Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.
863Nous présentons un texte de Flynt Leverett et de Hillary Mann Leverett, auxquels nous faisons régulièrement appel pour leurs commentaires sur l’Iran, en leur empruntant des extraits de leurs analyses ou, parfois, une analyse complète. (Comme aujourd’hui, ou comme le 9 décembre 2012.) Ce texte, qui a été publié par HuffingtonPost et Aljazeera, figure également sur le site des deux experts (GoingToTegheran.com), à la date du 26 février 2013.
Il s’agit d’une analyse serrée de la façon dont, selon les Leverett, les sanctions multiples et considérables instituées contre l’Iran par le bloc BAO, par les USA principalement et par l’Europe qui a emprunté cette voie, après l'avoir écartée, par l’habituelle infamie du “suivisme” coutumier. L’analyse s’attache en détails à l’aspect technique et légal des sanctions et explique en détails comment ces mêmes sanctions qui sont développées dans un cadre illégal sont souvent peu suivies, ou bien abandonnées dans leurs effets secondaires, justement à cause de l’aspect illégal qui expose les pays activistes, surtout les USA, à des réactions dommageables pour eux d’organisations internationales telle que l’Organisation Mondiale du Commerce. L’Europe elle-même se trouve exposée à certaines procédures de ses propres organes juridiques qui la mettent déjà en difficultés. D’autre part, il y a tout le volet affectant les pays hors-bloc BAO, notamment la Chine, pressés par le bloc de suivre les sanctions, et qui refusent de le faire, dans des conditions qui pourraient conduire à des conflits commerciaux et juridiques où le bloc perdrait beaucoup de plumes.
Cet aspect du dossier doit donc être ajouté à celui qu’on a examiné par ailleurs, sur l’effet paradoxal des sanctions en Iran même (voir notamment le 25 février 2013). Il est à noter que ces jugements de l’ex-sénateur US Gravel, dans le texte référencé, sont confirmés par des sources européennes, notamment au travers de visites régulièrement effectuées en Iran. Le constat est effectivement celui d’un pays en pleine activité, développant ses propres productions de produits touchés par les sanctions. (Le seul domaine où les sanctions posent de sérieux préjudices est paradoxalement, – du point de vue humanitaire dont le bloc BAO est si friand, – celui des médicaments. Dans ce cas, une réussite remarquable.)
D’une façon plus générale, on doit signaler que les mêmes sources européennes signalent qu’il existe aujourd’hui une sorte de sentiment qu’on nommerait “fatigue des sanctions”, qui commence à sa manifester dans certains pays de l’UE. On constate, dans des réunions ministérielles des 27, que des voix s’affirment pour s’interroger, et interroger les autres, sur l’utilité de ce régime de sanctions, sur son efficacité, etc. Peut-on parler d’une tendance générale ? Oui et non… Si, dans les cadres de la réflexion qu’on cite, il y a effectivement une tendance qui se dessine, aux USA on tombe sur la situation contraire que nous avons tentée de définir le 25 février 2013, où le sentiment populaire écrasant agit comme un incitatif aveugle, notamment pour le Congrès qui intervient dans cette occurrence comme une mécanique également aveugle, sans le moindre souci politique, dans le sens d’une radicalisation constante jusqu'au grotesque du régime des sanctions. L’irresponsabilité du Congrès couplée à l’absolutisme de l’opinion publique US contre l’Iran constitue un facteur exactement contraire à ce qu’on décrit ici, et, pour l’instant, susceptible d’aucune modification puisque fonctionnant effectivement, quasiment d’une façon mécanique, suivant aveuglément la politique-Système dans ses desseins de déstructuration et de dissolution.
...Nous ajouterons cette nouvelle (de Reuters, via PressTV.com, le 27 février 2013), qui nous est parvenue après la mise en ligne de ce texte. Le commentaire est complètement superflu, il ne ferait qu’alourdir le propos qui pèse bien assez par lui-même. On gardera à l’esprit les quelques précisions qui importent en lisant le texte de Flynn et Hillary Mann Everett.
«Reuters reported that a bill, slated to be introduced in the Congress on Wednesday, would enable US President Barack Obama to “impose financial penalties on foreign companies and entities that provide Iran with goods that are critical to its economy.” The bill is also designed to force countries like China to buy less Iranian crude oil, according to a copy of the legislation obtained by Reuters on Tuesday.
»The measure, that expands current sanctions imposed against Iran, also attempts to cut off the country’s access to hard currencies such as the euro by pressuring EU to block Iran from the European Central Bank's payment system.»
dedefensa.org
Our latest piece, “The Coming Collapse of Iran Sanctions,” published today by Al Jazeera and Huffington Post, goes beyond challenging conventional Washington wisdom that U.S.-instigated sanctions against the Islamic Republic are “working” to argue that they are, in fact approaching collapse. We encourage you to go online at either or both Al Jazeera and Huffington Post to leave comments, Facebook likes, etc. We also append our piece below:
Western policymakers and commentators wrongly assume that sanctions will force Iranian concessions in nuclear talks that resume this week in Kazakhstan—or perhaps even undermine the Islamic Republic’s basic stability in advance of the next Iranian presidential election in June. Besides exaggerating sanctions’ impact on Iranian attitudes and decision-making, this argument ignores potentially fatal flaws in the U.S.-led sanctions regime itself—flaws highlighted by ongoing developments in Europe and Asia, and that are likely to prompt the erosion, if not outright collapse of America’s sanctions policy.
