US lawmaker calls for sanctions on China, Russia

Discussion in 'China' started by nrj, Aug 6, 2010.

  1. nrj

    nrj Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    9,252
    Likes Received:
    3,347
    Location:
    Brussels
    The United States should immediately impose sanctions on Russia and China under a US law that punishes major investments in Iran's energy sector, a senior US lawmaker said Monday.
    "It's time to implement our sanctions laws and demonstrate to Russia and China that there are consequences for abetting Tehran and flouting US sanctions," Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen said in a statement.

    Ros-Lehtinen, the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said firms run by the Russian and Chinese governments had invested "huge sums" in Iran's energy sector, "effectively bankrolling" Tehran's alleged nuclear weapons program and its backing of Islamist groups.

    She did not offer details, but US officials have noted that Chinese firms have been stepping in to fill the void left by companies leaving Iran because of UN and US sanctions.

    "Russia and China appear determined to continue to facilitate Iran's dangerous policies. This must not be allowed to continue without serious repercussions," she said.

    Her comments came as a top US State Department official, Robert Einhorn, was on a trip to Asia set to include a stop in Beijing to press China to fully enforce sanctions on Iran.

    China has invested around 40 billion dollars in the Islamic republic's oil and gas sector, but Chinese imports of Iranian oil fell in the first half of 2010, a senior Iranian official told Mehr news agency on Saturday.

    In 2009, China became Iran's premier trading partner, with bilateral trade worth 21.2 billion dollars against 14.4 billion dollars three years earlier.

    Source
     
  2.  
  3. EagleOne

    EagleOne Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    85
    wth? US thinking:emot158:
    i dont think this is practically possible
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2010
  4. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India
    Can they really afford that sanction against China? I don't think so .
     
  5. nrj

    nrj Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    9,252
    Likes Received:
    3,347
    Location:
    Brussels
    Current US administration is unpredictable. I can't really trust it. Lets not be surprised if some another senator lists even India for more sanctions. :happy_2:

    The question I would like to ask is what will be status of Indian request to "lift the remaining sanctions" ?? :funny_2:
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2010
  6. EagleOne

    EagleOne Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    85
    they will give exception for india like nucler deal :emot15:

    is there any thing like mid term election??:emot19: for US??
     
  7. VersusAllOdds

    VersusAllOdds Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Belgrade, Serbia
    Oh it is all to possible.
    It is obvious when you observe history, that once two great powers collide, and one of them wins, the beaten power poses no threat anymore. However, in time, it regenerates much more quickly than the winner progresses, and starts posing a threat.
    That's what's happening with old Cold War rivals, and the US will slowly (in the following years and decades) start taking a more agressive stance towards all that threaten it's hegemony, and that's perfectly natural and understandable. Let's not forget the military spending during the Cold War, and how much money the Americans can spend on military buildup no matter the economic situation.

    Suggestions like this are just outbursts of such sentiment that is felt in the only superpower left - sentiment of having the top position threatened.
    In games of big powers, where stakes are high, it's hard to pull back from games like this one: US is applying pressure on Iran and Russia seeks to get some cash it desperately needs by selling Iran stuff nobody else can and wants to sell them. For their own sake, Russians gotta start showing some balls, they've been quite reluctant to do that since the 1991 - the only time they did was the response to Georgian occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. If I were Russia's leader, I'd keep the flow going into Iran.

    LOL, I've gone quite around and round the topic hope someone got the point :)
     
  8. nrj

    nrj Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    9,252
    Likes Received:
    3,347
    Location:
    Brussels
    China Rejects US request to stop ties with Iran

    China has defended its business ties with Iran after a United States official urged Beijing to fully implement sanctions against Tehran. China Thursday rejected concerns about its dealings with Iran.

    China's state media quoted a Foreign Ministry spokeswoman saying trade with Tehran is normal business and does not harm the interests of other countries or the international community.

    She was responding to comments made by the United States' special advisor for nonproliferation and arms control, Robert Einhorn.

    This week Einhorn said China should fully cooperate with United Nations sanctions imposed against North Korea and Iran because of their nuclear programs.

    The U.S. and European Union recently passed new sanctions against Iran and are encouraging Russia and China to support them. The sanctions target Iran's energy and banking sectors.

    Joseph Cheng, a professor of political science at Hong Kong's City University, says Beijing has little interest in new sanctions.

    "China certainly has substantial oil interests in Iran and therefore China is quite reluctant to support the American position," he said. "On the other hand, of course, the American government realizes that unless all major powers are in concerted action, otherwise sanctions will be largely ineffective, it may even hurt the interests of American corporations."

    As Western businesses have pulled out of Iran because of the sanctions, concerns have been raised that Chinese enterprises are moving in to snatch up business.

    China is already Iran's biggest trading partner and plans to invest billions of dollars in its oil sector, including building several refineries.

    Tehran is energy-hungry China's third largest oil supplier. Iran's oil minister is in China this week to discuss further trade and cooperation.

