The JCPoA was *not* a legally-binding agreement upon the United States, according to our own laws--how many times do I have to mention that fact? If the previous Administration had wanted to make it legally binding then it should have been a treaty instead of the equivalent of a handshake over a beer in the pub.
You probably need to not only mention that fact, but explain why it's relevant . To my mind the issue is whether another country can trust the US to keep commitments made in its name and that has little to do with whether those commitments were made in a legally binding way in the US.
If you've been involved in local government finance in the UK for many years you are likely to know about the Hazell v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC case. That involved a Local Authority that took out a range of interest rate swaps in the 1980s, ostensibly with the aim of protecting itself against interest rate movements. However, in practice the extent of the swaps had gone way beyond that into gambling (the debt of the Authority was £390m, but swaps were entered into for over £6bn - which at that stage amounted to 0.5% of the global trade in swaps). The Authority lost very heavily when interest rates rose significantly and a case was brought claiming that they had had no power to enter into the swaps in the first place and those should be made void. The House of Lords ultimately supported this argument.
As a result of that case the law has been changed in 2 ways: 1) The Local Government (Contracts) Act 1997 brought in the ability for Authorities to 'certify' contracts. That process enabled contracts to be lawful even if it was subsequently found that the Authority did not have the legal power to enter into them. 2) The Local Government Act 2000 (now replaced by the Localism Act 2011) brought in a much more general power of legal competence allowing Authorities to do anything individuals could do rather than having to look for a specific legal power for every possible type of contract.
Despite the above changes in the law, the echoes of that case continue even today with banks continuing to be nervous about entering into complex financial contracts with Local Authorities - I've seen those difficulties on a number of contracts I've been involved in in recent years.
The reason I've referred to this case is because it gets to the heart of trust issues - can you rely on the contract you sign with another person? If you feel you can't you either don't sign the contract at all or insist on much more extensive (and expensive) procedures to try and guarantee compliance. The law was changed in the UK because the market for interest rate swaps was broken by this case - as indeed were the markets for a whole range of other contracts where it wasn't totally clear whether Authorities had a specific power to undertake them.
The swaps case involved intra-national law and it was possible to resolve it by changing the law in a way that clearly permitted this type of contract in future - thus (for the most part) restoring confidence and allowing future contracts to proceed. That course is not, however, available for international agreements as national governments operate under the principle that they cannot bind their successors. Irrespective therefore of whether a treaty were made legally binding within the US, a future government could break it anyway. In the case of the US that principle was endorsed by SCOTUS in the Head Money Cases of 1884 where it was confirmed that treaties do not hold a privileged position above other acts of Congress. The repeal of a treaty (even one of the comparatively rare ones signed by following the Treaty clause in the Constitution) will be confirmed and endorsed by US courts irrespective of how other countries regard the status of the treaty.
Apologies for the long-winded post. I suppose I could just have responded by saying: - national governments can (and do) break international agreements, irrespective of how those agreements were entered into. - the willingness of another country to enter into an agreement with your country therefore depends on their perception of the likelihood that your country will renege on the agreement. - in the case of the US recent decisions will almost certainly have had a significant impact on the willingness of other countries to trust the US to abide by an agreement. That will make such agreements more difficult to make and maintain.
The JCPoA was *not* a legally-binding agreement upon the United States, according to our own laws--how many times do I have to mention that fact? If the previous Administration had wanted to make it legally binding then it should have been a treaty instead of the equivalent of a handshake over a beer in the pub.
The Paris Accords...as I have mentioned *numerous* times now, the earliest the United States may petition to leave is sometime in very late 2019 (or early 2020, either one--I forget exactly which) and the earliest date we can actually leave is not until after Inauguration Day in 2021--the newly-sworn in President (who probably won't be Trump for a second term) can immediately reverse the decision to withdraw, after which it will be as if we never tried to back out of that Accord in the first place. Don't forget--the Paris Accord doesn't actually *do* anything because it allows signatory nations to set their own target reducions *voluntarily*. Any nation which signed it could have said "oh, we're going to cut emissions by 30%', give a half-hearted attempt to do so, and when they fail to meet that goal just shrug their shoulders and say "I tried".
An agreement that was flat-out PREVENTING Iran from getting nuclear weapons, even though the media and Republicans were screaming at the time it wouldn't work. And was actually doing what the supposed goal of this North Korea "summit" is.
Now Mike Pence is saying, merely 12 hours later, that the US is NOT ending it's military exercises with South Korea. So we didn't even make it full day/night cycle before that narrative fell apart.
And this is my major problem with Trump meeting with North Korea. Not the meeting itself, but the idea that through his personal inertia, he can just will things to happen. He didn't put any work into it, the Administration has put in no work, and they expect it to work anyway. It isn't going to. And on the flip-side, the Iran deal took YEARS to come together, and they threw it away. They are not only lazy in the extreme, but that laziness makes them think the hard work of diplomacy doesn't matter.
It was not preventing them, it was stretching the time in which they can enrich uranium. I believe under the deal it was capped at 4%. Iran, now, is threatening to return (or turn up production) to 20%. So again it was not a deal that they would not get the weapon but a matter of when. Delivery of said weapon is a WHOLE nother ball game.
That is why NK is a priority for all world leaders, they allowed them the time to make the weapon and also get the means to deliver it. If this was Iran they would of been invaded years ago. The world still has time with Iran.
The JCPoA was *not* a legally-binding agreement upon the United States, according to our own laws--how many times do I have to mention that fact? If the previous Administration had wanted to make it legally binding then it should have been a treaty instead of the equivalent of a handshake over a beer in the pub.
