nowhere, president Bush named Iran a part of "axis of evil". That gave the hardliners enough of a reason to push back against major reforms.

Jack Straw (British foreign minister of the time) has good notes on this if you're more interested.

1953's coup was another moment like that. Actually that's probably the closest we've ever been.

Now, if Iran is moving towards democracy, and at the most important moments, you kick it in the nuts, you "are" part of the problem.

You have not really disproven most of the more recent issues he brought up. The US (and Britain) did have a big hand in the struggle that culminated in the Iranian revolution: for fear of getting a USSR ally, they got a completely out-of-control regime and then have fought it with the dirtiest tricks they could muster ever since. Sure, nobody is fully innocent, but that doesn't justify acting like a c*nt in return; it actually justifies blaming "the big bad West" and helping the worst sectors of Iranian society. Isolation always helps this sort of regime, see also: fascist Italy, socialist Cuba and so on.

As an American, I am so ashamed that we did this to your country.

The humanitarian toll of US policies is hard to fathom.

As also an European, I think breaching international agreements like this and making regular people suffer, (because that's what the sanctions are doing), in order to score points because the U.S. is still mad that their regime in Iran got overthrown, I absolutely support the EU opposition to this.

I may say that I recently got a victim of the USA sanctions when our plane back from Iran made two emergency landings in a row and had no real possibility to repair it obviously. We were then put on another Jetliner which can be only seen in museums nowadays (except for Iran, where, thanks to Trump, this is now a dangerous mean transportation). No one should trust the Iranian government without really checking twice everything they say, yet those sanction take hostage of 80 Million people who now really struggle for a decent life. Sure, the US want to create another revolution to overthrow the government. Yet this means regular people have to want to die (because many will fall victims to this authoritarian government then).

The US policy is deeply embarrassing and abjectly cruel.

I am so deeply ashamed by how the US treats the people of Iran.

For breaking agreements they've made before? I think Europe is on the right side on this.

As a European I wish the US would take all the refugees their actions cause.

History is long, and I can't say it with as much definitive certainty as you (I wish you'd cite your reasoning), but as far as I know the reintroduction of sanctions against Iran will cause economic hardships which will radicalize a lot of people, and which will cause further instability to the world.

The same kind of hardships that also radicalized Trump voters, it lead them to vote a populist fascist into power.

Of course if Iran or Iranians cause trouble in the future, you'd use these as an excuse to say "Trump did the right thing, see what they did, they deserved those sanctions!", ignoring cause and effect: without the sanctions, they wouldn't be that pissed off to cause these troubles.

Exactly. The neoconservative ethos does not concern itself with those sorts of side effects.

What the US is doing is a form of terrorism. It completely nullifies any inspiring or positive influence that the narratives about the US founding principles might evoke in those abroad, and it is only possible due to the idea of American Exceptionalism, which is patently false to anyone who observes without bias US actions.

A power asserting its dominance has been the norm for thousands of years; you have just been brainwashed into hating your country. As for neocons being responsible for everything- just wow- that’s two steps past ignorant. The last president and Secretary of State are directly responsible for open slave markets in libya. Predatory foreign policy has been the only bipartisan issue in our history.

Maybe you view the word neocon in a more idealistic sense than I do.

I agree the horrible policy is bipartisan.

Please clarify the nature of your disagreement with my comment. Not sure I fully understand.

I'm not the one you replied to, but you're commenting under my reply chain, so...

> you have just been brainwashed into hating your country.

That's a very large assumption from a few lines of text, I'll classify this as a cheap baseless attack/dismissal.

> The last president and Secretary of State are directly responsible for open slave markets in libya.

So I guess Bush and Cheney are "directly responsible" for a lot of thousand dead Iraqis and Afghanis. Or were those military interventions justified in your eyes? At least Obama has admitted "the aftermath" is his biggest regret.

As another European: That’s like, your opinion, man.

Like totally

I don't understand why this comment is so heavily down voted for a simple difference of opinion. That isn't what the down vote is for.

This isn't Reddit, but the argumentative tone of this thread certainly reminds me of Reddit. Sensitive people make me sad :(

> They may be but US is on the right side of history on this one. And I say this as an European.

As anopther European, the US is most certainly on the wrong side of history with this shit. They're still salty that their pet dictator got ousted all those years ago.

Why do you think this?

Why are you cowardly hiding behind a throwaway account? Why do you care? Everybody is entitled to their own personal opinion and you are free to disagree with it.

I've used this account for several months now. It's not exactly single use.

