ReportWire

Tag: Sanctions

  • Bitter friends: Inside the summit aiming to heal EU-US trade rift

    Bitter friends: Inside the summit aiming to heal EU-US trade rift

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    The transatlantic reset between Brussels and Washington is on life support.

    After four years of discord and disruption under Donald Trump, hopes were high that Joe Biden’s presidency would usher in a new era of cooperation between Europe and the U.S. after he declared: “America is back.”

    But when senior officials from both sides meet in Washington on Monday for a twice-yearly summit on technology and trade, the mood will be gloomier than at any time since Trump left office.

    The European Union is up in arms over Biden’s plans for hefty subsidies for made-in-America electric cars, claiming these payments, which partly kick in from January 1, are nothing more than outright trade protectionism. 

    At the same time, the U.S. is increasingly frustrated the 27-country bloc won’t be more aggressive in pushing back against China, accusing some European governments of caving in to Beijing’s economic might. 

    Those frictions are expected to overshadow the so-called EU-U.S. Trade and Technology Council (TTC) summit this week. At a time when the Western alliance is seeking to maintain a show of unity and strength in the face of Russian aggression and Chinese authoritarianism, the geopolitical stakes are high. 

    Biden may have helped matters last Thursday, during a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron, by saying he believed the two sides can still resolve some of the concerns the EU has raised. 

    “We’re going to continue to create manufacturing jobs in America but not at the expense of Europe,” Biden said. “We can work out some of the differences that exist, I’m confident.”

    But, as ever, the details will be crucial.

    It is unclear what Biden can do to stop his Buy American subsidies from hurting European car-markers, for example, many of which come from powerful member countries like France and Germany. The TTC summit offers a crucial early opportunity for the two sides to begin to rebuild trust and start to deliver on Biden’s warm rhetoric.

    Judging by the TTC’s record so far, those attending, who will include U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, will have their work cut out.

    More than 20 officials, policymakers and industry and society groups involved in the summit told POLITICO that the lofty expectations for the TTC have yet to deliver concrete results. Almost all of the individuals spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations.

    U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken will be attending the TTC | Sean Gallup/Getty Images

    Some officials privately accused their counterparts of broken promises, particularly on trade. Others are frustrated at a lack of progress in 10 working groups on topics like helping small businesses to digitize and tackling climate change. 

    “With these kinds of allies, who needs enemies?” said one EU trade diplomat when asked about tensions around upcoming U.S. electric car subsidies. A senior U.S. official working on the summit hit back: “We need the Europeans to play ball on China. So far, we haven’t had much luck.”

    Much of the EU-U.S. friction is down to three letters: IRA.

    Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which provides subsidies to “Buy American” when it comes to purchasing electric vehicles, has infuriated officials in Brussels who see it as undermining the multilateral trading system and a direct threat to the bloc’s rival car industry. 

    “The expectation the TTC was established to provide a forum for precisely these advanced exchanges with a view to preventing trade frictions before they arise appears to have been severely frustrated,” said David Kleimann, a trade expert at the Bruegel think tank in Brussels. 

    Biden’s room for flexibility is limited. The context for the subsidies and tax breaks is his desire to make good on his promise to create more manufacturing jobs ahead of an expected re-election run in 2024. The U.S. itself is hovering on the edge of a possible recession. 

    In addition, the U.S. trade deficit with the EU hit a record $218 billion in 2021, second only to the U.S. trade deficit with China. The U.S. also ran an auto trade deficit of about $22 billion with European countries, with Germany accounting for the largest share of that. 

    Washington has few, if any, meaningful policy levers at its disposal to calm European anger. During a recent visit to the EU, Katherine Tai, the U.S. trade representative, urged European countries to pass their own subsidies to jumpstart Europe’s electric car production, according to three officials with knowledge of those discussions. 

    “It risks being the elephant in the room,” said Emily Benson, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank, when asked about the electric car dispute. 

    After a push from Brussels, there were increasing signs on Friday that the TTC could still play a role. In the latest version of the TTC’s draft declaration, obtained by POLITICO, both sides commit to addressing the European concerns over Biden’s subsidies, including via the Trade and Tech Council. Again, though, there was no detail on how Washington could resolve the issue.

    Politicians across Europe are already drawing up plans to fight back against Biden’s subsidies. That may include taking the matter to the World Trade Organization, hitting the U.S. with retaliatory tariffs or passing a “Buy European Act” that would nudge EU consumers and businesses to buy locally made goods and components.

    Officials and business leaders pose for a photo during the TTC in September 2021 | Pool photo by Rebecca Droke/AFP via Getty Images

    Privately, Washington has not been in the mood to give ground. Speaking to POLITICO before Biden met Macron, five U.S. policymakers said the IRA was not aimed at alienating allies, stressing that the green subsidies fit the very climate change goals that Europe has long called on America to adopt. 

    “There’s just a huge amount to be done and more frankly to be done than the market would provide for on its own,” said a senior White House official, who was not authorized to speak on the record. “We think the Inflation Reduction Act is reflective of that type of step, but we also think there is a space here for Europe and others, frankly, to take similar steps.”

    China tensions

    Senior politicians attending the summit are expected to play down tensions this week when they announce a series of joint EU-U.S. projects.

    These include funds for two telecommunications projects in Jamaica and Kenya and the announcement of new rules for how the emerging technology of so-called trustworthy artificial intelligence can develop. There’s also expected to be a plan for more coordination to highlight potential blockages in semiconductor supply chains, according to the draft summit statement obtained by POLITICO. 

    Yet even on an issue like microchips — where both Washington and Brussels have earmarked tens of billions of euros to subsidize local production — geopolitics intervenes.

    For months, U.S. officials have pushed hard for their European counterparts to agree to export controls to stop high-end semiconductor manufacturing equipment being sent to China, according to four officials with knowledge of those discussions. 

    Washington already passed legislation to stop Chinese companies from using such American-made hardware. The White House had been eager for the European Commission to back similar export controls, particularly as the Dutch firm ASML produced equipment crucial for high-end chipmaking worldwide. 

    Yet EU officials preparing for the TTC meeting said such requests had never been made formally to Brussels. The draft summit communiqué makes just a passing reference to China and threats from so-called non-market economies.

    Unlike the U.S., the EU remains divided on how to approach Beijing as some countries like Germany have long-standing economic ties with Chinese businesses that they are reluctant to give up. Without a consensus among EU governments, Brussels has little to offer Washington to help its anti-China push.

    “In theory, the TTC is not about China, but in practice, every discussion with the U.S. is,” said one senior EU official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “If we talk with Katherine Tai about Burger King, it has an anti-China effect.”

    Gavin Bade, Clea Caulcutt, Samuel Stolton and Camille Gijs contributed reporting.

    Mark Scott, Barbara Moens and Doug Palmer

    Source link

  • Merkel: There was nothing I could do about Putin

    Merkel: There was nothing I could do about Putin

    Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that she no longer saw any possibility of influencing Russian President Vladimir Putin toward the end of her term in office.

    In an interview with German magazine Der Spiegel, Merkel talked about her final encounters with Putin, saying that throughout her farewell visit to Moscow in August 2021 she felt “in terms of power politics, you’re done,” adding that “for Putin, only power counts.”

    She cited the fact that Putin brought Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov along to this last visit as another sign of her crumbling power, as previously they met “often in private,” she said.

    Merkel also said that the conflict in Ukraine “didn’t come as a surprise” as she said by 2021 the Minsk agreement, which was struck in 2015 aimed at ending the conflict in eastern Ukraine, was “hollowed out.”

    According to Merkel, she unsuccessfully tried to set up “an independent European discussion format with Putin” in the summer of 2021 together with French President Emmanuel Macron, but realized that she no longer had the clout to assert herself in the European Council either, with the end of her time in office looming.

    Merkel also defended herself, saying that together with then-U.S. President Barack Obama, “we tried everything after Russia’s annexation of Crimea [in 2014] to prevent further incursions by Russia into Ukraine and coordinated our sanctions in detail.”

    The remarks come soon after she was publicly criticized by former Bundestag president and CDU party colleague Wolfgang Schäuble for not acknowledging mistakes in her Russia policy over the past 16 years.

    Germany’s dependence on Russian gas deliveries grew continuously under Merkel’s leadership in the years prior to Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

    Wilhelmine Preussen

    Source link

  • European teams ditch pro-LGBTQ+ armbands at Qatar World Cup

    European teams ditch pro-LGBTQ+ armbands at Qatar World Cup

    England captain Harry Kane will not wear a pro-LGBTQ+ armband Monday, during England’s opening match against Iran at the 2022 Qatar World Cup.

    Along with six other European countries, England dropped plans for the captain to wear a “One Love” armband due to FIFA’s threat of “sporting sanctions” — likely yellow cards for offending players. Homosexuality is illegal in Qatar.

    “We cannot put our players in the situation where they might be booked or even forced to leave the field of play,” a joint statement from the Football Associations of England, Wales, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland reads. The group of teams added that they are “very frustrated” after a letter sent to world football governing body FIFA in September informing about the wish to wear the armband went unanswered.

    Over the weekend, the German and Danish teams had vowed that their captains would wear the armband, but those countries have now reversed their position.

    Qatar has faced criticism ever since it was awarded the tournament in 2010 for its treatment of migrant workers, as well as its stance on the LGBTQ+ community and women’s rights.

    The armband row follows other debates over strict rules at the Qatar World Cup, including a controversial last-minute decision to ban the sale of alcohol in match stadiums.

    On Saturday, FIFA President Gianni Infantino blasted Western critics of Qatar’s hosting of the World Cup, accusing them of “hypocrisy” before the start of the global football tournament.

    Slamming FIFA and Qatar’s critics for double standards, Infantino said: “I think for what we Europeans have been doing in the last 3,000 years around the world, we should be apologizing for the next 3,000 years, before starting to give moral lessons to people.” 

    Wilhelmine Preussen

    Source link

  • Brussels’ uphill battle to confiscate Russian assets

    Brussels’ uphill battle to confiscate Russian assets

    The European Commission is exploring legal options to confiscate Russian state and private assets as a way to pay for Ukraine’s reconstruction, according to a document seen by POLITICO.

    The goal would be “identifying ways to strengthen the tracing, identification, freezing and management of assets as preliminary steps for potential confiscation,” according to the document.

    The potential bounty would consist of nearly $300 billion frozen Russian central bank assets, as well as assets and revenues of individuals and entities on the EU’s sanctions list. The idea was floated already in May, and is supported by Kyiv, as well as Poland, the Baltics and Slovakia. EU leaders in October tasked the Commission to look into legal options to seize Russian assets currently frozen under sanctions.

    But the conundrum is that there’s currently no legal mechanism to confiscate Russian assets — as pointed out by U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen back in May. It would need to be created.

    “There may be a path for the EU to validly confiscate frozen assets under international law, but it is likely a narrow, a long and an untested path,” said Jan Dunin-Wasowicz, a lawyer at Hughes Hubbard & Reed.

    That isn’t deterring the Commission from looking into it.

    With regards to private assets belonging to sanctioned people or entities, Brussels is readying proposals to make sanctions evasion an EU crime, a step which would facilitate their confiscation — but only in case of a criminal conviction. Even then, the EU would need to argue each case in court, likely having to litigate for years.

    That’s because a lot of these assets would be considered foreign investments, which enjoy protection against expropriation without compensation and a right to fair and equitable treatment under international treaties that Russia has with a lot of EU countries.

    The confiscating authority would also need to draw a clear link between the property owner and the conflict in Ukraine.

    “To ensure proportionality, you would need to look at who are the owners, what did they do, et cetera,” said Stephan Schill, professor of international and economic law and governance at the University of Amsterdam.

    With regards to frozen foreign reserves of the central bank, the largest money pot, the EU executive writes in the document that “these are generally considered to be covered by immunity,” with a footnote pointing to a U.N. convention on jurisdictional immunities of foreign states and their property, which is however not yet in force.

    “From an international law perspective, it’s pretty clear that without Russia’s consent you can’t use Russian central bank assets,” said Schill.

    As for assets of Russian-owned state enterprises, the paper notes that these wouldn’t be “in principle” covered by such convention, but grabbing them may raise problems linked to the confiscation of private assets, “in addition to the need to demonstrate a sufficient connection to the Russian state.”

    The EU is also mulling an “exit tax” on the assets or proceeds from assets of sanctioned individuals that want to transfer their property out of the EU. This could run into legal problems of its own, as it would target a specific group of individuals — which runs counter to non-discrimination provisions in international law — and they in turn could invoke the human right to property as a defence.

    To Schill’s knowledge, there is no recent and valid precedent for any of these options.

    “The EU and member states are trying to introduce new criminal law,” he said.

    Paula Tamma

    Source link

  • Russia’s Lavrov: Western leaders want to militarize Southeast Asia

    Russia’s Lavrov: Western leaders want to militarize Southeast Asia

    Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Sunday accused Western leaders of looking to militarize Southeast Asia to contain Moscow and Beijing’s interests in the region.

    “The United States and its NATO allies are trying to master this space,” Lavrov told reporters in Cambodia.

    He was speaking at a press conference at the end of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit in Phnom Penh, and ahead of the G20 summit in Bali later this week.

    Lavrov is representing Moscow at the G20 meeting in Indonesia after the Kremlin said Russian President Vladimir Putin is too busy to attend.

    Lavrov said the U.S.’s Indo-Pacific strategy, which President Joe Biden was promoting at the ASEAN summit, ignored “inclusive structures” of regional cooperation and would lead to “the militarization of this region with an obvious focus on containing China, and containing Russian interests in the Asia-Pacific,” Reuters reported. 

    On Saturday, Biden pledged at the ASEAN summit to help stand against China’s growing dominance in the region, saying: “We’ll build an Indo-Pacific that is free and open, stable and prosperous, resilient and secure.”

    Russia has been seeking closer ties with Asia since Western sanctions following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.

    Mari Eccles

    Source link

  • Iran teaches Russia its tricks on beating oil sanctions

    Iran teaches Russia its tricks on beating oil sanctions

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    Iran is preparing to hand the Kremlin the blueprints for its most effective weapon against the West: the underground financial network it relies on to evade sanctions. 

    For years, the Islamic Republic has frustrated American efforts to isolate it and starve its economy by constructing a parallel universe of front companies and foreign banks — including major financial institutions based in Europe and the U.S. — that Iranian companies use to evade international controls and conduct business abroad. 

    As Russia faces increasing international isolation over the war in Ukraine, Iran, which is already providing Moscow with weapons, has offered to share its expertise in the art of sanctions evasion, Western diplomats say. A series of recent meetings between senior Russian and Iranian officials, including Iranian central bank chief Ali Salehabadi and Deputy Economy Minister Ali Fekri, involved laying the groundwork for that collaboration, the diplomats argue.  

    If Moscow manages to copy the Iranian system it could hope to blunt the impact of many of the sanctions it faces, especially in its oil and gas sector, which forms the backbone of its economy. Such a system would give Russian President Vladimir Putin much more flexibility — and time — to continue to wage his war against Ukraine by keeping oil revenue flowing. 

    “Anyone interested in changing the Russian state of mind should understand that paralyzing the Russian-Iranian financial abilities is essential,” one of the Western officials said. 

    The diplomats who issued the warning on sanctions evasion techniques also noted that Western banks, such as Germany’s Commerzbank and Deutsche Bank, as well as Citigroup in the U.S., played a role in helping Iran continue to rake in export earnings through underground transactions. The risk is that the same Western banks — either wittingly or unwittingly — could be sucked into the same style of trade by Russia.

    Trans-Caspian comrades

    Over the summer, Tehran and Moscow held talks about using Iran as a backdoor for Russian oil once Tehran and world powers went back to a nuclear deal, under which the Islamic Republic would rein in its atomic program in return for sanctions relief. But amid the Iranian regime’s brutal crackdown on protestors in recent weeks and growing skepticism about renewing the accord in Washington, the likelihood of a breakthrough has faded.  

    Relations between Russia and Iran, which collaborated in Syria to support the regime of Bashar al-Assad in that country’s civil war, have intensified on other fronts, however. Iran has become a major supplier of the “kamikaze” drones Russia is using in Ukraine, for example. Meanwhile, Tehran asked the Kremlin for help in advancing its nuclear program, CNN reported last week, citing U.S. intelligence. 

    Iran has decades of experience in finding ways to avoid American sanctions but made particular strides since 2018 after U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal and reimposed restrictions. Trump argued that the arrangement with Iran was insufficient to prevent Tehran from building a bomb. European countries, led by Germany and France, objected to the U.S. decision but were powerless to stop it. 

    Even before Trump’s move, however, European banks and companies had been reluctant to reengage with Iran because many U.S. sanctions remained in place and most firms assessed the risk of U.S. legal exposure as too high. 

    Iran’s remedy was to go underground.  

    A cache of recent transaction data reviewed by POLITICO between Iranian clearing houses and foreign-registered front companies controlled by the regime suggests that the volume of sanctions-evading transactions handled by the network is at least in the tens of billions of dollars annually. The data, authenticated by Western officials, underscores the degree to which Iran succeeded in circumventing the so-called “maximum pressure campaign” Washington initiated in 2018. 

    Iran resisted re-entering the nuclear deal with the Wset despite significant concessions by the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden | Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images

    “This explains how Iran won the maximum pressure campaign,” one of the Western officials said.

    It might also explain why Iran, despite significant concessions by the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden, resisted re-entering the nuclear deal. The talks reached a stalemate even before the recent surge in protests in Iran.