    Although trade relations are friendly, Cheng says China is concerned about Iranian nuclear proliferation, and in June supported a fourth round of U.N. sanctions against Iran.

    China's Foreign Ministry says the country has always observed the Security Council's resolutions and rejects suggestions that Beijing is not acting responsibly.

    But Beijing has opposed tougher measures, including unilateral sanctions imposed by the U.S., EU, Australia, Canada, and Japan, who fear that Tehran aims to acquire nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear programs are for peaceful energy purposes.

    Despite the sanctions, Iran last month claimed to have acquired an advanced missile system, bringing into question the effectiveness of the measures.

    Source
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2010
  9. nrj

    nrj Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    9,252
    Likes Received:
    3,347
    Location:
    Brussels
    LOL! Bush era was amazingly awesome!

    Even if not mid-term, the 2013 has lots of name-plate changing ceremonies in White-House..... :happy_2:
     
  10. EagleOne

    EagleOne Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    85
    but the senario is different and US is more dependent now they cannot force to do some thing on certian countries ....if they impose santions on countries they will be the ultimate looser
     
  11. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,536
    Likes Received:
    6,537
    Don't worry USA is going to slap China back down

    U.S., Hanoi in Nuclear Talks

    http://www.smh.com.au/world/vietnam-in-nuclear-talks-with-us-20100806-11ojj.html


    Vietnam Plan to Enrich Uranium May Undercut Nonproliferation Efforts, Rile China


    By JAY SOLOMON

    WASHINGTON—The Obama administration is in advanced negotiations to share nuclear fuel and technology with Vietnam in a deal that would allow Hanoi to enrich its own uranium—terms that critics on Capitol Hill say would undercut the more stringent demands the U.S. has been making of its partners in the Middle East.

    The State Department-led negotiations could unsettle China, which shares hundreds of miles of border with Vietnam. It is the latest example of the U.S.'s renewed assertiveness in South and Southeast Asia, as Washington strengthens ties with nations that have grown increasingly wary of Beijing's growing regional might.


    U.S. officials familiar with the matter say negotiators have given a full nuclear-cooperation proposal to the communist country and former Cold War foe, and have started briefing House and Senate foreign-relations committees. A top U.S. official briefed on the negotiation said China hadn't been consulted on the talks. "It doesn't involve China," the official said.

    Some counterproliferation experts and U.S. lawmakers briefed on the talks say the deal also marks a step backward in Washington's recent nonproliferation efforts, pointing to a key proviso that would allow Hanoi to produce nuclear fuel on its own soil.

    Both the Obama and George W. Bush administrations had been requiring that countries interested in nuclear cooperation with the U.S. renounce the right to enrich uranium in-country for civilian purposes, a right provided to signatories of the United Nations' Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The technologies required to produce fuel for power reactors can also be used to create atomic weapons, raising proliferation fears.

    U.S. officials have hailed a nuclear-cooperation agreement that President Barack Obama signed last year with the United Arab Emirates as a nonproliferation model, because the Arab country agreed to purchase all of its nuclear fuel from the international market. The Obama administration is currently negotiating a nuclear pact with Jordan in which Washington is also demanding that the country commit to not developing an indigenous nuclear-fuel cycle.

    The senior U.S. official briefed on the Vietnam talks said the State Department is setting a different standard for Hanoi, as the Middle East is viewed as posing a greater proliferation risk than Asia. "Given our special concerns about Iran and the genuine threat of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, we believe the U.A.E....agreement is a model for the region," said the U.S. official. "These same concerns do not specifically apply in Asia. We will take different approaches region by region and country by country."

    Vuong Huu Tan, director of the Vietnam Atomic Energy Institute, a government office, said Vietnamese and U.S. officials reached an initial agreement on nuclear cooperation in March and hope to finalize the pact later this year. He said Vietnam didn't plan to enrich uranium, "as it is sensitive to Vietnam to do so."

    Atomic Dance

    U.S. nuclear-cooperation deals' terms vary by country:

    South Korea. Seoul is seeking rights to reprocess spent fuel as it renegotiates its 1974 deal that expires in 2014.
    Egypt. Deal struck in 1982 doesn't allow for reprocessing of spent fuel. Like most deals over the decades, it is silent on the issue of uranium enrichment, which has increasingly emerged as a proliferation threat.
    India. Pact from 2009 requires New Delhi to separate military and civilian nuclear programs, but allows for the reprocessing of spent fuel.
    Congressional staff and nonproliferation experts briefed on the negotiations have been quick to criticize the State Department's position as a rollback of a key Obama administration nonproliferation platform. They also say Washington's position exposes it to criticism from Arab and developing countries that the U.S. is employing a double standard in pursuing its nuclear policies.

    This could cause Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other nations currently pursuing cooperation agreements with Washington to balk at accepting the same tough terms as the U.A.E.

