End of Oil Sanctions Waivers Expected to Disrupt U.S.-China Trade Talks
The temporary oil waivers, known as Significant Reduction Exceptions, will not be reissued after they expire on May 2 as part of a U.S. effort to tighten the screws on Iran, cutting the country off from its main revenue source.
April 23, 2019 at 05:30 PM
4 minute read
The Trump administration's plan to stop waiving sanctions for countries that import Iranian oil could further upset an already volatile international trade climate and, possibly, sour U.S. trade talks with China, which relies heavily on oil from Iran.
The temporary oil waivers, known as Significant Reduction Exceptions, will not be reissued after they expire on May 2 as part of a U.S. effort to tighten the screws on Iran, cutting the country off from its main revenue source.
“We're going to zero—going to zero across the board,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Monday when announcing that the U.S. “will no longer grant any exemptions” to countries that import Iranian oil.
China, India, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Taiwan, Italy and Greece hold waivers, but the latter three no longer import Iranian oil. Exactly how the remaining five countries will respond to the development remains to be seen.
But Gibson Dunn partner Adam Smith of Washington, D.C., formerly a senior adviser to the director of the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, said the revocation of China's waiver “could become a significant irritant between Beijing and Washington.” He added China could respond by imposing new tariffs or sanctions on the U.S.
“Clients are concerned,” Smith said. “They're interested in learning what will happen next. I think there's a lot of uncertainty as much as there is concern.”
Judith Alison Lee, also a partner at Gibson Dunn in Washington who focuses on international trade, called the development “disruptive” and questioned the timing: “Why would you do this when you're negotiating with China?” she said. “It will definitely affect trade negotiations.”
Lee noted that though the U.S. is cancelling the waivers, it doesn't necessarily mean that countries that continue to import Iranian oil will be sanctioned immediately—only that sanctions are a possibility. She added China, being a major importer of Iranian oil, most likely will be unable to “turn off the spigot by May 2.”
“By taking this position, [the U.S] is going to encourage these countries to look for other ways to meet their needs for energy and reduce their risks for sanctions,” Lee said. “Unfortunately, I think there could be a bad unintended consequence of people turning away from U.S. dollar-denominated transactions in petroleum trading.”
China and Turkey have already publicly criticized the move, with the former country saying that it is yet another example of U.S. “unilateral sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction,” The Associated Press reported.
“One of the main complaints that China has about U.S. trade actions is the unilateral nature of how the U.S. has demanded other countries to behave even when the transactions have minimal or tangential American involvement,” Adams Lee, an international trade lawyer at Harris Bricken in Seattle, wrote in an email.
He added “U.S. export sanctions have an incredibly long reach that can affect China-Iran oil transactions if there is a U.S. party involved in the transaction chain that allows the U.S. to claim jurisdiction over that transaction.”
China could counterpunch by, for instance, going after U.S.-involved transactions or targeting U.S. companies operating in China with anti-monopoly actions or labor law violation enforcement actions, according to Lee.
He cited developments that followed the arrest of Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer of Huawei Technologies Co. and daughter of the tech giant's founder, as an example of how China retaliates when it feels that its interests are threatened.
After Canadian authorities detained Wanzhou at the behest of U.S. authorities, Chinese authorities detained two Canadians and accused them of being spies.
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHow Amy Harris Leverages Diversity to Give UMB Financial a Competitive Edge
5 minute readDog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
4 minute readLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readGC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250