    While American sanctions have taken a toll on Iran’s economic output, Tehran’s shadow financial network has ensured the economy continues to fire, if not on all cylinders, then at a pace that keeps it moving, while also securing the elite’s privileges. Though inflation and unemployment in Iran are high — factors that have contributed to unrest — its economy has recently shown signs of life, growing by more than 4 percent in the last fiscal year alone, according to the World Bank

    While Iran’s oil exports have roughly halved under the sanctions to about 1 million barrels per day, it has succeeded in maintaining robust trade in other areas, such as petrochemicals and metals. At about $100 billion last year, Iran’s foreign trade reached its highest level since the U.S. reimposed sanctions. Despite the drop in oil volumes, the country has recently benefited from rising prices, with export revenue last year more than doubling to about $19 billion. What’s driving Iran’s oil recovery, according to the World Bank, are “indirect exports to China.” 

    Iranian oil is attractive to China, mainly because it’s relatively cheap. The illicit nature of sanctioned Iranian crude means it sells at a steep discount to market prices.   

    Financial frontmen

    That’s where Iran’s secret network of front companies comes in. 

    The oil itself is fairly easy to deliver under the radar by using ship-to-ship transfers in open water and then blending it in foreign ports with other crude to disguise its origin. The greater difficulty for Iran is getting paid for the sales without triggering red flags in the international financial system, which from a regulatory perspective is dominated by the United States. Instead of selling the oil directly to the end buyer, it is sold via front companies, often to other front companies.  

    Just last week, the U.S. sanctioned the members of what it described as an Iranian-backed oil smuggling ring that Washington accused of funneling money to Hezbollah, the Lebanese-based terror group supported by Tehran. 

    “The individuals running this illicit network use a web of shell companies and fraudulent tactics including document falsification to obfuscate the origins of Iranian oil, sell it on the international market, and evade sanctions,” Brian Nelson, a senior official at the U.S. Treasury involved in the investigation, said in a statement announcing the new sanctions.

    The ability to quietly finance terror is only one of the myriad benefits Iran draws from its underground financial system, however. The biggest advantage is that it gives the country’s battered economy access to hard foreign currency without a single dollar entering Iran’s own banking system. Though most of the funds generated through the network remain abroad, local companies can use the revenue they generate there as collateral at home. 

    Iran’s surreptitious financial system is built on what are known in the country as “money exchange houses.” The organizations, which number in the dozens, are Iran-based clearinghouses that operate a network of front companies abroad, typically registered in China, UAE and Turkey. The houses are under the close supervision of the regime.

    If an Iranian firm needs to undertake a foreign transaction prohibited by sanctions, its local bank can turn to one of the houses to filter the payment through a labyrinth of front companies, making it extremely difficult to trace the true origin, Western diplomats say. 

    Sanctions smokescreen

    A less-known aspect of this underground trade is the central role played by major Western banks. Many of the transactions, which involve everything from oil to scrap metal, are denominated in either euros or dollars. That means that settlement, the final step in the transaction, requires the involvement of a European or U.S. bank, depending on the currency. 

    According to Iranian exchange house data reviewed by POLITICO, major EU-based banks, such as Germany’s Commerzbank and Deutsche Bank as well as U.S. banks, including Citigroup, have been used by Iran to settle these transactions. Under U.S. sanctions rules, domestic banks and foreign banks that do business in the U.S. are prohibited from conducting almost all financial dealings that involve Iran. 

    The diplomats said the exchange data showed illicit Iranian export earnings being swilled through the international banking system, but there is no evidence the banks were aware that those transactions were part of Tehran’s scheme to keep the oil income flowing. If the front companies named in the transactions haven’t been specifically designated by the U.S. government, the banks often fail to detect the suspect activity.

    Although banks have stringent due diligence requirements to trace the origins of funds, the Iranians have become masters at hiding where cash comes from. Nothing on the clearing data reveals an Iran connection. The transactions in question often involve the same group of companies and banks, based in China, Turkey the UAE, Singapore and India, and range in value from a few thousand dollars to millions. 

    The lion’s share of transactions passes through the United Arab Emirates, the diplomats said. The UAE’s proximity to Iran and light-touch regulatory environment make it an attractive place for Tehran to conduct business, they said. Those same attributes have also put the country in the sights of European officials. In the coming days, the European Commission is expected to place the UAE on its list of “high-risk” countries concerning money laundering and the financing of terrorism

    One of the companies that appears frequently in the transaction records is Hong Kong-registered Hua Gong HK Trading Ltd. It was founded in October of 2018, shortly after the U.S. began to reintroduce sanctions against Iran. Western diplomats say the firm is a front company operated by Tahayyori Guarantee Society, one of Iran’s biggest exchange houses.  

    Deutsche Bank adopted a policy 15 years ago to reject “any business with parties in Iran” | Armando Babani/AFP via Getty Images

    Hua Gong transactions over the past year reviewed by POLITICO passed through both Deutsche Bank and Citibank via Chinese banks. The recipients of the funds it transferred included firms in Hong Kong, Italy and Singapore. 

    POLITICO was unable to reach Hua Gong for comment.

    POLITICO also contacted the Western banks and asked about the Iranian exchange house data. The European banks in question declined to comment on whether they were aware that Iranian entities were behind the transactions highlighted.  

    “Commerzbank AG takes its obligations and responsibilities under applicable sanctions laws and regulations seriously,” the Frankfurt-based lender said in a statement. “The bank has implemented measures in line with industry standards to ensure that its activities are conducted in compliance with applicable sanctions, including those implemented by the U.N., EU, U.S. and U.K.”

    Deutsche Bank adopted a policy 15 years ago to reject “any business with parties in Iran,” a spokesman said, adding that the bank also applies “strict controls globally to prevent and detect evasion of sanctions, wherever possible.”

    A spokesman for Citigroup said the New York-based bank “takes financial crimes compliance very seriously, diligently monitoring and adhering to guidance from relevant governments and other verified sources to assist in protecting the international financial system from abuse by illegitimate front companies or other illicit actors.”

    Hard to police

    Yet executives close to the banks say privately that policing is easier said than done. The banks have invested billions in sophisticated computer systems to root out suspect transactions and have hired armies of financial crimes specialists. Still, the Iranians are often one step ahead of them.

    “It’s difficult to know when we’re being abused,” an executive at one of the banks acknowledged. “The people that do this professionally know the jurisdictions that don’t cooperate with U.S. authorities, so there’s regulatory arbitrage here as well.” 