You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to ask you for the arguments behind your opinion. You are of course entitled to respond angrily. However, it doesn't make for great discussion and you won't persuade many people with this approach.

Can somebody explain to me on what authority the US can request the arrest of a Chinese national on Canadian soil for any action they took while conducting operations of a Chinese organization headquartered in China?

The article suggests she took US-made products and routed them to Iran through Huawei. That's a US crime, and the US can issue a warrant for her arrest, and if she shows up in a country with extradition to the US, she can get arrested. Which is apparently what happened.

This only works one way though. No one arrested Ronald Regan for selling guns to the contras to fund the revolution in Iran. The US gets to do this because might makes right.

The US did, in fact, arrest the arms salesmen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokers_of_Death_arms_case

Regean had sovereign immunity, so he could not be personally tried.

I just learned, thanks Wikipedia, that Jamal Khashoggi (journalist murdered in Turkey) who has recently been dominating the news is the nephew of the arms dealer king pen, Adnan Khashoggi, behind the Brokers of Death. It appears Adnan and our current US president have had a prior business relationship (according to Wikipedia).

That is a strange closed loop.

A good lesson about the value of networking. Similar things are all over the politics, business or even arts and people inclined to believe in conspiracies love to dig these but most of the time it's just the effect of having a way to meet people that are already in.

He also had dementia

> Regean had sovereign immunity, so he could not be personally tried. Sounds fair. Arrest businessmen because it's practical, don't arrest Regean because it won't look good

Indeed it does.

And for the sake of humanity let's hope the US is never beholden to Chinese whims.

Why don't they arrest US citizens who sold those US products instead?

Because the actual crime was the act of selling the tech to Iran.

Huh - I always assumed that extradition treaties only applied to people traveling on passports of the relevant country.

Your assumption was incorrect. Were you trying to imply something? If so, I didn't understand the implication.

In case you were wondering why you were downvoted (as I used to be), generally one (of the few) good thing about this forum is that personal opinions that don't add value arent encouraged.

1. The US charge is "shipping U.S.-origin products to Iran and other countries in violation of U.S. export and sanctions laws"

2. Canada has similar embargo laws on the books.

3. Canada has a multi-lateral extradition treaty with the US

4. The crime is considered serious with a maximum penalty (in the US) of up to 20 years in prison plus substantial monetary fines.

So she's accused of a serious crime in the US that's also recognized as a crime in Canada, and the countries have an extradition treaty.

A trade embargo does nothing if any middleman can funnel goods and money across by simply misrepresenting or omitting details about where the goods are going.

If I’m wholesaling Cisco routers and they show up in Syria or Iran, and Cisco and I can prove we didn’t know how they got there , that still doesn’t make it okay.

You can still be held responsible. The law requires you to check on who the final customer is and to take some actions on any suspicious transaction. Someone will come knocking on your door and you will need to show documentation to support your assertion that you "couldn't have known". If a product is subject to a trade embargo you can't just "sell it to a middleman" and turn a blind eye.

Im trying to understand if your last comment is aimed at HP or Huawai?

Wasn't really aimed at either. But maybe to answer the question: if Huawei acts as a middleman that buys embargoed goods from the US and then sells them to a country under embargo then under US laws both Huawei and whoever sells to Huawei can be held responsible (individuals and the company as a whole), the place the actions take place aren't relevant as far as I know. Even companies selling their own product to embargoed countries without any US involvement face economic sanctions under US laws (though their executives presumably would not be arrested.)

If HP (A US company) sells to a middleman without knowing who the final customer is for embargoed goods then HP and its executives can be held legally responsible.

This is mostly based on mandatory training I had to go through while working for a US company. I am not a lawyer ;)

If embargoes were trivial to get around they'd be pointless. The intent of embargo laws are to as much as possible, within the full power of the US, prevent goods from getting to a certain country regardless of any other variable. Embargoes are pretty extreme actions, there are only a few targets for those in general and the embargo usually targets specific goods.

Could that product be Android or does Huawei use a non-Play store version that is exempted?

That's a very interesting question!

However, it may not be salient. It's allegedly HP computer equipment - https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-huawei-skycom/exclusive-h...

You could try to make a case about Android, but as you posit an open source internationally available source base would be hard to prosecute.

This is surely about hardware.

Android on production smartphones is hardly equivalent to the open source versions of Android available online...

True, but the majority of it is. The customization of Android was done in China anyways, so I'm not sure there is an argument of it being a US export.

