Chabahar port deal a political show that will not be executed

By Zafar Bhutta / Creative: Talha Khan Published: December 18, 2016 12 SHARES Share Tweet Email Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani hold hands in a show of solidarity after their trilateral meeting at the Saadabad Palace in Tehran, Iran, on May 23. PHOTO: REUTERS Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani hold hands in a show of solidarity after their trilateral meeting at the Saadabad Palace in Tehran, Iran, on May 23. PHOTO: REUTERS ISLAMABAD: Will Pakistan be able to sign free trade agreement (FTA) with Iran? It is a big question that is doing rounds among relevant circles as some key hurdles stand in the way of exploiting the huge potential of trade with Tehran. In an encouraging development, Iran has accepted Pakistan’s offer to join the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), paving the way for enhancing bilateral commerce. International sanctions on Iran against its nuclear programme, which were a major impediment to deepening the trade ties, have also been lifted earlier this year. Iran offers Pakistan to join Chabahar port deal According to an official of the Iranian embassy, Iran has floated its proposals for the FTA and it is waiting for the response of Pakistan government. He acknowledged that tariff structures in Iran were high and unstable, but said free trade would bring down tariffs and duties as well as improve the trade volume. “If Iran joins CPEC, it will help enhance bilateral trade and even clear the way for supply of Pakistani goods to Central Asian states and Russia,” he said. The official called the Chabahar port deal among India, Iran and Afghanistan a political show in the region, which was not expected to be implemented. He revealed that India was not investing in the development of Iran’s Chabahar port, therefore, the deal would not prevent Tehran from joining CPEC. “Iran wants to work with Pakistan and its participation in CPEC will help improve relations further.” Hurdles to the FTA An official of the Ministry of Commerce, however, cautioned that Iran was not a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and that made it tough to engage in trade with it. He pointed out that bilateral trade had come down because of sanctions in the past, but despite that Iran’s tariff structure was very complicated. “Iran imposes high tariffs on imports from around the world,” he said. Pakistan’s major export product could be textile but Iran has slapped 100% duty on textile goods. On leather garments, the duty is 120% whereas rice exports face 80% duty. In addition to these, citrus export to Iran is banned. According to the commerce ministry official, Iran increases import duties on different occasions with no stable tariff structure. In this scenario, it is hard to do business with the neighbour. Another major hurdle is the closure of entry gates on the border by Iran at 5pm. However, entry gates remain open on the Pakistan side for 24 hours a day. Pakistani traders are also required to pay load and road taxes in the Iranian territory. Chabahar port — the new game changer? Pakistan took up the matter with an Iranian delegation in August 2015, but they argued that road conditions in Iran were quite good, which was the reason behind the collection of load and road taxes. Being a WTO member, Pakistan can impose a maximum 25% import duty. This way, Iranian traders enjoy a level playing field but Pakistani traders encounter tax and tariff barriers in Iran. “Trade with Iran could not be increased unless it becomes a member of the WTO,” the ministry official remarked. Earlier, Iran was not willing to sign the FTA, but this time, it is expected to strike a deal. Some officials suggest that Delhi’s influence is quite effective in Iran, which will also be looking to tap the big market of India. Post-sanctions scenario After the lifting of sanctions earlier this year, Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs endorsed plans to step up political and business relations with Iran. Bilateral ties had been at a standstill since 2011 due to tightening global restrictions. The two countries have been pushing for the past few months for an agreement between their central banks to streamline the payment mechanism. The State Bank of Pakistan (SBP), however, argued that though sanctions had been removed, Pakistani banks were mostly unable to find international banks that could process payments in respect of Iranian banks. To tackle this, the SBP is engaged in active coordination with the Central Bank of Iran in an attempt to establish a trade settlement mechanism to restore and encourage trade. In the transit trade arrangement, Iran provides the shortest route to Russia and Central Asian states as it is only 90 km away from Pakistan. Iran has already the infrastructure and it is ready to join CPEC. The positive developments come at a time when Afghanistan has no intention of signing a transit trade agreement with Pakistan if India is not allowed to transport its goods via Pakistan. The writer is a staff correspondent Published in The Express Tribune, December 19th, 2016.

Noam Chomsky: The Gravest Threat to World Peace,

India approves plan to develop Iran's Chabahar port By AFP Published 3 days ago The port in southeast Iran is central to India's efforts to circumvent Pakistan and open up a route to landlocked Afghanistan. – File Photo/AFP The port in southeast Iran is central to India's efforts to circumvent Pakistan and open up a route to landlocked Afghanistan. – File Photo/AFP NEW DELHI: India will float a company to develop Iran's Chabahar Port, a government statement said on Saturday, as New Delhi aims to take advantage of a thaw in Tehran's relations with world powers. The port of Chabahar in southeast Iran is central to India's efforts to circumvent Pakistan and open up a route to landlocked Afghanistan where it has developed close security ties and economic interests. Iran and six world powers are engaged in talks to agree on a deal easing sanctions against Tehran before a late-November deadline. The powers want Iran to scale back its uranium enrichment programme to ensure it cannot produce nuclear bombs. Iran says the programme is for peaceful purposes. India plans to sign an agreement with Iran for the development of the port and New Delhi intends to lease two berths at Chabahar for 10 years, the statement said. The planned Indian company will invest $85.21 million in one year to convert the berths into a container terminal and a multi-purpose cargo terminal, the statement said, adding India would consider the participation of Iranian firms if needed. ============= Noam Chomsky: The Gravest Threat to World Peace Americans are kept in the dark about consequences of a possible nuclear-armed Mideast, and the US's potential role. January 4, 2013 | Reporting on the final U.S. presidential campaign debate, on foreign policy, The Wall Street Journal observed that "the only country mentioned more (than Israel) was Iran, which is seen by most nations in the Middle East as the gravest security threat to the region." The two candidates agreed that a nuclear Iran is the gravest threat to the region, if not the world, as Romney explicitly maintained, reiterating a conventional view. On Israel, the candidates vied in declaring their devotion to it, but Israeli officials were nevertheless unsatisfied. They had "hoped for more 'aggressive' language from Mr. Romney," according to the reporters. It was not enough that Romney demanded that Iran not be permitted to "reach a point of nuclear capability." Arabs were dissatisfied too, because Arab fears about Iran were "debated through the lens of Israeli security instead of the region's," while Arab concerns were largely ignored – again the conventional treatment. The Journal article, like countless others on Iran, leaves critical questions unanswered, among them: Who exactly sees Iran as the gravest security threat? And what do Arabs (and most of the world) think can be done about the threat, whatever they take it to be? The first question is easily answered. The "Iranian threat" is overwhelmingly a Western obsession, shared by Arab dictators, though not Arab populations. As numerous polls have shown, although citizens of Arab countries generally dislike Iran, they do not regard it as a very serious threat. Rather, they perceive the threat to be Israel and the United States; and many, sometimes considerable majorities, regard Iranian nuclear weapons as a counter to these threats. In high places in the U.S., some concur with the Arab populations' perception, among them Gen. Lee Butler, former head of the Strategic Command. In 1998 he said, "It is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East," one nation, Israel, should have a powerful nuclear weapons arsenal, which "inspires other nations to do so." Still more dangerous is the nuclear-deterrent strategy of which Butler was a leading designer for many years. Such a strategy, he wrote in 2002, is "a formula for unmitigated catastrophe," and he called on the United States and other nuclear powers to accept their commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to make "good faith" efforts to eliminate the plague of nuclear weapons. Nations have a legal obligation to pursue such efforts seriously, the World Court ruled in 1996: "There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control." In 2002, George W. Bush's administration declared that the United States is not bound by the obligation. A large majority of the world appears to share Arab views on the Iranian threat. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) has vigorously supported Iran's right to enrich uranium, most recently at its summit meeting in Tehran last August. India, the most populous member of the NAM, has found ways to evade the onerous U.S. financial sanctions on Iran. Plans are proceeding to link Iran's Chabahar port, refurbished with Indian assistance, to Central Asia through Afghanistan. Trade relations are also reported to be increasing. Were it not for strong U.S. pressures, these natural relations would probably improve substantially. China, which has observer status at the NAM, is doing much the same. China is expanding development projects westward, including initiatives to reconstitute the old Silk Road from China to Europe. A high-speed rail line connects China to Kazakhstan and beyond. The line will presumably reach Turkmenistan, with its rich energy resources, and will probably link with Iran and extend to Turkey and Europe. China has also taken over the major Gwadar port in Pakistan, enabling it to obtain oil from the Middle East while avoiding the Hormuz and Malacca straits, which are clogged with traffic and U.S.