    It’s not clear to what degree the specific transactions reviewed by POLITICO may have breached American sanctions.

    A spokeswoman for the U.S. Treasury did not comment on the specific banks cited by POLITICO, but said that the authority has a long record of closely monitoring compliance with American sanctions against Iran and Russia and would continue to do so, including where it concerns financial institutions.

    “Treasury will continue to target these sanctions evasion efforts to hide and move money through the international financial system, and financial institutions should continue to be vigilant against such schemes,” she said.

    Violating U.S. sanctions has been extremely costly for European banks in the past. In 2014, for example, France’s BNP was fined $8.9 billion for running afoul of American sanctions against Iran and other countries. 

    The EU lifted most financial sanctions against Iran as part of the 2015 nuclear deal, which European powers continue to observe. Nonetheless, for the most part, European banks have steered clear for fear of exposure to U.S. sanctions. 

    While national regulators in Europe are responsible for overseeing their banks, it’s up to the European Central Bank as steward of the common currency to police euro-denominated transactions that run through its settlement system, known as TARGET2. 

    Critics accuse the central bank of turning a blind eye to abuse of its settlement system. Asked by POLITICO how the ECB policed its settlement network and if the bank was aware of illicit activity involving Iranian front companies and eurozone banks, a spokesman said: “The ECB enforces EU sanctions, and not sanctions imposed by non-EU jurisdictions. As regards EU sanctions, the ECB ensures that TARGET2 does not settle transactions that fall under the sanctions.”

    Yet even if undertaking financial transactions with Iranian interests isn’t a violation of EU sanctions, European regulations aimed at combating money laundering require banks to conduct thorough checks into the identity of their customers, a standard called “know your customer.” The EU’s deficiencies in that regard have been apparent for years. In September, the European Banking Authority, which coordinates regulation in the sector, said that officials across the region “need to do more” to combat illicit activity in Europe’s financial system.

    Until that happens, Western diplomats say, Iran will continue to use Europe’s financial infrastructure without fear of detection, an example they say Russia is bound to follow.  

     “This is not a loophole in the wall,” one of the officials said. “There is no wall.”

    This article is part of POLITICO Pro

    The one-stop-shop solution for policy professionals fusing the depth of POLITICO journalism with the power of technology


    Exclusive, breaking scoops and insights


    Customized policy intelligence platform


    A high-level public affairs network

    Matthew Karnitschnig

    Source link

  • Ukraine frets about US midterms

    Ukraine frets about US midterms

    Press play to listen to this article

    There is mounting anxiety about what Tuesday’s American midterm elections may mean for Ukraine and U.S. support for the country, amid fears that a Republican surge could weaken American backing for Kyiv.

    Ukrainian officials and lawmakers are scrutinizing the opinion polls and parsing the comments of their counterparts.

    “We hope that for our sake that we don’t become a victim to the partisan debate that’s unfolding right now in the U.S.,” Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, a former Ukrainian deputy prime minister and now opposition lawmaker, told POLITICO. “That’s the fear, because we are very much seriously dependent on not only American support, but also on the U.S. leadership in terms of keeping up the common effort of other nations.”  

    House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, the potential next speaker if the Republicans prevail, said last month that there would be no “blank check” for Ukraine if the House comes back under Republican control. The Biden administration has tried to assuage concerns about the government’s commitment to supporting Ukraine in its fight against Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion, but populist Republican sentiment in Congress is urging less support for Kyiv and more attention on U.S. domestic problems.  

    “I’m worried about the Trump wing of the GOP,” said Mia Willard, a Ukrainian-American living and working in Kyiv. “I have recently read about Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s promise that ‘not another penny will go to Ukraine’ if Republicans retake control of Congress.”

    According to the latest poll data, the Republicans are favored to take over the House and possibly the Senate in Tuesday’s voting.

    “I do hope that regardless of the election results,” said Willard, “there will be a continued bipartisan consensus on supporting Ukraine amid Russia’s genocide of the Ukrainian people, which I cannot call anything but a genocide after firsthand witnessing Russia’s war crimes in the now de-occupied territories,” said Willard, who is a researcher at the International Centre for Policy Studies in the Ukrainian capital.

    Former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin is confident that U.S. military and financial support for his country will continue after the midterms. “I don’t see a critical number of people among the Republicans calling for cuts in aid,” he told POLITICO. At the same time, Klimkin acknowledged that the procedure for congressional consideration of Ukraine aid may become more complex.

    Klimkin said he believes that the U.S. stance toward Ukraine is “critical” for Washington beyond the Ukrainian conflict — “not only with respect to Russia, but also to how the U.S. will be perceived by China.”

    Voters line up outside the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections center in Cleveland, Ohio | Dustin Franz/AFP via Getty Images

    For Ukraine, Klimkin said the “real risk” is the debate taking place in Washington on both sides of the aisle about the fact that “the United States is giving much more than all of Europe” to Kyiv’s war effort.

    According to the Kiel Institute of the World Economy, the U.S. has brought its total commitments in military, financial and humanitarian aid to over €52 billion, while EU countries and institutions have collectively reached just over €29 billion. 

    “The U.S. is now committing nearly twice as much as all EU countries and institutions combined. This is a meager showing for the bigger European countries, especially since many of their pledges are arriving in Ukraine with long delays,” said Christoph Trebesch, head of the team compiling the Kiel Institute’s Ukraine support tracker.

    Europe’s stance

    If the Republicans prevail in Tuesday’s vote, the anxiety is also that without U.S. leadership, Ukraine would slip down the policy agenda of Europe, too, depriving Ukraine of the backing the country needs for “victory over the Russian monster,” Klympush-Tsintsadze said.

    If the worst happened and U.S. support weakens following the midterms, Klympush-Tsintsadze said she has some hopes that Europe would still stand firm. She has detected in Europe “much more sobriety in the assessment of what Russia is and what it can do, and I hope there would be enough voices there in Europe, too, to ensure there’s no weakening of support,” she said.

