Archive | September 2, 2015

Obama Changes Mountain’s Name to Its’ Indigenous Name, but Continues to Steal Indigenous Land*

Obama Changes Mountain’s Name to Its’ Indigenous Name, but Continues to Steal Indigenous Land*

By Gyasi Ross

Two weeks after the Obama administration granted Royal Dutch Shell permission to resume drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic Ocean for the first time since 2012; President Obama threw a bit of a bone to Native people and changed the name of “Mount McKinley” back to the Athabascan name “Denali.”

Really, the name change wasn’t a big deal. In all honesty, it was merely a “correction.”  To me, this was just one of the tiniest of micro-corrections that Alaskans of all colours wanted—and as far as I am concerned, this was NOT a “Native issue” at all.

Granted, these tiny symbolic corrections do have some limited value and are sometimes a necessary part of healing.  Yet, unless they are accompanied by substantive commitments to make things better, they’re pretty much a hollow sentiment.

Ok, about the name-change: The former “Mount McKinley,” the tallest mountain on Turtle Island, will finally and officially be called by its rightful name. Denali, which means “The Great One.”  That is what the mountain has been known as since time immemorial.

This is the name that was given by the Koyukon Athabascan, the Native community that has lived beside the great Denali for more than twenty thousand years.  Presumably living beside something for such a long period of time gives familiarity to know what something should be called.

William McKinley, whom the mountain was inexplicably named after for a short period of time, never even visited the glorious mountain, never stepped foot into the beautiful state of Alaska, and didn’t even live long enough to know that the mountain was named after him.

William McKinley had no connection to this mountain; he did nothing to deserve it.

Moreover, the fact that the mountain bore his name for any period of time, to me is a testament to extreme privilege: a few privileged folks with the power to arbitrarily change a mountain’s name devalued not only Alaska Natives who knew this mountain since before here was here, but also Alaskans of ALL colours who know that this is the proper name. Cool.

But the substantive effect is that this matter of a name change was a trade-off. The Obama Administration, as decent as it has been in many regards with Tribes, has been mediocre on environmental and sacred site issues.  To wit recently, the President signed the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act, which exchanged the Oak Flat part of Tonto National Forest, a site of spiritual significance, to Resolution Copper Mining in a slimy 11th hour deal.

As mentioned above, Obama allowed deep sea drilling for oil and gas which Tribes almost unilaterally opposed.

In fairness, Obama did veto the Keystone XL Pipeline in February and that was considered a victory for environmental groups.

Yet, it’s been checkered at best.

I know that many publications (including this one) are purporting that “The Great One has returned.” Which to me, is kinda goofy—Native people know that this majestic mountain never went anyplace, that the Creator put it there for a reason and that its power and sacredness wasn’t dependent upon a name. However, the sacredness and power of our homelands and sacred sites are dependent upon us treating them with respect and deference. How we treat those sacred sites means a lot more than what we call them.

I’m glad that Obama officially changed the name of Denali to what Athabascans and all Alaskans have always called it: Denali.  That’s cool. But it would be much better if he did that in conjunction with a commitment to treating our homelands and sacred sites with the respect that they deserve.

Source*

Related Topics:

Holocaust of Native Americans: 65 Million and Counting*

EPA which Spilt 3 Million Gallons of Toxic Waste Uses Oily Tanks to Deliver Potable Water to Navajos*

Indigenous Activists Chase McCain off the Navajo Land he intends to Mine*

U.S. Gov’t Seizing Sacred Lands of Native Americans*

Government Sells Native Sacred Land to Mining Company*

Apache Stronghold Convoy nears DC for Desecration of Oak Flat*

Advertisements

Banksters are Buying Baltimore’s Debt, Hiking Interest then Taking Families’ Homes*

Banksters are Buying Baltimore’s Debt, Hiking Interest then Taking Families’ Homes*

By Alice Ollstein

The death of Freddie Gray in police custody in Baltimore and the ensuing protests brought the nation’s attention to the economic devastation that continues to grip the city. Now, new data shows powerful hedge funds are profiting off of struggling families in Baltimore by buying up debts as small as $250, charging high interest rates, and taking their homes when they fail to pay.

A report just released by the research and advocacy group HedgeClippers documents how the Wall Street hedge fund Fortress Investment Group and the Los Angeles-based Imperial Capital bought up hundreds of these small liens this year — on everything from unpaid water bills to delinquent property taxes — and could take property worth tens of millions of dollars if the families can’t pay.

