The podcast goes on to say that the UK is in a tough position because to break ties with any part of Huawei could have a chain reaction of cancellations/retaliations that could be extremely costly to UK in a time of uncertainty with Brexit and now covid-19.
"Damned if they do, damned if they don't" was the general sentiment.
It's looking certain that they are going to crash out of the EU single market without an agreement and without replacement trade agreements in place with other countries.
Now recently China punished Australia by cutting trade as a result of Australia pushing for the COVID-19 investigation. Which given how sensitive they about Huawei and their need to teach the world a lesson gives an indication of how severe their response is likely to be.
UK can hardly afford to impact trading relationships with their number 2, 3, 4 and 5 partners all at the same time as they are dealing with a pretty incompetent COVID-19 response.
In those cases, incentives are too far out of alignment for a deal that is good for both sides to be had.
According to wiki, the actual charge is:
proxies conspired "to misappropriate intellectual property", and Meng lied to HSBC bank.
Canada's legal agreement with US is that they work in accordance with US, for criminals that violated the laws at Canada. But there needs to be laws in Canada that are equivalent to US ones.
For example, if I committed murder in US, and fled to Canada, they legally are obliged to capture and send me back to US. But if I sell limited item to Iran, and fled to Canada, then Canada are obliged to send me back, because Canada does not have a sanction on Iran.
And this is why this action outraged a lot of Chinese, and worried a lot business people.
Not sure what there is to be worried or outraged about here.
But I doubt either side is surprised by these type of behaviors. These are all just minor details. The strategic shift in the sino-US relationship from collaborating to confrontation is pretty much set in course.
Now it's more of the question how to avoid the disaster of the previous cold war. Given that USSR collapsed, either one will be desperate to avoid becoming the new USSR in the confrontation; and they might be doing something stupid in the last resort...
That's a CPC threat point. They frequently put things like: "if you do this, the Chinese people will be very upset," they always use strong emotional language like "outraged" or "angry" - it's non-subtle code for: we'll force the Chinese people to harm your commercial interests. Almost any time you see something about how the Chinese people are or will be outraged, that is what is really going on. The party constantly uses that tool against any foreign entity that steps out of line. It's how they have threatened & browbeat everyone from South Korea & Japan to Britain and various large corporations. It's meant to inflate the size of the opponent on the other side, because upsetting 1.4 billion people seems a lot more intimidating than upsetting a small collection of authoritarian bureaucrats in Beijing.
If an airline refers to Taiwan, the CPC will say that the airline has upset or outraged the Chinese people, and then follow with subtle descriptions of the consequences. The Chinese people are typically overwhelmingly unaware of what is going on. What they mean is, the CPC is upset and will force the Chinese people to do something bad to hurt your interests if you don't get back into line with what the CPC agenda is.
Many years of conventional education, propaganda, modern technologies make it not a force. It's quite easy to trigger those behaviors nowadays.
I know many great chinese engineers and all of them in the tech industry are enraged with how huawei treats IP. They made it very clear to me that they think the U.S is being to lenient with them, and as a proxy of the chinese government, it is time to take them down.
Each Contracting Party agrees to extradite to the other, in the circumstances and subject to the conditions described in this Treaty, persons found in its territory who have been charged with, or convicted of, any of the offenses covered by Article 2 of this Treaty committed within the territory of the other, or outside thereof under the conditions specified in Article 3(3) of this Treaty.
Article 3(3) states
When the offense for which extradition has been requested has been committed outside the territory of the requesting State, the executive or other appropriate authority of the requested State shall have the power to grant the extradition if the laws of the requested State provide for jurisdiction over such an offense committed in similar circumstances.
On what charges was the Canadian warrant issued to arrest Meng?
They also will also consider every decision in the face of Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provides for a fundamental right to justice and security. If the extradition, or actions post-extradition, would likely violate the person’s rights then they will not be extradited. (So, e.g., will not extradite someone to face the death penalty.)
There’s a general overview of the process, checkpoints, appeals, etc here: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/emla-eej/extradition.htm...
Meng is being charged with fraud for lying to HSBC. It was a point of contention since the representations she made would not have been criminal in Canada (no sanctions). However the actual act of making fraudulent misrepresentations is the crime, and it's criminal in Canada as well. There's some information and a link to the actual court ruling here: https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/with-the-meng-wanzhou-de...
