US ECONOMICS
IRAN
U.S. Department of State. JUNE 24, 2019. Joint Statement by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States on Yemen and the Region
The text of the following statement on Yemen was released by the Governments of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
“Begin Text:”
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States of America express their concern over escalating tensions in the region and the dangers posed by Iranian destabilizing activity to peace and security both in Yemen and the broader region, including attacks on the oil tankers at Fujairah on 12 May and in the Gulf of Oman on 13 June. These attacks threaten the international waterways that we all rely on for shipping. Ships and their crews must be allowed to pass through international waters safely. We call on Iran to halt any further actions which threaten regional stability, and urge diplomatic solutions to de-escalate tensions.
We further note with concern the recent escalation in Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia using Iranian made and facilitated missiles and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. In particular, we condemn the Houthi attack on Abha civilian airport on 12 June, which injured 26 civilians. We express full support for Saudi Arabia and call for an immediate end to such attacks by the Iranian-backed Houthis.
The Quad members express concern that the World Food Program has been forced to suspend food deliveries to Sanaa due to Houthi interference in aid delivery. We call on the Houthis to immediately end all restrictions on aid agencies to ensure the delivery of life-saving assistance to those Yemenis most in need.
We reiterate our commitment to the Yemeni peace process and relevant Security Council Resolutions, including UNSCR 2216. We express our full support for the UN Special Envoy Martin Griffiths. In this regard, we call on the Yemeni parties to engage constructively with the Special Envoy to accelerate implementation of the agreements reached in Stockholm. We call on the Houthis to facilitate full and unhindered access for UNMHA, UNDP and UNVIM.
We call on the Yemeni parties to participate constructively in the joint Redeployment Coordination Committee to accelerate implementation of the Hodeidah Agreement, which includes agreeing the Concept of Operations and tripartite monitoring, as well as engaging constructively on local security issues. We call on the Houthis to withdraw fully from the ports of Hodeidah, Ras Issa and Saleef. We look to the Security Council to review progress when they meet on 17 July.
The Quad nations note that implementation of the Stockholm Agreement will give the opportunity to start a comprehensive political process which can lead to an enduring political settlement that will end the conflict in Yemen.
THE WHITE HOUSE. CNN. 06/24/2019. President Trump's Middle East Plan is a Refreshing Change
By Jon Lerner, is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and served as deputy to UN Ambassador Nikki Haley in 2017-18
“The Trump administration is no less committed to peace than its predecessors. The key difference is that Trump does not feel tied down by the unsuccessful formulas of the past, and he and his team are willing to openly challenge that conventional thinking,” Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Jon Lerner writes in CNN.
“The goal of the Trump plan is to end this decades-long conflict and create conditions for a better life for Palestinians and Israelis. The plan will begin to be rolled out at this week's conference in Bahrain,” Lerner writes. “Economic conditions are quite poor in the West Bank, and among the world's worst in Gaza . . . The Trump plan contains specific and realistic projects that could double Palestinian GDP, create a million new jobs in Gaza and the West Bank, and cut poverty in half.”
Trump's Middle East plan is a refreshing change
In his recent CNN.com article, Aaron David Miller claims to know the "real" goals of the Trump Middle East peace plan. This is strange, because Miller has not seen the plan or been involved with its creation. I have.
Miller grossly mischaracterized the administration's goals. Not once, but three times, he claims the administration's policies are aimed at pleasing domestic political constituencies and he mentions "wealthy Jewish donors." This is a more polished, but no less wrong, version of Congresswoman Ilhan Omar's infamous anti-Semitic trope that support for Israel is "all about the Benjamins."
As a former Middle East policy negotiator, Miller is undoubtedly familiar with the pitfalls that have prevented previous breakthroughs in this troubled region. But like other seemingly intractable conflicts in South Africa, Northern Ireland, and the Balkans, breakthroughs do happen. They often happen after circumstances change, new approaches are taken, or the parties decide to change their calculation of what's in their own best interests.
Administration critics adopt the odd view that, although all past efforts have failed, we must never deviate from them. They are offended by alterations to old formulas, when the old formulas achieved no peace. I witnessed this dead-end thinking countless times at the United Nations.
Nowhere is this truer than on the idea of a "two-state solution." Contrary to Miller's assertion, the Trump administration has never sought to kill the idea of two states. President Trump himself has said he prefers it. But the administration does not see it as an untouchable holy grail. Past efforts to encourage such a solution have been rejected, more so by the Palestinians than the Israelis.
The Trump administration is no less committed to peace than its predecessors. The key difference is that Trump does not feel tied down by the unsuccessful formulas of the past, and he and his team are willing to openly challenge that conventional thinking.
The Jerusalem decision is a prime example. The historic move to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital was not a "free gift" to Prime Minister Netanyahu as Trump critics claim. It brought to fruition longstanding US policy as expressed by large bipartisan congressional majorities, and it recognized reality.
There has never been a peace agreement scenario under which Jerusalem would cease to be Israel's capital. So why go on with the charade that this is still a negotiable issue? The charade only served to encourage unrealistic Palestinian goals and was therefore harmful to peace prospects.
The goal of the Trump plan is to end this decades-long conflict and create conditions for a better life for Palestinians and Israelis. The plan will begin to be rolled out at this week's conference in Bahrain.
The vision presented in Bahrain will demonstrate the enormous potential for lifting up the lives of millions of Palestinians. This is no small thing. Economic conditions are quite poor in the West Bank, and among the world's worst in Gaza.
Critics will quickly point out that an economic plan alone won't bring peace. No one disputes that. The administration's extensive and detailed ideas on the thorny final status issues will be revealed soon.
But while political leaders gravitate toward the hottest button issues, no one should sell short the importance economic conditions play in the lives of ordinary people. The Trump plan contains specific and realistic projects that could double Palestinian GDP, create a million new jobs in Gaza and the West Bank, and cut poverty in half. Imagine what that would do to the lives of millions of Palestinian young people who would face a far better future than they face today.
And there's the rub. Palestinian political leaders have already denounced a proposal they have not yet seen. It is perhaps no coincidence that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is 84 years old. Like some of the American and United Nations diplomatic hands who have failed for years, Abbas seems unable or unwilling to shed the preconceptions that have guided him for decades. But the younger generations of Palestinians, not to mention future generations, have everything to gain from the Trump plans.
While critics cling to constructs that have proven unimplementable, Jared Kushner, Jason Greenblatt, and the Trump team are doggedly moving forward with bold, fresh, and innovative ideas for how to solve one of the world's most difficult conflicts. They know the odds of success are long. If they weren't, the problem would have been solved long ago. But we should all wish them well this week, and in the weeks and months ahead
THE WHITE HOUSE. The Hill. 06/24/2019. Dershowitz: With 'Mideast Marshall plan,' Abbas can help — or hurt — Palestinians
BY ALAN DERSHOWITZ, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR. Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School. His new book is “The Case Against the Democratic House Impeaching Trump.”
“The White House has unveiled the economic aspects of its Middle East peace plan,” Prof. Emeritus Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School writes in The Hill. “The bottom line is that if Palestinian leaders were to accept — or at least sit down and negotiate about —the proposed peace plan, they could quickly improve the quality of life of their people. This could lead to a two-state solution that would be a win-win for all sides.”
“Critics would rather bash Trump than acknowledge Obama’s naïve strategy of Iranian appeasement was a failure,” Middle East expert Tom Basile writes in Fox News. “Democrats and Republicans in Congress need to acknowledge that the Obama approach to Iran emboldened and enriched an enemy never willing to be an honest broker for peace. President Trump is trying to get the West back in a position to effectively isolate Iran and counter the Mullahs aggression before engaging in any form of military conflict.”
