ExportLawBlog » Sudan

Archive for the ‘Sudan’ Category

Jul

30

U.S. Envoy to Sudan Criticizes Sanctions

Posted by Clif Burns at 8:28 pm on July 30, 2009

Category: Sudan

Sudan" The day after Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., threatened new sanctions on Eritrea, Jonathan S. Gration, the U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan, in testimony given today before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called for the sanctions against Sudan to be lifted. According to this report in the Christian Science Monitor, Gration questioned whether genocide is ongoing in Sudan and stated that there was no evidence to support Sudan’s continued designation as a “state sponsor of terrorism.” Instead, that designation and the sanctions only hindered efforts, he claimed, to rebuild the country and to help dislocated Sudanese living in camps.

Interestingly, not one word of this was in Gration’s prepared remarks which had been submitted in advance to the Committee. The remarks about genocide in Sudan and the call for lifting the current sanctions appeared to have been delivered off-the-cuff. This probably reflects the internal debate at the White House about the Sudan Sanctions. Ambassador Rice was said, according to the same story in the Monitor, to have become furious over Gration’s remarks earlier this month about the “remnants of genocide” in Sudan.

Permalink

Comments (1)

Jun

10

OFAC Action Keeps Sudan’s Embassy From Having Its Lights Shut Off

Posted by Clif Burns at 11:03 am on June 10, 2009

Category: Sudan

ABOVE: Google Street View of
Protesters at Sudanese Embassy

The Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) published today in the Federal Register a Final Rule amending the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations. The amendment permits U.S. persons to provide services in the United States to Sudanese embassies and diplomatic missions.

Today, OFAC is amending section 538.515 of the SSR. Before its amendment, section 538.515 authorized all transactions ordinarily incident to the importation of any goods or services into the United States destined for official or personal use by the diplomatic missions of the Government of Sudan to the United States and to international organizations located in the United States, subject to certain conditions. OFAC is amending this section to expand the scope of the authorization to include the provision of goods or services in the United States to the diplomatic missions of the Government of Sudan to the United States and the United Nations, and to the employees of the diplomatic missions of the Government of Sudan to the United States and the United Nations, subject to certain conditions.

To fully understand the impact of this amendment, you need to read section 538.406 of the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations which states that the prohibition on providing services to the Government of Sudan under section 538.206 applies when “such services are performed … [i]n the United States.” As a result, before today’s amendment, the provision of electricity, water, trash removal, Internet service to, or even selling office supplies to, the Sudanese Embassy in the United States would have required a license. How many people want to bet that these services were being provided without any licenses?

The lesson here is that although companies engaged in exports from the United States may have in place OFAC compliance procedures, those engaged in basically domestic businesses — like power companies and trash haulers — are often blissfully unaware that OFAC’s regulations may affect their domestic activities. In this instance, some vendor must have called the OFAC hotline and asked about selling things to the Sudanese Embassy, which led to an “oops” moment and a hasty amendment given that OFAC probably never intended to prevent the operation of the Sudanese Embassy on U.S. soil.

Permalink

Comments (3)

May

26

Microsoft Shuts Off IM Service in Sudan and Other Sanctioned Countries

Posted by Clif Burns at 2:42 pm on May 26, 2009

Category: Sanctions • Sudan

Live Messenger in Sudan Economic sanctions continue to spread into cyberspace as Microsoft announced last Friday that customers in sanctioned countries would receive an error message if they tried to log into their Windows Live Messenger accounts and would no longer be able to use the service.

When you try to sign in to Windows Live Messenger, you receive the following error message:

810003c1: We were unable to sign you in to the .NET Messenger Service.

Microsoft has discontinued providing Instant Messenger services in certain countries subject to United States sanctions. Details of these sanctions are available from the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control [“OFAC”].

Why it took Windows so long to get with the program when arch-rival Google had disabled downloads to Sudan and other sanctioned countries ages ago is not clear.

Although the shutoff applies to Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Sudan and Syria, Sudan seems to have taken it most to heart, judging from this report on the shutoff in the Sudan Tribune, a Paris-based on-line newspaper covering Sudan:

The software, Microsoftâ€™s Windows Live Messenger, allows users to chat directly with one another, send photos, play games or send messages to mobile phones. The Messenger is widely used by the Sudanese diaspora to contact their families and until last week had been available for free downloading in the countries targeted by US sanctions.

Of course, Microsoft’s action is incredibly easy for users to circumvent. First, users can log back into their accounts and change their country to a non-sanctioned country. (Oddly, Microsoft’s drop-down list for countries on its Live Messenger sign up page– still includes Sudan — not to mention Cuba, North Korea, Iran and Syria!) Second, if Microsoft is also using geolocation filters on the IP addresses, the user can always connect through a proxy server located in a non-sanctioned country. Et voilÃ , the Sudanese (or Syrian, Cuban, Iranian or North Korean) resident can IM to his or her hearts content, Microsoft is in full compliance with the law, and OFAC is none the wiser and can still believe that it has hastened the downfall of these governments by keeping their citizens from communicating with their family and friends.

Permalink

Comments (1)

Sep

30

How Often Do You Get To Root For The Pirates?