Your question phrased another way:
> "Does it imply that anyone wanted by the government can be detained by the police and the government needs to establish the legality of it only after the fact?"
Yes, very much so.
I suspect if the US were randomly and wantonly requesting illegal extraditions to harass people located in Canada that Canada would simply stop making provisional arrests pending formal requests for extradition and require the paperwork up front.
Meng wasn't arrested for selling goods to Iran. The truth is Huawei is free to sell to Iran. But action have consequences... and if Huawei wants to sell to Iran, the US isn't going to help them do it. They can't use our banks, buy our equipment, or sell their goods here. They can make a choice: do business with Iran or do business with the US. That's their free choice to make.
Huawei is upset because they want to sell to Iran, but still do business here. They don't like the consequences of their actions. They want to force the US to engage in commerce that we've decided we don't want to engage in.
There's also the matter that it was American equipment being sold and Huawei would have also needed to lie to the US government when the equipment was exported.
This is more difficult to get a foreign government to extradite for since there is a doctrine (at least in Canada, but I believe also in other western countries) that it would have needed to be a crime in Canada for the offence to be extraditable (Canada did not have Iran sanctions at the time).
Thus, the extradition case so far has focused on the fraud of misrepresenting oneself to the bank. Certainly a crime in Canada.
The fact that it was about selling US equipment seems to be completely orthogonal to the crime (which is fraud), as it is not illegal for a non-US citizen outside the US to sell American goods bought to another non-US actor.
The fact that Huawei would have to lie to the US government also seems orthogonal as Huawei did not lie to the US government, and if it did then Huawei would be liable.
This simply seems to me like the US trying to impose it's power over foreign transactions.
If having ones head office overseas would provide immunity from US laws it wouldn't be a very effective system would it? :-)
>Huawei did not lie to the US government
That remains to be seen (as I understand it - maybe you have evidence to the contrary?), but I can't imagine how they would export so much equipment without doing so.
>This simply seems to me like the US trying to impose it's power over foreign transactions.
I agree to an extent. But since everyone (especially banks) need to do business in the United States it's unavoidable.
It's pretty much indefensible to me that someone that has nothing to do with the US operating outside the US would be tried in the US for a crime they allegedly commited elsewhere.
Then there's the question of Banco do Brasil, Bank of America, Bank of Guam, Bank of Moscow, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Clearstream Banking, Commerzbank, Compass, Crédit Agricole, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, ING, Intesa Sanpaolo, JP Morgan Chase, National Bank of Abu Dhabi, National Bank of Pakistan, PayPal, RBS (ABN Amro), Société Générale, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Trans-Pacific National Bank, Standard Chartered, and Wells Fargo all transacting with Iran (https://archive.is/kyKGf) and not having their CFOs arrested.
I've no love for HSBC (at all) but in this instance it appears they are the victim of fraudulent representations made by Huawei.
Your "solution" proposes prosecuting not only an innocent party, but one of the victims? That's an ... ummm ... interesting take.
Yes, there is absolutely no way of enforcing sanctions without prosecuting innocent parties. The only way that the US can get foreign banks not to deal with Iran is by punishing them, even if they were the victims of fraud, the bank would then have to decide if they want to continue operating in the US and try to recoup their losses by going after the fraudster, not operate in the jurisdiction of the fraudster if that is impossible, or not deal with Iran at all (in which case a competitor will). Otherwise, they can also stop dealing with the US.
So you're proposing that the government shouldn't prosecute fraud criminally, and it should be up to the banks go after the perpetrators in civil court instead?
You can be suef in civil and criminal court at the same time.
They're not being sued, but they are being charged with:
> Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Bank Fraud, and Theft of Trade Secrets Among Nearly Two Dozen Charges
Here's a different but similar example:
This was someone allegedly defrauding an entity that is not American, let alone the US Government, outside of US jurisdiction, being deported to a jurisdiction in which they committed no crime. It is entirely ridiculous to equivocate the two cases.
What she did do was come to Canada after committing what is certainly a crime in both Canada and the US. If you commit a crime elsewhere and then come to Canada, you can, and should be held accountable. Many, many criminals have been prosecuted here, or extradited from here, for crimes that weren't committed here.