The White House has unveiled the economic aspects of its Middle East peace plan. As expected, Palestinian leaders rejected it before the ink was dry. But that may not be the final word because there is likely to be pressure on them to reconsider — pressure from their Sunni Arab neighbors and, perhaps, even from their own people.
If ultimately accepted, the plan would provide $50 billion — more than half for Palestinians, the remainder divided between Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon — in educational opportunities, health care, business incentives, infrastructure improvements and many other tangible benefits. Nearly 180 specific projects already are identified.
It would create, for the first time, a physical connection between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, thus enabling residents of each to transit to the other. It promises realistic protections against the massive corruption that has plagued what, heretofore, has been a Palestinian kleptocracy depriving its citizens of the benefits of funding that has come through the government.
The bottom line is that if Palestinian leaders were to accept — or at least sit down and negotiate about —the proposed peace plan, they could quickly improve the quality of life of their people. This could lead to a two-state solution that would be a win-win for all sides.
But as Israeli diplomat Abba Eban once quipped, the Palestinian leadership “never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” They rejected a two-state solution in 1948, 2001 and 2008. They rejected other opportunities to improve the lives of their people, as in 2005 when Israel unilaterally left the Gaza Strip, ending its military presence and abandoning all settlements. The Palestinians could have created a “Singapore on the Mediterranean” with the financial help they received from numerous sources. Instead, they used these resources not to help their people but to hurt their neighbors, by building rockets, terror tunnels and other offensive weapons.
This negativity has gotten them nowhere. It hasn’t improved the quality of life of Palestinians. To the contrary, it has made it much worse. This has been the history of Palestinian leaders from the beginning: They seem to care less about helping their people and more about hurting Israel. They seem to want their own state less than they want there not to be a neighboring nation-state of the Jewish people.
Well, they are not going to accomplish that goal despite their rockets and terrorism, BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) or U.N. condemnation. Israel will continue to thrive. It is strong militarily, economically, diplomatically and in other ways. Palestinians must come to recognize the reality that Israel is here to stay, whether they like it or not. The remaining question is whether there will ever be a viable Palestinian state living in peace with Israel. That is largely up to Palestinians.
Such a state can emerge only from negotiations with Israel in which both sides make painful compromises. The new U.S. economic proposals can serve as a building block for such negotiations. Palestinians should go to a conference on the plan in Bahrain this week with open minds. They need not commit themselves to any specific agreements except to listen and to offer suggestions and counter-proposals.
Even if they erroneously decide to continue to boycott that conference, they should publicize the contents of these economic proposals to their people in order to get their views. It is the people, not their kleptocratic leaders, who stand to benefit the most from this “Mideast Marshall plan.” If the Palestinian people understand how this will improve the quality of life for them and their children, they may demand that their leaders put the welfare of the average Palestinian above ideological, religious and political objections to the Jewish nation-state.
Neither the Palestinian Authority nor the Hamas tyranny over the Gaza Strip are functioning democracies with structures that assure that the opinions of their citizens will be taken into account. But neither could those leaders totally ignore “the street” — Palestinian public opinion. The problem is that the street will not even know what their leaders are denying them unless they become aware of the contents of the U.S. economic plan.
There is no free, independent media on the West Bank or Gaza Strip. Residents can tune into Israeli or international media but they have been taught not to trust either. So it is uncertain whether the Palestinian street will know what their leaders are depriving them of by not engaging with the U.S. and its beneficial economic proposals. It is certainly possible that Palestinian leaders will once again miss an opportunity to help their people and that their people will be misinformed about that missed opportunity.
This may be the Palestinians’ last chance for a peaceful resolution of the long conflict with Israel that has caused so much misery and so many deaths on both sides. When then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat turned down the offer of a two-state solution from President Bill Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 2000, the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. called Arafat’s decision a “crime” against the Palestinian people. Will Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas commit yet another crime against his people by refusing even to listen or negotiate?
If he were to agree to negotiate in earnest about the proposed peace plan — the geopolitical elements of which will be rolled out toward the end of this year — there is a significant likelihood that the end result of mutual, painful compromises may be a Palestinian state. If he persists in his refusal to negotiate, he and his people will have no one but themselves to blame for the persistence of an untenable status quo.
The U.S. has presented the first phase of its plan. It’s an excellent, fair start. The ball is now in the Palestinian court. They should reconsider their knee-jerk rejection and begin negotiations that may be the only road to statehood.
THE WHITE HOUSE. FOX NEWS. 06/24/2019. OPINION. Tom Basile: Iran tensions -- Trump still cleaning up Obama's mess (but Democrats won't admit it)
Tom Basile By Tom Basile, is a former Bush Administration official, SiriusXM Contributor, columnist and author of "Tough Sell: Fighting the Media War in Iraq."
“Critics would rather bash Trump than acknowledge Obama’s naïve strategy of Iranian appeasement was a failure,” Middle East expert Tom Basile writes in Fox News. “Democrats and Republicans in Congress need to acknowledge that the Obama approach to Iran emboldened and enriched an enemy never willing to be an honest broker for peace. President Trump is trying to get the West back in a position to effectively isolate Iran and counter the Mullahs aggression before engaging in any form of military conflict.”
While Democrats in Washington and much of the news media spend their time obsessing over the 2020 campaign and telling the world that our president is everything from being mentally unfit to a criminal, Trump has been dealing with a host of major foreign policy challenges either created or ignored by the Obama administration.
The ISIS takeover of Iraq and its infiltration across more than a dozen countries was the first. Handling China’s unchecked economic and military advances in the Pacific, Africa and even cyber espionage here in the U.S. is another.
Chaos in Libya is still unabated.
But Obama’s sweetheart deal with Iran is perhaps the thorniest of them all.
Critics would rather bash Trump than acknowledge Obama’s naïve strategy of Iranian appeasement was a failure.
For all the claims by the left that Trump is irrational, he understands that you can only bargain with rational actors. Iran doesn’t fit the bill.
Trump made clear this week that he’s willing to play hardball with Iran if they continue on their current trajectory. Calling off the strike just minutes before execution wasn’t indecision. It was a calculated move meant to send a message that the U.S. will not be intimidated back into negotiations by a radical Islamist government with a history of aggression.
Obama wanted his Iran deal at all costs, and those costs were steep. It amounted to access to more than $100 billion, ending most sanctions, opening the country to foreign investment, among other benefits for the regime.
Of course, a key component of the deal meant that fifteen years from signing, the whole thing went out the window anyway and Iran could proceed with their nuclear program.
This was in exchange for Tehran’s thin assurances that they would limit uranium enrichment to 3 percent and reduce the number of centrifuges needed to advance their nuclear program from 19,000 to 6,000. This week it was confirmed that Iran will exceed the uranium stockpile limit codified in the agreement.
The monitoring and accountability regime put in place to ensure compliance was never robust enough to work. This point was raised repeatedly by experts during negotiations and by even more than a dozen Democratic Senators in 2016 (some of whom are now running for president) but the Obama administration just wanted a deal done.
Trump said this week that Obama made a “desperate deal” with Iran. He’s right.
Critics of the president will blame his saber-rattling against Iran and his rejection of the deal for Iran’s hostility and breaking of the agreement made with the other powers involved in the negotiation. This belies several key points that facts and history would suggest are not in dispute.