    Others are less sanguine about how stout and reliable the Europeans would be without Washington goading and galvanizing. Several officials and lawmakers pointed to the Balkan wars of the 1990s and how the Clinton administration stood back, arguing the Europeans should take the lead only to have to intervene diplomatically and militarily later.

    “We in Ukraine have been watching closely the developments in the USA and what configuration the Congress will have after the midterm elections,” said Iuliia Osmolovska, chair of the Transatlantic Dialogue Center and a senior fellow at GLOBSEC, a global think-tank headquartered in Bratislava. 

    A local resident rides a bicycle on a street in Izyum, eastern Ukraine on September 14, 2022 | Juan Barreto/AFP via Getty Images)

    “This might impact the existing determination of the U.S. political establishment to continue supporting Ukraine, foremost militarily. Especially given voices from some Republicans that call for freezing the support to Ukraine,” she said.

    But Osmolovska remains hopeful, noting that “Ukraine has been enjoying bipartisan support in the war with Russia since the very first days of the invasion in February this year.” She also believes President Joe Biden would have wiggle room to act more independently when it comes to military assistance to Ukraine without seeking approval from Congress thanks to legislation already on the books. 

    But she doesn’t exclude “the risk of some exhaustion” from allies, arguing that Ukraine needs to redouble diplomacy efforts to prevent that from happening. What needs to be stressed, she said, is that “our Western partners only benefit from enabling Ukraine to defeat Russia as soon as possible” — as a protracted conflict is in no one’s interest.

    “There’s a feeling in the air that we’re winning in the war, although it is far from over,” said Glib Dovgych, a software engineer in Kyiv.

    “If the flow of money and equipment goes down, it won’t mean our defeat, but it will mean a much longer war with much higher human losses. And since many other allies are looking at the U.S. in their decisions to provide support to us, if the U.S. decreases the scale of their help, other countries like Germany, France and Italy would probably follow suit,” Dovgych said.

    Yaroslav Azhnyuk, president and co-founder of Petcube, a technology company that develops smart devices for pets, says “it’s obvious that opinions on how to end Russia’s war on Ukraine are being used for internal political competition within the U.S.”

    He worries about the influence on American political opinion also of U.S.-based entrepreneurs and investors, mentioning David Sacks, Elon Musk and Chamath Palihapitiya, among others. “They have publicly shared concerning views, saying that Ukraine should cede Crimea to Russia, or that the U.S. should stop supporting Ukraine to avoid a global nuclear war.”

    Azhnyuk added: “I get it, nukes are scary. But what happens in the next 5-10 years after Ukraine cedes any piece of its territory or the conflict is frozen. Such a scenario would signal to the whole world that nuclear terrorism works.”

    Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to the office of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, said that regardless of the results of the U.S. midterms, Kyiv is “confident” that bipartisan support for Ukraine will remain in both chambers of the Congress. Both the Republicans and Democrats have voiced their solidarity with Ukraine, and this stance would remain “a reflection of the will of the American people,” he said.

    The Ukrainian side counts on America’s leadership in important issues of defense assistance, in particular in expanding the capacity of the Ukrainian air defense system, financial support, strengthening sanctions against Moscow, and recognizing Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, Podolyak told POLITICO.

    And this isn’t just about Ukraine, said Klympush-Tsintsadze, the former deputy premier.

    “Too many things in the world depend on this war,” she said. “It’s not only about restoring our territorial integrity. It’s not only about our freedom and our chance for the future, our survival as a nation and our survival as a country — it will have drastic consequences for the geopolitics of the world,” Klympush-Tsintsadze said.

    Jamie Dettmer and Sergei Kuznetsov

    Source link

  • Don’t Expect Energy Sanctions To Stop Iran’s Crackdown

    Don’t Expect Energy Sanctions To Stop Iran’s Crackdown

    The Iranian government’s violent crackdown on protests stemming from the murder of Mahsa Amini by Iran’s Morality Police is driving the West to levy further sanctions against Iran. The US Treasury Department has already placed extensive financial sanctions on the members of Iran’s Morality Police with the US State Department promising more to follow. With the protests continuing to gain steam as Iran’s oil workers simultaneously go on strike – a vital part of the Shah’s 1979 downfall – there is widespread hope that Iran’s protestors can topple the Mullahs and bring the country back into the community of nations.

    Unfortunately, there is reason to be pessimistic. Iran’s history of repressed protests attests to how extremely difficult it is to topple an entrenched theocratic dictatorship. Iran has also been sanction-proofing its energy sector to withstand the escalating sanctions that come with each new episode of repression. Iran has plenty of experience in sanctions avoidance, building energy-exporting infrastructure, finding new export partners, and increasing domestic technical expertise. Even as domestic support erodes, Tehran is counting on foreign oil and now arms sales revenue to sustain the regime.

    Iran preemptively made moves to weaken western sanctions before these latest protests even began. Last month, Iran’s oil minister Javad Owji announced that Iran was looking to the East and courting investment from Japan, Korea, and China while deepening its political and energy cooperation with friendly countries, especially China and Russia. This followed a 40-billion-dollar gas swap deal between Russia and Iran that has supported both regimes as they face domestic and foreign adversaries.

    To Iran’s immediate east, it has made moves to deepen its relationship with Pakistan as a vital first step. Connecting with perennially energy-hungry Pakistan, especially in the wake of Pakistan’s floods and self-inflicted energy policy failures, would give Iran a massive adjacent market. A direct connection between the two via the proposed “peace pipeline” would be the biggest sanction-proofing action Iran could undertake, but Iran would need help. Russia’s Gazprom has already volunteered itself. This pipeline, planned since the 1990s and repeatedly canceled or delayed, still has far to go before completion. Should it get up and running, it would create an insulated income stream allowing Iran a land route to its most significant foreign benefactor, China.

    China is the center of gravity that is animating much of Iran’s foreign and energy policy. Iran recently announced it would join the Chinese-dominated Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), working out a memorandum of understanding with its members. It is China, not Pakistan, will be the actor that constructs the “peace pipeline” inside Pakistan so Pakistan can legally dodge any sanctions levied against the pipeline.

