|
Iran Sanctions – U.S. Responds To Court Order By Canceling Treaty That Gave The Court Jurisdiction
Earlier today the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a provisional judgment (pdf, 29 pages) against some of the U.S. sanction against Iran. The ruling is a preliminary injunction over urgent humanitarian issues that will later be followed by a final judgment.
The U.S. responded by canceling the treaty the gave the court jurisdiction over the case.
The ICJ is the main judicial organ of the United Nations and settles legal disputes between member states. The rulings of the court, based in The Hague, are binding. But there is no global police force that can make the U.S. government follow the court's ruling.
Nevertheless the judgment sets a precedent that other courts will use when more specific cases against the U.S. sanctions against Iran come up. A company that loses business because of the sanctions may sue the U.S. over financial losses. An ICJ ruling on the illegality of the U.S. sanctions will then be used by a local court, even an American one, as reference.
The core of the ruling says:
THE COURT,
Indicates the following provisional measures:
(1) Unanimously,
The United States of America, in accordance with its obligations under the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, shall remove, by means of its choosing, any impediments arising from the measures announced on 8 May 2018 to the free exportation to the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran of
(i) medicines and medical devices;
(ii) foodstuffs and agricultural commodities; and
(iii) spare parts, equipment and associated services (including warranty, maintenance, repair services and inspections) necessary for the safety of civil aviation;
(2) Unanimously,
The United States of America shall ensure that licences and necessary authorizations are granted and that payments and other transfers of funds are not subject to any restriction in so far as they relate to the goods and services referred to in point(1);
(3) Unanimously,
Both Parties shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.
The provisional judgment, comparable to an injunction, was issued because of the imminent humanitarian damage the U.S. sanctions cause to Iran. The final judgment may take a year and is likely to be much wider. After today's unanimous ruling the general direction of the outcome is not in question.
The U.S. had claimed that the the court has no jurisdiction over the issue of its sanctions against Iran.
Iran argued that U.S. sanctions are in violations of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights between Iran and the United States of America (pdf), which was signed at Tehran on 15 August 1955. That treaty gave the ICJ jurisdiction over disputes between the two countries in all issues related to it.
The court accepted Iran's view.
U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo just held a press conference in which he announced that the U.S. is now canceling the 1955 treaty. His statement was full of bluster and lies:
The United States on Wednesday called an international court ruling against its Iran sanctions a defeat for Tehran as it terminated a 1955 treaty on which the case was based.
…
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo noted that the UN court did not rule more broadly against US sanctions and he insisted that the United States already exempted humanitarian goods from the sanctions.
"The court's ruling today was a defeat for Iran. It rightly rejected all of Iran's baseless requests," Pompeo told reporters.
The preliminary injunction is obviously a victory for Iran. The court has not yet judged on the wider issue of the U.S. sanctions. Having read the argument I am convinced that the final judgment will only confirm this win. The ruling is a big loss for the Trump administration. It shows the world that the U.S. is the one and only entity which is in breach of the 1955 treaty, the nuclear agreement with Iran (JCPOA) and the unanimous resolution of the UN Security Council endorsing the nuclear deal.
Pompeo's announcement of the canceling of the treaty is somewhat schizophrenic. It accepts the ruling and transgresses on it:
- The U.S. would not have canceled the treaty without the court's judgment that is based on the treaty. With today's canceling, or the announcement thereof, the U.S. admits that the court intervention based on the treaty is legally correct. This contradicts its earlier argument.
- The canceling of the treaty today transgresses on the courts judgment. Measure three of the court's ruling orders the parties to not make the issue more difficult to resolve. Canceling the treaty now makes the case more difficult and aggravates and extends the dispute in violation of the court order.
The U.S. is in fact mocking the court. It is unlikely that any court will accept the clearly upcoming U.S. claim that the treaty no longer exists, that the ICJ has lost jurisdiction over the case and that its orders can thus be ignored. One can not simply change a contract after being found guilty of violating it. The case will be going to a final judgment under the 1955 treaty because that set the legal status when the case was brought to the court.
Pompeo and other will undoubtedly argue that the ruling does not matter for the U.S. and that transgressing it will have no costs. That underestimates the effect of such a ruling on lower national courts. It will be them that will judge about the seizure of U.S. assets when claims of economic damage are brought up against the U.S. and its sanction regime.