Once the hedge funds buy up these small debts, they reap an 18% interest, according to the Baltimore-based research group The Abell Foundation. More fees pile up after four months, and if the families can’t pay, they lose their homes. An analysis of those impacted in 2014 found the families had been living in their homes an average of 21 years. Half were elderly, more than a third were disabled, and the majority were African American.

State Delegate Cory McCray, a Democrat who grew up in and represents Baltimore, told ThinkProgress he has gotten a handful of phone calls this year from constituents on the cusp of losing their home over an unpaid water bill.

“The city needs a way to recoup its money, but they shouldn’t take someone’s home for that small amount,” he said.

“Your house is your wealth that you pass on to the next generation. We have to protect that.”

McCray and other lawmakers recently passed a bill to raise the amount that would trigger a lien from $250 to $500, which he emphasized is still an unfairly low amount over which to lose a home that could be worth hundreds of thousands. He added that when at-risk families reach out to the city, they can find an affordable payment plan “99% of the time” and a foreclosure only happens “under dire circumstances.”

But the city continues to have one of the highest foreclosure rates in the nation, and the impact has been most severe in communities of colour. Baltimore now has the ironic problem of both a growing homeless population and a growing stock of vacant and often dilapidated homes.

The Abell Foundation recommends raising the threshold to $1,000, noting that neighboring D.C. waits until residents owe at least $2,500. They also emphasize that the vast majority of the money extracted from residents by these hard policies go to the hedge funds and other investors, not the city.

The hedge funds reaping these profits in Baltimore are also major donors in national elections.

Imperial Capital’s directors have lavished money on Mitt Romney and other Republican candidates in past races. This year, Several employees of the Fortress Investment Group gave the maximum legal amount to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and its director Michael Novogratz has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into backing Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Charles Schumer (D-NY), and other Democrats in congressional races over the past few years.

Clinton, a beneficiary of the hedge fund’s generosity, recently said in a speech about Baltimore’s woes:

“Let’s take on the broader inequities in our society. You can’t separate out the unrest we see in the streets from the cycles of poverty and despair that hollow out those neighborhoods.” Thinking back to the beginning of her career as a lawyer at the Children’s Defense Fund, she added, “Our legal system can be and all too often is stacked against those who have the least power, who are the most vulnerable.”

Source*

Related Topics:

Days of Rage in Baltimore and Mexico*

Baltimore Charged with Hope, as 6 Killer Cops are Charged with Murder*

Detroit in the New Fight for Water Rights*

The Satanic Temple Unveils a Massive Statue of Baphomet in Detroit*

Detroit: Your World under TPP*

The Watery Road to Serfdom: After Detroit, Baltimore*

People’s Power Defends Detroit Homeowners*

Koch Brothers Made a Fortune from Hurricane Katrina Victims*

Ten Year Old Afghan Girl Buries her Toy Gun and says No to World War*

Ten Year Old Afghan Girl Buries her Toy Gun and says No to World War*

By Dr. Hakim

Sakina breaks a toy gun before burying it. Inam and other street kids await their turn. (Photo: Dr. Hakim)

Ten-year-old Sakina, an Afghan street kid, had this to say,

“I don’t like to be in a world of war. I like to be in a world of peace.”

On 27th August 2015, Sakina and Inam, with fellow Afghan street kids and the Afghan Peace Volunteers, held a mock funeral for weapons and celebrated the establishment of a green space in Kabul.

Dressed in long black coats, they broke and buried toy guns in a small spot where, over the past two years, they have been planting trees.

Sakina breaks a toy gun before burying it. Inam and other street kids await their turn.

Inam, a bright-eyed ten year old, caught the group’s energetic desire to build a world without war.

“I kept toy guns till about three years ago,” he acknowledged with a smile.

On the same day, Nobel Laureate Oscar Arias Sanchez, ex-President of Costa Rica, was in Mexico for the Arms Trade Treaty’s First Conference of States Parties.

In his statement at the Conference, he told the story of an indigenous Guatemalan woman who thanked him for negotiating a peace accord 28 years ago. The mother had said,

“Thank you, Mr. President, for my child who is in the mountains fighting, and for the child I carry in my womb.”

No mother, Guatemalan or Afghan, wants her children to be killed in war.

Oscar Arias Sanchez wrote:

“I never met them, but those children of conflict are never far from my thoughts. They were [the peace treaty’s] true authors, its reason for being.”