First, the Iranian regime is not a good faith negotiator on the world stage. Iran continues to be a state-sponsor of terrorism.
Since the agreement Iran has called for the destruction of Israel and the US. Iran is also responsible for the deaths of countless U.S. servicemen in Iraq given its long-standing support for radical Shia forces there. Other efforts to destabilize the region through a variety of overt and covert tactics are well-known in foreign policy and intelligence circles.
For some inexplicable reason none of this mattered to the previous administration. President Trump views Iran in far more rational and realistic terms.
Second, the United Nations arm that was placed in charge of the inspections regime is woefully inept and has a history of failure.
Obama’s devotion to multi-lateral institutions also made the deal irresponsible. Whether it’s peacekeeping missions that don’t lead to peace, inability to address human rights violations, or weapons inspections, the U.N. has failed to demonstrate an institutional competency to handle the execution of agreements with rogue states.
The secretive IAEA, has already been criticized for withholding valuable information from the international community and an its inability to effect thorough inspections, cannot be the lynchpin of any real accountability regime.
We recall in Iraq, the IAEA was famous for telling the Saddam Hussein’s government in advance when they were going to inspect suspected weapons sites, sometimes far in advance.
In Iran, the IAEA’s slow response to inspections has already led to accusations that Iran is gaming the system to break the agreement.
Third, authoritarian governments have never managed to keep bi-lateral or multi-lateral agreements regarding weapons programs or non-aggression.
Russia, North Korea, Nazi Germany, Cuba, China to name a few, have demonstrated a lack of fidelity to such agreements. They use them to buy more time to advance their agenda. They use them to take advantage of perceived weakness or unwillingness to engage militarily on the part of more peaceful democratic countries.
They use them to force negotiations on their terms. Obama fell for it.
These countries simply do not play by the same set of rules and values as we do.
Democrats and Republicans in Congress need to acknowledge that the Obama approach to Iran emboldened and enriched an enemy never willing to be an honest broker for peace.
President Trump is trying to get the West back in a position to effectively isolate Iran and counter the Mullahs aggression before engaging in any form of military conflict.
U.S. Department of the Treasury. 06/24/2019. Treasury Targets Senior IRGC Commanders Behind Iran’s Destructive and Destabilizing Activities
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) took action today against eight senior commanders of Navy, Aerospace, and Ground Forces of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). These commanders sit atop a bureaucracy that supervises the IRGC’s malicious regional activities, including its provocative ballistic missile program, harassment and sabotage of commercial vessels in international waters, and its destabilizing presence in Syria.
Today’s designations reinforce the President’s action in issuing an Executive Order imposing sanctions on the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran as well as the Supreme Leader’s Office. The President’s order will deny Iran’s leadership access to financial resources and authorizes the targeting of persons appointed to certain official or other positions by the Supreme Leader or the Supreme Leader’s Office. Moreover, any foreign financial institution that knowingly facilitates a significant financial transaction for entities designated under this Executive Order could be cut off from the U.S. financial system.
“The United States is targeting those responsible for effectuating the Iranian regime’s destructive influence in the Middle East. IRGC commanders are responsible for the Iranian regime’s provocative attacks orchestrated in internationally recognized waters and airspace, as well as Iran’s malign activities in Syria,” said Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin. “Treasury will continue to aggressively target the senior leaders and the financial apparatus sustaining this malign activity. This action is a warning to officials at all levels of the IRGC and the rest of the Iranian regime that we will continue to sanction those who export violence, sabotage, and terrorism.”
Overview of Today’s Action
Today’s action targets commanders of the IRGC’s Navy, Aerospace, and Ground Forces, in addition to the commanders of the IRGC Navy’s (IRGCN) five naval districts. These include the naval district commanders who are responsible for the IRGCN’s activities off the coast of the southern provinces of Khuzestan, Bushehr, and Hormozgan, which lie adjacent to the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.
OFAC is designating IRGCN Commander Ali Reza Tangsiri pursuant to E.O. 13224 for acting for or on behalf of the IRGC. As recently as February 2019, Tangsiri threatened that the Iranian regime’s forces would close the Strait of Hormuz, an international waterway, if U.S. sanctions stopped Iran’s oil exports, and that the Iranian regime is prepared to target U.S. interests in the region. As the commander of the IRGCN, Tangsiri sits atop a structure—including those regional IRGCN commanders sanctioned today—that is responsible for the sabotage of vessels in the international waters.
Also designated today pursuant to E.O. 13224 for acting for or on behalf of the IRGC is Amirali Hajizadeh, commander of the IRGC Aerospace Force, whose bureaucracy was responsible for downing the U.S. unmanned aircraft on June 20, 2019. Hajizadeh oversees Iran’s provocative ballistic missile program.
OFAC is also designating pursuant to E.O. 13224 Mohammad Pakpour, commander of the IRGC’s Ground Forces, for acting for or on behalf of the IRGC. Under Pakpour’s command, the IRGC Ground Forces have deployed to fight in Syria in support of the IRGC-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and the brutal Assad regime. In 2017, Pakpour said that the IRGC Ground Forces were in Syria to help the IRGC-QF.
OFAC is also designating the commanders of the IRGCN’s five naval districts pursuant to E.O. 13224 for acting for or on behalf of the IRGC. The IRGC is responsible for the Regime’s destabilizing and provocative naval actions in and around the Strait of Hormuz.
IRGCN commanders of five naval districts designated today are:
- IRGCN 1st Naval District Commander Abbas Gholamshahi
- IRGCN 2nd Naval District Commander Ramezan Zirahi
- IRGCN 3rd Naval District Commander Yadollah Badin
- IRGCN 4th Naval District Commander Mansur Ravankar
- IRGCN 5th Naval District Commander Ali Ozma’i
The IRGC was designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 by OFAC on October 13, 2017 and it was designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the Secretary of State on April 15, 2019.
Sanctions Implications
As a result of today’s action, all property and interests in property of these individuals that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons must be blocked and reported to OFAC. OFAC’s regulations generally prohibit all dealings by U.S. persons or within (or transiting) the United States that involve any property or interests in property of blocked or designated persons.
In addition, persons that engage in certain transactions with the persons designated today may themselves be exposed to designation. Furthermore, any foreign financial institution that knowingly facilitates a significant transaction or provides significant financial services for any of the individuals designated today could be subject to U.S. correspondent account or payable-through sanctions.
U.S. Department of State. JUNE 24, 2019. Houthi Attack on Abha Airport. REMARKS. MICHAEL R. POMPEO, SECRETARY OF STATE
Yesterday, Iran-backed Houthi rebels launched a drone attack on the Abha airport in Saudi Arabia for the second time in less than two weeks. Initial reports suggest one person was killed and twenty-one were wounded. These Iranian-backed attacks are unacceptable, and all the more reprehensible given that they targeted innocent civilians. They also put Americans living, working, and transiting through Saudi Arabia at risk.
We call on the Iran-backed Houthisto end these reckless and provocative attacks on behalf of the Iranian regime. The Houthis should engage constructively in the UN-led political process to end the conflict and adhere to the commitments they made in Sweden.
Some want to portray the Yemen conflict as an isolated civil war, without a clear aggressor. It is neither. It is spreading conflict and humanitarian disaster that was conceived of and perpetuated by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The regime has spent years funneling cash, weapons, and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps support to the Houthis. With every attack conducted by an Iranian proxy, the regime tacks another day onto its forty-year track record of spreading death and chaos in the region, and beyond.