-controlled. The Pakistani press reports that "Crude oil imports from Iran, the Arab Gulf states and Africa could be transported overland to northwest China through the port." At its Tehran summit in August, the NAM reiterated the long-standing proposal to mitigate or end the threat of nuclear weapons in the Middle East by establishing a zone free of weapons of mass destruction. Moves in that direction are clearly the most straightforward and least onerous way to overcome the threats. They are supported by almost the entire world. A fine opportunity to carry such measures forward arose last month, when an international conference was planned on the matter in Helsinki. A conference did take place, but not the one that was planned. Only nongovernmental organizations participated in the alternate conference, hosted by the Peace Union of Finland. The planned international conference was canceled by Washington in November, shortly after Iran agreed to attend. The Obama administration's official reason was "political turmoil in the region and Iran's defiant stance on nonproliferation," the Associated Press reported, along with lack of consensus "on how to approach the conference." That reason is the approved reference to the fact that the region's only nuclear power, Israel, refused to attend, calling the request to do so "coercion." Apparently, the Obama administration is keeping to its earlier position that "conditions are not right unless all members of the region participate." The United States will not allow measures to place Israel's nuclear facilities under international inspection. Nor will the U.S. release information on "the nature and scope of Israeli nuclear facilities and activities." The Kuwait news agency immediately reported that "the Arab group of states and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) member states agreed to continue lobbying for a conference on establishing a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction." Last month, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution calling on Israel to join the NPT, 174-6. Voting no was the usual contingent: Israel, the United States, Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. A few days later, the United States carried out a nuclear weapons test, again banning international inspectors from the test site in Nevada. Iran protested, as did the mayor of Hiroshima and some Japanese peace groups. Establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone of course requires the cooperation of the nuclear powers: In the Middle East, that would include the United States and Israel, which refuse. The same is true elsewhere. Such zones in Africa and the Pacific await implementation because the U.S. insists on maintaining and upgrading nuclear weapons bases on islands it controls. As the NGO meeting convened in Helsinki, a dinner took place in New York under the auspices of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, an offshoot of the Israeli lobby. According to an enthusiastic report on the "gala" in the Israeli press, Dennis Ross, Elliott Abrams and other "former top advisers to Obama and Bush" assured the audience that "the president will strike (Iran) next year if diplomacy doesn't succeed" – a most attractive holiday gift. Americans can hardly be aware of how diplomacy has once again failed, for a simple reason: Virtually nothing is reported in the United States about the fate of the most obvious way to address "the gravest threat" – Establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. © 2012 Noam Chomsky -- Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate ========================== Published on Jan 5, 2013 The United States has imposed fresh sanctions on Iranian media despite Washington's claims of respecting free speech. Sanctions have all been applied under the umbrella of concern for Iran's nuclear program becoming militarized. The CIA and IAEA have constantly reported that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons while mainstream American media have promoted that Iran has or is producing a nuclear bomb. Many observers though contend that the many sanctions on Iran are an act of war as part of Western colonialism and imperialism that also serves the Zionists of Israel. To further discuss the issue, Press TV's News Analysis has conducted an interview with Joe Iosbaker, Stop FBI Repression, from Chicago, Kevin Barrett, a founding member of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance, from Wisconsin, and Daniel Pipes, founder and director of the Middle East Forum, from Philadelphia. Follow our Facebook on: https://www.facebook.com/presstvchannel Follow our Twitter on: http://twitter.com/presstv Follow our Tumblr on: http://presstvchannel.tumblr.com

Sunni cleric assassinated in SE Iran

Sat, 21 Jan 2012 03:41:41 GMT An Iranian Sunni cleric who was the Friday prayers leader of the town of Rask in southeastern Iran has been assassinated. Molavi Mostafa Jangi Zehi was killed on the Chabahar-Sarbaz road in the southeastern province of Sistan-Baluchestan late on Friday. No group has claimed responsibility for the murder of the cleric, who was an advocate of Sunni-Shia unity. The Jundallah terrorist group has carried out numerous bombings, assassination attempts, and terrorist attacks against Iranian government officials and civilians, including women and children, in Sistan-Baluchestan province. The arrested members of the group have all admitted they killed people in order to create sectarian strife in the region. Jundallah's notorious leader, Abdolmalek Rigi, was arrested by Iranian intelligence forces in February 2010 and executed in June 2010 after being found guilty of 79 criminal charges, including manslaughter, armed robbery, bombing operations, and armed attacks on Iranian police and civilians. Rigi stated in his confessions that he had dealings with the US government and was promised unlimited funds and resources for “waging an insurgency” in Iran. Recently leaked US intelligence documents show that the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad recruited Jundallah terrorists to carry out attacks on Iranian targets.