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

Skip to comments.

US imposes sanctions on arms suppliers to Iran, Syria
AFP ^ | Jan 5, 2006

Posted on 01/05/2007 7:10:19 PM PST by nuconvert

US imposes sanctions on arms suppliers to Iran, Syria

Fri Jan 5, 2006

The United States announced sanctions against 24 foreign entities, including Russian, Chinese and North Korean firms, for allegedly selling banned weapons to Iran and Syria.

The move drew a sharp protest from Moscow.

Russia's state-run arms exporter Rosoboronexport was among the highest profile firms hit by the measures, imposed under the 2005 Iran and Syria Nonproliferation Act.

Three Chinese state-run companies, two other Russian firms and a Russian individual as well as entities from Iran, Sudan, Syria, Pakistan, Malaysia and Mexico were hit by the sanctions, published Friday in the US Federal Register.

The measures took effect as of December 28, a State Department official said. The government did not specify exactly what sales or transfers to Iran or Syria had prompted the punitive steps.

The sanctions law, which dates back to 1999 for Iran and 2005 for Syria, bars US government dealings with companies, governments or individuals caught transferring missile technology, weapons of mass destruction of advanced conventional arms to the two countries.

While the US measures are often largely symbolic, notably when they concern firms in countries such as North Korea, Iran and Syria, they can impact the international dealings of some firms and drew a sharp response Friday from the Russians.

"The introduction of umpteen sanctions against us is a form of unfair competition targeting our company and all Russia," said Valery Kartavtsev, a spokesman of Rosoboronexport.

Rosoboronexport was already hit with US sanctions in August for allegedly providing Iran with equipment that could be used in the development of weapons of mass destruction.

Russian aircraft firm Sukhoi was also targetted by those measures, but the sanctions were lifted against the jetmaker in November after angry protests from Moscow.

Kartavtsev told Russian television his company had doubled its arms exports over the past five years, notably with sales to lucrative markets in Latin America.

He said Rosoboronexport adhered strictly to international and Russian law and had not yet received any official notification of the sanctions.

The deputy chief of another group listed Friday, the Tula Bureau of Studies and Mechanical Construction, said: "Our high technology arms deliveries abroad are in strict conformity with Russian and international rules."

Vassily Gryazev was quoted by ITAR-TASS news agency as saying the sanctions would only have symbolic value bcause his company had no business links with the US.

Vladimir Pekhtin, Deputy Speaker of the Duma, or lower House in Moscow, said the real reason for the sanctions was that "the American administration is simply afraid of competition from Russian companies."

The other Russian firm cited in the sanctions was the Kolomna Design Bureau of Machine-Building, while one individual, Alexey Safonov, was named without further information given.

The targetted Chinese firms were China National Electronic Import-Export Company, China National Aero-Technology Import and Export Company and Zibo Chemet Equipment Company.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: china; iran; rosoboronexport; russia; sanctions; syria; us; weapons

1 posted on 01/05/2007 7:10:22 PM PST by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

I hate to say it but other than potential American suppliers, our sanctions have about as much meaning as the typical UN sanctions.


2 posted on 01/05/2007 7:18:22 PM PST by cripplecreek (Peace without victory is a temporary illusion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
Vassily Gryazev was quoted by ITAR-TASS news agency as saying the sanctions would only have symbolic value bcause his company had no business links with the US.

Maybe we can try the Clinton/Albright/Berger/Cohen "smart" sanctions... whatever that means.

3 posted on 01/05/2007 7:32:57 PM PST by operation clinton cleanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

BTTT!


4 posted on 01/05/2007 7:37:34 PM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

bump


5 posted on 01/05/2007 7:44:03 PM PST by 1COUNTER-MORTER-68 (THROWING ANOTHER BULLET-RIDDLED TV IN THE PILE OUT BACK~~~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

Gasp- sanctions you say? Sanctions? Egads- not the dreaded sanctions- anything but sanctions- what kind of barbarains are we? Please don't tell me that we issued stinging rebukes too? Oh my goodness- please don't tell me that. http://sacredscoop.com


6 posted on 01/05/2007 7:52:07 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
"The United States announced sanctions against 24 foreign entities, including Russian, Chinese and North Korean firms, for allegedly selling banned weapons to Iran and Syria."

Bush destroyed the economic leverage the U.S. once had over China by granting them "most favored nation" trade status and operating with a massive trade deficit with China ever since. Not long ago China needed U.S. exports, but now the U.S. relies heavily on Chinese imports. So how are "sanctions" going to deter China from supplying our enemies with weapons, when we no longer have the power to follow through with the threat?

7 posted on 01/05/2007 8:07:10 PM PST by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

Sounds like the US has finally figured the world is all talk and no action and are taking some of them to task.


8 posted on 01/05/2007 9:16:52 PM PST by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
As we speak, the Dems are likely taking lobby money from these "sanctioned" arms dealers to reverse this sanction law. There is a lot of campaign money waiting there!
9 posted on 01/05/2007 11:35:01 PM PST by Candor7 (Into Liberal flatulance goes the best hope of the West, and who wants to be a smart feller?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

This has been going on all along.

These alleged "friends and allies" of the USA have been flagrantly supporting and supplying the enemy forces waging terror, not just in Iraq, but in many other areas around the world.

This is not news.

We are in a one way world war and our own government is flagrantly ignoring the actions of nations who are supporting our enemies.

It's not a Party issue. The entire government is allowing this to happen.

And now come the peace pussies... pushing our withdrawl from Iraq?

Hello!


10 posted on 01/06/2007 12:03:14 AM PST by CBart95
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CBart95
I agree with you. But ya know, I am a little miffed that some Koran toting towel head can buy a new fully automatic AK-47 for $75.00 American and smuggle it in to the U.S., and I can't buy a fully automatic weapon here in the USA to be able to equal it.

I wish the BATF would loosen up its import restrictions on fully automatic weapons. Having one or two in my gun cabinet along with 5,000 rounds of ammo. would give me a great deal of comfort.

11 posted on 01/06/2007 12:17:28 AM PST by Candor7 (Into Liberal flatulance goes the best hope of the West, and who wants to be a smart feller?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

Your comment here is dismaying.

It will be impossible for you to distance your own self worshipping silliness with the seriousness of all this.

It's deplorable that some "civilian" might reduce this issue to some inane aspect of your present capability to maintain a store of arms used in combat. WHAT?!!!!

Get back in your cage.


12 posted on 01/06/2007 12:42:50 AM PST by CBart95
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader

I agree with you on the leverage we have lost with Communist China, but it was Clinton who signed permanent MFN status to China.

It was NEWT GINGRICH who supported it and pushed it through the Republican Congress.


13 posted on 01/06/2007 5:29:55 AM PST by FLOutdoorsman (The Man who says it can't be done should not interrupt the man doing it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CBart95
GRIN
14 posted on 01/07/2007 9:56:58 AM PST by Candor7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

So that's how you slide by?

With that charming boyish smile?

Bet its a habit you picked up in black ops.


15 posted on 01/07/2007 2:59:00 PM PST by CBart95
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CBart95

GRIN


16 posted on 01/07/2007 5:24:33 PM PST by Candor7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

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