I just had productive meetings with Saudi Arabias leaders. I confirmed that the United States will continue to stand with all of our allies and partners in the region.
We will continue to pursue peace and stability in Middle East. And we will continue our pressure campaign until Iran stops its torrent of violence and meets diplomacy with diplomacy.
U.S. Department of State. JUNE 24, 2019. Secretary Pompeo’s Meetings With King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud. MORGAN ORTAGUS, DEPARTMENT SPOKESPERSON
Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo met today with King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Secretary, the King, and the Crown Prince discussed the heightened tensions in the region and the need for stronger maritime security to promote freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. They also agreed on the importance of working together with the Gulf Cooperation Council to counter the Iranian threat throughout the region and to hold the Iranian regime accountable for its malign behavior.
U.S. Department of State. JUNE 24, 2019. Executive Order to Impose Sanctions on the Office of the Supreme Leader of Iran. REMARKS. MICHAEL R. POMPEO, SECRETARY OF STATE
Today, the White House issued an Executive Order sanctioning the Supreme Leaders Office and authorizing further sanctions on those associated with it. This action was taken as part of the Administrations maximum pressure campaign against the Iranian regime, which has engaged in 40 years of terror and aggression against the United States and our allies. Most recently, it targeted a U.S. unmanned aircraft and executed attacks on international shipping.
The Supreme Leaders Office has enriched itself at the expense of the Iranian people. It sits atop a vast network of tyranny and corruption that deprives the Iranian people of the freedom and opportunity they deserve. Todays action denies Irans leadership the financial resources to spread terror and oppress the Iranian people.
The only path forward is for Iran to negotiate a comprehensive deal that addresses the full range of its destabilizing behaviors. Until it does, our campaign of diplomatic isolation and maximum economic pressure will continue. When the Iranian regime decides to forgo violence and meet our diplomacy with diplomacy, it knows how to reach us.
THE WHITE HOUSE. June 24, 2019. President Trump sanctions the worst elements of the Iranian regime
President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order this morning that imposes tough sanctions to deprive the Supreme Leader of Iran and some of his closest associates of key financial resources.
“Today’s action follows a series of aggressive behaviors by the Iranian regime in recent weeks,” the President said from the Oval Office. “The Supreme Leader of Iran is [the] one who ultimately is responsible for the hostile conduct of the regime . . . His office oversees the regime’s most brutal instruments, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.”
The President’s actions are a strong yet proportionate response to Iran’s recent string of provocative behaviors. Last week, Iran shot down an American drone over international waters. Earliest this month, Iran attacked two commercial vessels and used proxy forces to attack civilian infrastructure in Saudi Arabia.
Perhaps most alarming, the regime also recently announced that it will be increasing its stockpile of enriched uranium in the coming days.
Today’s sanctions send a firm message to Tehran: They’re no longer dealing with an Administration naive or indifferent to their malign behavior. In Fox News, Middle East expert Tom Basile called former President Obama’s “sweetheart deal with Iran” his worst foreign policy blunder of all.
“Obama wanted his Iran deal at all costs, and those costs were steep. It amounted to access to more than $100 billion, ending most sanctions, opening the country to foreign investment, among other benefits for the regime,” Basile writes. In other words, the Iran deal handed the world’s largest state sponsor of terror unprecedented financial capabilities.
Those days are over. Last year, President Trump withdrew the United States from the deal and put the regime on notice—either change course or face crippling economic pressure. That choice became even clearer today when the President authorized putting sanctions on anyone who provides material support to the Supreme Leader’s Office.
THE WHITE HOUSE. STATEMENTS & RELEASES. FOREIGN POLICY. President Donald J. Trump Is Imposing Sanctions on the Supreme Leader of Iran and the Worst Elements of the Iranian Regime
We call on the regime to abandon its nuclear ambitions, change its destructive behavior, respect the rights of its people, and return in good faith to the negotiating table.
President Donald J. Trump
TARGETING THE IRANIAN REGIME: President Donald J. Trump is imposing new sanctions targeting the Supreme Leader of Iran and the Office of the Supreme Leader of Iran.
- President Trump has signed an Executive Order today imposing sanctions on the Supreme Leader of Iran and the Office of the Supreme Leader of Iran.
- Further, the order allows the Secretary of the Treasury to impose sanctions on officials appointed to their position by the Supreme Leader.
- These sanctions will deny Iran’s leadership access to financial resources, blocking them from using the United States financial system or accessing any assets in the United States.
- The President is also authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to impose sanctions on anyone who provides material support to the Supreme Leader’s Office.
- President Trump’s action will target the most nefarious elements of the Iranian regime.
- The Supreme Leader funds and oversees the worst elements of the Iranian regime, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
SENDING A CLEAR MESSAGE: The United States is sending a clear message to the Iranian regime that it must end its malign behavior.
- These sanctions build on President Trump’s efforts to put financial pressure on and raise costs for the Iranian regime.
- The President has implemented tough sanctions against Iran and will continue to impose maximum pressure until the regime abandons its malign behavior.
- Efforts to impose maximum pressure have included placing sanctions on key sectors of Iran’s economy and designating the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization.
- The President has been clear that he is open to the possibility of future talks with Iran, and wants to ensure they are never allowed to gain nuclear weapons.
RESPONDING TO IRAN’S ESCALATIONS: Iran has escalated its aggression towards the United States in recent days.
- Iran has engaged in a series of provocative actions in recent weeks, leading up to the attack on a United States drone operating over international waters.
- Iran recently announced that it will be increasing its stockpile of enriched uranium in the coming days.
- Iran attacked two commercial vessels and used proxy forces to attack civilian infrastructure in Saudi Arabia.
- No amount of economic sanctions entitles the regime to attack innocent civilians, disrupt global commerce, or engage in nuclear blackmail.
CANADA
U.S. Department of State. JUNE 24, 2019. Conclusion of the Seventh Round of Negotiations to Modernize the Columbia River Treaty Regime
The United States and Canada held the seventh round of negotiations to modernize the Columbia River Treaty regime June 1920, in Washington, D.C. U.S. and Canadian negotiators took stock of progress made since negotiations commenced in May 2018 and identified potential paths toward further progress. The negotiating teams discussed issues related to flood risk management, hydropower, and adaptive management. U.S. negotiators continued to use the “U.S. Entity Regional Recommendation for the Future of the Columbia River Treaty after 2024” as a guide during the negotiations.
The Department of State leads a U.S. negotiating team comprised of representatives from the Bonneville Power Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division, the Department of the Interior, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The next round of negotiations will take place September 1011, in Cranbrook, British Columbia.
The U.S. negotiating team is holding regular Town Hall meetings throughout the Columbia River Basin to hear from the U.S. public on the modernization of the Columbia River Treaty regime. The U.S. negotiating team considers the input and views from the regions states, Tribes, and stakeholders who live and work in the Columbia River Basin. The last Town Hall took place March 20, 2019, in Kalispell, Montana. The next Town Hall will take place July 18 in Boise, Idaho.
FULL DOCUMENT: https://www.state.gov/columbia-river-treaty/
CHILE
U.S. Department of State. 06/24/2019. Joint Statement on U.S.-Chile High-Level Dialogue
The text of the following statement was released by the Governments of the United States of America and the Republic of Chile on the occasion of the June 24, 2019 U.S.-Chile High-Level Dialogue.
Begin Text:
Under Secretary of State David Hale and Chilean Deputy Foreign Minister Carolina Valdivia co-chaired the U.S.-Chile High-Level Bilateral Political Consultative Mechanism on June 24 in Washington, D.C.
