• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The trouble with America’s extraterritorial campaign against business

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
61,961
Reaction score
19,065
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From The Economist

The trouble with America’s extraterritorial campaign against business

FOR EUROPEAN firms operating in Asia, or Latin American and Asian firms hustling in Africa or the Middle East, business risks abound. Surprisingly high on the list of things that keep bosses awake with cold sweats at night is falling foul of America’s Department of Justice (DOJ) or its Treasury Department.

The United States leads the world in punishing corruption, money-laundering and sanctions violations. In the past decade it has increasingly punished foreign firms for misconduct that happens outside America. Scores of banks have paid tens of billions of dollars in fines. In the past 12 months several multinationals, including Glencore and ZTE, have been put through the legal wringer. The diplomatic row over Huawei, a Chinese telecoms-equipment firm, centres on the legitimacy of America’s extraterritorial reach (see article).

America has taken it upon itself to become the business world’s policeman, judge and jury. It can do this because of its privileged role in the world economy. Companies that refuse to yield to its global jurisdiction can find themselves shut out of its giant domestic market, or cut off from using the dollar payments system and by extension from using mainstream banks. For most big companies that would be suicidal.

Wielding a stick is often to be applauded. Were it not for America’s tough stance against FIFA, for instance, the dodgy officials who ran world football would not have been brought to book. But as the full extent of extraterritorial legal activity has become clearer, so have three glaring problems.

COMMENT:-

It appears that "trying to do 'the right thing'" in the "wrong way" can have negative consequences.

Who knew international relations could be so complicated?
 
From The Economist

The trouble with America’s extraterritorial campaign against business

FOR EUROPEAN firms operating in Asia, or Latin American and Asian firms hustling in Africa or the Middle East, business risks abound. Surprisingly high on the list of things that keep bosses awake with cold sweats at night is falling foul of America’s Department of Justice (DOJ) or its Treasury Department.

The United States leads the world in punishing corruption, money-laundering and sanctions violations. In the past decade it has increasingly punished foreign firms for misconduct that happens outside America. Scores of banks have paid tens of billions of dollars in fines. In the past 12 months several multinationals, including Glencore and ZTE, have been put through the legal wringer. The diplomatic row over Huawei, a Chinese telecoms-equipment firm, centres on the legitimacy of America’s extraterritorial reach (see article).

America has taken it upon itself to become the business world’s policeman, judge and jury. It can do this because of its privileged role in the world economy. Companies that refuse to yield to its global jurisdiction can find themselves shut out of its giant domestic market, or cut off from using the dollar payments system and by extension from using mainstream banks. For most big companies that would be suicidal.

Wielding a stick is often to be applauded. Were it not for America’s tough stance against FIFA, for instance, the dodgy officials who ran world football would not have been brought to book. But as the full extent of extraterritorial legal activity has become clearer, so have three glaring problems.

COMMENT:-

It appears that "trying to do 'the right thing'" in the "wrong way" can have negative consequences.

Who knew international relations could be so complicated?

I have addressed this issue in other posts and don't buy doing "the right thing, the wrong way." Tariffs, sanctions, weaponized currency, weaponized banking, weaponized SWIFT, de-stabilization in Erergy producing regions, attempts to prevent pipelines to force use of USA LNG (EU), and like collusion in treaties are econimic weapons to prevent FREE TRADE. As the USA has become uncompetitive in many Trade areas, i.e. VAT, labor intensive, issues caused by over valued currency, ad infinitum, it has resorted to underhanded practices in an attempt to stave off the inveitable. Prevention of or collusion in FREE TRADE. Is that the American Way? Reality bites, eh?
/
 
It appears that "trying to do 'the right thing'" in the "wrong way" can have negative consequences.

Who knew international relations could be so complicated?

Your comments above are sarcastic, aren't they?
 
From The Economist

The trouble with America’s extraterritorial campaign against business

FOR EUROPEAN firms operating in Asia, or Latin American and Asian firms hustling in Africa or the Middle East, business risks abound. Surprisingly high on the list of things that keep bosses awake with cold sweats at night is falling foul of America’s Department of Justice (DOJ) or its Treasury Department.

The United States leads the world in punishing corruption, money-laundering and sanctions violations. In the past decade it has increasingly punished foreign firms for misconduct that happens outside America. Scores of banks have paid tens of billions of dollars in fines. In the past 12 months several multinationals, including Glencore and ZTE, have been put through the legal wringer. The diplomatic row over Huawei, a Chinese telecoms-equipment firm, centres on the legitimacy of America’s extraterritorial reach (see article).

America has taken it upon itself to become the business world’s policeman, judge and jury. It can do this because of its privileged role in the world economy. Companies that refuse to yield to its global jurisdiction can find themselves shut out of its giant domestic market, or cut off from using the dollar payments system and by extension from using mainstream banks. For most big companies that would be suicidal.

Wielding a stick is often to be applauded. Were it not for America’s tough stance against FIFA, for instance, the dodgy officials who ran world football would not have been brought to book. But as the full extent of extraterritorial legal activity has become clearer, so have three glaring problems.

COMMENT:-

It appears that "trying to do 'the right thing'" in the "wrong way" can have negative consequences.

Who knew international relations could be so complicated?

While you may hate America, it is not unique that a country punishes companies which violate their laws. The EU has done this with American tech companies,Malaysia is going after Goldman for a deal it in retrospect does not like.

Why you single out the U.S. might be a better question.
 
While you may hate America,

Considering that you have used "may" in your statement your statement is as true as "washnut may hate America" is.

You see, I am able to tell the difference between (the abstract) "what America stands for" and (the concrete) "what the US government does". You might want to reflect on that difference a bit.

Just to clarify a bit, I happen to think that (the abstract) "what America stands for" (which isn't really all that different than [the abstract] "what a whole lot of countries stand for") happens to be a really really good thing - I just don't see that (the concrete) "what the US government does" is the same thing as 9the abstract) "what America stands for" and I do NOT think that some of the things that the US government does come even close to approximating "a good thing".

...it is not unique that a country punishes companies which violate their laws. The EU has done this with American tech companies,Malaysia is going after Goldman for a deal it in retrospect does not like.

While it is true that countries often punish companies for violating the laws of the country by committing acts WITHIN the country, very few of them punish companies for doing things which are completely legal where they are done (as long as none of the actions take place WITHIN the country. The United States of America is the only country that punishes companies for doing things that were completely legal where they were done AS IF those actions had taken place within the United States of America.

Why you single out the U.S. might be a better question.

"American Exceptionalism"?

PS - The last time I looked I was NOT "The Economist". I report, you decide.
 
Back
Top Bottom