Then what the HELL is Trump doing there, eh? I haven't heard the word "treaty" mentioned ONCE in ALL the months of talking heads babbling about North Korea.
Where's this treaty to be presented before Congress? I just read the text of the "agreement". In a nutshell all it says is that there will be further talks in the future.
This IS the equivalent of a "handshake over a beer in the pub". FAR more than the JCPoA ever was.
The JCPoA was *not* a legally-binding agreement upon the United States, according to our own laws--how many times do I have to mention that fact? If the previous Administration had wanted to make it legally binding then it should have been a treaty instead of the equivalent of a handshake over a beer in the pub.
The Paris Accords...as I have mentioned *numerous* times now, the earliest the United States may petition to leave is sometime in very late 2019 (or early 2020, either one--I forget exactly which) and the earliest date we can actually leave is not until after Inauguration Day in 2021--the newly-sworn in President (who probably won't be Trump for a second term) can immediately reverse the decision to withdraw, after which it will be as if we never tried to back out of that Accord in the first place. Don't forget--the Paris Accord doesn't actually *do* anything because it allows signatory nations to set their own target reducions *voluntarily*. Any nation which signed it could have said "oh, we're going to cut emissions by 30%', give a half-hearted attempt to do so, and when they fail to meet that goal just shrug their shoulders and say "I tried".
An agreement that was flat-out PREVENTING Iran from getting nuclear weapons, even though the media and Republicans were screaming at the time it wouldn't work. And was actually doing what the supposed goal of this North Korea "summit" is.
Now Mike Pence is saying, merely 12 hours later, that the US is NOT ending it's military exercises with South Korea. So we didn't even make it full day/night cycle before that narrative fell apart.
And this is my major problem with Trump meeting with North Korea. Not the meeting itself, but the idea that through his personal inertia, he can just will things to happen. He didn't put any work into it, the Administration has put in no work, and they expect it to work anyway. It isn't going to. And on the flip-side, the Iran deal took YEARS to come together, and they threw it away. They are not only lazy in the extreme, but that laziness makes them think the hard work of diplomacy doesn't matter.
It was not preventing them, it was stretching the time in which they can enrich uranium. I believe under the deal it was capped at 4%. Iran, now, is threatening to return (or turn up production) to 20%. So again it was not a deal that they would not get the weapon but a matter of when. Delivery of said weapon is a WHOLE nother ball game.
You're correct that there is a limit (of 15 years) on enrichment restrictions. However, the Additional Protocol provides no time limit on the monitoring and verification activities of international inspectors - that continues until or unless Iran withdraws from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. What that means under the agreement is that Iran would find it extremely difficult to build nuclear weapons in secret - they would have to signal their intention to do so, allowing other countries a bit of time to react to the threat.
My impression is that most people (at least in the US) don't appreciate just what an enormous concession on the limitation of Iran's sovereignty the JCPoA represents. How many countries would sign up to a treaty that provides unrestricted access for international inspectors to any location in the entire country? I can't imagine any circumstances in which the US would ever agree to that (and neither would the UK, where I live). I've said before it was an amazing achievement to get Iran to agree to it and to have any chance at all of a similar sort of agreement with North Korea will require years of sustained diplomatic effort.
The JCPoA was *not* a legally-binding agreement upon the United States, according to our own laws--how many times do I have to mention that fact? If the previous Administration had wanted to make it legally binding then it should have been a treaty instead of the equivalent of a handshake over a beer in the pub.
The Paris Accords...as I have mentioned *numerous* times now, the earliest the United States may petition to leave is sometime in very late 2019 (or early 2020, either one--I forget exactly which) and the earliest date we can actually leave is not until after Inauguration Day in 2021--the newly-sworn in President (who probably won't be Trump for a second term) can immediately reverse the decision to withdraw, after which it will be as if we never tried to back out of that Accord in the first place. Don't forget--the Paris Accord doesn't actually *do* anything because it allows signatory nations to set their own target reducions *voluntarily*. Any nation which signed it could have said "oh, we're going to cut emissions by 30%', give a half-hearted attempt to do so, and when they fail to meet that goal just shrug their shoulders and say "I tried".
An agreement that was flat-out PREVENTING Iran from getting nuclear weapons, even though the media and Republicans were screaming at the time it wouldn't work. And was actually doing what the supposed goal of this North Korea "summit" is.
Now Mike Pence is saying, merely 12 hours later, that the US is NOT ending it's military exercises with South Korea. So we didn't even make it full day/night cycle before that narrative fell apart.
And this is my major problem with Trump meeting with North Korea. Not the meeting itself, but the idea that through his personal inertia, he can just will things to happen. He didn't put any work into it, the Administration has put in no work, and they expect it to work anyway. It isn't going to. And on the flip-side, the Iran deal took YEARS to come together, and they threw it away. They are not only lazy in the extreme, but that laziness makes them think the hard work of diplomacy doesn't matter.
It was not preventing them, it was stretching the time in which they can enrich uranium. I believe under the deal it was capped at 4%. Iran, now, is threatening to return (or turn up production) to 20%. So again it was not a deal that they would not get the weapon but a matter of when. Delivery of said weapon is a WHOLE nother ball game.
You're correct that there is a limit (of 15 years) on enrichment restrictions. However, the Additional Protocol provides no time limit on the monitoring and verification activities of international inspectors - that continues until or unless Iran withdraws from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. What that means under the agreement is that Iran would find it extremely difficult to build nuclear weapons in secret - they would have to signal their intention to do so, allowing other countries a bit of time to react to the threat.