License is different than copyright or ownership.

And neither have anything in particular to do with export laws, which are the subject at hand.

> Can somebody explain to me on what authority the US can arrest a Chinese national on Canadian soil

Canada arrested him, not the US.

If you mean, what is the authority for the US to ask Canada to do that, well, asking doesn't require any special authority; OTOH, the US does have an extradition treaty with Canada [0], and while trade sanctions violations don't appear to be an enumerated offense covered by the extradition treaty, sanctions violations tend to also involve false declarations and certain kinds of frauds, which are covered.

[0] https://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/en/traites/en_traites-ext-c...

Did you read the article? US is alleging Huawei was shipping "U.S.-origin" products to Iran - probably U.S. made components for Huawei devices/technology.

What "authority" do you need to ask for a favor from a friendly ally? Canada also has active economic sanctions against Iran.

Hi there, just want to remind you of the HN guidelines:

Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."

I'm sure you forgot. We all make mistakes.

I have mixed feelings about this rule because it genuinely feels like the majority of comments come from people who aren't reading most of the article.

For example, this article here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18476805

...is just dominated by people that didn't read to the end. The top complaint is treating the article as if it isn't facetious (it is.)

That does get very frustrating. I understand the premise of the rule, though.

The overlooked piece wasn't at the end. It was after the end, hidden behind a little quiz.

Sarcasm is annoying, and prone to misinterpretation. That's not the fault of the reader who took the author at face value.

Your response nitpicks the particular example but what about the general phenomenon? Are you saying there are next to no instances of it?

"The article mentions that ..." accomplishes the goal of calling out poor comments while taking the high road.

Sure, and I think that works here. But what do you say when the entire comment doesn't make any sense because it was formed from an incorrect view of what the article was really about, like in the example I linked? I guess "do nothing" is the option I choose, still frustrating.

Reply & Deny, or Downvote and move on.

I think the more important question is: if someone is talking out of their ass, is it worth continuing to talk to them? In RL, other factors may apply, but in a forum like this...?

Unless ofc you end up with an interesting response anyways ;) (note: did you read tfa does not constitute interesting unless your standards are disturbingly low). Imo the minimum is a good backhanded insult thrown in


I'm not sure if you're joking, but in case you're serious: I'm not :)

I'm merely reminding. People forget lists of rules written in pages they don't frequently visit. It's no big deal. Fun fact, though: the guidelines say nothing about telling people to read the guidelines themselves ;)

I can't tell you about the other set of guidelines that prohibit mention of themselves.... oops.

I wonder if the type of component used even matters.

What if the us origin component was a plastic bezel, a screw or some peice of sheet metal in the chassis...

In this case it was (allegedly) HP computer equipment.



Canada has a sizable stake in the oil economy too, thus they also profit from US shenanigans. It's just easier to sit on the sidelines and let the US throw resources at that dumpster fire and than going and doing it themselves.

Canada's oil interests are opposed to the US's. The whole Trans Mountain pipeline was intended to export Canadian tar-sands oil to the swelling Chinese economy before fossil fuel exports have to be stopped.

>bravely resisting

This comment is getting a lot of downvotes for a fairly straightforward question, so I just want to remind everyone about one of the HN guidelines:

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

The tone of the question reads angry and incredulous, not curious, hence the downvotes.

You will also note that the poster of the question never came back to acknowledge the work people put into replying and explaining the situation. I believe that eduction wasn't the intent here.

I see nothing in the word choice of the grandparent comment to imply anger.

Regarding "coming back", the poster may be in a different time zone or have an abnormal work / life schedule

Your response shows a good example of not interpreting the strongest, or possibly the only intent, of the message.

Your explanation is flawed because it’s derived from how you think of the speaker with no good faith.

Indeed I don't believe the speaker was asking in good faith. This is why I did not engage them directly, and only opined when the matter of downvotes came up - an explanation of the downvotes may prove helpful.

If you insist calling it an explanation, I’d call it smear.

The real answer is quite straight forward. In the end international and governmental actions come down to clout, which in turn comes down to power. The governments with the most power will always do whatever they want to do, and impose their desires on other governments.

The crackdown on online poker was a striking example of this. To give cliff notes the US, heavily influenced by casino lobbyists, decided to ban online poker. Online poker sites were operating in foreign countries obeying all laws domestically applied to them. In spite of the fact that sites were operating within all laws that domestically applied to them, the US decided to act because they refused to overtly ban US players. In an extremely rapid action the US simultaneously confiscated the domains of these sites, and executed arrest warrants on many of the involved individuals including surreptitious raids and extraditions from places including South/Central America, and froze numerous bank accounts around the world including in places such as Ireland.