We're not just talking about bank fraud (that just happened to be the easiest thing to pin on her for the purpose of extradition). Huawei has long been known in intelligence circles for stealing Canadian IP as well. At the very, very least, she is complicit in such crimes. I'm glad the US is doing something about it, since we (Canada) don't have the international clout needed to stand up to Chinese bullying.
Yes, she committed a crime against the US outside its' jurisdiction. She then made the mistake of coming to Canada, after having committed what would be considered a crime in Canada. Make no mistake. Aside from the sanctions violations, most of the allegations Huawei is facing also apply to Canada. She shouldn't have come here. Now she needs to face the music.
Just because what she did is against US interests doesn't mean that the US has the right to judge her according to their own laws. That is entirely ridiculous.
As a Canadian citizen, I would feel that it would be 100% justified for her to be extradited to the jurisdiction in which she committed the alleged crime. But we aren't talking about this.
Sigh. You didn't read the link I provided you over three hours ago, did you?
C'mon, be honest :)
> The Eastern District of New York charged Huawei, two of its affiliates, and Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzou with 13 counts surrounding the company’s misrepresentations to the U.S. government and four financial institutions regarding its business in Iran. The indictment charges that the company used financial institutions operating in the United States to process transactions involving millions of dollars in furtherance of Huawei’s Iran-based business.
Emphasis is mine. Quote is from the link I previously provided you -
That page has other interesting links at the bottom you should also read. Here's a quote from one (again, all emphasis is mine).
> According to the indictment, Huawei relied on its global banking relationships for banking services that included processing U.S.-dollar transactions through the United States. U.S. laws and regulations generally prohibited these banks from processing transactions related to Iran through the United States. The banks could have faced civil or criminal penalties for processing transactions that violated U.S. laws or regulations. Relying on the repeated misrepresentations by Huawei, these banks continued their banking relationships with Huawei. One bank cleared more than $100 million worth of Skycom-related transactions through the United States between 2010 and 2014.
Here's the best part:
> In furtherance of this scheme to defraud, and as alleged in the indictment, Huawei and its principals repeatedly lied to U.S. government authorities about Huawei’s business in Iran in submissions to the U.S. government, and in responses to government inquiries. For example, Huawei provided false information to the U.S. Congress regarding whether Huawei’s business in Iran violated any U.S. law. Similarly, as indicated in the indictment, in 2007 — months before Huawei orchestrated the purported sale of Skycom to another Huawei-controlled entity — Huawei’s founder falsely stated to FBI agents that Huawei did not have any direct dealings with Iranian companies and that Huawei operated in compliance with all U.S. export laws.
And this is a series of crimes actually committed on U.S. soil:
> In 2017, when Huawei became aware of the government’s investigation, Huawei and its subsidiary Huawei USA allegedly tried to obstruct the investigation by making efforts to move witnesses with knowledge about Huawei’s Iran-based business to the PRC, and beyond the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, and by concealing and destroying evidence of Huawei’s Iran-based business that was located in the United States.
The above three blockquotes are from: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/chinese-telecommunications-co...
That just covers the Iran related part. Do you want me to go through the stolen trade secrets part? Okay sure, here goes. Once again, emphasis is mine:
> According to the indictment, in 2012 Huawei began a concerted effort to steal information on a T-Mobile phone-testing robot dubbed “Tappy.” In an effort to build their own robot to test phones before they were shipped to T-Mobile and other wireless carriers, Huawei engineers violated confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements with T-Mobile by secretly taking photos of “Tappy,” taking measurements of parts of the robot, and in one instance, stealing a piece of the robot so that the Huawei engineers in China could try to replicate it. After T-Mobile discovered and interrupted these criminal activities, and then threatened to sue, Huawei produced a report falsely claiming that the theft was the work of rogue actors within the company and not a concerted effort by Huawei corporate entities in the United States and China. As emails obtained in the course of the investigation reveal, the conspiracy to steal secrets from T-Mobile was a company-wide effort involving many engineers and employees within the two charged companies.
> As part of its investigation, FBI obtained emails revealing that in July 2013, Huawei offered bonuses to employees based on the value of information they stole from other companies around the world, and provided to Huawei via an encrypted email address.
So, tell me again how Meng, as CFO of this wonderful company, didn't do anything against a US entity?
The U.S. is the hegemon. It's going to use its weight to push people around, especially if it has a chance to push China around. It did.