My impression is that most people (at least in the US) don't appreciate just what an enormous concession on the limitation of Iran's sovereignty the JCPoA represents. How many countries would sign up to a treaty that provides unrestricted access for international inspectors to any location in the entire country? I can't imagine any circumstances in which the US would ever agree to that (and neither would the UK, where I live). I've said before it was an amazing achievement to get Iran to agree to it and to have any chance at all of a similar sort of agreement with North Korea will require years of sustained diplomatic effort.
It's not appreciated in the US because even the mainstream media outlets sold it as naive capitulation on the part of the Obama Administration, and the general narrative was that Iran would never live up to their end of the bargain. It got so bad that a group of Republican Senators led by Tom Cotton, in the midst of the negotiations, sent a letter to the leaders of Iran trying to torpedo the deal (which I still view as right near the line of illegality). When it turned out that Iran WAS living up to the deal, and that Obama and Kerry had actually accomplished a fairly significant diplomatic victory for the entire world, there was never any posthumous praise or apologies issued. There was just still an insistence that, for some unknown reason, it was still a "bad" deal. Even in this thread, it seems to be an uphill battle to convince people that it was working, despite all verifiable evidence supporting that argument. It was, in the end, a pure act of hard-fought diplomacy. Last night was essentially a royal wedding for authoritarians. Trump's lavish praise of Kim as the day went on today got more and more absurd. And it continues a VERY disturbing trend. Trump gets along really well with dictators and seems to not be able to stand the leaders of democracies.
The JCPoA was *not* a legally-binding agreement upon the United States, according to our own laws--how many times do I have to mention that fact? If the previous Administration had wanted to make it legally binding then it should have been a treaty instead of the equivalent of a handshake over a beer in the pub.
The Paris Accords...as I have mentioned *numerous* times now, the earliest the United States may petition to leave is sometime in very late 2019 (or early 2020, either one--I forget exactly which) and the earliest date we can actually leave is not until after Inauguration Day in 2021--the newly-sworn in President (who probably won't be Trump for a second term) can immediately reverse the decision to withdraw, after which it will be as if we never tried to back out of that Accord in the first place. Don't forget--the Paris Accord doesn't actually *do* anything because it allows signatory nations to set their own target reducions *voluntarily*. Any nation which signed it could have said "oh, we're going to cut emissions by 30%', give a half-hearted attempt to do so, and when they fail to meet that goal just shrug their shoulders and say "I tried".
An agreement that was flat-out PREVENTING Iran from getting nuclear weapons, even though the media and Republicans were screaming at the time it wouldn't work. And was actually doing what the supposed goal of this North Korea "summit" is.
Now Mike Pence is saying, merely 12 hours later, that the US is NOT ending it's military exercises with South Korea. So we didn't even make it full day/night cycle before that narrative fell apart.
And this is my major problem with Trump meeting with North Korea. Not the meeting itself, but the idea that through his personal inertia, he can just will things to happen. He didn't put any work into it, the Administration has put in no work, and they expect it to work anyway. It isn't going to. And on the flip-side, the Iran deal took YEARS to come together, and they threw it away. They are not only lazy in the extreme, but that laziness makes them think the hard work of diplomacy doesn't matter.
It was not preventing them, it was stretching the time in which they can enrich uranium. I believe under the deal it was capped at 4%. Iran, now, is threatening to return (or turn up production) to 20%. So again it was not a deal that they would not get the weapon but a matter of when. Delivery of said weapon is a WHOLE nother ball game.
You're correct that there is a limit (of 15 years) on enrichment restrictions. However, the Additional Protocol provides no time limit on the monitoring and verification activities of international inspectors - that continues until or unless Iran withdraws from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. What that means under the agreement is that Iran would find it extremely difficult to build nuclear weapons in secret - they would have to signal their intention to do so, allowing other countries a bit of time to react to the threat.
My impression is that most people (at least in the US) don't appreciate just what an enormous concession on the limitation of Iran's sovereignty the JCPoA represents. How many countries would sign up to a treaty that provides unrestricted access for international inspectors to any location in the entire country? I can't imagine any circumstances in which the US would ever agree to that (and neither would the UK, where I live). I've said before it was an amazing achievement to get Iran to agree to it and to have any chance at all of a similar sort of agreement with North Korea will require years of sustained diplomatic effort.
So throwing NK 50 to 100 billion wouldn't speed up the process?
It was not preventing them, it was stretching the time in which they can enrich uranium. I believe under the deal it was capped at 4%.
Wasn't that 4% cap a cap on purity of the uranium? It's not physically possible to create nuclear weapons unless the uranium has been refined to a certain percentage, and the nuclear deal's cap was below that percentage. That's not "you can only refine it by 4% per year, so it takes longer to hit a higher percentage"; that's "no amount of uranium can be refined above 4%. Once it hits 4%, you stop refining it."
So throwing NK 50 to 100 billion wouldn't speed up the process?
I don't believe so, no. Economic inducements will be one prerequisite for a deal, but money alone will never clinch a verifiable deal for full nuclear disarmament. Some form of guarantee for the regime will also be needed and at the present time I see no chance that North Korea would accept any guarantees offered. I'm quite certain that convincing them a guarantee is real will, if it is possible at all, take years of effort.
I'm also certain incidentally that, for the foreseeable future, any guarantees offered purely by the US would be insufficient. One of the difficulties of this process for the Trump regime therefore is that it will need some level of participation by other countries - and we all know how Trump feels about multilateral discussions ...
So throwing NK 50 to 100 billion wouldn't speed up the process?
Who's going to pay the bill?
I think he was saying something about us returning Iran's money haha on us or something. It was Iran's money so that doesn't really apply.
Haha.
The US Treasury Department said in 2015 it was approx. $56 billion. So just give NK 56 billion and I'm sure they will agree. Or maybe help build their economy and infrastructure, that would work.
