So, the question that I am curious about in the wake of this latest Clinton scandal is about options for fixing things should we determine that it is actually undesirable to have the Russian government owning a significant amount of US uranium output. (How much output is that? 4.8 million pounds was the total figure in 2013.)
Let's say we decide that's a bad idea. However, the sale was approved by all the appropriate parties, including the Clinton State Department. The sale is presumably perfectly legal and settled, then. What happens if we determine that Russia is using energy resources to leverage its position in an attempt to dominate smaller neighbor nations? What if it should decide to sell uranium to Iran, or for that matter to a Saudi government bent on developing a bomb to counter Iran?
I don't know the answers to those questions. Do any of you know what might be done, were we to decide that something ought to be done? The only thing that occurs to me is nationalizing the mine via eminent domain, presumably paying Russia some fair market value for it.
10 comments:
The US government is perfectly capable of withdrawing approval of a contract after review. They have that power.
Valerie
This isn't just a contract, though, it's a sale -- at least if I'm reading correctly. I signed a contract to buy my house, for example, but it's not just a contract now: I've long since paid off the appropriate moneys, so there is no sense in which the former owner is still the owner. I haven't just contracted to buy the house, I own the house.
Maybe this kind of sale works differently? I have never dealt in the buying and selling of uranium, so it's a question asked in genuine ignorance. Is this just a contract, or do they own something in a legal and binding way?
The only things I can think of to be done involve a tall stout tree and a rope.
Well, there's the Bader Ginsburg principle: it's a living contract and must change with the times. As I define the necessary change and the enclosing times. Contract canceled.
Alternatively, there's the Thurgood Marshall principle: do it, and let the law catch up. Contract canceled.
Then there's the OWS principle: evil 1%. Contract canceled.
Or the (modern) feminist principle: Evil patriachal heteronormative nationalist...man. Contract canceled.
Or a perfectly legitimate national security perspective: Contract canceled.
Is there a principle in the national security? Of course, and like all human-articulated cases, it's rife with envelope boundaries and corner cases. I'm down with that.
Eric Hines
I think Mr. Hines has it covered.
I also think it would be fittingly ironic to nationalize any Soviet -- I mean, Russian -- holdings.
do they own something in a legal and binding way?
You're the one who keeps arguing the government owns it all; we just have in fee. Of course Putin also only has our mining lands and its content in fee. What government gives, it can take away.
Besides, Putin is current on his fees? We have this IRS; it would be child's play to show that no, he isn't.
Eric Hines
You're the one who keeps arguing the government owns it all; we just have in fee.
That's true if we're talking about real estate -- the form dates to Edward I Longshanks. What I'm not sure about is if this kind of uranium mine ownership is real estate, or a kind of mineral rights contract, or something else.
Seriously, if it requires US approval, that approval can be withdrawn upon review, and the contract is void, or the terms changed.
Valerie
Possession is 100% of the law, in this case, if will is present.
Seriously, if it requires US approval, that approval can be withdrawn upon review, and the contract is void, or the terms changed.
There's also the fact that Russia is, and has been for a few years, violating the IRBM treaty a previous administration agreed with a previous Russian administration. That alters (fraudulently) the conditions under which the contract was signed and the environment within which the contract was expected to operate. That sort of change has ample precedent in US law as grounds for canceling the contract, regardless of any national security or government approval required criterion.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment