TEHRAN - The European Union foreign policy chief says the 27-nation bloc opposes U.S. extraterritorial sanctions.

Josep Borrell has said the European bloc considers U.S. sanctions "to be against international law". 

During an interview with Singaporean-based Straits Times, that excerpts of which have been republished on an official EU website, Borrell highlights the difference between the U.S. sanctions and EU sanctions. 

He explains that "actually, the word "sanctions" does not exist in any European treaties. The phrase used is "restrictive measures".

Borrell notes, "There is a big difference between our restrictive measures and those taken by the United States. Our measures are not extraterritorial. We cannot ask an Indonesian company to conform to our laws. The Americans can - everybody must comply with their sanctions."

He further explains, "We (the EU) consider that to be against international law. We don't believe in imposing our laws on third countries."

In reality, both the terms "sanctions" and "restrictive measures" have been used in EU treaties as part of the Western sanctions campaign against Russia. 

Critics would argue that contrary to what the EU foreign policy chief says (that “everybody must comply" with U.S. sanctions) this statement would be considered as a sign of weakness by a 27-nation strong bloc. 

The EU can instead showcase its sovereignty, a force of strength in global affairs and distance itself from being labeled as a U.S. vassal by not complying with policies it considers to be against international law. 

The United States resorts to unilateral measures in its sanctions regime against other countries. The U.S. is not the top authority on the planet. The country isn't the United Nations and even bypasses the UN to impose its illegal actions against other countries. 

Everybody has the legal right not to comply with U.S. sanctions. Borrell says "everybody must comply" with U.S. sanctions whilst at the same time acknowledging the EU considers that "to be against international law".

On a global scale, the U.S. is nothing more than a country with the same status as every other country at the United Nations General Assembly. 

Nevertheless, it was a rare admission by a senior EU official. But at the same time, Borrell is conceding that the EU is complying with measures that are against international law.

As opposed to the EU, which considers that it "must comply" with U.S. sanctions, a large chunk of the international community does not comply with unilateral, illegal U.S. sanctions. 

This can be evidenced by the surging number of countries who are in line to sign up to other international organizations such as BRICS or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), who offer an alternative multilateral model of an international rules-based order. 

The U.S. considers itself the hegemon of the world. The facts on the ground suggest that its hegemony is diminishing around the world. 

Over the past two decades, Washington's attempts at invading countries in West Asia will go down as a historic failure of an empire on the decline. 

Reports suggest that some of its closest allies in West Asia, with the exception of Israel, are distancing themselves from the U.S.

Experts believe this distance in relations is down to the fact that over the past two decades, many have realized that Washington only grows ties with countries to serve its own economic and military interests. 

Once those economic and sometimes military interests are no longer being served, the U.S. departs with its allies as quickly as the Afghan army collapsed in Kabul.

This is what the past several decades have clearly shown. One day, the U.S. has a very close relationship with its "ally", the next day the relationship has been completely cut off, without even a farewell letter or a 'good luck for the future' note in the mail from Washington. 

The irony with the EU is that it has had a love/hate relationship with the United States. 

At times, the EU has expressed its anger with the U.S. in public and vowed to strengthen its sovereignty and make its decisions independently, ignoring demands from the White House to raise the amount of money member states pay to NATO for example.  

At other times, it has clung onto the U.S. as has been witnessed during the crisis in Ukraine. 

After Brexit, the EU lost one of its most influential members, the UK. After the war in Ukraine, the EU lost the clout of its strongest economic powerhouse, Germany. 

In the first quarter of this year, the eurozone (member countries of the EU that have adopted the euro) entered a recession, and economists are very gloomy for the coming months.

Germany has fallen into a recession, which potentially has huge economic repercussions for the EU as a whole.

The reason Germany fell into a recession is because it can no longer depend on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines to fill its energy needs with cheap gas from Russia. 

Nord Stream 1 was a project that Russia and Germany, along with a consortium of several other EU members, had worked on in 2010 and entered into service in 2011.

Nord Stream 2, which was meant to double the annual level of gas to the EU, via Germany, to 110 billion m3 (3.9 trillion cu ft) was about to operate before the Ukraine conflict broke out.

Nord Stream 2 was also a project that the U.S. had warned Germany against continuing or Berlin would face consequences from Washington. 

The Nord Stream pipelines are now out of service as a result of EU sanctions following the Ukraine war and are out of function because they were bombed under sea. 

Espionage operation experts strongly believe the explosion was carried out with the help of the U.S. military expertise. 

The U.S. once sanctioned Germany for working with Russia on energy. It had called on the EU to buy the more costly U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) instead. 

In February last year, U.S. President Joe Biden had warned that if a war broke out in Ukraine, there would be no Nord Stream 2, but did not specify how he would go about ensuring the pipeline would not be used. He said "there will no longer be Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."

The Ukraine war could have been easily avoided, and the EU would not be economically suffering as much as it is now.

Did the U.S. initiate the Ukraine war over gas? Just like it invaded Iraq over oil or similar to how the U.S.-led NATO military alliance interfered in Libya over energy? 

Has the U.S. abandoned the economic interests of the EU? 

These are questions Borrell and other EU officials need to ask themselves.