When the 2008 financial crisis happened, some Swiss banks were in crisis and the FBI managed to finally break through Swiss bank secrecy in exchange for bailout funds (for U.S. operations). Suddenly tons of Americans hiding money in Switzerland had to make "voluntary disclosures" and pay tax. That's what being a hegemon allows you to do.
HSBC operates in many countries and is notably the market leader in Hong Kong and China to facilitate transfer of grey money to the West. It has little regards to US laws.
Local companies only submit to their local jurisdictions (consider an international company as a lose agglomerate of local branches scattered across the world). The US can try to show off but it has little influence over what happens in the rest of the world.
If any government wanted to shut down its local HSBC, they'd have done it long ago (and the officials would lose their primary ways to clear money).
Rightly or wrongly, HSBC is bound to certain US laws if it wants to maintain its US presence (including its listing on the NYSE). HSBC has made a choice to abide by that, and so they are co-operating in this matter.
Sure, HSBC could choose not to abide/co-operate and face the consequences. But that's not what's happening.
So, again, I'm not sure what point you're making.
While 10% doesn't seem like much, that's direct revenue only. I'm willing to bet that withdrawal from the US market would have a negative effect on their revenue equal to many multiples that amount. After all, who would do business with a commercial bank that can't access the worlds wealthiest market?
And what would not being able to sell your stock in the worlds wealthiest market have on its' price? I'm not an economist (IANAE?) but I wouldn't be surprised if total withdrawal from the US resulted in a 30-60% collapse in their stock price. Yes, that's a totally made up number :) but I think you get my point:
Legal entities aside, HSBC Holdings is duty-bound to comply with US regulations as much as possible in order to satisfy it's investors.
How about every regional and national banks? You realize thousands of banks provide their local markets and have little dealings with the US? The fact that HSBC only does 10% revenues in the US shows how negligible that market is to them.
US stock is mostly an investment hold by US pension funds. If the company is ruined or kicked out of the stock exchange, it's by far and large the US population who will take the hit. I doubt the US government would attempt that because it's a self defeating move and they've repeatedly shown they want to bail pensions not destroy them.
When I wrote "who would do business with a commercial bank that can't access the worlds wealthiest market?" it was obviously done to illustrate what a massive effect withdrawal from the US market would be. Of course there are alternatives. Of course there are many entities that don't need access to the US market. Don't be ridiculous. You know what I meant.
How about I rephrase it as "which of HSBC largest, most profitable customers would stick with it, without access to the US market". Happy now?
>The fact that HSBC only does 10% revenues in the US shows how negligible that market is to them.
I strongly disagree, based on the reasons I already mentioned, and for the additional reason is that it presents a massive untapped market opportunity.
Oh and, HSBC's actual slogan is "The World's Local Bank". Being "global" is literally part of their value proposition.
But again, I'll humor you. Let's says their stock would "only" take a 10-20% hit. The point I'm making still stands:
>US stock is mostly an investment hold by US pension funds. If the company is ruined or kicked out of the stock exchange, it's by far and large the US population who will take the hit. I doubt the US government would attempt that because it's a self defeating move and they've repeatedly shown they want to bail pensions not destroy them.
That seems to support my point. What point (in the context of the thread you joined), are you making exactly?
You seem to be suggesting that the legality of actions (as perceived by the U.S.) of HSBC elsewhere in the world have little to no effect on HSBC USA. The facts suggest otherwise:
That time too there was much concern over the territorial overreach of the US judicial system, esp in Europe.
The U.S. dollars HSBC transferred liaised HSBC’s American offices. The fraud was conducted against an American entity with respect to U.S. dollars. Bank fraud is also a crime in Canada, allowing for extradition.
I know that the US is one of the outliers of the world in that it considers that the entirety of the globe is within their criminal jurisdiction. That is an insane idea in 2020.
Why is it an insane idea in 2020 for a country to criminally charge those who violate it's laws?
Banks do no criminally charge people, but they can go after the civil damages to recuperate their incurred costs due to the fraud and have huge power to motivate prosecutors to press charges. In some foreign countries, bank can actually go after people criminally. If the foreign country in which the bank operates will not punish the fraudster then they can pull out of that country.
If a man in India scams a Russian or German, that should be outside the realm of Russian or German law? And then if that man travels to Russia or Germany, Russia or Germany should not be allowed to arrest him, because he was in India when the crime was committed?