The dialogue reflects our strong partnership, rooted in more than 200 years of friendship between our peoples, and our common vision for democracy, security, prosperity, and human rights based on our shared values. Discussing bilateral cooperation on security, science, and environmental matters, they committed to advance strategic discussion on cyber issues with a second Executive Cyber Consultation and to implement a new work plan under the America Crece initiative that will catalyze investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency. Under Secretary Hale highlighted expanding U.S.-Chile scientific cooperation, including additional Embassy Science Fellow visits to Chile, and Deputy Foreign Minister Valdivia announced Chile’s decision to pursue establishing a U.S. chapter of the U.S.-Chile Council on Science, Technology, and Innovation and welcomes the U.S. decision to start negotiating a bilateral agreement on cultural property and archeological and ethnological protection. They also affirmed our security cooperation, recognizing Chile’s regional leadership in the lead-up to the July Counterterrorism Ministerial.
Under Secretary Hale and Deputy Minister Valdivia also emphasized our closely aligned priorities for free, fair, and reciprocal trade.
Finally, they reaffirmed the commitments both countries share to promote democracy and human rights in the hemisphere, and they agreed to work together at the upcoming Organization of American States General Assembly to defend these principles.
They also agreed to continue assessing the grave situation on Venezuela.
End text.
________________
INDICADORES/INDICATORS
- US ECONOMIC INDICATORS
- US INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN GOODS AND SERVICES
- BALANÇA COMERCIAL BRASILEIRA
- BACEN. BOLETIM FOCUS: RELATÓRIO SEMANAL DE MERCADO (Projeções atualizadas semanalmente pelas 100 principais instituições financeiras que operam no Brasil, para os principais indicadores da economia brasileira)
- BACEN. Indicadores Econômicos Consolidados
- BACEN. Câmbio
- BOVESPA
- INDICADORES DO BANCO MUNDIAL
________________
BACEN. BOLETIM FOCUS: RELATÓRIO SEMANAL DE MERCADO
(Projeções atualizadas semanalmente pelas 100 principais instituições financeiras que operam no Brasil, para os principais indicadores da economia brasileira)
ANÁLISE
BACEN. PORTAL G1. 24/06/2019. Na 17ª queda seguida, mercado reduz para 0,87% previsão de alta do PIB de 2019. Expectativa de inflação recua para 3,82% e mercado começa a prever corte de juros. Números são resultado de pesquisa conduzida pelo Banco Central na semana passada.
Por Alexandro Martello, G1 — Brasília
Os economistas das instituições financeiras baixaram a estimativa de alta do Produto Interno Bruto (PIB) deste ano de 0,93 para 0,87%. Foi a 17ª queda consecutiva do indicador.
A previsão consta no boletim de mercado também conhecido como relatório "Focus", divulgado nesta segunda-feira (24) pelo Banco Central (BC). O relatório é resultado de levantamento feito na semana passada com mais de 100 instituições financeiras.
VEJA O HISTÓRICO DAS PREVISÕES DO MERCADO PARA O PIB DE 2019
ESTIMATIVAS CONTIDAS NO RELATÓRIO FOCUS
17/05/2019
● : 1,24
● : 1,24
Fonte: BANCO CENTRAL
As revisões para baixo na expectativa de crescimento do mercado financeiro para o PIB deste ano começaram, com mais intensidade, após a divulgação do resultado do ano passado – quando a economia avançou 1,1% – e continuaram após a divulgação de uma contração no primeiro trimestre de 2019 (tombo de 0,2%).
No fim de março, o Banco Central estimou expansão de 2% para a economia brasileira neste ano (número pode ser revisto no fim de junho) e, na mais recentemente, o Ministério da Economia baixou a previsão de crescimento de 2,2% para 1,6% em 2019.
O mercado financeiro manteve a projeção de crescimento para 2020 estável em 2,20%. Os economistas dos bancos não alteraram a previsão de expansão da economia para 2021 e para 2022 – que continuou em 2,5% para os dois anos.
O que diz o governo
Também nesta segunda-feira, o subsecretário de Política Fiscal do Ministério da Economia, Marco Cavalcanti, informou que o governo revisará a previsão de crescimento do PIB deste ano.
"Essa previsão [de alta de 1,6% para este ano] foi feita há bastante tempo [em maio] e, assim como todo o mercado está revendo, vamos rever também nossa estimativa", declarou.
Segundo o subsecretário, a revisão do PIB deve ser anunciada na divulgação do relatório de receitas e despesas, prevista para 19 de julho.
"Não vou adiantar nenhum número aqui. Deve se aproximar [das previsões do mercado financeiro], mas não sei quanto ainda", acrescentou.
Inflação
Para 2019, os economistas do mercado financeiro reduziram a expectativa de inflação de 3,84% para 3,82%. A meta central deste ano é de 4,25%, e o intervalo de tolerância do sistema de metas varia de 2,75% a 5,75%.
A meta de inflação é fixada pelo Conselho Monetário Nacional (CMN). Para alcançá-la, o Banco Central eleva ou reduz a taxa básica de juros da economia (Selic).
Para 2020, o mercado financeiro reduziu a estimativa de inflação de 4% para 3,95%. No próximo ano, a meta central de inflação é de 4% e terá sido oficialmente cumprida se o IPCA oscilar entre 2,5% e 5,5%.
Outras estimativas
- Taxa de juros - O mercado manteve em 5,75% ao ano a previsão para a taxa Selic no fim de 2019. Atualmente, a taxa de juros está em 6,5% ao ano. Com isso, o mercado segue prevendo queda nos juros neste ano. Para o fim de 2020, a previsão continuou em 6,5% ao ano. Desse modo, os analistas continuam prevendo alta nos juros no ano que vem.
- Dólar - A projeção do mercado financeiro para a taxa de câmbio no fim de 2019 ficou estável em R$ 3,80 por dólar. Para o fechamento de 2020, permaneceu em R$ 3,80 por dólar.
- Balança comercial - Para o saldo da balança comercial (resultado do total de exportações menos as importações), a projeção em 2019 subiu de US$ 50,50 bilhões para US$ 50,60 bilhões de resultado positivo. Para o ano que vem, a estimativa dos especialistas do mercado avançou de US$ 46 bilhões para US$ 46,4 bilhões.
- Investimento estrangeiro - A previsão do relatório para a entrada de investimentos estrangeiros diretos no Brasil, em 2019, cresceu de US$ 84,30 bilhões para US$ 85 bilhões. Para 2020, a estimativa dos analistas recuou de US$ 84,36 bilhões para US$ 84,28 bilhões.
BACEN. REUTERS. 24 DE JUNHO DE 2019. Top-5 reduz cenário para juros este ano e no próximo no Focus, projeção para PIB volta a cair
SÃO PAULO (Reuters) - O grupo dos economistas que mais acertam as previsões na pesquisa Focus passou a ver a taxa básica de juros Selic mais baixa tanto neste ano quanto no próximo, com as projeções gerais para inflação e crescimento econômico sendo reduzidas novamente.
A pesquisa do Banco Central divulgada nesta segunda-feira mostra que o Top-5 projeta agora a Selic a 5,50% em 2019 e a 6,25% em 2020, de 5,75% e 6,50% respectivamente antes.