The case will also weigh on the global opinion. It makes it more difficult for other governments to follow the U.S. sanction regime.
“The US just can’t stop digging itself into a hole.”
And in large part because there is no disagreement within government/oligarchical circles on the question. Hillary and the Deep State don’t say that Trump should not be digging but that he should sweat less, or wear better boots or watch his language when he hits a rock.
As to digging, they are all for it, they see it as the only way out of the hole that W began and Obama made larger.
The world got an idea of the problem its facing with the US when the immediate and almost unanimous response, in the media and Washington, to the tentative summit moves over Korea and the stark threat of peace breaking out, was one of scandalised disbelief. The Democrats out bid the Republicans in howling for the right to be at war with North Korea forever.
It was immediately agreed that to move towards peace was an act of treason, putting not just America but civilisation itself in grave danger.
This really is WW III: the US has no alternative but to win it. Except that victory is impossible. It is a unique situation in the history of Empires. It has never happened before that a great power has put its prestige on the line- and it has nothing but prestige-for no reason. There is no reason why the US should be in Syria, nor was there for it going to Libya or Iraq- (none of these moves had anything much to do with oil, whatever Alan Greenspan, a fucking Ayn Rand disciple, might have said. The further the US gets involved in the middle east the less power it has over the oil deposits there.)
It started WW III because the Israeli lobby, composed of russophobic former Trotskyists, their descendants and disciples, wants to use American power to open up the Levant for an expanded Israel. A madman’s fantasy/nightmare.
It was obvious enough in 2003 that all those involved were psychiatric disasters, whose every word was a call for assistance in the form of restraints and strong guards. The French saw it, the Germans saw it, with the exception of Tony Blair, who is just as bad, the entire world saw it.
It was madness then and the fact that it just went on and on- though Libya, (don’t let us forget poor Sudan) and into Lebanon, where it encountered grown ups in the form of Hezbollah, and onto Syria then back to Iraq, and down into Yemen, like a state sponsored version of St Vitus Dance- has tended to obscure the simple fact that it is only a particularly tragic form of madness.
Which is to say an exercise proved, again and again to be useless and damaging, persisted in. Until, the head having been banged against walls incessantly, it implodes and liquifies.
So this is the current state of play: the only force capable of defeating the Assad government is Israel. And even there the odds are not much more than 50:50, if that. And the only way that Israel can possibly succeed is by involving the US, directly, which would lead to Russia responding, most probably against Israel, the most isolated, vulnerable and culpable/legitimate target, because Russia would prefer not to have a nuclear war.
So the US can only succeed, in achieving the objectives of the neo-cons, by encouraging Israel to court suicide by provoking Russia to give it such a bloody nose that its long flirtation with Jabotinsky fascism would be ended. Israel would be left with the choice of dissolving itself or of making peace with its neighbours and repairing the crimes of the Nakba. Not easy but not impossible either.
Then the US would have no more business in the middle east and its attempts to establish military domination of the globe would be ended. And everybody would be happy, especially the American people who would have been relieved of the baby minding mission from hell- looking after a megalomaniac delinquent, given to setting fire to everything it sees, starting fights with nations ten times its size and stealing everything it comes across.
They could get back to getting rich again and pursuing happiness, just like young Brett Kavanaugh always did.
Posted by: bevin | Oct 4 2018 3:07 utc | 43
donkeytale @60–
Thanks for your well thought, considerate reply. You are quite correct that the forces of Reaction within the Outlaw US Empire never seem to die, which is the major reason why Iran’s new leadership after 1979 chose to institutionalize their Revolution so its principles can continue on a permanent basis within the government and Iranian national culture–Iran’s a very instructive lesson. Historically, the path to gain control of the federal government has always begun at the state level–particularly before Senators were directly elected–by gaining statehouses and governorships and thus Senate and House seats–By design, the Senate has more power and is thus the more important of the two. That’s the general formula the Prairie Progressive Populists used to gain their political power from the late 1870s through 1900. Their great error was fusing with the Democrat Party of Bryan. Given the resources they had to begin with, their accomplishment was astounding, and many of their issues and proposed solutions were adopted by the Republicans as documented in Kolko’s Triumph of Conservatism.