I’m confident that the children of Afghanistan were also in his thoughts, especially since he had a brief personal connection with the Afghan Peace Volunteers in 2014, having been part of a Peace Jam video message of solidarity to the Volunteers, wearing their Borderfree Blue Scarves which symbolize that “all human beings live under the same blue sky”.

I thank Mr Oscar Arias Sanchez for his important work on the Arms Trade Treaty, though I sense that an arms trade treaty isn’t going to be enough.

Afghan children are dying from the use of weapons.

To survive, they need a ban against weapons. Regulations about buying and selling weapons perpetuate a trade that is killing them.

I saw Inam and other child labourers who work in Kabul’s streets decisively swing hammers down on the plastic toy guns, breaking off triggers, scattering nozzles into useless pieces and symbolically breaking our adult addiction to weapons.

Children shouldn’t have to pay the price for our usual business, especially business from the U.S., the largest arms seller in the world. U.S. children suffer too, with more U.S. people having died as a result of gun violence since 1968 than have died in all U.S. wars combined. U.S. weapon sellers are killing their own people; by exporting their state-of-the-art weapons, they facilitate the killing of many others around the world.

After burying the toy guns, surrounded by the evergreen and poplar trees which they had planted, the youth shed their black coats and donned sky-blue scarves.

Another world was appearing as Sakina and Inam watched young friends plant one more evergreen sapling.

Inam was watching as another evergreen tree was planted. (Photo: Dr. Hakim)

Inam knew that it hasn’t been easy to create this green space in heavily fortified Kabul.

The City Municipality said they couldn’t water the trees (though it is just 200 metres away from their office). The Greenery Department weren’t helpful. Finally, the security guards of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission just across from the garden, offered to help, after the Volunteers had provided them with a 100-metre water hose.

Rohullah, who coordinates the environment team at the Borderfree Nonviolence Community Centre, expressed his frustration.

“Once, we had to hire a private water delivery service to water the tree saplings so they wouldn’t shrivel up. None of the government departments could assist.”

Sighing, he added ironically, “We can’t use the Kabul River tributary running just next to the Garden, as the trash-laden trickle of black, bracken water is smelly and filthy.”

Meanwhile, in the rest of the country, according to figures from the National Priorities Project, a non-profit, non-partisan U.S. federal budget research group, the ongoing Afghan War is costing American taxpayers US $4 million an hour.

It is the youth and children who are making sense today, like when Nobel Laureate Malalai Yousafzai said recently that if the whole world stopped spending money on the military for just 8 days, we could provide 12 years of free, quality education for every child on the planet.

“I don’t like to work in the streets, but my family needs bread. Usually, I feel sad,” Inam said, looking away, “because I feel a sort of helplessness.”

Oscar Arias Sanchez said at the Arms Trade Treaty’s First Conference,

“And we must speak, today – in favour of this crucial treaty, and its swift and effective implementation. If we do, then when today’s children of conflict look to us for guidance and leadership, we will no longer look away in shame. We will be able to tell them, at long last, that we are standing watch for them. We are on guard. Someone is finally ready to take action.”

That morning, I heard the voices of Sakina, Inam and the Afghan youth ring through the street, “#Enough of war!”

Sakina speaks to a TV reporter. Rohullah is on her right, Inam on her left. (Photo: Dr. Hakim)

It wasn’t a protest. It was the hands-on building of a green spot without weapons, and an encouraging call for others to do so everywhere.

Through their dramatic colours and clear action, they were inviting all of us, “Bury your weapons. Build your gardens.”

“We will stand watch for you!”

Source*

Related Topics:

Weaving to Reclaim the Soul: War-Rugs

Why the U.S. won’t get the Hell out of Afghanistan*

Artist Melts 1,527 Guns and Turns Them into Shovels for Planting Trees*

Saudi Pilot Kills himself for Massacring Yemeni Children*

The Israeli Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields*

The Israeli Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields*

By Michel Chossudovsky

More than five years ago, Israel invaded Gaza under “Operation Cast Lead”.

The following article was first published by Global Research in January 2009 at the height of the Israeli bombing and invasion under Operation Cast Lead.

In the wake of the invasion, Palestinian gas fields were de facto confiscated by Israel in derogation of international law

A year following “Operation Cast Lead”,  Tel Aviv announced the discovery of  the Leviathan natural gas field in the Eastern Mediterranean “off the coast of Israel.”

At the time the gas field was: “ … the most prominent field ever found in the sub-explored area of the Levantine Basin, which covers about 83,000 square kilometres of the eastern Mediterranean region.”