    The SCO, despite the numerous disputes and contradictions between its members, is constructing itself as an authoritarian alternative to the West and NATO. The SCO is all too happy to help Iran in its sanction-proofing initiatives and ensure the Mullahs in Tehran remain unthreatened by their own people while Beijing gains access to cheap oil.

    Iran’s energy policy moves are not restricted to its hydrocarbon efforts. Iran is expected to include nuclear power in its dealings with the SCO. Ever since the US walked away from the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, Moscow and Beijing’s energy and wider geopolitical cooperation with Tehran have increased manifold. This nuclear integration and the potential for a totally unhindered uranium supply from Russia could spell disaster for the West. This cooperation would not only aid the mullahs’ quest for nuclear weapons, but the diversification of Iran’s energy sector will free up more oil for exports and further insulate the regime.

    Closer bilateral relations between Moscow and Tehran have already resulted in Iran supplying Russia with drones for use in Ukraine, joint naval drills, and wider economic cooperation. With the domestic turmoil in Iran forcing Tehran’s hands, these trends all look to accelerate rapidly and consciously. Unfortunately, it appears that Iran’s strategy is working, and energy-dependent foreign revenue streams will keep growing unless the U.S. puts its foot down.

    In the same way that sanctions against Russia were comprehensively crafted to undermine its war machine without prompting total integration with China, sanctions against Iran must be crafted so as not to encourage further integration with the SCO. This is easier said than done but can be done via Western support and engagement with Pakistan and India by encouraging both parties to become more involved in the Arabian Peninsula while simultaneously investing in their domestic energy production. It can also be done by strengthening relations with Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan and encouraging energy exports to Pakistan via the Middle Corridor.

    The West must also summon the political courage to invest in its own energy sources outside the control of OPEC+. The formula isn’t innovative, but it is effective: LNG as a bridge fuel and investment in nuclear power until more renewables are online.

    If the West is sincere about using sanctions to amplify the protestors’ chances of success as well as hinder the rise of the SCO as an authoritarian counterweight, it must construct a more sophisticated and energy-conscious set of sanctions. While it is important to commit to the sanctions already in place, and every bit of support should be given to the protestors, the West must also consider targeting the Iranian energy exports sector, especially technology, finance, shipping, and insurance. The sanctions levied against members of Iran’s Morality Police and Revolutionary Guard Corps are a good start, but not enough. If we cannot rise to these challenges, expect more turbulence emanating from Iranian rather than just protests.

    Ariel Cohen, Contributor

    Source link

  • Europe racks up record trade deficit. Can it bounce back?

    Europe racks up record trade deficit. Can it bounce back?

    Press play to listen to this article

    Europe, the world’s largest economic bloc, enjoyed stable trade surpluses for a decade but the war in Ukraine and the ensuing energy crisis have tipped the Continent into a spiraling external deficit unseen since the launch of the euro.

    The terms-of-trade shock maxed out in August, the latest month for which trade figures are available. And, even though energy prices have since eased, European leaders are still scrambling to shore up supplies of affordable oil and gas to replace lost Russian deliveries. A harsh winter looms.

    A breakdown of the trade figures shows that the EU’s manufacturing trade surplus has nearly halved this year.

    Can Europe bounce back? Or will its industrial base become hollowed out as industry moves offshore? And will the eurozone, and the EU more broadly, end up being saddled with the chronic external deficits that have long plagued the United States and, more recently, destabilized Britain? POLITICO breaks it down for you:

    What’s going on?

    The eurozone’s negative trade balance with the rest of the world in August stood at €50.9 billion, the highest deficit ever recorded, compared to a €2.8 billion surplus a year ago, according to the latest Eurostat numbers.

    The trade deficit for the EU as a whole spiraled to €64.7 billion.

    The eurozone’s current account balance — the balance of all trade in goods and services as well as international transfers of capital, such as remittances — hit a €26.32 billion deficit in August, largely driven by the trade deficit in goods, the European Central Bank reported.

    Is that a bad thing?

    A trade deficit occurs when a country or trading bloc’s imports exceed its exports. A trade surplus is the opposite. Trade deficits are not per se good or bad, although many countries seek a trade surplus, including by setting up tariffs and quotas to artificially boost their trade balance, a practice known as mercantilism.

    Is it temporary?

    The trade deficit is largely driven by high energy prices, which in August hit a record €350 per megawatt hour. Prices have come down from their peak, trading at around €150/MWh, but they are still a multiple of where they were a year ago. 

    “Markets have gone from pricing this energy crisis as being temporary, they are now pricing it to be a much longer-term story, albeit not as elevated as it was in August,” said Kristoffer Kjær Lomholt, chief FX analyst at Danske Bank.

    “We think that it is a kind of a more long-term thing that is going to weigh on the currencies of economies that are energy importers, where the eurozone, of course, stands out to a very large extent,” he added.

    Others believe that the shift, being largely energy related, could resolve itself over time, said Sam Lowe, who covers trade policy at Flint Global. 

    An EU official also pointed to EU-Russia trade. “The peak in energy prices has made the value of our imports from Russia increase substantially (while the volume of those imports from Russia decreased), and our exports have spiralled down because of sanctions (export controls),” the official said.

    Will the EU be less competitive if energy prices remain high? 

    A negative trade balance and consequently a weaker currency makes imports more expensive. “Net importers will have to pay more for goods and services,” said Lomholt.

    On the other hand, a weaker euro could fuel exports, said Matthias Krämer, head of external economic policy at German industry federation BDI. “If the euro currency was a little bit weaker, it could also make Europe’s position on global markets better by making exports cheaper,” he said.

    But there’s another way of looking at this. Lowe argued the sustained large eurozone trade surplus was itself problematic, in that it was a function of intra-EU demand being lower than it should be. “Being overly dependent on external demand also leaves the EU quite vulnerable to both external shocks, and political coercion.”

    What does that mean for the euro?

    “We expect the euro to decline further in coming months as part of this adjustment,” said Robin Brooks, chief economist at the Institute of International Finance.

    A negative trade balance or current account deficit puts downward pressure on the value of free-floating currencies, which move with demand of goods: less demand for a country’s exports means less demand for its currency, which in turn lowers its value relative to others. Conversely, strong foreign demand for goods strengthens a country’s currency.

