There is significant discontent within the United States! On September 19, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on China published an article asserting that China is using credit lines tied to Chinese goods to pay for Iranian oil. This is presented as yet another revelation of how China collaborates with Iran to support attacks and circumvent sanctions. Clearly, from the U.S. perspective, first, its sanctions are universally binding and must not be violated by any party. Second, China-Iran oil trade appears to be conducted covertly—deliberately evading sanctions.
Yet we find it puzzling: who has stipulated that we must abide by U.S. sanctions? These sanctions lack authorization from the United Nations, and thus carry no legal obligation for us to follow. Our purchase of Iranian oil is neither clandestine nor secretive—it is conducted openly and transparently. No state has the right to interfere in normal international trade activities. The U.S. expressing dissatisfaction, treating its own directives as unquestionable authority, and attempting to impose domestic law as a universal international standard—what exactly is the issue here?
The so-called use of commodity credit lines is fundamentally nothing more than a standard trade settlement mechanism between nations. Iran receives credit lines from selling oil, which it then uses to purchase Chinese equipment and supplies. This constitutes legitimate bilateral economic exchanges under international law. Both China and Iran have no objections. So why should the United States object? China-Iran trade is simply commercial exchange between two sovereign states, entirely unrelated to the current conflict in the Middle East, let alone constituting support for any party. We will not respond to U.S. pressure.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1876720429207876/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.