Posted by Clif Burns at 8:32 pm on September 30, 2008

Category: Sudan • U.N. Sanctions

Ukrainian MV Faina No, not the Pittsburgh Pirates. Real pirates, as in the Somali pirates that seized the Ukrainian merchant vessel Faina off the coast of Somalia. But before you get all excited, don pirate gear, break out a bottle of rum and start talking like a pirate, you only get to root for the pirates here because it appears that — accidentally, of course — the seizure of the Ukrainian ship might have been in the best interests of the United States, not that the pirates knew that or cared when they seized the arms-laden vessel.

According to Lt. Nathan Christensen, a deputy spokesman for the U.S. Navyâ€™s Bahrain-based 5th Fleet, the ship’s cargo, consisting of tanks, grenade launchers, and ammunition, was ultimately destined for Sudan not for Kenya. For what it’s worth, the pirates also say the arms are headed for Sudan. Of course, they also say that the $20 million that they are demanding is not a ransom, but a “fine for unlawfully transporting weapons on Somali waters.”

Sudan is subject to both U.S. and U.N. arms embargoes. Some sources have suggested that the arms are more specifically destined to Southern Sudan. The U.S. arms embargo, which doesn’t strictly apply to this shipment, has been lifted for non-lethal military assistance and equipment for Southern Sudan, although the Ukrainian cargo can hardly be described as non-lethal. The semi-autonomous region of Southern Sudan is not subject to the U.N.arms embargo which covers only Darfur.

Even so, Kenya is still claiming that the arms are not destined for Sudan, north, south, east or west.

On Monday, a government spokesman, Alfred Mutua, said: â€œWe buy weapons all the time. I donâ€™t see what the big deal is.â€ …

Ukrainian tanks, though, are a relative anomaly in Kenya, which has been a close ally of the United States and Britain for decades and has been equipped with Western-made weapons. Mr. Mutua acknowledged this, saying most of Kenyaâ€™s tanks were â€œold British tanks.â€

But, he added, the Ukrainian tanks were cheaper.

Cheaper, of course, if you don’t include the cost of retraining Kenyan troops to use the new tanks. Or cheaper if they were headed to Sudan, including Darfur

Permalink

Comments (1)

May

30

I’d Like to Teach Iran to Sing

Posted by Clif Burns at 12:34 am on May 30, 2008

Category: Iran Sanctions • Sudan

Iranian Coca-Cola This article in the International Herald Tribune explores the prevalence of American brand name products in Iran and Sudan notwithstanding sanctions that prohibit most exports to the two countries. As we’ve noted before, much of these products are re-exported from other countries, with large quantities of American products being exported from Dubai to Iran.

Two products that are ubiquitous in both countries make it through another route:

Leaving the airport at Khartoum, one of the first things you see is the ultimate symbol of American capitalism: the classic form of a Coca-Cola bottle printed on multicolored banners, next to a huge billboard for its rival, Pepsi.

…

Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have both secured export licenses from the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Treasury, using legislation that allows blacklisted states to buy U.S agricultural commodities, medicines and medical equipment.

Coca-Cola said the syrup on which the company’s beverages are based qualified as an agricultural product. Pepsi said that its brands were produced in Sudan under “an OFAC license,” but declined to comment on the Iranian arrangement.

Although Coke syrup doesn’t immediately seem to be an “agricultural product,” the list of eligible products is quite broad and includes a broad number of prepared food products, including coffee and tea extracts. Although soft-drink extracts aren’t explicitly mentioned, they probably fall under USHTS classification 2106.90 — “food preparations not elsewhere specified” — which is included on the list of agricultural products covered under the Trade Sanctions Reform Act which permits agricultural exports to sanctioned countries.

Interestingly Coca-Cola relies on an OFAC license for agricultural products rather than the exemption under OFAC regulations for Iran and Sudan which would permit activities in Iran and Sudan by foreign subsidiaries of Coca-Cola as long as no U.S. persons aren’t involved in the foreign subsidiaries activities in the sanctioned country. That is, I think, a smart move given the difficulty of proving that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies act without any involvement by U.S. persons.

Pepsi’s refusal to comment on how it dispenses ~~Coke~~ its soft drinks in Iran, suggests that it may be relying on the foreign subsidiary exception. As long as cola syrup is seen by OFAC as an agricultural product, it’s hard to see why Pepsi relies on the foreign subsidiary exception rather than simply getting an OFAC license to export the syrup to Iran for bottling.

Even if activities in Sudan and Iran might be legal under OFAC licenses, these activities might be magnets for public criticism, particularly in Sudan. Coke seems to have cleverly sidestepped even this issue:

A Coca-Cola spokesman, Dana Bolden, said the primary motive for operating in Sudan and Iran was “to ensure quality control and protect our trademarks with the independent bottler.”
… Bolden also said the company was reinvesting all the proceeds from its sales in Sudan into programs that benefit the country. “We have committed more than $5 million over the next three years for programs aimed at building communities in Sudan.”

This, of course, doesn’t respond to the issue that Coke products in Iran might provide just the caffeine boost that its nuclear scientists need to build the bomb. Word is, however, that the average Iranian nuclear scientist prefers Austria’s Red Bull energy drink to Coca-Cola.

Permalink

Comments (3)