Thread

1. msdz · 1790961668 · focus · HN ↗

   Regardless of what one personally thinks about the ICC, this isn’t a good look for neither the US nor Europe.

   For the U.S., because sanctioning an “unpleasant”, but in essence harmless individual (geopolitically speaking) is ridiculous. Falling victim to de-banking alone can really ruin one’s life.

   And for the EU, because it once again showcases the dependence on U.S. systems for just about anything tech-related in everyday life and work.

   1. wereHamster · 1790962253 · focus · HN ↗

      EU is not necessarily dependent on the US in all the cases that are listed in the article. Take AXA, the insurance company. They could probably survive doing business just in the EU and withdraw entirely out of the US market. But for them it's more lucrative to piss off one judge rather than lose the US share of profits. As the article describes, it's a business decision. But not one that necessarily means life or death (for the company).

      1. QDwQ1 · 1790962937 · focus · HN ↗

         EU politicians should grow some balls and force their companies to ignore US sanctions in cases like these

         1. msdz · 1790963113 · focus · HN ↗

            I’ve read that at least in the case of some EU banks, not following the foreign sanctions is quite literally not an option for them.

            If you don’t follow sanctions, other banks either with branches doing business in the U.S., or their partner banks, will refuse to continue banking with you out of fear for not following sanctions – which include banks enabling sanction-circumvention. Essentially, even if the bank doesn’t want to deal with USD (which most banks would still like to do!), you’re still bound by the sanctions. A bank won’t survive long or well if it’s cut off from a majority of other banks.

            1. RobotToaster · 1790964127 · focus · HN ↗

               Which is why it would need to be a law. The only option would be for the US to take the insane move of cutting off every bank in Europe. If they did actually do that, while it would be painful in the short term, it would be incredibly beneficial for Europe in the long term.
            2. cherryteastain · 1790964251 · focus · HN ↗

               This is just a case of carrot vs stick. European countries need to threaten their companies with an even bigger stick if they follow foreign sanctions.

               China does this via laws that say, if you do not provide services to Chinese citizens/entities citing foreign sanctions, they can send you to a gulag forever. Seems to be fairly effective, considering how heavily sanctioned Huawei is.

            3. jorvi · 1790964900 · focus · HN ↗

               This is why WERO and the digital Euro are so crucial. Once the EU has a separate financial backbone, they can tell the US to go pound sand.
            4. deaux · 1790964901 · focus · HN ↗

               After the last 2 years you _still_ haven't learnt that _everything_ like this is completely negotiable and can change tomorrow? That it's all might makes right? God, you must've been one of those people who in 2014 claimed it was unthinkable that a country would leave the EU, or took Trump's threats as fact even after his 20th TACO turn.

               All these hard "immediate consequences" scenarios are pure fiction. Not because they can't become truth, they can. But there's a hundred other possibilities. Literally sticking to the "letter of the law" is just one of them, and not a particularly likely one.

            5. HDThoreaun · 1790965356 · focus · HN ↗

               Chinese banks dont enforce american sanctions and it certainly hasnt ruined their banking system.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.