Many states retained vestiges of the Populists and the post WW1 anti-war movement was greatly helped by women being granted the vote, which enabled the Kellogg-Briand Pact that Outlawed war as an instrument of foreign policy–a treaty that’s still valid. The Depression rekindled the Populist Movement and drove FDR to the left. Unfortunately, the political reality of that era’s been deliberately airbrushed to appear softer–less radical–than it actually was: FDR feared a national rebellion, particularly after the treatment meted out to the Bonus Army in 1932, which was a great factor in Hoover’s defeat. Numerous investigations into banking, finance, munitions, and other industrial practices were made and legislation crafted in an attempt to solve the issues unveiled. The Neutrality Acts were meant to bolster Kellogg-Briand. But FDR allowed the Reactionaries who plotted the coup to purge him in 1933 to go unpunished and allowed them to quietly reenter his administration beginning with a trickle in 1938, then a gush after Pearl Harbor.
Populist ardor waned and the nation morphed in many ways during the War. Wallace was sacked in favor of Truman, with the Full Employment Act of 1946 became the last piece of New Deal legislation. Political lens were altered, and Truman’s 1948 War Scare ruined any chance Wallace had to win. The 1947 National Security Act and Truman’s reelection solidified the return of the Reactionaries and allowed them to begin entrenching themselves deep into the new security institutions which are likely unconstitutional. FDR began the Cold War; Truman massively escalated it and immediately violated the newly ratified UN Charter. The progenitors of today’s Neocons were firmly in control. The Anti-Communist Crusade was meant to destroy resistance to the new order and was greatly aided by the GI-Bill. One-by-one, the Depression-era Populists within Congress and states retired and passed away, but were replaced by more reactionary minded politicos as the current Duopoly slowly formed.
I reviewed this history to show how previous Populist Movements formed and what foiled them. Painstaking, methodical, relentless Grassroots Organizing; political education; and solidarity were the key factors in their rise and success. One thing they didn’t have to worry about was infiltration by reactionary agents of the federal government aimed at spoiling their efforts from within as is the case today. But such a Movement would be politically legitimate since it seeks change within the System–seeking change outside the System, armed rebellion, won’t get anywhere thanks to the ubiquity of the surveillance state, which is the #1 reason I don’t advocate that as a viable choice.
Fortunately, the forces of Reaction do make mistakes, major ones. The 2016 attempt to rig the nomination for HRC, subsequent win by Trump and the reaction all helped fuel the rise of the current Resistance. Yes, the mouthpiece/figurehead remains Sanders; but the forces rallying around him have no love for the DNC or the policies of either party–the policies demanded by the Resistance are Populist in their nature. And Populism is actually genuine democracy in action, which is why it’s denigrated and despised by the forces and allies of Reaction. Apathy, cynicism and defeatism are the three biggest impediments I see–many people don’t know that Commonfolk have had success in defeating Reactionaries by combining forces and using tools of the System, which is why Occupy Wall Street was attacked so savagely by both state and federal forces. Activism must replace passivity. The effort made by Californians to enact legislation aimed at preserving Net Neutrality is an excellent example of what’s possible and why activism on the issue can’t be allowed to die since the battle’s just begun, not over as some mistakenly might think. Lawrence Goodwyn’s Democratic Promise: The Populist Moment in America provides the best template I know of since it provides an accurate history of what the founders of the People’s Party got right and wrong. One must be quite wary of Richard Hofstadter’s works, specifically The Age of Reform as he’s a closet Reactionary, although there’s much to glean from carefully, critically reading him, just as one can learn from that eras Liberal-Reactionaries like Walter Lippman.
How to create Solidarity when centrifugal forces appear ascendant. I know of only one method–Dialog aimed at proving all of us Commonfolk are all in the same boat and must row together to avoid sinking by addressing primary issues, not the bullshit, contrived “cultural” issues aimed at keeping us divided. Such work takes courage to reach-out, tolerance, patience and knowledge–the same four traits used 140 years ago. The Reactionaries are almost everyone’s enemies as are their allies within BigLie Media. They are currently ascendant but under attack. They know they can be defeated and will use every method at their command to prevent their downfall. Yet, they must be defeated; then we can worry about preventing their return.
Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 4 2018 18:31 utc | 66
Jackrabbit at 79
First, thank you for lowering the troll noise-to-signal ratio at least enough to allow (possibly, hopefully) for a conversation.