It takes mental gymnastics to take a series of material lies made to a bank to obtain U.S. dollar financing for the violation of U.S. sanctions in respect of American products, and brand it as extraterritoriality. The U.S. absolutely has extraterritoriality problems. This isn't one of those.
And Meng isn’t Indian. It’s an analogy.
Correct, which is why the jurisdiction and extradition make sense.
Glad we agree.
Huawei wanted to play both sides, and by doing so, opened themselves up to these charges. They were under no obligation to use the US financial infrastructure, and only through its use did they become covered by its laws.
This is about an individual being charged and extradited to the US that is not a US citizen for a crime that happened between non-US actors outside of the US.
I have no issue with the CFO of the company being held criminally accountable for fraud if it is the case. However, this is not the purview of the US. It was fraud against a non-US entity outside of US jurisdiction by a non-US citizen. It should thus not be tried under US law. If the US is unhappy that they cannot apply their law abroad they are free to pull out of global trade.
If it is obvious that the Cayman Islands turn a blind eye to fraud and do not prosecute fraudsters, the banks are free to stop doing business in the Cayman Islands in order to avoid having to pay for damages out of their own pockets. Otherwise, the federal government can also impose restrictions on the Cayman Island's access to the US banking system.
This is a very simple truth - the US Financial system is built to enforce economic violence against various innocent entities. I have absolutely no sympathy towards maintaining it and maintaining its power over the world without the US having to be accountable to the consequences of too strict restrictions, as happens under the system as it is currently, that gives the US Government fantastic and unjustified privilege and power.
The US government disagrees. And they control the banking sector because most FX transactions actually go Currency A->Dollars->Currency B. So their opinion is what matters. If you get caught selling to a sanctioned entity you'll be put on a blacklist and nearly every bank around the world will refuse to work with you. It's a financial death penalty.
This is why US sanctions are so nefarious.
You have that freedom: if a company does something you don't like, you go to their competitor. You would (rightly) be outraged if the cops showed up and forced you to spend money at a company you hated.
Just as China doesn't allow Western products in their markets without a substantial consideration to China, usually in the form of joint partnerships with domestic companies vs direct sales. That's their right, the western companies wishing to engage in the market often times will find out their cost / benefit and act accordingly. All of the companies are held and managed under Chinese law and as such many have had things stripped from them.
> That's their free choice to make.
I don't disagree with the US action here, and Huawei is as bad as it gets, but calling it a "free choice" is absurd. It's like saying, it's your free choice to not use google or facebook to advertise your consumer-facing product.
It's not about it being a devil's bargain of a free choice -- there is no choice here. It's about flaunting the rules because you don't have any ethical standards, or believe yourself to be above them. And the US doesn't really care much about this specific flaunting. Bank fraud was so much the norm that it led to the 2008 housing crash. Our current president almost certainly has a lot to worry about if bank fraud means you can be detained on 3rd party foreign soil.
Huawai isn't an independent actor, held accountable to international corporate standards; it is a part of the Chinese state. Meng's arrest was not a mere crime of bank fraud, but a high profile political action. That China took "reciprocal" action is enough evidence of that, regardless of any personal opinion on the matter.
But really though I doubt it is hardly enforceable, if you look to buy lot of high tech equipment is available to buy, without much of paperwork. This case seems to be about HP computers. I doubt it is normally feasibile for any one to keep track of sales and reselling world over.
This is a good summary:
> Goodbye Huawei, hello Ericsson: Swap-out gathers pace
Yes, and it looks like they're rolling it back (interesting): https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/22/boris-joh.... I missed that story. I guess there's kinda been other things going on.
Broadly, Meng was extradited/arrested because US DoJ decided to start taking Chinese hostages after their Huawei campaign failed (new DoJ initiative month before her arrest specifically targets Chinese nationals for extradition for economic crimes). In terms of norms, individuals especially foreign billionaires don't get arrested for sanction busting, their companies get fined or some lackeys fall at the sword. Everyone moves on. Her arrest was an escalation of Sino-US techwar. Bonus for extraditing via Canada to further cripple Sino-Canadian relations and increase Canadian dependency on US; Canada scheduled talks with China a week after her arrest expectantly blew up. Of course her arrest is "legal" in the sense that "enhanced interrogation" is legal. The main take away is that her move was norm breaking in terms of contemporary international relations. US makes Canada take political hostage - China retaliates by arresting Canadian (alleged) spies and drug dealers to dissuade further hostage taking by US extradition partners, slaps Canada around for being a lackey. Canada gets caught between rock and hard place, plays the rule of law card.