It was not preventing them, it was stretching the time in which they can enrich uranium. I believe under the deal it was capped at 4%.
Wasn't that 4% cap a cap on purity of the uranium? It's not physically possible to create nuclear weapons unless the uranium has been refined to a certain percentage, and the nuclear deal's cap was below that percentage. That's not "you can only refine it by 4% per year, so it takes longer to hit a higher percentage"; that's "no amount of uranium can be refined above 4%. Once it hits 4%, you stop refining it."
You are correct. Enrichment of weapon grade Uranium.
So throwing NK 50 to 100 billion wouldn't speed up the process?
Who's going to pay the bill?
I think he was saying something about us returning Iran's money haha on us or something. It was Iran's money so that doesn't really apply.
Haha.
The US Treasury Department said in 2015 it was approx. $56 billion. So just give NK 56 billion and I'm sure they will agree. Or maybe help build their economy and infrastructure, that would work.
We returned interest in addition to the principle. That represented lost earnings since they couldn't use their money. Since we stole it. After we helped overthrow the democratically elected leader and helped give way to a far rightwing religious government.
So throwing NK 50 to 100 billion wouldn't speed up the process?
Who's going to pay the bill?
I think he was saying something about us returning Iran's money haha on us or something. It was Iran's money so that doesn't really apply.
Haha.
The US Treasury Department said in 2015 it was approx. $56 billion. So just give NK 56 billion and I'm sure they will agree. Or maybe help build their economy and infrastructure, that would work.
We returned interest in addition to the principle. That represented lost earnings since they couldn't use their money. Since we stole it. After we helped overthrow the democratically elected leader and helped give way to a far rightwing religious government.
Are you sure 56 billion was interest from 400 miill?
It was not preventing them, it was stretching the time in which they can enrich uranium. I believe under the deal it was capped at 4%.
Wasn't that 4% cap a cap on purity of the uranium? It's not physically possible to create nuclear weapons unless the uranium has been refined to a certain percentage, and the nuclear deal's cap was below that percentage. That's not "you can only refine it by 4% per year, so it takes longer to hit a higher percentage"; that's "no amount of uranium can be refined above 4%. Once it hits 4%, you stop refining it."
Apparently I am... the article says that weapons grade uranium is 80-90%. Per the agreement, Iran cannot enrich it beyond 3.6%, when 5% is the minimum necessary to fuel a nuclear plant (I'm guessing they have to get the 5% refined uranium elsewhere for energy purposes). Iran stopped making 20% enriched uranium when the deal was implemented.
The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said that "Technically, we are fully prepared to enrich uranium higher than we used to produce before the deal was reached." Which, if true, means that the only reason Iran is not producing uranium above 20% is because of the nuclear deal.
So, before the deal, Iran used to make 20%.
Now, with the deal in place, they make 3.6%.
Without the deal, they could make more than 20%.
If the goal is to limit the amount of enriched uranium in Iran's hands, that sounds like an endorsement of the deal to me.
I think he was saying something about us returning Iran's money haha on us or something. It was Iran's money so that doesn't really apply.
Yeah. That's what I figured he was insinuating. There's a pretty gigantic difference between us paying NK 50 billion to denuclearize, and us unfreezing 50 billion of Iran's money (was never ours, under any circumstance) to stop their program.
It was not preventing them, it was stretching the time in which they can enrich uranium. I believe under the deal it was capped at 4%.
Wasn't that 4% cap a cap on purity of the uranium? It's not physically possible to create nuclear weapons unless the uranium has been refined to a certain percentage, and the nuclear deal's cap was below that percentage. That's not "you can only refine it by 4% per year, so it takes longer to hit a higher percentage"; that's "no amount of uranium can be refined above 4%. Once it hits 4%, you stop refining it."
Apparently I am... the article says that weapons grade uranium is 80-90%. Per the agreement, Iran cannot enrich it beyond 3.6%, when 5% is the minimum necessary to fuel a nuclear plant (I'm guessing they have to get the 5% refined uranium elsewhere for energy purposes). Iran stopped making 20% enriched uranium when the deal was implemented.
The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said that "Technically, we are fully prepared to enrich uranium higher than we used to produce before the deal was reached." Which, if true, means that the only reason Iran is not producing uranium above 20% is because of the nuclear deal.
So, before the deal, Iran used to make 20%.
Now, with the deal in place, they make 3.6%.
Without the deal, they could make more than 20%.
If the goal is to limit the amount of enriched uranium in Iran's hands, that sounds like an endorsement of the deal to me.
Iran's reactors cannot output more that 20%. Overtime and with some knowledge from countries like Russia they will get to the 90% mark. Or they can buy it like Russia does from the US. The US has the best enriched Uranium on the Planet by research and being allowed to research. The Iran deal does not limit the ability to research and build reactors that can one day produce 90% enriched Uranium.
Also the U.S. does not want another country selling that kind of Uranium to other countries. (India, Pakistan e.g.)
I think he was saying something about us returning Iran's money haha on us or something. It was Iran's money so that doesn't really apply.
Yeah. That's what I figured he was insinuating. There's a pretty gigantic difference between us paying NK 50 billion to denuclearize, and us unfreezing 50 billion of Iran's money (was never ours, under any circumstance) to stop their program.
But the U.S. is going to pay for it. They will release all frozen assets belonging to NK and lift all sanctions. Same they did with Iran.
Once the leaders in the DPRK realize how much money they can make by denuclearizing themselves and opening up the country for tourism and trade, they will kick themselves for not doing it years ago. Money is a great motivator for change.
North Korea is already full of Chinese tourists going there for casinos. North Koreans aren't allowed to gamble but tourists are, and officially chinese can't gamble in China so they go no neighbouring North Korea.
The Iran deal does not limit the ability to research and build reactors that can one day produce 90% enriched Uranium.
It does actually. There are specific restrictions on research and no new enrichment facilities can be built - though these restrictions end after 15 years as referred to earlier. There's a summary of the provisions of the JCPoA here.
But the U.S. is going to pay for it. They will release all frozen assets belonging to NK and lift all sanctions. Same they did with Iran.
Both the articles you've posted on this confirm that the US funded nothing paid to Iran - they just released Iran's own money (and nearly all of that did not belong to the government, but to individuals and businesses). While unfreezing assets would certainly be done with North Korea as well in the event of a comprehensive deal, the amount of trade done by them is minuscule compared to the pre-sanctions position with Iran. I haven't looked for specific figures, but I doubt that more than a small fraction of a sum of $50bn could be got by unfreezing existing assets (nearly all of that would belong to businesses, but I agree that in North Korea's case they would mainly be owned or controlled by the government).
Given the amount of criticism of the Iran deal where the US funded nothing, would Trump have a hope of persuading Congress to hand over multiple billions to North Korea? He's not been too successful at getting his wall built, although the price tag for that is generally thought to be somewhat less than $50bn.
The Iran deal does not limit the ability to research and build reactors that can one day produce 90% enriched Uranium.
It does actually. There are specific restrictions on research and no new enrichment facilities can be built - though these restrictions end after 15 years as referred to earlier. There's a summary of the provisions of the JCPoA here.
But the U.S. is going to pay for it. They will release all frozen assets belonging to NK and lift all sanctions. Same they did with Iran.
Both the articles you've posted on this confirm that the US funded nothing paid to Iran - they just released Iran's own money (and nearly all of that did not belong to the government, but to individuals and businesses). While unfreezing assets would certainly be done with North Korea as well in the event of a comprehensive deal, the amount of trade done by them is minuscule compared to the pre-sanctions position with Iran. I haven't looked for specific figures, but I doubt that more than a small fraction of a sum of $50bn could be got by unfreezing existing assets (nearly all of that would belong to businesses, but I agree that in North Korea's case they would mainly be owned or controlled by the government).
Given the amount of criticism of the Iran deal where the US funded nothing, would Trump have a hope of persuading Congress to hand over multiple billions to North Korea? He's not been too successful at getting his wall built, although the price tag for that is generally thought to be somewhat less than $50bn.
I stand corrected with the Iran deal in regards to Reactors and research. What I am concerned about is that the same day The U.S. sent money over to Iran, they released hostages. I don't buy the coinkidink theory.
I stand corrected with the Iran deal in regards to Reactors and research. What I am concerned about is that the same day The U.S. sent money over to Iran, they released hostages. I don't buy the coinkidink theory.
I agree it was no coincidence. Even if there was genuinely no contact between the negotiating groups on the different issues, the different governments were clearly trying to make progress on all fronts. However, I don't see why this is a concern. As has been made amply clear the $1.7bn was not a payment for release of hostages, but something the US was going to have to pay anyway. If putting the issues together made the negotiations on both easier then that seems fine to me.
Traditionally hostages are released at or around the time of a visit by a senior government representative. Looked at in one way you can say this reflects that the government has been held to ransom, while in another it can be seen as a triumph of diplomacy ...
So Robert De Niro got a standing ovation to "Fu#! Trump" .
I saw the article on BBC, then YouTube for the full event. YouTube showed Fox news reaction. This was my first experience of Fox news... Wow, that's a news channel? I thought I was watching Jerry Springer... There were a number of people slagging off De Niro, very pro Trump, then this one woman starts getting confused saying she loves him as an actor but he "forewent" an opportunity to promote a theatre show instead... Then this black guy starts talking actual sense... Against Trump and supporting De Niro, I wondered why they were letting this guy speak, although they did eventually cut him off. Well easier to just watch it yourselves.
I'll just add a few of my views on Trump... Firstly, is character important in a leader, or just policies? I think character is absolutely important and in my opinion Trump has a million character flaws, especially seemingly against equality of women and race. However, during the election it looked like while Trump was terrible, Hillary looked even worse. On top of that, the one thing I find worse than the "We love Trump, guns, change" crowd, is the "Trump supporters are all complete idiot's" crowd. That second crowd is why Trump was elected in the first place, you can't just write off the millions of people who voted for him, you have you address why he got popular, what the people want and offer something for all. It's much more useful in a debate to play devil's advocate and try to understand the other side of the argument.
A few potentially good things about Trump... I said in a previous post USA leaving Korea might be the best ultimate solution to peace and also save a huge amount of money for US tax payers. If US can guarantee denuclearisation then that is a win for sure. Tensions with Russia were very high pre US election, it's impossible to guess what might have happened, but some think Hillary would be more likely to start war (likely indirectly) with Russia. Iran.. im not sure what's to gain leaving the agreement (otherthan buddying up with Israel), but Iran has been arresting a number of dual national citizens for no apparent reason. The downside is whatever good Trump does for peace and saving money, will probably all be spent on that wall heh.
Well, I'll keep it short, lot's of opinion and speculation, but I'll look more into the specifics and supporting facts as the debate continues, just thought that De Niro scene was interesting
For the record a nuclear reactor does not produce enriched uranium, it consumes it.
What it does produce on the other hand is plutonium through degradation of depleted uranium but it would take decades just to have a few as it only concerns very small quantities and it takes a very long time (talking of hundreds of millenia) for a full package to degrade. Centrifuges produce enriched uranium, and Iran agreed to dismantle these under control.
It reminds me of Israel bombing the French designed Iraqi reactor when each and every professional in the field, from France and abroad, dismissed the possibility it could be used to produce military grade nuclear equipments.
International Inspections and Osiraq Aside from nuclear capability, a second issue is whether international inspections, by both French technicians and IAEA inspectors, would have prevented Iraq from diverting plutonium from the reactor. By agreement, French technicians were at the reactor continuously, filing daily reports.27 Importantly, France seemed committed to preventing Iraq from acquiring nuclear weapons, a conclusion drawn from its public statements, signature to the NPT, decision not to provide Iraq with a gas-graphite reactor, and decision to provide Iraq with Caramel fuel. Further, there is some evidence that the French actually knew of and may have even facilitated the 1981 Israeli attack.28...
It is possible to have nuclear weapons and no nuclear reactors, we're talking of North Korea which has 0 nuclear reactor and still has nuclear weapons. There is Israel who only has a lousy test reactor and is still considered a major nuclear power.
You can have nuclear reactors and no weapons, such is the case of Japan, South Korea or the United Arab Emirates.
From what I have seen on Hellenic TV there are major stipulations that have to be met by FYROM. Some are...
-Renouncing any territorial claims to Hellenic Makedonia -Renouncing any claim to Hellenic history ( Alexander the Great or Ancient Hellas ) -Changes to their constitution to reflect changes.
If all these and more are met, The Hellenic government would then withdraw it's veto and alow FYROM to join NATO and the EU.
Even if this is a good thing for the stability of the Balkans and the EU ( Russian influence in FYROM ) I can't help but feel sorry for a people who have been lied too about their identity. Yesterday they where told and taught that they are the children of Alexander the Great, today they are a people that lived a lie for over 20 yrs. Propaganda has destroyed them. Who do they believe anymore. Their government, Leaders, Church, Grandparents and Parents all lied. Hopefully they can overcome and build a prosperous Nation with an Identity that they created themselves, not one out of a Bush era CIA office.
For the record a nuclear reactor does not produce enriched uranium, it consumes it.
What it does produce on the other hand is plutonium through degradation of depleted uranium but it would take decades just to have a few as it only concerns very small quantities and it takes a very long time (talking of hundreds of millenia) for a full package to degrade. Centrifuges produce enriched uranium, and Iran agreed to dismantle these under control.
It reminds me of Israel bombing the French designed Iraqi reactor when each and every professional in the field, from France and abroad, dismissed the possibility it could be used to produce military grade nuclear equipments.
International Inspections and Osiraq Aside from nuclear capability, a second issue is whether international inspections, by both French technicians and IAEA inspectors, would have prevented Iraq from diverting plutonium from the reactor. By agreement, French technicians were at the reactor continuously, filing daily reports.27 Importantly, France seemed committed to preventing Iraq from acquiring nuclear weapons, a conclusion drawn from its public statements, signature to the NPT, decision not to provide Iraq with a gas-graphite reactor, and decision to provide Iraq with Caramel fuel. Further, there is some evidence that the French actually knew of and may have even facilitated the 1981 Israeli attack.28...
It is possible to have nuclear weapons and no nuclear reactors, we're talking of North Korea which has 0 nuclear reactor and still has nuclear weapons. There is Israel who only has a lousy test reactor and is still considered a major nuclear power.
You can have nuclear reactors and no weapons, such is the case of Japan, South Korea or the United Arab Emirates.
Israel has always said that they would use their Samson Option . Suggesting they have more than just a lousy test reactor.
For the record a nuclear reactor does not produce enriched uranium, it consumes it.
What it does produce on the other hand is plutonium through degradation of depleted uranium but it would take decades just to have a few as it only concerns very small quantities and it takes a very long time (talking of hundreds of millenia) for a full package to degrade. Centrifuges produce enriched uranium, and Iran agreed to dismantle these under control.
It reminds me of Israel bombing the French designed Iraqi reactor when each and every professional in the field, from France and abroad, dismissed the possibility it could be used to produce military grade nuclear equipments.
International Inspections and Osiraq Aside from nuclear capability, a second issue is whether international inspections, by both French technicians and IAEA inspectors, would have prevented Iraq from diverting plutonium from the reactor. By agreement, French technicians were at the reactor continuously, filing daily reports.27 Importantly, France seemed committed to preventing Iraq from acquiring nuclear weapons, a conclusion drawn from its public statements, signature to the NPT, decision not to provide Iraq with a gas-graphite reactor, and decision to provide Iraq with Caramel fuel. Further, there is some evidence that the French actually knew of and may have even facilitated the 1981 Israeli attack.28...
It is possible to have nuclear weapons and no nuclear reactors, we're talking of North Korea which has 0 nuclear reactor and still has nuclear weapons. There is Israel who only has a lousy test reactor and is still considered a major nuclear power.
You can have nuclear reactors and no weapons, such is the case of Japan, South Korea or the United Arab Emirates.
Israel has always said that they would use their Samson Option . Suggesting they have more than just a lousy test reactor.
As @Matthieu said there is no necessary connection between the availability of nuclear reactors and weapons. Israel definitely has no civilian nuclear reactors, but has one heavy water reactor operating outside any inspection regime and is believed to have used that to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons - using fuel purchased from Argentina in the 1960s. Weapons grade material could also potentially have been directly purchased or produced using centrifuges though.
Israel has always said that they would use their Samson Option . Suggesting they have more than just a lousy test reactor.
I think you missed the point of my post. Reactors don't produce military grade nuclear material. Centrifuges do.
Very simple principle, extremely complex to do: - you heat the uranium to its melting point - Put it in badass centrifuges that cost a collector ferrari - The Uranium 238 is heavier stacks below, the unstable uranium 235 stick to the top.
Cool it down, keep the upper part, you have enriched uranium. Keep the lower part, you have depleted uranium (which slowly degrades in plutonium but it takes lots of time).
Israel has always said that they would use their Samson Option . Suggesting they have more than just a lousy test reactor.
I think you missed the point of my post. Reactors don't produce military grade nuclear material. Centrifuges do.
Very simple principle, extremely complex to do: - you heat the uranium to its melting point - Put it in badass centrifuges that cost a collector ferrari - The Uranium 238 is heavier stacks below, the unstable uranium 235 stick to the top.
Cool it down, keep the upper part, you have enriched uranium. Keep the lower part, you have depleted uranium (which slowly degrades in plutonium but it takes lots of time).
I don't need a lesson in Nuclear Arsenal and Reactors. I can wiki this all myself. You posted that Israel is considered a Nuclear power and it only has one reactor. I showed you in a link that says Israel has more than just a lousy reactor and is why they are called a nuclear power. But thanks for the info anyways.
Comments
If you've been involved in local government finance in the UK for many years you are likely to know about the Hazell v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC case. That involved a Local Authority that took out a range of interest rate swaps in the 1980s, ostensibly with the aim of protecting itself against interest rate movements. However, in practice the extent of the swaps had gone way beyond that into gambling (the debt of the Authority was £390m, but swaps were entered into for over £6bn - which at that stage amounted to 0.5% of the global trade in swaps). The Authority lost very heavily when interest rates rose significantly and a case was brought claiming that they had had no power to enter into the swaps in the first place and those should be made void. The House of Lords ultimately supported this argument.
As a result of that case the law has been changed in 2 ways:
1) The Local Government (Contracts) Act 1997 brought in the ability for Authorities to 'certify' contracts. That process enabled contracts to be lawful even if it was subsequently found that the Authority did not have the legal power to enter into them.
2) The Local Government Act 2000 (now replaced by the Localism Act 2011) brought in a much more general power of legal competence allowing Authorities to do anything individuals could do rather than having to look for a specific legal power for every possible type of contract.
Despite the above changes in the law, the echoes of that case continue even today with banks continuing to be nervous about entering into complex financial contracts with Local Authorities - I've seen those difficulties on a number of contracts I've been involved in in recent years.
The reason I've referred to this case is because it gets to the heart of trust issues - can you rely on the contract you sign with another person? If you feel you can't you either don't sign the contract at all or insist on much more extensive (and expensive) procedures to try and guarantee compliance. The law was changed in the UK because the market for interest rate swaps was broken by this case - as indeed were the markets for a whole range of other contracts where it wasn't totally clear whether Authorities had a specific power to undertake them.
The swaps case involved intra-national law and it was possible to resolve it by changing the law in a way that clearly permitted this type of contract in future - thus (for the most part) restoring confidence and allowing future contracts to proceed. That course is not, however, available for international agreements as national governments operate under the principle that they cannot bind their successors. Irrespective therefore of whether a treaty were made legally binding within the US, a future government could break it anyway. In the case of the US that principle was endorsed by SCOTUS in the Head Money Cases of 1884 where it was confirmed that treaties do not hold a privileged position above other acts of Congress. The repeal of a treaty (even one of the comparatively rare ones signed by following the Treaty clause in the Constitution) will be confirmed and endorsed by US courts irrespective of how other countries regard the status of the treaty.
Apologies for the long-winded post. I suppose I could just have responded by saying:
- national governments can (and do) break international agreements, irrespective of how those agreements were entered into.
- the willingness of another country to enter into an agreement with your country therefore depends on their perception of the likelihood that your country will renege on the agreement.
- in the case of the US recent decisions will almost certainly have had a significant impact on the willingness of other countries to trust the US to abide by an agreement. That will make such agreements more difficult to make and maintain.
That is why NK is a priority for all world leaders, they allowed them the time to make the weapon and also get the means to deliver it. If this was Iran they would of been invaded years ago. The world still has time with Iran.
Where's this treaty to be presented before Congress? I just read the text of the "agreement". In a nutshell all it says is that there will be further talks in the future.
This IS the equivalent of a "handshake over a beer in the pub". FAR more than the JCPoA ever was.
My impression is that most people (at least in the US) don't appreciate just what an enormous concession on the limitation of Iran's sovereignty the JCPoA represents. How many countries would sign up to a treaty that provides unrestricted access for international inspectors to any location in the entire country? I can't imagine any circumstances in which the US would ever agree to that (and neither would the UK, where I live). I've said before it was an amazing achievement to get Iran to agree to it and to have any chance at all of a similar sort of agreement with North Korea will require years of sustained diplomatic effort.
Who's going to pay the bill?
I'm also certain incidentally that, for the foreseeable future, any guarantees offered purely by the US would be insufficient. One of the difficulties of this process for the Trump regime therefore is that it will need some level of participation by other countries - and we all know how Trump feels about multilateral discussions ...
The US Treasury Department said in 2015 it was approx. $56 billion. So just give NK 56 billion and I'm sure they will agree. Or maybe help build their economy and infrastructure, that would work.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-deal/iran-says-it-can-produce-higher-enriched-uranium-if-u-s-exits-nuclear-deal-idUSKBN1I1158
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/apr/27/donald-trump/donald-trump-iran-150-billion-and-18-billion-c/
The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said that "Technically, we are fully prepared to enrich uranium higher than we used to produce before the deal was reached." Which, if true, means that the only reason Iran is not producing uranium above 20% is because of the nuclear deal.
So, before the deal, Iran used to make 20%.
Now, with the deal in place, they make 3.6%.
Without the deal, they could make more than 20%.
If the goal is to limit the amount of enriched uranium in Iran's hands, that sounds like an endorsement of the deal to me.