Virtually since the 1979 Iranian revolution, U.S. administrations have imposed unilateral sanctions against the Islamic Republic. These measures, though, have not significantly damaged Iran’s economy and have certainly not changed Iranian policies Washington doesn’t like. Between 2006 and 2010, America got the UN Security Council to adopt six resolutions authorizing multilateral sanctions against Iran—also with limited impact, because China and Russia refused to allow any resolution to pass that would have harmed their interests in Iran.
Beyond unilateral and multilateral measures against Iran’s economy, the United States has, since 1996, threatened to impose “secondary” sanctions against third-country entities doing business with the Islamic Republic. In recent years, Congress has dramatically expanded the range of activities subject to such sanctions, going beyond investments in Iranian oil and gas production to include simple purchases of Iranian crude and almost all financial transactions. This year, Congress blacklisted transfers of precious metals to Iran, to make it harder for Tehran to repatriate export earnings or pay for imports in gold. Congress has also increased the sanctions that can be imposed on offending entities, including their cut-off from the U.S. financial system.
Secondary sanctions are a legal and political house of cards. They almost certainly violate American commitments under the World Trade Organization, which allows members to cut trade with states they deem national security threats but not to sanction other members over lawful business conducted in third countries. If challenged on the issue in the WTO’s Dispute Resolution Mechanism, Washington would surely lose.
Consequently, U.S. administrations have been reluctant to impose secondary sanctions on non-U.S. entities transacting with Iran. In 1998, the Clinton administration waived sanctions against a consortium of European, Russian, and Asian companies developing an Iranian gas field; over the next decade, Washington declined to make determinations whether other non-U.S. companies’ Iranian activities were sanctionable. The Obama administration now issues blanket waivers for countries continuing to buy Iranian oil, even when it is questionable they are really reducing their purchases.
Still, legal and reputational risks posed by the threat of U.S. secondary sanctions have reduced the willingness of companies and banks in many countries to transact with Iran, with negative consequences for its oil export volumes, the value of its currency, and other dimensions of its economic life. Last year, the European Union—which for years had condemned America’s prospective “extraterritorial” application of national trade law and warned it would go to the WTO’s Dispute Resolution Mechanism if Washington ever sanctioned European firms over Iran-related business—finally subordinated its Iran policy to American preferences, banning Iranian oil and imposing close to a comprehensive economic embargo against the Islamic Republic.
In recent weeks, however, Europe’s General Court overturned European sanctions against two of Iran’s biggest banks, ruling that the EU never substantiated its claims that the banks provided “financial services for entities procuring on behalf of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.” The European Council has two months to respond—but removing sanctions against the banks would severely weaken Europe’s sanctions regime. Other major players in Iran’s economy, including the Central Bank of Iran and the National Iranian Oil Company, are now challenging their own sanctioned status.
On the other side of the world, America is on a collision course with China over sanctions. In recent years, Beijing has tried to accommodate U.S. concerns about Iran. It has not developed trade and investment positions there as rapidly as it might have, and has shifted some Iran-related transactional flows into renminbi to help the Obama administration avoid sanctioning Chinese banks. (Similarly, India now pays for some Iranian oil imports in rupees.) Whether Beijing has really lowered its aggregate imports of Iranian oil is unclear—but it clearly reduces them when the administration is deciding about six-month sanctions waivers for countries buying Iranian crude.
The administration is taking its own steps to forestall Sino-American conflict over sanctions. Besides issuing waivers for oil imports, the one Chinese bank Washington has barred from the U.S. financial system for Iran-related transactions is a subsidiary of a Chinese energy company—a subsidiary with no business in the United States. However, as Congress enacts additional layers of secondary sanctions, President Obama’s room to maneuver is being progressively reduced. Therein lies the looming policy train wreck.
If, at congressional insistence, the administration later this year demands that China sharply cut Iranian oil imports and that Chinese banks stop virtually any Iran-related transactions, Beijing will say no. If Washington retreats, the deterrent effect of secondary sanctions will erode rapidly. Iran’s oil exports are rising again, largely from Chinese demand. Once it becomes evident Washington won’t seriously impose secondary sanctions, growth in Iranian oil shipments to China and other non-Western economies (e.g., India, South Korea) will accelerate. Likewise, non-Western powers are central to Iran’s quest for alternatives to U.S.-dominated mechanisms for conducting and settling international transactions—a project that will also gain momentum after Washington’s bluff is called.
Conversely, if Washington sanctions major Chinese banks and energy companies, Beijing will respond—at least by taking America to the WTO’s Dispute Resolution Mechanism (where China will win), perhaps by retaliating against U.S. companies in China. Chinese policymakers are increasingly concerned Washington is reneging on its part of the core bargain that grounded Sino-American rapprochement in the 1970s—to accept China’s relative economic and political rise and not try to secure a hegemonic position in Asia. Beijing is already less willing to work in the Security Council on a new (even watered-down) sanctions resolution, and more willing to resist U.S. initiatives that, in its view, challenge Chinese interests (witness China’s vetoes of three U.S.-backed resolutions on Syria). In this context, Chinese leaders will not accept American high-handedness on Iran sanctions. At this point, Beijing has more ways to impose costs on America for violations of international economic law that impinge on Chinese interests than Washington has levers to coerce China’s compliance.
As America’s sanctions policy unravels, President Obama will have to decide whether to stay on a path of open-ended hostility toward Iran that ultimately leads to another U.S.-initiated war in the Middle East, or develop a very different vision for America’s Middle East strategy—a vision emphasizing genuine diplomacy with Tehran, rooted in American acceptance of the Islamic Republic as a legitimate political order representing legitimate national interests and aimed at fundamentally realigning U.S.-Iranian relations.
Flynt Leverett & Hillary Mann Leverett
-