The US is powerful enough that its own desire is sufficient authority to enact any action. Guantanamo Bay is a great example. This is not a just a US property under US law. It is operated as a US territory but mostly independent of US legal authority. The Geneva Convention is disregarded as convenient. For instance the three prisoners that were reported as having committed suicide (which would result in condemnation in Islamic belief) were allegedly tortured to death at a secret facility in Guantanamo, known as 'Camp No' (as in, no it does not exist), detached from the main camp. [1]

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_No

She allegedly broke US law and was in the territory of a country that shares an extradition treaty with the US.

How sure can I be if my company is not breaking any Chinese laws? Would it by fine if I get arrested for breaking those when I'm on a trip to Asia?

I'm not saying that Huawei is innocent, I just agree with the downvoted comment that the situation seems ridiculous.

You can't be sure, and that's a risk you'll always take when going to a country China can extradite you from. Singling China out is silly though, any country can do this, some just have more political clout to pull it off.

For instance, Thailand sought extradition of those insulting their king abroad.


This is mind-blowing and appalling. A 30-year prison sentence for posting on Facebook?

Every country has things the culture is sensitive of. That might be child pornography for the USA, or drugs for Malaysia, or comments about the king for Thailand.

They all have long prison sentences/death in their country, and light/no sentences in most of the rest of the world.

All countries have tried to go after people breaking their culturally sensitive thing abroad, with varying levels of success.

>Every country has things the culture is sensitive of. That might be child pornography for the USA, or drugs for Malaysia, or comments about the king for Thailand.

That doesn't make them morally equivalent. You can't defend 30 years in prison for being mean.

Morally equivalent? Who is the arbiter of moral valence?

This sense of moral superiority or having a better judgement than others, is exactly the property that blinds individuals and entire cultures to the absurdity of their own morals.

Claiming moral superiority is different from judging morality. As humans we judge morality through our reason. It is reasonable, irrespective of culture, to conclude that child pornography is worse than saying something mean about a king.

Have a peruse through Michel Foucault's "Discipline and Punish". It's impossible to take these moral absolutism claims seriously after spending any time studying the history of crime and morality.

Almost every culture at almost every point in history prevalently believes they have morals figured out and anything that came before them or from elsewhere is absurd.

I don't believe in strict moral relativism. Some things are self evident, e.g., child abuse is an objectively worse crime than is speaking out against one's government (the latter of which shouldn't be a crime at all.) If we can't agree on that then I don't think we'll ever agree on anything.

Insulting the royal family in the UAE or Saudi Arabia will also get you jailed.

In Thailand a lot of people jailed for Lèse-majesté get pardoned by the king. This king is new though so that might not continue.

Well a good comparison, is that the same amount of weed you have in Canada will get you arrested in non-weed US states.

It does sound ridiculous but if you do break Chinese laws and travel to a country that has an extraditions treaty with china, then yes, you can get arrested and sent to China for prosecution. That's why it is important to only do business in countries you understand the law in or have business policies which are favorable to your business.

That is the risk you take! It's not without precedent. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Elcom_Ltd. Russian citizen working for a Russian company, comes to the US to give a talk and is arrested for violating the DMCA.

You should ask your corporate counsel. Yes, it would be fine if you get arrested.

This is why a number of VW corporate officers cannot travel to countries with extradition treaties with the US, due to diesel cheating scandal.

When you do business in another country, you are subject to its laws. You can choose to not worry about other countries laws very easily: do not do any business there.

I have no idea about details of Huawei situation, but if your product ends up in given country do you do business there? How about providing a website and not filtering users by country?

In most countries laws are created faster than citizens can learn them even if they would put a lot of effort into that. In many cases those who vote them haven't even read them in detail. There is no single person on the planet who knows all laws in all countries. Should we abandon the idea of the Internet?

It would be purely hypothetical pondering if not for GDPR which bring a lot of mess to countries outside EU and cut off some EU users from the content which they could otherwise consume.

Unless regulators get their stuff together reasonably quick, we may likely end up in some more encrypted and decentralized version of the Internet which makes governments less relevant. I don't mind.

In this particular case, it was that Huawei was purchasing US-made products to which sanctions applied and exporting them to Iran.