On UK and Canadian Telcos, a year later, until COVID19, only 3.5/195 (US, AU, JP, UK) countries have officially firm banned Huawei. Basically increased US pressure and new entities list had no effect. Still couldn't even get majority of FVEY on board or countries with significant US military basing. So US revised entity list to completely cut Huawei out of critical US semi components, signaled commitment to do whatever it takes to undermine Huawei. This is sufficiently crippling to Huawei that FVEY vendors can now rule out Huawei due to prospective supply issue - effectively soft banning Huawei. Only AU firm banned Huawei before US pressure and entity list. UK / CAN / NZ still has NO official position on banning Huawei. I think FVEY parties are looking to see if this is an agreeable solution that will appease US security interests or if US insists on hard ban for optics. China doesn't want the latter, they're fine with Huawei being lowkey ruled out. China can still hack FVEY with relative impunity regardless of vendor, and Huawei will get patent fees regardless. Would have been cheaper and less of a shit show if US just bought Sony Ericcson, which William Barr mulled over.
That isn't why. Canada detained her on US orders because we are engaged in a trade war with china. No trade war, no arrest.
Huawei's dealings with iran are so insignificant ( in the millions ) that nobody would waste their time on this arrest were it not for the trade war. The europeans have far greater "violations" in their dealings with iran as do japan and south korea.
They all pay a fine or offer geopolitical favors. Nobody got arrested... until now.
Hell even a canadian company broke sanctions. Nobody arrested, just a small fine.
She is getting "special" treatment because of the trade war.
Daily white collar crime? Panama papers? i sleep
Manufacturing consent for endless war with Eastasia? REAL SHIT
"China’s foreign ministry said the United States was politicizing economic and trade issues, which is not in the interest of Chinese or American firms."
Hard to disagree.
Also prosecutors seems to not have much success in the courts at getting criminal charges to stick. Hence why they favour settlements or civil charges.
Pretty much the only way they were ever going to be punished is if they did something like this.
Could you point me to an official statement to that effect? Patent infringement lawsuits in China definitely paint a different picture: foreign companies are more likely to win and awarded higher damages than Chinese companies: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/02/things-infringement-lit...
So cherry-picked cases that range from 15-78% of the data set.
1.6k patent cases over multiple years seems -extremely- low to me. The USA has roughly 3-4x that per year. https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Revised-...
That's a fair point, although what kind of case would be a "cherry" is not clear to me. Both a foreign company winning (implying that patent infringement happened) and losing (possibly feeding suspicion that the judicial system is biased against foreigners) could end up making China look bad.
> 1.6k patent cases over multiple years seems -extremely- low to me.
My mistake. When I checked the blog post by the author of the paper for a date range, I thought it was since 2014 (and until publication in 2018), but actually those cases were all in 2014. (See page 10 of the paper.)
You could say this of the US too; SV is almost blatant about this.
Just like with breaking any laws, including those you deem to be "unjust", don't be surprised when you get hit with very expected legal consequences for doing so.
I think most of the countries on the planet should start to ignore these US sanctions when they are based on nonsense, especially when the underlying reasons are "regime change" related. Start routing around the SWIFT system as well.
One, medical masks don't seem to fall under the sanctions (according to the quick wikipedia article skimming I just did ), especially since they were donated, so it seems perfectly fine and legal.
Two, according to the same article, EU also has sanctions against Iran (with some differences from sanctions imposed by the US), so it is unfair to say that the US is the sole country posing those sanctions.
Not sure exactly which (though I guess there are). Nonetheless, after the JCPOA was signed, EU companies had restarted doing business worth billions with Iran. So the current complete freeze of EU commercial exchanges whit Iran in entirely due to the threat of sanctions from the US (that is, sanctions against EU companies, not against Iran).
There is also another list of resolutions imposed by UN on Iran, with some of them being sanctions as well . UN Security Council resolution #1929 specifically seems to be very relevant:
>[...] prohibit the opening of Iranian banks on their territory and prevent Iranian banks from entering into relationship with their banks if it might contribute to the nuclear program, and prevent financial institutions operating in their territory from opening offices and accounts in Iran. The resolution passed by a vote of 12–2, with Turkey and Brazil voting against and Lebanon abstaining. A number of countries imposed measures to implement and extend these sanctions, including the United States, the European Union, Australia, Canada, Japan, Norway, South Korea, and Russia.