    "It's ironic...as nonproliferation is one of the president's top goals that the U.A.E. model is not being endorsed here," said a senior Arab official whose government is pursuing nuclear power. "People will start to see a double standard, and it will be a difficult policy to defend in the future."

    Nonproliferation experts also challenge the State Department's argument that Asia poses any less of a proliferation threat than the Middle East. They note that North Korea has actively been spreading dual-use technologies to countries such as Myanmar in recent years. Japan is believed to have the technologies to quickly assemble nuclear weapons if the political decision were made.

    "After the U.S. set such a good example with the U.A.E., the Vietnam deal not only sticks out, it could drive a stake through the heart of the general effort to rein in the spread of nuclear fuel-making," said Henry Sokolski, executive director of Washington's Nonproliferation Education Center, a public policy think tank.

    Vietnam signed an initial memorandum of understanding with the Bush administration in 2001 to pursue cooperation with the U.S. on securing fissile materials and developing civilian nuclear power. The Obama administration has accelerated talks with Hanoi in recent months aimed at completing a deal to allow for the exchange of know-how and cooperation in security, storage and educational areas. It would also allow U.S. firms such as General Electric Co. and Bechtel Corp. to sell nuclear components and reactors to Vietnam, according to U.S. officials.


    President Barack Obama welcomes Vietnam's Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung to the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington April 12.

    "If we're able to have U.S. companies and technologies in play in Vietnam this gives the ability to exert some leverage," said the U.S. official briefed on the negotiations. "If we shut ourselves out, others may have different standards."

    U.S. officials stressed that any agreement with Vietnam will require that Hanoi's nuclear installations be under close oversight by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. This is seen as insuring Vietnam's nuclear materials aren't diverted for military purposes.

    The Vietnamese are studying the agreement's final draft and further talks are expected in the fall, said American diplomats.

    The Obama administration has sought to significantly raise the U.S.'s profile in South and Southeast Asia amid concerns that China has begun to economically and politically dominate the region.

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Hanoi last month and noted growing U.S.-Vietnamese cooperation on a range of security, economic and environmental issues. Mrs. Clinton backed Hanoi's position at a regional security forum that calls for establishing an international legal process to solve territorial disputes in the South China Sea. China attacked Mrs. Clinton's position as threatening Beijing's security interests.

    "The Obama Administration is prepared to take the U.S.-Vietnam relationship to the next level," Mrs. Clinton said while in Hanoi. "We see this relationship not only as important on its own merits, but as part of a strategy aimed at enhancing American engagement in the Asia Pacific."

    Tensions between Washington and Beijing have heated up again in recent weeks after relations between the two countries seemed to have stabilized in the spring.

    U.S. officials this week said they haven't been briefing Beijing, or seeking its approval, while conducting the nuclear talks with Vietnam. "This is a negotiation between the U.S. and Vietnam," said the senior U.S. official. "We don't ask China to approve issues that are in our own strategic interest."

    Officials at China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs couldn't immediately be reached for comment.

    The U.S. has taken other steps in recent months to strengthen its ties to South and Southeast Asian nations historically wary of Chinese influence.

    Last month, the Pentagon reestablished ties with Indonesia's special forces command, known as Kopassus, after severing them in 1999 due to its alleged human-rights abuses. The U.S. also finalized a nuclear-cooperation agreement with India last week, which allows New Delhi to reprocess U.S.-origin nuclear fuels.

    Some governments have criticized the India deal in ways similar to the concern being voiced about the Vietnam arrangement—that it illustrates a U.S. double standard. U.S. officials argue that the deal with India, already a nuclear-weapons state, allows for greater international oversight.

    In addition to the South China Sea dispute, the U.S. and China have sparred over the proper response to North Korea's alleged sinking in March of a South Korean naval vessel, the Cheonan. The Obama administration has also publicly opposed China's plans to sell two nuclear-power reactors to Pakistan. Washington says the sale would violate Beijing's commitments to the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a Vienna-based body that seeks to control the spread of nuclear technologies.

    Write to Jay Solomon at [email protected]
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2010
  12. nrj

    nrj Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    9,252
    Likes Received:
    3,347
    Location:
    Brussels
    Race in proliferation? :emot112:

    What does US thinks of Asia? Some playground ?

    There is No reason India should stop helping Burma ... :happy_7::happy_7:
     
  13. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,536
    Likes Received:
    6,537

    why should China be the only proliferator ? USA will play the same game China is playing and beat them at it.
     
  14. VersusAllOdds

    VersusAllOdds Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Belgrade, Serbia
    Why do you think they would be the loser? By the way, the point of sanctions isn't to win, but to make someone bleed. Not every country has the same amount of blood, for some just droplets are important, but US has no such problem. It uses force to subdue countries to their will by destroying their economy. The funny thing is, that people of those countries always blame their own governments for the sanctions they get from the US. Which exactly is the point...

    I don't think there's currently a single game going on in the world that US can lose. They will, in time be more and more threatened, however.
     

Share This Page