Os economistas consultados como um todo, entretanto, ainda veem a Selic a 5,75% este ano e a 6,5% no próximo. Na semana passada, o BC manteve os juros no piso histórico de 6,50% e ressalvou que, embora o balanço de riscos para a inflação tenha evoluído de maneira favorável, o risco relacionado à agenda de reformas é preponderante, o que pede manutenção do juro básico no atual patamar.
Para economistas, a sinalização é de que cortes de juros só ocorrerão após a aprovação da reforma da Previdência, o que é dado como certo pela grande maioria do mercado.
O levantamento semanal apontou ainda que a expectativa para o crescimento do Produto Interno Bruto (PIB) em 2019 caiu pela 17ª vez seguida, a 0,87%, de 0,93% antes. Para 2020 foi mantida a projeção de expansão de 2,20%.
As estimativas para a inflação também voltaram a cair, com a alta do IPCA agora calculada em 3,82% este ano e 3,95% no próximo, de 3,84% e 4,00% respectivamente.
O centro da meta oficial de 2019 é de 4,25 por cento e, de 2020, de 4 por cento, ambos com margem de tolerância de 1,5 ponto percentual para mais ou menos.
Por Camila Moreira
________________
ECONOMIA BRASILEIRA / BRAZIL ECONOMICS
SETOR EXTERNO
BACEN. 24 Junho 2019. Estatísticas do setor externo
1. Balanço de pagamentos
Em maio, as exportações de bens totalizaram US$21,2 bilhões, incremento de 10,5% ante o mês correspondente de 2018. Na mesma base de comparação, as importações de bens cresceram 13,9%, e atingiram US$15,5 bilhões. No acumulado do ano, as exportações avançaram 0,5%, e as importações, 2,6%, resultando em diminuição de 6,3% no saldo comercial do período.
O déficit na conta de serviços atingiu US$3,0 bilhões em maio, mesmo valor do mês anterior, e 9,4% maior relativamente a maio de 2018. Houve aumento nas despesas líquidas de aluguel de equipamentos, de US$1,2 bilhão, em maio de 2018, para US$1,4 bilhão, em maio de 2019, e redução nas despesas líquidas de viagens, de US$1,2 bilhão para US$1,1 bilhão, na mesma base de comparação. Apesar do aumento no mês, o déficit em serviços alcançou US$12,7 bilhões no acumulado do ano, redução de 6,7% em relação ao mesmo período de 2018.
Em maio de 2019, o déficit em renda primária aumentou 14,7% na comparação com o mesmo mês do ano anterior, atingindo US$2,5 bilhões. A elevação do déficit mensal decorreu de maiores despesas líquidas de lucros e dividendos, US$1,7 bilhão, 56,1% acima das despesas líquidas de US$1,1 bilhão ocorridas em maio de 2018. Já as despesas líquidas de juros somaram US$775 milhões, redução de 29,6% na comparação interanual, com diminuição nas despesas brutas e aumento na remuneração das reservas internacionais. Apesar do aumento no mês, no acumulado do ano o déficit em renda primária reduziu 4,4% em relação ao mesmo período de 2018, alcançando US$16,8 bilhões.
Os ingressos líquidos em investimentos diretos no país (IDP) somaram US$7,1 bilhões no mês, igualmente distribuídos entre participação no capital e operações intercompanhia, ante total de US$3,0 bilhões observado em maio de 2018. No acumulado em 12 meses, os ingressos líquidos de IDP totalizaram US$96,6 bilhões, equivalentes a 5,19% do PIB. Nos cinco meses iniciais de 2019, os ingressos líquidos de IDP somaram US$35,1 bilhões, 30,7% superiores aos US$26,9 bilhões observados em período correspondente de 2018.
Em maio, houve saídas líquidas de US$285 milhões em instrumentos de portfólio negociados no mercado doméstico. No ano, até maio, as entradas líquidas de US$9,7 bilhões em instrumentos negociados no merco doméstico ocorreram por conta dos fluxos positivos em títulos de dívida, US$12,1 bilhões, enquanto ações e fundos de investimento registraram saídas líquidas de US$2,4 bilhões.
2. Reservas internacionais
O estoque de reservas internacionais atingiu US$386,2 bilhões em maio de 2019, correspondendo a 347,9% da dívida externa de curto prazo residual (exceto operações intercompanhia e títulos de dívida negociados no mercado doméstico). A expansão de US$2,4 bilhões no estoque de reservas de maio, relativamente a abril, decorreu principalmente de variações por preço, US$2,0 bilhões, e da receita de juros, US$645 milhões. Em maio, o saldo de linhas com recompra manteve-se em US$8,9 bilhões, mesmo valor de abril.
3. Posição de Investimento Internacional (PII)
A PII apresenta, a cada data-base, os estoques de ativos e passivos financeiros entre residentes e não residentes no país. A diferença entre esses estoques é denominada PII líquida, com valores negativos expressando o maior volume de investimentos de não residentes realizados no país, quando comparados aos efetuados no exterior por residentes.
Os ativos da PII somaram US$913,4 bilhões na posição de março de 2019, destacando-se as reservas internacionais, US$384,2 bilhões, e a posição de Investimento Direto no Exterior (IDE), US$399,4 bilhões. Os passivos da PII atingiram US$1,5 trilhão, dos quais a posição de IDP representou aproximadamente a metade, US$775,2 bilhões. A PII líquida de março de 2019, portanto, foi devedora em US$630,8 bilhões, equivalente a 33,9% do PIB. Comparada à posição de final de 2018, houve aumento de US$29,3 bilhões (4,9%) da posição devedora.
A PII líquida devedora de maio de 2019 foi estimada em US$628,7 bilhões (33,8% do PIB). Comparativamente à posição de março de 2019, a variação positiva dos ativos externos, de US$7,0 bilhões, mais que compensou a elevação dos passivos externos, de US$4,9 bilhões, reduzindo a posição devedora líquida em US$2,1 bilhões.
4. Dívida externa
A dívida externa é constituída pelos passivos de residentes no país contra não residentes, nos quais há obrigação de pagamento de principal e/ou de juros em algum momento do tempo, independentemente da moeda de denominação e do local de negociação dos instrumentos de dívida. A dívida externa está incluída nos passivos da PII.
Em março de 2019, a dívida externa brasileira totalizou US$679,6 bilhões, dos quais US$326,4 bilhões negociados no mercado internacional, exclusive operações entre empresas de mesmo grupo econômico; US$238,0 bilhões em operações intercompanhia; e US$115,2 bilhões em títulos de dívida negociados no mercado doméstico.
Relativamente à posição de final de 2018, a dívida externa brasileira aumentou US$15,1 bilhões (2,1%) em março de 2019, dadas as variações positivas de US$5,2 bilhões (1,8%) na dívida externa bruta e de US$8,7 bilhões (8,1%) nos títulos negociados no mercado doméstico. Já as operações intercompanhia apresentaram pequena redução de saldo, de US$590 milhões (0,2%).
O perfil da dívida externa por modalidades de taxa de juros é relevante para a sensibilidade de suas despesas em relação às taxas de mercado. Consideradas as operações de dívida externa no mercado internacional, o estoque atrelado a taxas fixas somou US$342,0 bilhões (60,6%), ao passo que o estoque vinculado a taxas flutuantes atingiu US$222,4 bilhões (39,4%). A proporção do estoque vinculado a taxas fixas cresceu 4,0 pontos percentuais de março de 2018 a março de 2019.
A dívida externa estimada para maio de 2019 somou US$680,1 bilhões, aumento de US$469 milhões (0,1%) frente à posição de março do mesmo ano.
INFLAÇÃO
FGV. IBRE. 24/06/19. Índices Gerais de Preços. IPC-S. Inflação pelo IPC-S recua na terceira semana de junho
O IPC-S de 22 de junho de 2019 caiu 0,05%, ficando 0,09 ponto percentual (p.p) abaixo da taxa registrada na última divulgação.
Nesta apuração, quatro das oito classes de despesa componentes do índice registraram decréscimo em suas taxas de variação. A maior contribuição partiu do grupo Transportes (-0,27% para -0,63%). Nesta classe de despesa, cabe mencionar o comportamento do item gasolina, cuja taxa passou de -0,71% para -2,04%.
Também registraram decréscimo em suas taxas de variação os grupos: Habitação (0,28% para 0,13%), Educação, Leitura e Recreação (1,11% para 0,79%) e Saúde e Cuidados Pessoais (0,43% para 0,42%). Nestas classes de despesa, vale destacar o comportamento dos itens: tarifa de eletricidade residencial (-0,13% para -1,08%), show musical (2,96% para -0,28%) e medicamentos em geral (0,61% para 0,34%).
Em contrapartida, os grupos Alimentação (-0,55% para -0,42%), Comunicação (-0,05% para 0,06%) e Vestuário (0,35% para 0,40%) apresentaram avanço em suas taxas de variação. Nestas classes de despesa, vale citar os itens: hortaliças e legumes (-5,15% para -3,06%), pacotes de telefonia fixa e internet (-0,08% para 0,24%) e calçados (0,24% para 0,59%).
O grupo Despesas Diversas repetiu a taxa de variação de -0,35% registrada na última apuração. As principais influências partiram dos itens: serviço religioso e funerário (-0,14% para -0,10%), em sentido ascendente, e alimentos para animais domésticos (-0,62% para -0,64%), em sentido descendente.
DOCUMENTO: https://portalibre.fgv.br/navegacao-superior/noticias/noticias-1591.htm
FGV. IBRE. 24/06/19. Sondagens e Índices de Confiança. Indicador de Expectativa de Inflação dos Consumidores. Expectativa de Inflação dos Consumidores se manteve estável no mês
Em junho, a expectativa mediana dos consumidores para a inflação nos 12 meses seguintes manteve-se estável em 5,4%. Em relação ao mesmo mês do ano anterior houve alta de 0,2 ponto percentual.
“Nos últimos meses, as expectativas dos consumidores sobre inflação vinham sendo influenciadas por uma percepção conjuntural de aceleração de preços dos alimentos, além do aumento da incerteza econômica. Como a perspectiva que nos próximos meses estes preços recuem, juntamente com efeitos positivos nos preços de combustíveis e da mudança da bandeira na energia elétrica, é possível que a expectativa de inflação volte a cair, condicionada à evolução da incerteza”, afirma Viviane Seda Bittencourt, coordenadora da Sondagem do Consumidor, da FGV/IBRE.
Analisando a frequência da inflação prevista por faixas, a parcela dos consumidores que projetam valores abaixo da meta de inflação para 2019 (de 4,25%), aumentou de 31,6% em maio para 33,4% em junho. Enquanto isso, a proporção de consumidores projetando valores acima de 12% subiu 0,5 ponto percentual, para 6,9%, a maior parcela desde o início do ano.
Na análise por faixas de renda, em junho houve estabilidade nas expectativas medianas para a inflação nos 12 meses seguintes, sendo que para as famílias com renda familiar mensal até R$ 2.100,00 a expectativa mediana variou 0,1 p.p., para 6,2%, o maior valor desde agosto do ano passado (6,3%). Para os consumidores de renda superior a R$ 9.600, o valor segue inalterado em 4,7%.
DOCUMENTO: https://portalibre.fgv.br/navegacao-superior/noticias/noticias-1592.htm
COMÉRCIO EXTERIOR BRASILEIRO
MEconomia. 24/06/2019. Comércio exterior. Balança comercial tem superávit de US$ 1,737 bilhão na terceira semana de junho. No acumulado do ano, saldo positivo chega a US$ 26,144 bilhões
Com exportações de US$ 4,466 bilhões e importações de US$ 2,730 bilhões, na terceira semana de junho de 2019, a balança comercial brasileira teve superávit de US$ 1,737 bilhão. No mês, o saldo positivo é de US$ 4,033 bilhões, resultado de exportações de US$ 13,544 bilhões e importações de US$ 9,512 bilhões. No acumulado do ano, as vendas externas brasileiras totalizam US$ 106,393 bilhões e as compras no exterior somam US$ 80,250 bilhões, com superávit de US$ 26,144 bilhões.
Análise da semana
A média das exportações da terceira semana (US$ 1,117 bilhão) ficou 23% acima da média registrada até a segunda semana (US$ 907,8 milhões), em razão do aumento nas exportações das três categorias de produtos: manufaturados (+28%, em razão, principalmente, de aviões, óxidos e hidróxidos de alumínio, laminados planos de ferro ou aço, etanol, gasolina, compostos inorgânicos/orgânicos), básicos (+20,9%, por conta de soja em grão, carnes suína, bovina e de frango, milho em grão, café em grão, minério de ferro) e semimanufaturados (+18,9%, em razão de ferro-ligas, açúcar em bruto, semimanufaturados de ferro ou aço, madeira serrada ou fendida, óleo de soja em bruto, estanho em bruto).
Nas importações, também pela média diária, houve crescimento de 0,6%, sobre igual período comparativo - média da terceira semana, de US$ 682,4 milhões sobre a média até a segunda semana, que foi de US$ 678,2 milhões. O aumento das compras externas no período pode ser atribuído, principalmente, à elevação nos gastos com veículos automóveis e partes, adubos e fertilizantes, bebidas e álcool, instrumentos de ótica e precisão, plásticos e obras.
Análise do mês
Nas exportações, comparadas as médias até a terceira semana de junho de 2019 (US$ 967,5 milhões) com a média diária registrada em junho de 2018 (US$ 957,8 milhões), há crescimento de 1% em função do aumento nas vendas de produtos básicos (+14,3%, por conta de petróleo em bruto, minério de ferro, carnes de frango, bovina e suína, algodão em bruto, milho em grãos).
Por outro lado, diminuíram as vendas de produtos semimanufaturados (-10,9%, por conta de semimanufaturados de ferro/aço, celulose, açúcar em bruto, ouro em formas semimanufaturadas, couros e peles, estanho em bruto) e manufaturados (- 5,2%, por conta, principalmente, de aviões, automóveis de passageiros, torneiras e válvulas, máquinas e aparelhos para terraplanagem, tubos flexíveis de ferro ou aço, laminados planos de ferro ou aço).
Em relação à média diária de maio de 2019, houve crescimento de 0,1%, em virtude do aumento nas vendas de produtos básicos (+2,1%) e manufaturados (+0,3%), enquanto diminuíram as vendas de produtos semimanufaturados (-7,9%).
Nas importações, a média diária até a terceira semana de junho deste ano (US$ 679,4 milhões) ficou 0,4% abaixo da média de junho do ano passado (US$ 682,1 milhões). Nesse comparativo, decresceram os gastos, principalmente, com farmacêuticos (-20,7%), veículos automóveis e partes (-18,2%), siderúrgicos (-10,7%), plásticos e obras (-7,6%), químicos orgânicos e inorgânicos (-5,2%). Ante maio/2019, houve queda de 0,2%, pelas diminuições em bebidas e álcool (-36,9%), farmacêuticos (-27,8%), combustíveis e lubrificantes (-11,0%), siderúrgicos (-6,3%), instrumentos de ótica e precisão (-5,5%).
RESULTADOS GERAIS
Na terceira semana de junho de 2019, a balança comercial registrou superávit de US$ 1,737 bilhão, resultado de exportações no valor de US$ 4,466 bilhões e importações de US$ 2,730 bilhões. No mês, as exportações somam US$ 13,544 bilhões e as importações, US$ 9,512 bilhões, com saldo positivo de US$ 4,033 bilhões. No ano, as exportações totalizam US$ 106,393 bilhões e as importações, US$ 80,250 bilhões, com saldo positivo de US$ 26,144 bilhões.
ANÁLISE DA SEMANA
A média das exportações da 3ª semana chegou a US$ 1,117 bilhão, 23,0% acima da média de US$ 907,8 milhões até a 2ª semana, em razão do aumento nas exportações das três categorias de produtos: manufaturados (+28,0%, de US$ 299,7 milhões para US$ 383,6 milhões, em razão, principalmente, de aviões, óxidos e hidróxidos de alumínio, laminados planos de ferro ou aço, etanol, gasolina, compostos inorgânicos/orgânicos), básicos (+20,9%, de US$ 490,9 milhões para US$ 593,7 milhões, por conta de soja em grão, carnes suína, bovina e de frango, milho em grão, café em grão, minério de ferro) e semimanufaturados (+18,9%, de US$ 117,2 milhões para US$ 139,3 milhões, em razão de ferro-ligas, açúcar em bruto, semimanufaturados de ferro ou aço, madeira serrada ou fendida, óleo de soja em bruto, estanho em bruto).
Do lado das importações, apontou-se crescimento de 0,6%, sobre igual período comparativo (média da 3ª semana, US$ 682,4 milhões sobre média até a 2ª semana, US$ 678,2 milhões), explicada, principalmente, pelo aumento nos gastos com veículos automóveis e partes, adubos e fertilizantes, bebidas e álcool, instrumentos de ótica e precisão, plásticos e obras.
ANÁLISE DO MÊS
Nas exportações, comparadas as médias até a 3ª semana de junho/2019 (US$ 967,5 milhões) com a de junho/2018 (US$ 957,8 milhões), houve crescimento de 1,0%, em razão do aumento nas vendas de produtos básicos (+14,3%, de US$ 455,1 milhões para US$ 520,3 milhões, por conta de petróleo em bruto, minério de ferro, carnes de frango, bovina e suína, algodão em bruto, milho em grãos). Por outro lado, diminuíram as vendas de produtos semimanufaturados (-10,9%, de US$ 138,6 milhões para US$ 123,5 milhões, por conta de semimanufaturados de ferro/aço, celulose, açúcar em bruto, ouro em formas semimanufaturadas, couros e peles, estanho em bruto) e manufaturados (-5,2%, de US$ 341,5 milhões para US$ 323,7 milhões, por conta, principalmente, de aviões, automóveis de passageiros, torneiras e válvulas, máquinas e aparelhos para terraplanagem, tubos flexíveis de ferro ou aço, laminados planos de ferro ou aço). Relativamente a maio/2019, houve crescimento de 0,1%, em virtude do aumento nas vendas de produtos básicos (+2,1%, de US$ 509,4 milhões para US$ 520,3 milhões) e manufaturados (+0,3%, de US$ 322,8 milhões para US$ 323,7 milhões), enquanto diminuíram as vendas de produtos semimanufaturados (-7,9% de US$ 134,0 milhões para US$ 123,5 milhões).
Nas importações, a média diária até a 3ª semana de junho/2019, de US$ 679,4 milhões, ficou 0,4% abaixo da média de junho/2018 (US$ 682,1 milhões). Nesse comparativo, decresceram os gastos, principalmente, com farmacêuticos (-20,7%), veículos automóveis e partes (-18,2%), siderúrgicos (-10,7%), plásticos e obras (-7,6%), químicos orgânicos e inorgânicos (-5,2%). Ante maio/2019, houve queda de 0,2%, pelas diminuições em bebidas e álcool (-36,9%), farmacêuticos (-27,8%), combustíveis e lubrificantes (-11,0%), siderúrgicos (-6,3%), instrumentos de ótica e precisão (-5,5%).
MRE. AIG. NOTA-163. 24 de Junho de 2019. Contencioso na OMC entre Brasil e Indonésia sobre medidas restritivas às exportações brasileiras de frango – Painel de implementação – Nota conjunta do Ministério das Relações Exteriores e do Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento
O Órgão de Solução de Controvérsias da Organização Mundial do Comércio (OMC) estabeleceu hoje, a pedido do Brasil, painel de implementação no âmbito do contencioso com a Indonésia sobre carne e produtos de frango.
Em novembro de 2017, o Órgão de Solução de Controvérsias adotou decisão favorável ao Brasil na fase original da disputa. O painel que examinou a matéria determinou que diversas medidas mantidas pela Indonésia constituíam barreiras comerciais à importação de carne e produtos de frango brasileiros, em desconformidade com disciplinas do GATT e do Acordo sobre Medidas Sanitárias e Fitossanitárias da OMC.
Tendo-se encerrado o período acordado pelas partes para a implementação da decisão da OMC, o Brasil avalia que a Indonésia não lhe deu pleno cumprimento. Nesse contexto, cabe a um painel de implementação examinar, em procedimento mais expedito, se a Indonésia permanece, de fato, descumprindo as disciplinas multilaterais.
Caso seja essa a conclusão, o Brasil poderá obter compensações por prejuízos causados pelas barreiras comerciais, ou, na ausência de compensações, o direito de impor medidas retaliatórias. Esta nova etapa no contencioso demonstra a disposição do governo brasileiro de se valer de todos os meios disponíveis nas regras multilaterais para assegurar condições justas para as exportações do país.
ARRECADAÇÃO
MEconomia. RFB. 24/06/2019. Arrecadação. Receita arrecadou R$ 113,27 bilhões em maio. No período acumulado, de janeiro a maio de 2019, a arrecadação registrou o valor de R$ 637 ,64 bilhões
A arrecadação total das receitas federais atingiu, em maio de 2019, o valor de R$ 113,27 bilhões, registrando acréscimo real (IPCA) de 1,92% em relação a maio de 2018.
No período acumulado, de janeiro a maio de 2019, a arrecadação registrou o valor de R$ 637,64 bilhões, representando um acréscimo real (IPCA) de 1,28% em relação ao mesmo período do ano anterior.
Quanto às receitas administradas pela Receita Federal, o valor arrecadado, em maio de 2019, foi de R$ 110,75 bilhões, representando um crescimento real (IPCA) de 1,84%, enquanto que no período acumulado de janeiro a maio de 2019, a arrecadação alcançou R$ 609,91 bilhões, representando um acréscimo real (IPCA) de 0,58%.
De acordo com o chefe do Centro de Estudos Tributários e Aduaneiros, Claudemir Malaquias, o resultado está em linha com as projeções da Receita. “Os indicadores macroeconômicos ajudam a explicar o desempenho dos principais tributos. O indicador de vendas no comércio voltou a apresentar variação positiva, o que foi refletido na arrecadação. Também contribuiu para o resultado deste mês, a arrecadação do IRPJ e da CSLL, cujos valores recolhidos cresceram 5,77%, juntamente com o IR sobre capital que também apresentou variação positiva na ordem de 23,47%."
________________
LGCJ.:
