It’s getting hard to tell.
First we turned from peace keepers to war mongers.
Then
An American policy has forced Montreal’s Bell Helicopter to ban 24 employees from working on a U.S. military contract because of their nationalities.
and now
The Royal Bank has refused to open American dollar accounts for people of certain nationalities since April 2006, Radio-Canada reported Monday.Canadian citizens with dual citizenship in Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Sudan, North Korea or Myanmar are affected.
The bank didn’t agree to an interview with Radio-Canada, but did confirm the report.
The Royal Bank is conforming with U.S. Treasury Department laws.
Conforming with US Treasury laws???
Holy crap did I sleep through the invasion? Are we now the Northern Division of the States?
The second example is a concern, but I’m much less sure about the first. However distasteful the policy, the Americans are well within their rights, it seems to me, to determine who will, and who will not be allowed to work on their military equipment. If Bell thinks the restrictions are too onerus, they can give up the contract right? Do people, any people, really have a “right” to work on a U.S. military contract? I don’t think so.
As for the Royal Bank, it surprises me the U.S. law requires that people of certain nationalities be denied American currency accounts. Seems kinda strange to me. But that being said, I suspect the Royal Bank is under no concrete obligation to conform to that American law. They can certainly ignore it if they wish. Problem is, they’d probably have to stop doing business in the U.S. if they chose to ignore U.S. law, and I suspect THAT’s why they’re complying.
Anyway, it seems to me people are perfectly free to refuse to do business with, or within, the United States of America. If you’re going to accept a U.S. military contract though, you’re either going to follow American law, or lose the contract. And if you want to run banking and finance operations in the U.S. (which I presume the Royal Bank does), they’re probably going to require your international entities to also follow American law. If you don’t want to follow American practice and laws, don’t do business with, or within the U.S. But if you’re going to build helicopters for the U.S. military, or run banks in the U.S., you’re going to do it on their terms, or not at all. If you don’t want to follow U.S. law, don’t bid on contracts to build U.S. military equipment, or operate financial institutions within the U.S. Actually, seems pretty simple really.
Ok well here comes the slippery slope argument 😉
If we want to do business with any country do we therefore have to inflict that country’s policies upon our own people?
What if in trade talks with China they say they will do trade with us but only if all the people involved have their internet access restricted to sites the Chinese government approves of?
Is that just a cost of doing business?
I see your point April, but I think these cases are different.
For the helicopters, this is not an instance of countries agreeing to trade with one another. This is a private company entering into a legal contract with the government of the United States of America for the delivery of military equipment. And, to me, if the company is unwilling to fulfill the contract with the U.S. government within the confines of U.S. law, then it is entirley within the U.S. government’s right to take their business elsewhere. I don’t see how there’s even a question of that.
As for the Royal Bank, as I said, I presume the bank could go ahead and ignore the law, and there’s nothing the Americans can do about it, in Canada. The thing is, I’m certain the bank operates in the U.S. as well. I imagine the Royal Bank complies not because they’re at any risk of prosecution in Canada, for what goes on in Canada, (I doubt they could even be prosecuted in the U.S. for what goes on in Canada) but because the U.S. will not allow banks that violate their banking laws “overseas” to continue to operate in the U.S. as well (and the Royal bank wants to continue running whatever businesses they have in the U.S.).
Using your China analogy, if a Chinese company was doing manufacturing in China using slave labour, couldn’t the Canadian government pass a law saying that companies that use slave labour in China aren’t allowed to operate in Canada? (i.e. if you want to do that in China, do it in China, we can’t stop you, but you can’t operate your business here as well, and you can’t get contracts from the Canadian government). Would that be a worrying violation of Chinese sovereignty to you, or just an acknowledgement that Canada will decide who gets to do business in Canada, and with whom our government will do business?
One can’t have their cake and eat it too. You can’t take a contract from the U.S. government and then refuse to comply with U.S. law in fulfilling the contract (well, you can, just don’t expect to keep the contract… and I don’t think it’s shocking that you’d lose it).