How would you Americans feel about that?
The CFO of the company is responsible for the company's financial behavior, being the daughter of the founder does not exempt her.
There's a reason some US analysts compared her arrest and escalation reminiscent of coldwar kidnapping. It's easy to engineer legal rationales to justify any action, that's why IR operates more on norms than rule of law. Pair this with China being the first "great power competitor that is not Caucasian" and it's not hard to see why other banks just get fines. Hint: same reason some group get fines for drug violations while other goto jail.
> How would you Americans feel about that?
I can't speak for America in general, but given how this question is posed, I'll respond. I don't know Tim Cook nor his daughter so I wouldn't really take it personally. I guess I'd wonder whether any local laws supposedly were broken as Canada claims is the case with Meng Wanzhou. In that case, I guess I'd wait for the case to go through the motions. I would personally find it extremely odd if Tim Cook's daughter would warrant any sort of official intervention by the US government beyond what I (a nobody) would personally receive.
How they are treated and how Meng is treated is all we really need to know about PRC
It'd be more like imperial Russia owning profits to French mines it colonized. The French revolution happens and elects a national leader who keeps the country's natural resources for its own citizen. China comes in and overthrows the French government, then installs a Chinese puppet. China helps the puppet government build 23 nuclear reactors to solidify its rule but the puppet gets overthrown anyway because the secret police tortured and executed too many people. China then gets its other puppet Germany to attack the new French republic. Attack fails and German puppet gets bombed after going rogue for starting to sell oil in Rubles but I digress...
China then tries to economically choke the new French republic under the pretext that France has 'nuclear ambitions'. Tim Cook from America fails to follow China's sanctions then gets his daughter arrested in Thailand for having business transactions with France (despite most China friendly banks not having personal consequences for transacting with France https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-war-on-hu...).
This extradition better be worth it. If the US frees her as some political pawn I’m going to lose my shit.
The Chinese are just confining and mistreating the Canadians with no transparency or legitimate due process.
Oh, wait. There's money involved. Never mind.
The US may (and probably will) return her to China as part of some sort of diplomatic action. Why would you be angry at US? It's China that is engaging in terrible behaviour.
Also, I can tell you right now that this extradition isn't worth it to Canada, but so what? Canada is following its laws and international agreements - would you have it any other way?
Furthermore, I'd argue that it's in the United States best interest to do so (since it will affect the willingness of other close allies to co-operate on similar matters in the future).
Then again, the current administration doesn't seem to have much love for its traditional allies, but lots of love for the almighty dollar so who knows what will happen.
Both men are being held in solitary without access to lawyers. Nor have they faced any actual charges in court. It's been about 15 months.
They are political prisoners.
China claimed they were spies, 'coincidentally' after Canada detained the Huwaei executive. I'd like to see some evidence of that.
Because 'The West' is making the argument this is a matter of legality and due process - that people have commit crimes and must face consequences irrespective of the political situation.
We perceive China as having a politicised Judicial system where people are arrested charged and punished often based upon their feudal status, not objective facts.
China probably has a more cynical view of the West, which is fair, because no justice system is perfect.
If the US released her on the basis of some kind of 'Trade Deal' then it completely wipes out the credibility of the justice system in the US (and therefore Canada) and demonstrates that she was held on what were political charges not real crimes.
Without saying anything about politics, I basically hate Trump, but ironically the only thing he's doing close to 'right' are his actions on China trade. That said, I don't think he cares a single bit about the credibility of Western institutions, and if he can, he will use her as a negotiating pawn in a heartbeat. I think Trump is so arrogant and lacking in self-awareness, that he doesn't really even understand the concept of 'objective justice'. I think he really sees the world in terms of 'making deals' and apart from that 'who cares / what's the point'. The obvious opportunity to user her as pawn makes perfect sense in his mind, I think.
I means the next time Canada has to arrest someone on behalf of the United States, and has to tell China that 'we have a legal process' - it will have zero meaning or value. It will 100% justify China's actions in grabbing diplomats or whoever off the street as a tit-for-tat.
Seems like it's just a chance to re-broadcast a headline for another news cycle.