Coupled with Tamar field, in the same location, discovered in 2009, the prospects are for an energy bonanza for Israel, for Houston, Texas based Noble Energy and partners Delek Drilling, Avner Oil Exploration and Ratio Oil Exploration. (See Felicity Arbuthnot, Israel: Gas, Oil and Trouble in the Levant, Global Research, December 30, 2013

The Gazan gas fields are part of the broader Levant assessment area.

What is now unfolding is the integration of these adjoining gas fields including those belonging to Palestine into the orbit of Israel. (see map below).

It should be noted that the entire Eastern Mediterranean coastline extending from Egypt’s Sinai to Syria constitutes an area encompassing large gas as well as oil reserves.

January 8, 2009

The December 2008 military invasion of the Gaza Strip by Israeli Forces bears a direct relation to the control and ownership of strategic offshore gas reserves. 

This is a war of conquest. Discovered in 2000, there are extensive gas reserves off the Gaza coastline. 

British Gas (BG Group) and its partner, the Athens based Consolidated Contractors International Company (CCC) owned by Lebanon’s Sabbagh and Koury families, were granted oil and gas exploration rights in a 25 year agreement signed in November 1999 with the Palestinian Authority.

The rights to the offshore gas field are respectively British Gas (60%); Consolidated Contractors (CCC) (30%); and the Investment Fund of the Palestinian Authority (10%). (Haaretz, October 21,  2007).

The PA-BG-CCC agreement includes field development and the construction of a gas pipeline.(Middle East Economic Digest, Jan 5, 2001).

The BG licence covers the entire Gazan offshore marine area, which is contiguous to several Israeli offshore gas facilities. (See Map below). It should be noted that 60% of the gas reserves along the Gaza-Israel coastline belong to Palestine.

The BG Group drilled two wells in 2000: Gaza Marine-1 and Gaza Marine-2. Reserves are estimated by British Gas to be of the order of 1.4 trillion cubic feet, valued at approximately 4 billion dollars. These are the figures made public by British Gas. The size of Palestine’s gas reserves could be much larger.

Who Owns the Gas Fields

The issue of sovereignty over Gaza’s gas fields is crucial. From a legal standpoint, the gas reserves belong to Palestine.

The death of Yasser Arafat, the election of the Hamas government and the ruin of the Palestinian Authority have enabled Israel to establish de facto control over Gaza’s offshore gas reserves.

British Gas (BG Group) has been dealing with the Tel Aviv government. In turn, the Hamas government has been bypassed in regards to exploration and development rights over the gas fields.

The election of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001 was a major turning point. Palestine’s sovereignty over the offshore gas fields was challenged in the Israeli Supreme Court. Sharon stated unequivocally that “Israel would never buy gas from Palestine” intimating that Gaza’s offshore gas reserves belong to Israel.

In 2003, Ariel Sharon, vetoed an initial deal, which would allow British Gas to supply Israel with natural gas from Gaza’s offshore wells. (The Independent, August 19, 2003)

The election victory of Hamas in 2006 was conducive to the demise of the Palestinian Authority, which became confined to the West Bank, under the proxy regime of Mahmoud Abbas.

In 2006, British Gas “was close to signing a deal to pump the gas to Egypt.” (Times, May, 23, 2007). According to reports, British Prime Minister Tony Blair intervened on behalf of Israel with a view to shunting the agreement with Egypt.

The following year, in May 2007, the Israeli Cabinet approved a proposal by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert  “to buy gas from the Palestinian Authority.” The proposed contract was for $4 billion, with profits of the order of $2 billion of which one billion was to go the Palestinians.

Tel Aviv, however, had no intention on sharing the revenues with Palestine. An Israeli team of negotiators was set up by the Israeli Cabinet to thrash out a deal with the BG Group, bypassing both the Hamas government and the Palestinian Authority:

Israeli defence authorities want the Palestinians to be paid in goods and services and insist that no money go to the Hamas-controlled Government.” (Ibid, emphasis added)

The objective was essentially to nullify the contract signed in 1999 between the BG Group and the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat.

Under the proposed 2007 agreement with BG, Palestinian gas from Gaza’s offshore wells was to be channelled by an undersea pipeline to the Israeli seaport of Ashkelon, thereby transferring control over the sale of the natural gas to Israel.