I believe you are addressing me (and perhaps Karlof1) as the “kool-aid” drinkers in your comment. If we can get beyond your cheap, meaningless, cliched name-calling denigrations to focus on the actual ideas of us “kool-aid drinkers” whom you believe to be engaged in some dastardly war against the “right, good people of the Bar” and whom you so badly wish to represent as their law and order man keeping the threads clean (and let’s face it you do represent them badly–and no one other than your better-mannered “good cop” buddy James seems much to care or asking for your ignoble defense of the whiskey bar) then, who knows, maybe this could be the beginning of a beautiful relationship, albeit one consisting of opposing polemics which could add some value to the Bar in ways other than the ersatz camaraderie of fellow Saturday night drunks on a bender.
Sanders could have led a Movement? Uhm, maybe the truth is Bernie’s not the type of leader you prefer (Putin/Trump-style authoritarian, top-down leaders)? FWIW, I also was very disappointed in Bernie backing down so easily to the DNC and supporting Hillary but, given his strategy, not at all surprised. He could have killed her IMHO during the debates on the emails and corruption but choosing not to was telling as it disclosed his long term game was to stay within the party for better or worse.
Bernie is trying to foment a long term movement as much as he wanted to be President. And he is old. His time is near done, new leaders are needed if leaders are needed at all.
And strategically he followed the path I have long espoused for such a movement (again for better or worse), that is, reaching inside the existing major party to coopt the structure necessary to build a truly effectve national movement. To date in US History no one has succeeded as a third party venture and with the way of the world it appears to me harder than ever to even contemplate doing so. However, that is the main argument point perhaps between moi and everyon else here, including Karlof1. I’m saying messy and imperfect but doable is a better bet than pie in the sky idealism. This is an idea similar to the one espoused by Lenin against “left wing communism,” which he and I both see as ultimately defeatist and reactionary.
For any movement to extend into all 50 states, especially the red states which gain unequal representation in the US system requires the long term commitment of people and resources creating local up building blocks as Karlof1 illustrates so well in his comments. There is ample evidence in fact of Bernie’s inspired movement doing exactly this today, so while he may or may not be leading the movement as you wish, the movement is undeniably in existence::
While Sanders conceded the Democratic nomination for president in the summer of 2016, the followers he cultivated haven’t gone home and have vowed to remain engaged in politics and reshape the Democratic Party and its platforms.
“This wasn’t a one-shot deal,” said Chris Kutalik-Couthren, a Sanders supporter who is now a statewide coordinator for Our Revolution Texas, a coalition of former Sanders supporters. “Many of us wanted to keep going.”
They have since created nearly 500 chapters throughout the nation with a proclamation: Campaigns end. Revolutions endure.
The results have already shown themselves in local races, with Our Revolution helping recruit candidates and mobilize voters in local races for city councils in San Antonio and school board races in Houston. Now, 2018 offers a chance for the movement to impact congressional races.
Now, you may say, mainstream political parties corrupt the movement so we must change the system, and that is a valid argument, but which do you truly believe to be more possible: changing the foundational political system that has arisen for better or worse since 1781 or ascending political power through seizing control within the party’s own machinery?
I see very fresh evidence from the GOP that taking over the Party is doable, as the Tea Party has done and they started as a well-funded-by-insiders anti-Obama movement which quickly evolved from 2010 into the current Trump ascendancy. Trump is a demogogue and decidely his movement is top down authoritarian and racist (imho) and is still controlled by the moneyed interests, but notice how much success they are having wiring the conservative ideology into the fabric of US society against the will of half the nation. Which presents a real opportunity for the opposition to authoritarian racism (which in fact you may not oppose for all I know and read from your comments).
As you suggested elsewhere, the Bernie dynamic is notable because he was funded by small non corporate special interest donations and we have seen this now extending into other congressional, gubernatorial and senatorial races across the country. We are also seeing a flowering of female and minourity candidates in unlikely places such as Georgia and Florida governor races. You denigrate this as “identity politics,” which I believe to be the handy cliched rebuke used buy conservative racists to help keep the white vote in line with the GOP no matter whether the white voters are well served by the GOP power interests.
Karlof1 probably doesn’t entirely or majorly agree with me and believe me I would also in a prettier world much prefer a Populist Party to challenge and kill off at least one of the duopoly parties and this may also eventually come to pass, as in how a major (Whig) party coalition imploded of its own internal contradictions and was replaced by the abolitionist GOP of the time consisting of many former Whig leaders.
Posted by: donkeytale | Oct 6 2018 14:22 utc | 78
|
