US SANCTIONS P2 of:

 

US SANCTIONS   P2 of:

SHUT UP MAN & DISMANTLE OF US IMPERIAL TERROR

Cállate estúpido  vs .Terrorism Imperial

Hugo Adan

10/2/2020

 

Let’s  start with definition

What are US sanctions?

A simple definition suggests  that sanctions are a violent response to issues at dispute between two countries, issues that could’ve been resolved  via honest  communications and fair negotiation.  So, there are two categories that can help as framework for negotiation: honest communication & fair deal.  If sanctions precedes dialog to solve the problem, then  they are not sanctions, hey are acts of aggression and acts of war if military threat are involve. That has to be rejected  & solve by other means.

Dos Sanctions always imply the use of "forceful measures" that states use in their international relations?. Not always, but Now YES , it does include threats of force like the provision of weapons to Taiwan, against China. Does it include internal mobilization of troops ? Not always but now YES, It does so, case of 48 thousand  soldiers sent from US-NATO  to the border of China & RU.

The game sanction,  always, involves an aggressor and a sanctioner, even though the players may change sides when different issues  arise or when peace-deal comes up.

In the history of US – China relations (Jan 2018 on: Trump’ regime):  United States wanted two major things from China: the cessation of Chinese pirating of American intellectual properties (movies, books, recordings, television shows), and an improvement in the human rights of the Chinese people.

These were not reciprocal desires (first condition for honest dialogue):the Chinese were not arguing that their intellectual property is being pirated by Americans, as it happens with Covid-19 vaccine-issue, and China is not arguing that the American people should enjoy a higher standard of human rights, specially blacks. Thus the situation was not easily resolvable by treaty. 

Forceful (military) sanctions should ‘ve  not used by US.  But the United States used to impose a raise of tariff barriers against the importation of Chinese goods. So  sanctions were misused and abused by the US.

 [ Fair Negotiation on this issue never comes up, a key requisite for fair deal was missed]

 

SUMMING UP: Threats has nothing to do with fair deal, when the issue sanction came up. . [ and this is what the empire does  not only with China, worse with small countries]

The game sanctions always, involves an aggressor and a sanctioner, even though the players may change sides when different issues come up, or peace deals re-start.

Whatever their real intentions it was clear what the US  was looking for: destruction of China economy . If sanctions come inside a context of xenophobia & war intentions, then there is no chance for fair deal. So sanctions became unpleasant and has to be rejected. .

Then it make sense the concept sanctions gave by  A D'Amato - ‎2010  “A sanction can be any kind of unpleasantness (physical or mental) imposed upon another person or another state. If you are perceived as the initiator or "aggressor" in imposing the unpleasantness, then it is not a "sanction."  It is an act of aggression and war”. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1094&context=facultyworkingpapers

….

WHAT ARE THE LEGAL  BASIS FOR SANCTIONS?

None at all:

According to the Charter of the United Nations, only the UN Security Council has a mandate by the international community to apply sanctions (Article 41) that must be complied with by all UN member states (Article 2,2). They serve as the international community's most powerful peaceful means to prevent threats to international peace and security or to settle them. Sanctions do not include the use of military force. However, if sanctions do not lead to the diplomatic settlement of a conflict, the use of force can only be authorized by the Security Council separately under Article 42.^{[citation needed]}

SO,  sanctions has not legal basis at all.

….

HOW SANCTION  START

With IEEPA: The hammer that see every problem like a nail, in the hands of US Presid

 

 Trump’s order to reimpose sanctions rests on authority granted under a little-known and even less understood statute that gives the president sweeping authority to regulate certain aspects of  international trade and commerce: the International Emergency Economic Powers Act: IEEPA

What is it? Perhaps better known by its acronym, IEEPA ‘is the 1977 Congressional legislation enacted to limit the president’s national emergency powers’.

Oddly, though, it has done the exact opposite.

What can the president do under IEEPA? Perhaps a better question is, what can’t the president do under IEEPA. Since its passage, presidents have relied on IEEPA to enact financial and economic sanctions against a host of countries, including Iran, North Korea, Syria, South Sudan, Russia, and Cuba to name a few, for threats ranging from terrorism and narcotics trafficking to human rights violations and WMD proliferation.

One of the first uses was against Iran in 1979 over the hostage crisis. Signed by then-President Jimmy Carter, the sanctions froze Iranian assets and properties within the United States.

In fact, since 2000, Presidents have used IEEPA in more than 400 executive actions. Not all of these actions were new, however. Some extended the timetable or expanded the scope of previous orders.

Who enforces IEEPA? For sanctions imposed under executive orders that rest on IEEPA authorities, it is the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) that is responsible for maintaining lists of designated individuals and companies, as well as implementing regulations and enforcing violations. Running afoul of sanctions may incur regulatory penalties such as fines, but there are also criminal penalties for violating IEEPA.

In August 2017, Federal prosecutors filed a criminal complaint against Dandong Zhicheng Metallic Material Co., Ltd.—a China-based company—for its role in helping North Korea evade sanctions.

Thus far, Congress has left presidents’ use of IEEPA relatively unchecked. The exception has been the occasional piece of legislation, like the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions.

A president wields IEEPA like a hammer will see every problem like a nail. Clearly, IEEPA is a useful legal authority to preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but it is also an instrument best used and most effective when there is a multilateral consensus. It is doubtful that continuing to project American foreign policy, using IEEPA, will result in anything but a reaction by our allies to insulate themselves against US exposure.

….

ONE FINAL POINT ON SANCTIOBS

There are several types of sanctions.

• Economic sanctions – typically a ban on trade, possibly limited to certain sectors such as armaments, or with certain exceptions (such as food and medicine)^[6]
• Diplomatic sanctions – the reduction or removal of diplomatic ties, such as embassies.
• Military sanctions – military intervention
• Sport sanctions – preventing one country's people and teams from competing in international events.
• Sanctions on Environment – since the declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, international environmental protection efforts have been increased gradually.

Economic sanctions are distinguished from trade sanctions, which are applied for purely economic reasons, and typically take the form of tariffs or similar measures, rather than bans on trade.

====

====