The deal fell through. The negotiations were suspended:

 ”MOSSAD Chief Meir Dagan opposed the transaction on security grounds, that the proceeds would fund terror”. (Member of Knesset Gilad Erdan, Address to the Knesset on “The Intention of Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Purchase Gas from the Palestinians When Payment Will Serve Hamas,” March 1, 2006, quoted in Lt. Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon, Does the Prospective Purchase of British Gas from Gaza’s Coastal Waters Threaten Israel’s National Security?  Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, October 2007)

Israel’s intent was to foreclose the possibility that royalties be paid to the Palestinians. In December 2007, The BG Group withdrew from the negotiations with Israel and in January 2008 they closed their office in Israel.(BG website).

Invasion Plan on the Drawing Board

The invasion plan of the Gaza Strip under “Operation Cast Lead” was set in motion in June 2008, according to Israeli military sources:

“Sources in the defence establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defence Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago [June or before June] , even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas.”(Barak Ravid, Operation “Cast Lead”: Israeli Air Force strike followed months of planning, Haaretz, December 27, 2008)

That very same month, the Israeli authorities contacted British Gas, with a view to resuming crucial negotiations pertaining to the purchase of Gaza’s natural gas:

“Both Ministry of Finance director general Yarom Ariav and Ministry of National Infrastructures director general Hezi Kugler agreed to inform BG of Israel’s wish to renew the talks.

The sources added that BG has not yet officially responded to Israel’s request, but that company executives would probably come to Israel in a few weeks to hold talks with government officials.” (Globes online- Israel’s Business Arena, June 23, 2008)

The decision to speed up negotiations with British Gas (BG Group) coincided, chronologically, with the planning of the invasion of Gaza initiated in June. It would appear that Israel was anxious to reach an agreement with the BG Group prior to the invasion, which was already in an advanced planning stage.

Moreover, these negotiations with British Gas were conducted by the Ehud Olmert government with the knowledge that a military invasion was on the drawing board. In all likelihood, a new “post war” political-territorial arrangement for the Gaza strip was also being contemplated by the Israeli government.

In fact, negotiations between British Gas and Israeli officials were ongoing in October 2008, 2-3 months prior to the commencement of the bombings on December 27th.

In November 2008, the Israeli Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of National Infrastructures instructed Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) to enter into negotiations with British Gas, on the purchase of natural gas from the BG’s offshore concession in Gaza. (Globes, November 13, 2008)

“Ministry of Finance director general Yarom Ariav and Ministry of National Infrastructures director general Hezi Kugler wrote to IEC CEO Amos Lasker recently, informing him of the government’s decision to allow negotiations to go forward, in line with the framework proposal it approved earlier this year.

The IEC board, headed by chairman Moti Friedman, approved the principles of the framework proposal a few weeks ago. The talks with BG Group will begin once the board approves the exemption from a tender.” (Globes Nov. 13, 2008)

Gaza and Energy Geopolitics 

The military occupation of Gaza is intent upon transferring the sovereignty of the gas fields to Israel in violation of international law.

What can we expect in the wake of the invasion?

What is the intent of Israel with regard to Palestine’s Natural Gas reserves?

A new territorial arrangement, with the stationing of Israeli and/or “peacekeeping” troops?

The militarization of the entire Gaza coastline, which is strategic for Israel?

The outright confiscation of Palestinian gas fields and the unilateral declaration of Israeli sovereignty over Gaza’s maritime areas?

If this were to occur, the Gaza gas fields would be integrated into Israel’s offshore installations, which are contiguous to those of the Gaza Strip. (See Map 1 above).

These various offshore installations are also linked up to Israel’s energy transport corridor, extending from the port of Eilat, which is an oil pipeline terminal, on the Red Sea to the seaport – pipeline terminal at Ashkelon, and northwards to Haifa, and eventually linking up through a proposed Israeli-Turkish pipeline with the Turkish port of Ceyhan.

Ceyhan is the terminal of the Baku, Tblisi Ceyhan Trans Caspian pipeline.

“What is envisaged is to link the BTC pipeline to the Trans-Israel Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline, also known as Israel’s Tipline.” (See Michel Chossudovsky, The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, Global Research, July 23, 2006)

Source*

Related Topics:

Egypt Signs Contract to Import Palestinian Natural Gas from Israel*

Behind the False Flag: Israel’s After Gaza’s Natural Gas*

Blair’s Next Leg of The Global leaders Silence on the Palestinian Holocaust and Piping Gas to the E.U.