I highly doubt that Huawei executives were unaware that this was against US policy and law; they just thought that the US would only punish the corporation and not the people involved, without realizing that the arm of US law extends to a whole web of countries that have extradition treaties with it.

See also the German VW executives who are very restricted in where they can travel to based on their crimes in the diesel emissions scandal.

Which is why a) China hasn't managed to get a whole lot of extradition treaties signed, and b) those treaties generally have exemptions for crimes that are considered "political".

The unusual thing is that the Canada-US extradition treaty allows extradition on such a "political" offense, but that's probably mostly down to the US and Canada having the same position on Iran.

One way to to be certain is to not travel or do business with any Chinese company. In this case, Huawei was selling us technology to Iran so it became a target.

Whenever you get in the cross-hairs of any country and you travel abroad, there is a non-zero risk of you being extradited.

If you were CFO you likely would be involved with a deal to a foreign government.

You do not have a right to not be arrested in China. Why would you think that? They can arrest you for any reason at any time if you are on their land.

You also don't have a right to not be arrested in America. Why would you think that? They can arrest you for any reason at any time if you are on their land.

If you're outside America, you don't have a right not to be blown to pieces by a killer robot (aka "drone"). Why would you think that? They can blow you to pieces for any reason at any time no matter where you are.

> You also don't have a right to not be arrested in America.

That's a given, mate. The commentor made the ridiculous claim that he had a right not to be arrested in China for breaking Chinese laws. No individual has that right.

The passage I responded to was

> How sure can I be if my company is not breaking any Chinese laws? Would it by fine if I get arrested for breaking those when I'm on a trip to Asia?

The answer is that you cannot be sure. The chinese government has every ability to arrest you for crimes committed elsewhere. They have every ability to change their laws at any time to enable their arrest. No one will even blink if they abandoned their legal system entirely to arrest just you for nothing at all in particular. There is no 'rule' saying they can only arrest you for things done on their soil; or that arrests of a non-citizen must be just; or really anything.

This is true of America as well. Why wouldn't it be? We're speaking on the level of sovereign nations.

> If you're outside America, you don't have a right not to be blown to pieces by a killer robot (aka "drone"). Why would you think that? They can blow you to pieces for any reason at any time no matter where you are.

This is another topic entirely and completely non-germaine to the thread.

A core philosophy of law is that ignorance of the law isn't a valid excuse for breaking it.

Also important to note that extradition generally requires that the request be for a crime similar or recognized in the requested country. The treaties usually state or outline the crimes or characteristics that qualify.

Countries with "incompatible" legal systems generally don't have extradition treaties, but if they do you typically have to be charged with something that's a serious crime in both countries.

Sanctions governing trade with Iran have been codified through multiple acts of Congress and are overseen under the Departments of Treasury, Commerce, and State, under Title 31 statute, with additional regulatory aspects within Titles 15 and 22. The statute (31 CFR 560.205) makes reexportation of US goods from a third party country by a non-US person explicitly illegal under US law.

To the second aspect of your question, Canada is under treaty obligation to cooperate with extradition requests issued by US courts for fugitive apprehension, and Canadian courts will rule on whether the extradition is consistent with Canadian law before transferring the suspect to US federal custody.

Welcome to the rule of law.

Selling US devices (HP computers) in contravention of US sanctions (ITAR, probably) for payment that probably touched US banks

Dollar-denominated transactions are enough, doesn't need to hit an explicitly US bank.

Really? There are extradition agreements between Canada and he US... let’s say you murder someone. You can’t just leave the country and expect the new host to not care!

What she is alleged to have done would be a crime in Canada too so her nationality isn’t relevant.

> You can’t just leave the country and expect the new host to not care!

That's not a fair comparison. If any law was broken, it was definitely not broken on US soil. It would be like US arresting people that it thinks committed murders in China.

> What she is alleged to have done would be a crime in Canada too so her nationality isn’t relevant.

I think it is. It's also relevant where the crime occured. e.g., lets say some small country decides that it's illegal to wear grey color pants. Then, can they morally arrest any person anywhere in the world that they think wore grey color pants at any point in the time at any place in the world?

Is she personally alleged to have done anything?

It seems the only allegations are against Huawei, of which sh is just one of many board members, and there's a good chance she wasn't even involved with the deal the allegation is concerning.

She's the Chief Financial Officer which means she is at the top. She is an extension of the company and responsible for the companies financial decisions - which would include concerns related to sanctions.

The RCMP and FBI regularly cooperate on arrests.