Similarly, you can run your bank in Canada however you like, but if you want to run banks in the U.S. too you have to comply with U.S. law (like the hypothetical Chinese company in China who must stop using slave labour in China if they want to continue to operate in Canada). The U.S. can’t stop you from violating U.S. law outside of the U.S., but I don’t see how they’re morally obligated to continue to allow your company to operte WITHIN the U.S. if your compnay is violating U.S. law outside of the U.S., and they’re certianly not obligated to give such companies government contracts (for sensitive military equipment no less!).
If the government of China refused to trade with Canada unless our internet access were restricted, we would say no. Bell Helicopter and the Royal Bank are private companies, not nations, but they could say no to the U.S. requirements just as easily. You may not like that the U.S. put the question to them, and I’m certain you don’t like that both companies said OK, but that’s their right.
The U.S. is under no obligation to support Canadian companies, or make it easier for them to do business with, or within the U.S., or to continue to violate U.S. law, no matter where they do it. The U.S. can’t PROSECUTE a Canadian company for violating U.S. law in Canada, but they’re under no moral obligation to continue doing business with that company, as far as I can see. And I’d suggest that only in the case of the United States would anyone ever suggest that they were.
These companies have decided that following U.S. law IS the cost of doing business. Boycott Bell Helicopter and the Royal Bank over it if you like (not a bad idea!), but it’s not blameworthy of the U.S. that they insist their laws be followed by companies building military supplies for them, or that banks which wish to operate within the U.S. comply to U.S. laws in their non-U.S. operations as well. And I don’t think any of it has to do with our sovereignty as a nation.
That’s a very thorough analysis.
Yes I take your point on the helicopters. I suppose I would just rather we not build them at all.
I recognize the importance of security with military ventures though I wonder why they think a mercenary English, German, other “acceptable” cultural type might not be just as likely to spy or cause sabotage.
Certainly any bank operating within the confines of the States should be subject to their laws, silly as they may be.
However, I don’t think those laws should be adhered to here.
Especially as the American government has shown no such regard for our sovereignty and laws. EI the patriot act allowing (forcing) American businesses on our soil to release data about Canadian citizens.
Alone perhaps these incidents could simply be seen as corporate blundering as usual.
Taken with the current climate of racial profiling, Patriot Act, subversion of the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus I don’t think it is out of line to see these events as a warning flag.
Interestingly, I was at least partially wrong about the banking case. Apparently, it is common international practice for nations to stipulate how their own currency is handled internationally, and Canada has regulations regarding the use of the Canadian dollar which similarly apply worldwide. Basically, if you want to use American currency (or want to offer American currency accounts at your bank) you are required to follow American laws and regulations regarding that currency and those accounts. Here are some interesting quotes from the Globe article on this issue:
“RBC has more than 600,000 U.S.-dollar accounts in Canada and says non-compliance with U.S. regulations could jeopardize its ability to offer those services.
It has some reason to be concerned. Two years ago, U.S. authorities fined ABN Amro $80-million (U.S.), partly because the Dutch bank violated U.S. sanction laws.
Canadian rules work the same way for Canadian-dollar accounts in other countries, he said. “It’s not an incursion into Canadian sovereignty,” Mr. Moorcroft said.”
and…
“Ottawa says it plays no role in policing U.S.-currency accounts at Canadian banks.
Eric Richer, press secretary to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, said U.S.-currency accounts at Canadian banks are processed through American banks in the United States, which means that those accounts — and the banks offering them — must comply with U.S. law.
“This is how banks that choose to have U.S.-dollar accounts have to work,” Mr. Richer said. “It’s under U.S. law.”
Mr. Richer said Canada’s banking laws guarantee all Canadian citizens basic banking services in domestic currency — but not foreign currencies. “The Canadian government doesn’t have the authority to change U.S. law.”
The most interesting and pertinent quote is this, I think:
“U.S.-currency accounts at Canadian banks are processed through American banks in the United States, which means that those accounts — and the banks offering them — must comply with U.S. law.”
Seems from this article the issue is actually less complicated than I thought.
Yes that’s what I glean from this article as well.
Though it appears that Scotiabank is willing to take the risk.
Scotiabank won’t deny dual citizens U.S. dollar accounts
ETA: With all the fingers in all the pies, monetarily speaking, I think that any sense of patriotism is just something the powers that be use to keep by their bullshit.
Kind of like sports teams that go out for a beer together while the fans are still fighting in the stands.