Jordan to Buy Natural Gas from Gaza*

Jordan Decides to Buy Palestinian Gas from Israel*

U.S. New sanctions Targets Scores of Russian, Chinese, Syrian firms over Iran*

U.S. New sanctions Targets Scores of Russian, Chinese, Syrian firms over Iran*

The US is set to impose sanctions on a number of Russian, Chinese, Syrian, Turkish, Sudanese and Iranian companies, thought to be involved in activities which, according to Washington, go against its Nonproliferation Act in regards to Iran and Syria.

According to the list, due to be published in the Federal Register on Tuesday and currently available on its website, such prominent Russian companies as Instrument Design Bureau (KBP), Rosoboronexport (ROE) and Russian Aircraft Corporation (RAC) MiG fall under the punitive measures, just to name a few.

The U.S. has imposed a number of sanctions on Russia since August 2014 over the conflict in eastern Ukraine and Crimean reunification, accusing Moscow of being a protagonist and participant in the ongoing hostilities.

Russia has repeatedly denied Western allegations of any involvement in its southern neighbour’s internal affairs whatsoever. It responded with counter-measures, banning imports from the EU, US and others. In June, Moscow extended its embargo on food imports from Western countries until August 2016 due to the prolonged anti-Russia sanctions.

Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that retaliatory measures will follow, noting that they won’t necessarily be identical. According to the Ministry, US sanctions contradict Washington’s own signals concerning interest in cooperating with Russia on solving a number of acute international problems.

Chairman of the Federation Council on Defense and Security, Viktor Ozerov, has slammed the new sanctions against Russia’s defense industry complex.

This is a hidden form of competition, because today our weapons and military equipment are in demand on the international arms market, and thus the U.S. wants to weaken the economy of these businesses,” TASS quoted him as saying.

Among the Chinese and Iranian companies is China’s BST Technology and Trade Company, Tianjin Flourish Chemical Company, Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Qods Force and Rock Chemie (Iran). Syrian Air Force, Turkey’s Multimat Ic ve Dis Ticaret Pazarlama Limited and Sudan’s Vega Aeronautics are also mentioned in the list.

“No department or agency of the United States Government may procure or enter into any contract for the procurement of any goods, technology, or services from these foreign persons, except to the extent that the Secretary of State otherwise may determine,” the notice on the behalf the US State Department states.

“No United States Government sales to these foreign persons of any item on the United States Munitions List are permitted, and all sales to these persons of any defense articles, defense services, or design and construction services under the Arms Export Control Act are terminated,” the document adds.

“No new individual licenses shall be granted for the transfer to these foreign persons of items the export of which is controlled under the Export Administration Act of 1979 or the Export Administration Regulations, and any existing such licenses are suspended.”

The measures are set to remain in place for two years, “except to the extent that the Secretary of State may subsequently determine otherwise.”

The Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000, which was signed into law on March 14, 2000, authorized the US president to take punitive action against individuals or organizations “known to be providing material aid to weapons of mass destruction programs in Iran.”
In November 2005, it expanded the scope of the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 to include Syria and a year later China. The law bans supply of goods, services and technology, subject to international control regimes and the corresponding lists, to these countries.

Source*

Related Topics:

A Zionist to Head U.S.’s Economic Warfare Division*

Nuclear Deal with Iran Prelude to War, Not “Breakthrough”*

U.S. on Russia’s Borders Trying to Provoke War*

Doing the Netanyahu: A Russian fighter jet Intercepts U.S. Reconnaissance, but U.S. Accuses Russia*

Russia Says No to One-World Government*

Iran and Russia Officially Ditch the Dollar*

China Warns Russia That “State Of War” Now Exists With the U.S.*

U.S. National Endowment for Democracy is now Officially “Undesirable” in Russia*

Senior Russian Lawmaker Seeks Ban on Windows 10 in State Agencies*

It Is Time for Iran to Tell the West ‘Goodbye’*

U.S. Cyber-attack on Iran Foiled*

Former US Senate candidate: Israel False Flag Attack on U.S. to Stir Up War against Iran*

Desperate Netanyahu Launches Twitter Account for Iranians*

Netanyahu’s Temper Tantrum over Iran deal has Obama Bearing ‘Gifts’*

Saudi Arabia to allow Israel Airspace to Strike Iran*

340 Rabbis Urge Congress to Support Iran Nuclear Deal*

This Was No Chemical Fire, China’s Tianjin Was Nuked*

Is there a Connection Between the China Stock Crash and Tianjin Blasts?