IE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Border_Declaration

There's all sorts of similar agreements/declarations/etc. We have a rather fluid border for the arrest and extradition of individuals.

What I would like to know is how deals like this go down? Like does the US have some sort of agreement/incentive with Canada for them to spend their own effort on this?

The US calling Canada on the phone and asking them to arrest someone they want seems too.. easy? I imagine there's a limit where goodwill only gets you so far, and then some sort of compensation is expected. Maybe there's a lot of backdoor Gov2Gov money funneling or economic deals, but idk. This seems like stuff that is opaque to average citizens.

If you search for "US canada extradiction treaty" you'll find there have been multiple treaties between both countries. It's fair well documented law.

It's a treaty, and there is a formal procedure for submitting extradition requests. For example, here is an article from the US DoJ article on requests for extradition from the US [https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-612-role...]:

> All extradition treaties currently in force require foreign requests for extradition to be submitted through diplomatic channels, usually from the country's embassy in Washington to the Department of State. Many treaties also require that requests for provisional arrest be submitted through diplomatic channels, although some permit provisional arrest requests to be sent directly to the Department of Justice. The Department of State reviews foreign extradition demands to identify any potential foreign policy problems and to ensure that there is a treaty in force between the United States and the country making the request, that the crime or crimes are extraditable offenses, and that the supporting documents are properly certified in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3190. If the request is in proper order, an attorney in the State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser prepares a certificate attesting to the existence of the treaty, etc., and forwards it with the original request to the Office of International Affairs.

For the Canadian version, see https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/emla-eej/tocan-aucan.htm...:


There are three key stages to the Canadian extradition process:

The Minister of Justice must determine whether to authorize the commencement of extradition proceedings in the Canadian courts by issuing an “Authority to Proceed” ; Where an Authority to Proceed has been issued, the Canadian courts must determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the person’s committal for extradition; and Where the person is committed for extradition, the Minister of Justice must personally decide whether to order the person’s surrender to the foreign state. A person sought for extradition may appeal their committal and seek judicial review of the Minister’s surrender order.

In all cases, the conduct for which extradition is sought must be considered criminal in both the requesting country and in Canada. This is known as “dual criminality”.

Central Authorities from outside Canada are encouraged to contact the IAG to determine what is required to make an extradition request to Canada, including the evidentiary requirements, and whether provisional arrest is appropriate in a given situation.


They don't have any. They asked Canada to arrest her and they agreed to do it.

Just watch them come up with something.

Not sure what you mean. They have come up with something - violating sanctions against Iran.

Which to me doesn't sound that different from the above comment talking about Thailand wanting to extradite westerns for offending their king, breaking their law. The something doesn't matter, it's not why she is in trouble.

As a point of clarification, the Guardian article referenced above reports a request from Thailand to extradite Thai nationals living overseas. Thailand's lèse-majesté law was broken by Thais, as opposed to this case where a foreign national broke a US law and was present in an extradition-friendly country (to note, the sanctions are also law in Canada).

So what you are saying is not even Thailand is that much up their asses to behave like the US does in international relationships, this idea of having jurisdiction over anyone all the time is unique to the US.

the authority of the biggest military of all countries

It doesnt, that why they asked their friend to do it.

Some times the US later finds out that the arresting country’s courts found no authority or legality for their own country to arrest the person and wont continue with extradition. This happened in New Zealand.

So typically a bit more research is needed and they find a way to get it right in future cases.

Another thing the US does is send an FBI agent to merely observe the arrest, to ensure that it is later compatible with US courts as well. Its a lot of organizations to make happy but the US is essentially one of the only organizations with the resources and interest to bother.

It is an interesting outcome of the nation state concept.

They can ask Canada to do so, usually through legal cooperation/assistance agreements. But it remains Canada's decision to help or not.

in which you discover that international law, in the end, has no natural source of authority in the same way domestic law does.

Everything that you need to know to evaluate international relations can be learned in a school yard.

Canada: 5'4 @110 lb kid in glasses with a pocket protector. Very smart. Has adoring crowd that claps.

US: the 6'1 220lb line backer built in the same school yard

Arrested Chinese exec: 4'10, 78lb daughter of a family from a different school somewhere over there. That school has lots of those like the US, US sometimes exchanges words with that school but they are somewhere over there.

Girls shows up in a schoolyard with Canada and the US. US tells Canada: "Give her to me. I have some business with her".

I assume it's basically the same authority that China would use if they wanted to arrest somebody who happened to be in Laos -- "what's Laos/Canada going to do, say no?"

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact