Senate considers Iran sanctions
MELBOURNE Ports MP Michael Danby called on the government to explain why it has gone from being a major international critic of Iran to being even more accommodating of the regime than the United States, when he spoke yesterday at a public hearing of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee’s inquiry into the partial suspension of sanctions against the Islamic Republic.
MELBOURNE Ports MP Michael Danby called on the government to explain why it has gone from being a major international critic of Iran to being even more accommodating of the regime than the United States, when he spoke yesterday at a public hearing of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee’s inquiry into the partial suspension of sanctions against the Islamic Republic.
“Whatever one’s position on the Iran nuclear deal, surely Australia can expect its government to advocate against Iran’s continuing aggression, in words and deeds, towards our allies the United States and Israel (particularly its ballistic missile which had ‘death to Israel’ written on it), its sponsorship of terrorist organisation Hezbollah, its ongoing support for the [Bashar al] Assad regime and its gross violation of the most basic human rights of its own citizens,” Danby told The AJN after the hearing.
It was confirmed there that Australia had followed the European Union’s decision to prohibit only 91 individuals or entities in Iran from having the sanctions lifted, compared to the United States’ 225.
“We need to know more about why there is a difference of 134 individuals and entities that remain on the prohibited list (to trade with in Iran) and what happens if an Australian company trades with them,” Danby said.
“These are still unanswered questions.”
Describing the public hearing as an achievement, Danby doubted whether it would be widely reported in the Australian media.
“It sets an agenda for change, I hope,” he said, but predicted the recommendations won’t be acted upon by the government “because foreign minister Julie Bishop has adopted her own policy without parliamentary scrutiny and without media and public scrutiny”.
“I don’t expect Julie Bishop to change her view on this issue, but I do expect the report (by this committee) to be (reveal) an embarrassing contrast as to what the Australian government is doing compared to what it ought to be doing.”
He added Australia should realign its position on implementing lifting of sanctions against Iran with America’s approach of ‘speaking out’ whenever Iran is in breach of international law.”
Following the nuclear deal last year between Iran and the P5+1, which led to Australia lifting some of the sanctions against Iran, Danby – with the backing of Shadow Foreign Minister Tanya Plibersek – called for a parliamentary debate over Australia’s softening stance towards the Islamic Republic.
He’d accused Bishop and the government of “cosying up” to Iran.
Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) executive director Peter Wertheim, who also spoke at the inquiry, said the sanctions were not solely put in place because of Iran’s nuclear activity.
“Pressuring Iran to comply with its nuclear obligations was part of a broader international effort to make Iran ‘act as a responsible international citizen’,” Wertheim said.
He noted that when former foreign minister Stephen Smith announced sanctions in 2008, they received bipartisan support.
“According to the foreign minister, the sanctions were targeted not only at Iran’s nuclear program but also at its development of long-range ballistic missiles and, most significantly, at Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.”
And in 2011 former prime minister Kevin Rudd, while foreign minister of Australia, announced sanctions “to stop money laundering and terrorism financing in Iran”.
Wertheim said Rudd’s announcement made it clear that the sanctions were not a part of Australia’s sanctions in relation to Iran’s nuclear program.
Josh Koonin, representing B’nai B’rith, told the inquiry that lifting of sanctions against Iran would allow Iran to further promote instability in the Middle East and beyond, “likely to take the form of more financial support for Hamas and Hezbollah”.
“We strongly oppose the lifting of sanctions that will send the wrong signal (to Iran) in terms of (protecting) human rights,” Koonin said.
“It will only strengthen Hezbollah’s military capability to launch further attacks in the region and abroad . . . and attacks against Israel.
“I think we should listen to our allies in the region who are most affected by Iran’s actions and behaviour – they do not support the lifting of sanctions.”
JOSHUA LEVI & SHANE DESIATNIK
comments