REGULATIONS
COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 36/2012
of 18 January 2012
concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No
442/2011
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:016:0001:0032:EN:PDF
It’s pretty clear the specific sanctions on oil preclude the EU member states from buying energy products exported from Syria. The Syrian oil industry entities are targeted specifically in the annex. There are prohibitions on exporting technology related to refining oil products. There are financial transactions, contracts, brokering, and security transactions prohibited with listed entities or persons. However these restrictions apply to member states. There is also an exception for energy requirements of a subsistence nature. If Iran and Syria have a means to conduct transactions outside western financial entities, they are outside the EU sanctions regime against Syria.
While it appears clear that the spirit of the EU sanctions regime is to damage the Assad regime particularly in the energy, military, financial and technology realms, it is not clear on the face of the EU regulations how one arrives at the legal formulation to seize a ship bringing oil TO Syria. The document alludes to legal and financial mechanisms to deter, block and penalize sanctions violators. The resort to a physical seizure suggests that the administrative, financial and judicial remedies were lacking in this particular case against the third party vessel, and a resort to military force was the sole available option. It is likely that the export of oil from Iran to Syria violates US sanctions, and it is probable this is why Bolton timely chimed in publicly on the illegality of the oil shipment to bolster the UK contentions which are to say the least, less than rock solid, (no pun intended). Also the Iranian claim that the UK action exceeded the territorial limits of the EU jurisdiction bears examination as the ship may have been in international transit status. This is related to UK claims as to what the basis for Gibraltar jurisdiction is, how far it extends, and the exact position of the seizure. Naturally, the UK will choose the most expansive analysis of its jurisdiction in support of the seizure. Ironically, the UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, has indicated in the past that the UK did not support the US withdrawal from the JCPOA nor its reimposition of sanctions on Iran. The reporting on this oil tanker seizure has been characteristically vague and sources of factual details are rarely cited. One report stated that the ship was seized within 3 miles of Gibraltar. One wonders why the tanker would steer this close. What about the right of safe passage?
It seems ironic that a Brexit imminent UK is nominally taking up the cause of the EU sanctions against Syria. The move appears to fulfill the Asian proverb of one stone three birds. The UK military move superficially implicates the EU member states in an anti-Iranian action they actually don't support. The entire operation fulfills greater strategic ambitions of the US and Great Britain in the middle east with a view toward regime change in Iran and exercising Atlantic alliance dominance over world energy markets and prices. Finally, a military seizure provides a provocation designed to elicit a forcible response from Iran inviting further western military actions in turn, laying the predicate for outright US military attacks on Iran. There could be a sense of urgency in the UK and US directed at this goal as the possibility of the end of republican control of the White House looms in the not too distant future.
The timing of the leak of the Kim Darroch cables is really about distracting the media from the UK ship seizure, and at the same time, intended to manipulate Trump to be more resolute in his decisions concerning war and peace, specifically with respect to Iran:
In one of the most recent of the leaked memos, Darroch referred to “incoherent, chaotic” US policy on Iran and questioned Trump’s claim that he had called off a retaliatory air strike against Tehran after the downing of an American drone because he had heard at the last minute that 150 casualties were predicted.*
* https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/07/foreign-office-orders-inquiry-into-leak-of-cables-on-trump
Here's a opinion by twitter from Carl Bildt, Co-chair European Council on Foreign relations:
The legalities of the UK seizure of a tanker heading for Syria with oil from Iran intrigues me. One refers to EU sanctions against Syria, but Iran is not a member of EU. And EU as a principle doesn’t impose its sanctions on others. That’s what the US does.
https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/1147979806593695745?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Enews%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Addendum July 15
Newsclick published an interview on youtube July 7, of M.K. Bhadrakumar, former Indian Ambassador to Turkey, concerning the seizure of the Iranian tanker Grace 1 by the British off Gibraltar. His analysis of the incident is remarkably similar to the one expressed in this blog, namely, that the seizure was illegal under international law and taken to escalate tensions with Iran with a view toward war. It is remarkable that the world media have been completely silent about this unlawful action by the hypocritical English who claim their system represents the rule of law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQHm8QLn5Y8
The hidden agenda behind the seizure of Iran's tanker
No comments:
Post a Comment