Sat, Dec 03, 2011 page8

• US, PRC collide over Iran sanctions

  • By Parris Chang 張旭成
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  The most convincing evidence to date that “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device” was detailed in an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on the nation’s nuclear program released on Nov. 8. Ten days later, 32 of the 35 countries on the IAEA’s board of governors adopted a resolution condemning Iran’s nuclear activities and calling on Tehran to “comply fully and without delay with its obligations under relevant resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.”

  The findings of the agency’s nuclear report have already rekindled a debate among Western allies and Israel about the actions to be taken to stop Iran’s nuclear program. There were multiple reports in Israel’s news media that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak were trying to rally support in the Cabinet for an attack on a uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, the centerpiece of Iran’s known nuclear fuel production, and related sites across Iran.

  In response to the speculation about possible military action by Israel, Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said the Islamic republic was ready to deter any attack. Iran’s Fars news agency also quoted an Iranian lawmaker as saying that “Iranian militaries will fight with the Zionist soldiers in Tel Aviv streets” and make a battlefield of “the entire Europe and the US” if Israel were to launch military action agaisnt Iran. Over the years, Tehran has repeatedly vowed a crushing retaliation to any attacks by Israel or the US. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has also said that Iran would not only target Israel, but also US ships and bases in the Persian Gulf.

  So, why would Taiwan be concerned about this situation?

  There are acute worries in Taiwan and elsewhere that military actions against Iran could set off a new war in the Middle East and cause a global economic catastrophe if it carried out its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz. A horseshoe-shape stretch of water that separates Iran from Oman’s northern peninsula, the Strait of Hormuz is the only way in and out of the Persian Gulf. On a typical day, around 50 tankers carrying between 14 million and 17 million barrels of oil and oil products — roughly 40 percent of the world’s internationally traded supplies — pass through the 180km strait. If a war were to break out in the Gulf, the supply of oil and natural gas in the world would be disrupted and their prices would skyrocket.

  Neither the administration of former US president George W. Bush nor of US President Barack Obama favor Israel’s plan of military action. In 2008, Bush turned down Israel’s request for such equipment and weapons — mid-air refueling planes and bunker-buster bombs — needed to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. Experts at the Pentagon believe that Iran’s nuclear facilities are hidden deep underground and an airstrike would not do serious damage or slow down the program much, but could provoke Iran’s immediate crushing retaliation.

  Instead, the US has relied on economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure and sabotage. Efforts to sabotage the research and development of Iran’s nuclear program, most recently with the Stuxnet computer worm — reportedly a joint covert action by Israel and the US — have temporarily slowed Iran’s enrichment of uranium, but the IAEA report makes clear that those sanctions and sabotage have not forced Iran to stop its program.

  Iran has thus far withstood four rounds of limited UN sanctions and there are two major reasons that these sanctions are ineffective and futile.

  First, longstanding and staunch ally China and, from time to time, Russia have come to Tehran’s defense at the Security Council: They would obstruct, delay and water down any harsher measures of sanction sought by the US and EU members. Previous deliberations of sanctions against Iran were quite an ordeal, going through comma by comma and taking months, even years, of negotiations and haggling, and resulting in a “toothless” resolution. In the wake of the latest IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program, China and Russia have cooperated to block further punitive measures against Tehran from reaching the Security Council for approval.

  Second, China and Iran are strategic partners, and China has been on the record opposing UN sanctions against Iran — and friends such as North Korea and Sudan — over the years. Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) was quoted as saying that China respected Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy and called for further diplomacy: “China, as always, will be committed to pushing for the settlement of the issue through peaceful negotiations, and will continue to play a constructive role to this end.”

  Some Western observers regard China, an ally of Iran and a major buyer of Iranian oil and gas, as key to breaking the diplomatic impasse. In reality, however, Beijing has its own agenda toward Iran and the Middle East, and is thus reluctant to make any moves that might hurt its critical, strategic ties with Iran and endanger its energy and economic interests.

  Since the shah’s ouster in 1979, Beijing has viewed Iran’s Islamic republic as a potential political ally and sought to cultivate and forge a strategic partnership with Tehran. In addition to being China’s major source of energy, Iran is an important regional power, capable of playing a leading role in the diplomatic balance in the Gulf region and Middle East — hence a highly valuable anti-Western partner. China and Iran share the belief that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” and they have cooperated to challenge and counterbalance US hegemony.

  Although Beijing has vehemently denied selling weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile technology to Iran and other rogue states, international intelligence agencies have collected enough information that identifies China as the world’s “leading proliferator.” For diplomatic and other important reasons, the US and the EU rarely blow the whistle on China’s outrageous violation of UN sanctions banning the sales of weapons, military equipment and nuclear technology to Tehran.

  Last year, the Washington Post ran an investigative report that provided detailed information on Chinese government enterprises investing in and developing Iran’s energy sector and assisting its military modernization and nuclear weapons program. Understandably, the US Congress has been displeased with the futility of the UN sanctions and members of the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs have adopted a series of sweeping sanctions, which Obama signed into law, to stop an Iranian bomb. Moreover, the committee’s chairwoman, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and US Representative Howard Berman have demanded that the Obama administration penalize the many Chinese state-owned enterprises, including major oil firms China National Offshore Oil and Petro China, that are listed on the New York Stock Exchange and continue to do business with Iran.

  In addition to announcing the newest sanctions against Iran’s financial, petrochemical and energy sectors, the Obama administration seems set to take action against Chinese companies. US Undersecretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David Cohen was dispatched to Beijing not long ago to serve notice to the Chinese authorities that its enterprises, including banks and financial institutions, that continue to trade with Tehran and advance its program world face stiff sanctions.

  For many years, Beijing has believed Washington values the bilateral Sino-US relations over Iran’s nuclear weapon development and would not impose serious penalties on China’s dealings with Iran. Chinese officials have been emboldened to call the US’ bluff and ignore UN and US sanctions while surreptitiously assisting Iran’s nuclear program. The new tack of the Obama administration to squeeze Iran and Chinese companies doing business with Iran will now compel Beijing to make a hard choice.

  The world is watching closely. Will Beijing continue “business as usual” with Tehran and face the economic and political costs, or will it decisively curtail its assistance to Tehran and live up to its claim that it is a responsible international stakeholder?

  Parris Chang, professor emeritus of political science at Pennsylvania State University, is chair professor of general studies at Toko University and CEO of the Taiwan Institute of Political, Economic and Strategic Studies.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Two tropical depressions form, one typhoon forecast

  • 2

    Taiwan’s looming labor disaster

  • 3

    AIT comments on Taiwan accurate: State Department

  • 4

    Chinese spouse applications for residency falling

  • 5

    New civil defense handbook released