    “Foreign investors need to be compensated via a real depreciation of the exchange rate, and generally higher real interest rates,” said Lomholt at Danske Bank.

    The Danish lender has recently downgraded its forecast for the € to $ exchange rate to $0.93 in 12 months from virtual parity now, driven in part by the energy price shock. “We have for some time been arguing that €/$ looked overvalued and not undervalued … And just given the additional push to the energy crisis that we got during summer, we saw a case that the euro/dollar [exchange rate] should actually hit even lower,” he said.

    Is business freaking out? 

    A bit. 

    “The data are not so surprising considering the high energy prices, but they are worrying”, said Luisa Santos, responsible for international relations at BusinessEurope. She called on the EU to try to bring energy prices down and to boost exports by opening new market opportunities via more trade agreements. 

    Germany, the bloc’s export powerhouse, increased its exports by 14 percent in the first eight months of the year but imports have surged by more than 27 percent, according to national trade figures.

    “We’re not performing in a segment which is highly influenced by a cost driven competition,” said Krämer at the German industry federation. “But if this situation will last longer of course some parts of our industry will be more and more under pressure.”

    This article is part of POLITICO Pro

    The one-stop-shop solution for policy professionals fusing the depth of POLITICO journalism with the power of technology


    Exclusive, breaking scoops and insights


    Customized policy intelligence platform


    A high-level public affairs network

    Paula Tamma and Barbara Moens

    Source link

  • ACLU asks top US court to review law against boycotting Israel

    ACLU asks top US court to review law against boycotting Israel

    Washington, DC — A top civil rights group in the United States has asked the Supreme Court to review a lower court’s ruling that upheld an Arkansas state law penalising companies that boycott Israel.

    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a petition on Thursday asking the top court to take up the case, arguing the Appeals Court decision violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which protects the right to free speech.

    “When a state singles out particular boycotts for special penalties, as Arkansas has done here, it not only infringes the right to boycott — it also transgresses the First Amendment’s core prohibition on content and viewpoint discrimination,” ACLU lawyers wrote in their filing.

    In June, the appeals court ruled in favour of the law, saying boycotts fall under commercial activity, not “expressive conduct” guaranteed by the First Amendment.

    The law follows similar measures passed by dozens of US states to curtail the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which pushes to pressure Israel through non-violent means to end abuses against Palestinians.

    Several rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have said Israel’s treatment of Palestinians amounts to apartheid.

    The Arkansas case started in 2018 when The Arkansas Times, a publication in the city of Little Rock, sued the state after refusing to sign a pledge not to boycott Israel to win an advertising contract from a public university.

    The law requires contractors that do not sign the pledge to reduce their fees by 20 percent.

    A federal district court initially dismissed the lawsuit but a three-judge appeals panel blocked the law in 2021, ruling it violates the First Amendment. In June, a full appeals court reversed the panel’s decision, essentially reviving the law.

    The Supreme Court is the final level of appeal and review in the US judicial system. If the top court refuses to take up the case, the appeals court’s decision will stand.

    The nine-seat Supreme Court has a conservative majority with three justices appointed by former President Donald Trump, a staunch supporter of Israel.

    Rights advocates have warned that anti-boycott measures do not only push to unconstitutionally silence Palestinian rights activism but also threaten free speech rights in general — and are being used to restrict boycotts of other entities, including the fossil fuel industry.

    Brain Hauss, a senior staff lawyer with the ACLU, said the June decision to uphold the anti-BDS law in Arkansas “badly misreads” legal precedents and withdraws protection for freedoms exercised by Americans for centuries.

    “Worse yet, the decision upholds the government’s power to selectively suppress boycotts that express messages with which the government disagrees,” Hauss said in a statement on Thursday.

    “The Supreme Court should take up this case in order to reaffirm that the First Amendment protects the right to participate in politically-motivated consumer boycotts.”

    Americans for Peace Now (APN), an advocacy group that describes itself as pro-Israel and pro-peace, also called on the Supreme Court to review the ruling.

    “A Supreme Court decision on this case, if it decides to take it up, could have broad repercussions in the United States and beyond,” APN President Hadar Susskind said in a statement.

    “We hope the Court discusses the matter and rules that states have no business imposing conditions on the free speech rights of individuals, organizations and companies. You may support or oppose boycotting Israel or the occupation, but as a government you must not impose your opinion on others or sanction them for their views.”

    Anti-BDS laws often restrict boycotts of Israel as well as any Israeli-occupied territories. Last year, several US states threatened sanctions against Ben & Jerry’s after the ice cream company decided to stop doing business in the occupied Palestinian West Bank.

    Source link

  • Russia strikes central Kyiv with ‘kamikaze drones’

    Russia strikes central Kyiv with ‘kamikaze drones’

    Several explosions were reported around Kyiv on Monday morning, a week after Russia last attacked the Ukrainian capital.

    Andriy Yermak, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s chief of staff, said on Telegram that the city was attacked by kamikaze drones. Multiple people in Kyiv said on social media that they heard noises that are characteristic of the unmanned devices before the explosions.

    In a Telegram post, Zelenskyy said: “The enemy can attack our cities, but it won’t be able to break us. The occupiers will get only fair punishment and condemnation of future generations. And we will get victory.”

    Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko said buildings in the central Shevchenkivskyi district had been set alight by the explosions. He posted a picture on Telegram of what he said was the wreckage of a drone, which looks like one of the Iranian-made Shaheds reportedly acquired by Russia. EU foreign ministers are on Monday set to discuss potential sanctions against Iran over the transfer of drones to Russia.

    Russia also appears to have targeted “critical infrastructure facilities” in Romny, near the northeastern city of Sumy, according to Dmytro Zhyvytskyi, the regional governor. “There are victims,” he said on Telegram.

    Russia previously hit Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities last week with strikes, in what were seen as revenge attacks after Ukraine’s successful counteroffensive and a fiery blast on the Kerch Bridge linking Russian-occupied Crimea with mainland Russia.

    Jules Darmanin

    Source link