Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US sanctions Iran suppliers
Herald Sun ^ | 28 December 2005

Posted on 12/27/2005 8:06:52 PM PST by Aussie Dasher

THE United States has imposed sanctions against nine companies from China, India and Austria for supplying Iran with military equipment and technology, the State Department said today.

The sanctions, which ban the companies from doing business with the US Government and US companies, were based on the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000, which aims at preventing Teheran from developing nuclear weapons.

The United States has accused Iran of seeking to develop nuclear arms under the cover of its civilian nuclear energy program.

"These entities will be sanctioned based on credible information that they transferred equipments and technologies referred on the multilateral control lists to Iran," State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said today.

"They are serial offenders."

The Chinese companies hit were the public company China National Aero-Technology Import and Export Corporation, missile builder China North Industries Corp (Norinco), the chemical equipment group Zibo Chemet Equipment Corp, Hongdu Aviation, Ounion International Economic and Technical Cooperative Ltd, and Limmt Metallurgy and Minerals.

Two Indian chemical groups were also cited: Sabero Organics and Sandhya Organics.

Also cited was Austrian firearms maker Steyr-Mannlicher.

Mr Ereli did not provide details on what the companies supplied to Iran, but stressed the credibility of the information on which Washington based the sanctions, which took effect on December 23.

He noted that Norinco, a leading Chinese defence industry conglomerate, is a repeat offender.

He also praised the Austrian Government for its cooperation in the case of Steyr-Mannlicher, suggesting as well that the sanctions on Steyr could be lifted quickly.

Some 40 companies have been sanctioned since the establishment of the Iran Nonproliferation Act.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: austria; china; india; iran; irannukes; sanctions; terrorism; us
Way to go!!!
1 posted on 12/27/2005 8:06:55 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

It's about time!


2 posted on 12/27/2005 8:13:19 PM PST by familyop (Unfortunately, Albright and Jezebel live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

Two Indian firms face US sanctions

WASHINGTON: Two Indian private-owned Indian chemical companies along with six Chinese government-run firms and an Austrian firm will soon be sanctioned by the Bush administration for allegedly selling missile goods and chemical arms materials to Iran, according to a media report.

The penalties apparently have been under consideration for the last several weeks and have been approved by the deputy secretary of state Robert Zoellick and will be formally published in the federal register over the next several days, The Washington Times reported on Tuesday citing unnamed administration officials.

The two Indian firms identified are Sabero Organic Chemicals and the Sandhya Organic Chemicals.

According to the media report the sanctions announcement will also state that the Bush administration is lifting restrictions on one of the two Indian nuclear scientists who are linked to Iran’s nuclear programme.

The sanctions on Chaudhary Surendar will be lifted. The government of India has long denied that Surendar was linked to any Iranian nuclear proliferation activities.

Washington had slapped sanctions on Surendar in September 2004 under the Iran Non-Proliferation Act for his role in providing Teheran with weapons of mass destruction and missile goods.

The sanctions against the other Indian scientist, Y S R Prasad will continue to stay in the books until the measures expire next September.

The new penalties that are to be levied formally against the Indian, Chinese and Austrian firms will last until December 2007.


3 posted on 12/27/2005 8:15:57 PM PST by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

Pissing in the wind.


4 posted on 12/27/2005 8:24:55 PM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
"Pissing in the wind."

Zactly! The companies involved will simply sell their wares to an intermediary who will then sell the weapons to the 'banned' countries.

If we were serious about China we'd drop them from our "most favored nation" trade status and begin slapping all their chintzy imports with higher taxes, and begin manufacturing here in the U.S. again. Frankly, I'd rather pay more for my dish towels and coffee makers than trade with my worst enemy and enhance their economy.

5 posted on 12/27/2005 9:45:36 PM PST by TheCrusader ("The frenzy of the mohammedans has devastated the Churches of God" Pope Urban II ~ 1097A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

If we wanted to get serious, we would sanction alot more than some "companies" in China.


6 posted on 12/27/2005 10:16:42 PM PST by Just Lori (Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader
"If we were serious about China we'd drop them from our "most favored nation" trade status and begin slapping all their chintzy imports with higher taxes..."

Free trade is the road to world peace. Wars are like rest stops. Can you hold it until we get there?

7 posted on 12/27/2005 11:11:51 PM PST by humint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: humint
"Free trade is the road to world peace."

I think your roadmap was printed in China. International trade is not a new concept, it's thousands of years old and has brought with it no peace.

8 posted on 12/27/2005 11:21:07 PM PST by TheCrusader ("The frenzy of the mohammedans has devastated the Churches of God" Pope Urban II ~ 1097A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher
"These entities will be sanctioned based on credible information that they transferred equipments....

What's with the equipments bit? Are we going back to the silliness of a few years ago when we were saying peoples and monies?

9 posted on 12/28/2005 1:43:43 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot

In British / Commonwealth English, I think 'equipments' is allowed.

http://www.english-test.net/toeic/vocabulary/meanings/029/toeic-words.php

Meaning of 'equipment' (noun forms plural: equipments)
supplies; necessary items; tools, instruments or other objects for completing a task


10 posted on 12/28/2005 2:35:42 AM PST by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

this is useless!

They will be able to keep on buying whatever they want as long as they have $ and Oil and Chinese want them both


11 posted on 12/28/2005 6:06:36 AM PST by F14 Pilot (Democracy is a process not a product)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick

Thanks. I guess we will be saying hairs for hair, deers for deer, etc., soon. It seems an unnecessary affectation to me but what do I know?


12 posted on 12/28/2005 8:32:49 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader
I think your roadmap was printed in China. International trade is not a new concept; it's thousands of years old and has brought with it no peace.

"Free trade" and "international trade" are discrete ideas. The first is the ideal form of the second. Iran is a threat to peace and regional stability so sanctions are good in order to isolate Iran and mitigate the threat Iran poses to peace. These new, “targeted” sanctions are a good wakeup call to the nations that host corporations who feed the Iranian threat. My comment to you about “free trade” was to suggest we not argue for the scope of our sanctions against Iran to expand to the point that we economically isolate ourselves. The primary component of the “Iran and Libya Sanctions Act” was to transform our sanctions against Iran and Libya from unilateral to multilateral sanctions. Unfortunately, the way the news was released makes an international backlash against these sanctions more likely. And any such backlash makes moves toward multilateral sanctions more difficult.

I checked my road map to see where it was made… It was made right here in the United States of America. The Bush Administration has been arguing for “free trade” and now “free and fair trade” for a long time. However he and his writers are not nearly as quick to make confusing analogies as I am, for obvious reasons.

13 posted on 12/28/2005 11:03:08 AM PST by humint ({@}) What would the world look like after you changed it? ({@})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson