A tariff is a tax that a country imposes on goods entering its borders. A country can impose a tariff on any country, at any time, for whatever reason (unless they've signed free trade agreements obligating them to refrain from imposing tariffs).

> What would your reaction be if China imposed tariffs on US-Canadian border crossings and seized American ships over it?

Again, the ships in being sized were flying false flags, which is illegal. If American ships decided to take this criminal act, then China is justified in enforcing the law.

▲

ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> A tariff is a tax that a country imposes on goods entering its borders.

Yes. And that is not what happens here!

None of this oil is entering the US at all!

▲

Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Correct. But the point remains, the US is free to impose a tariff on countries that sell oil to Cuba.

▲

ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent [-]

So it's not "a tax that a country imposes on goods entering its borders" now?

▲

baseballdork 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It seems fairly obvious that what happens is a tariff is applied to the items entering the US and not the oil going to Cuba.

If you trade oil with cuba, then any trade with the US will be subject to the tariff.

▲

Manuel_D 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No, a tariff is indeed a tax a country imposes on goods entering its borders.

I'm not sure what in my comment you think contradicts this.

▲

ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> The ships being seized are doing things like flying false flags, to try and trade with Cuba without paying tariffs.

	▲	Manuel_D 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, they fly false flags to avoid triggering retaliatory tariffs. If country X sells oil to Cuba than country X's goods being imported to the the US will be subject to additional tariffs. I can see how this wording makes it sound like the US is charging a tariff on the oil entering Cuba, but that is not the case. The tariff in that quote is referring to the tariffs the US is promising to place on counties that don't participate in the embargo.

▲

vrganj 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"Criminal" according to who?

The US? Then why does their law apply here?

International law? Like the ICC the US ignores? Or the climate agreements it breaks? Or the Geneva convention it runs afoul of?

Sure is convenient the US decided this one specific bit is to be taken extremely seriously.

Either way, it stinks of imperialism.

	▲	lostlogin 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> International law? The one the US constantly chooses to ignore? It’s a little less two faced now though, as this administration ignores US laws too.