Also the U.S. does not want another country selling that kind of Uranium to other countries. (India, Pakistan e.g.)
I found this article. Made me go, Hmmm?
http://fortune.com/2016/08/05/money-america-iran/
Both the articles you've posted on this confirm that the US funded nothing paid to Iran - they just released Iran's own money (and nearly all of that did not belong to the government, but to individuals and businesses). While unfreezing assets would certainly be done with North Korea as well in the event of a comprehensive deal, the amount of trade done by them is minuscule compared to the pre-sanctions position with Iran. I haven't looked for specific figures, but I doubt that more than a small fraction of a sum of $50bn could be got by unfreezing existing assets (nearly all of that would belong to businesses, but I agree that in North Korea's case they would mainly be owned or controlled by the government).
Given the amount of criticism of the Iran deal where the US funded nothing, would Trump have a hope of persuading Congress to hand over multiple billions to North Korea? He's not been too successful at getting his wall built, although the price tag for that is generally thought to be somewhat less than $50bn.
As for the Wall... I don't care.
Traditionally hostages are released at or around the time of a visit by a senior government representative. Looked at in one way you can say this reflects that the government has been held to ransom, while in another it can be seen as a triumph of diplomacy ...
I saw the article on BBC, then YouTube for the full event. YouTube showed Fox news reaction. This was my first experience of Fox news... Wow, that's a news channel? I thought I was watching Jerry Springer... There were a number of people slagging off De Niro, very pro Trump, then this one woman starts getting confused saying she loves him as an actor but he "forewent" an opportunity to promote a theatre show instead... Then this black guy starts talking actual sense... Against Trump and supporting De Niro, I wondered why they were letting this guy speak, although they did eventually cut him off. Well easier to just watch it yourselves.
I'll just add a few of my views on Trump... Firstly, is character important in a leader, or just policies? I think character is absolutely important and in my opinion Trump has a million character flaws, especially seemingly against equality of women and race. However, during the election it looked like while Trump was terrible, Hillary looked even worse. On top of that, the one thing I find worse than the "We love Trump, guns, change" crowd, is the "Trump supporters are all complete idiot's" crowd. That second crowd is why Trump was elected in the first place, you can't just write off the millions of people who voted for him, you have you address why he got popular, what the people want and offer something for all. It's much more useful in a debate to play devil's advocate and try to understand the other side of the argument.
A few potentially good things about Trump... I said in a previous post USA leaving Korea might be the best ultimate solution to peace and also save a huge amount of money for US tax payers. If US can guarantee denuclearisation then that is a win for sure. Tensions with Russia were very high pre US election, it's impossible to guess what might have happened, but some think Hillary would be more likely to start war (likely indirectly) with Russia. Iran.. im not sure what's to gain leaving the agreement (otherthan buddying up with Israel), but Iran has been arresting a number of dual national citizens for no apparent reason. The downside is whatever good Trump does for peace and saving money, will probably all be spent on that wall heh.
Well, I'll keep it short, lot's of opinion and speculation, but I'll look more into the specifics and supporting facts as the debate continues, just thought that De Niro scene was interesting
What it does produce on the other hand is plutonium through degradation of depleted uranium but it would take decades just to have a few as it only concerns very small quantities and it takes a very long time (talking of hundreds of millenia) for a full package to degrade. Centrifuges produce enriched uranium, and Iran agreed to dismantle these under control.
It reminds me of Israel bombing the French designed Iraqi reactor when each and every professional in the field, from France and abroad, dismissed the possibility it could be used to produce military grade nuclear equipments.
An English language translation from French foreign relationship ministry assessing the strike for the history:
https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Osirak.pdf
International Inspections and Osiraq
Aside from nuclear capability, a second issue is whether international inspections, by both
French technicians and IAEA inspectors, would have prevented Iraq from diverting
plutonium from the reactor. By agreement, French technicians were at the reactor
continuously, filing daily reports.27 Importantly, France seemed committed to preventing
Iraq from acquiring nuclear weapons, a conclusion drawn from its public statements,
signature to the NPT, decision not to provide Iraq with a gas-graphite reactor, and decision
to provide Iraq with Caramel fuel. Further, there is some evidence that the French actually
knew of and may have even facilitated the 1981 Israeli attack.28...
It is possible to have nuclear weapons and no nuclear reactors, we're talking of North Korea which has 0 nuclear reactor and still has nuclear weapons. There is Israel who only has a lousy test reactor and is still considered a major nuclear power.
You can have nuclear reactors and no weapons, such is the case of Japan, South Korea or the United Arab Emirates.
Hellas and FYROM have come to an agreement on the Macedonian name dispute.
From what I have seen on Hellenic TV there are major stipulations that have to be met by FYROM. Some are...
-Renouncing any territorial claims to Hellenic Makedonia
-Renouncing any claim to Hellenic history ( Alexander the Great or Ancient Hellas )
-Changes to their constitution to reflect changes.
If all these and more are met, The Hellenic government would then withdraw it's veto and alow FYROM to join NATO and the EU.
Even if this is a good thing for the stability of the Balkans and the EU ( Russian influence in FYROM ) I can't help but feel sorry for a people who have been lied too about their identity. Yesterday they where told and taught that they are the children of Alexander the Great, today they are a people that lived a lie for over 20 yrs. Propaganda has destroyed them. Who do they believe anymore. Their government, Leaders, Church, Grandparents and Parents all lied. Hopefully they can overcome and build a prosperous Nation with an Identity that they created themselves, not one out of a Bush era CIA office.
Very simple principle, extremely complex to do:
- you heat the uranium to its melting point
- Put it in badass centrifuges that cost a collector ferrari
- The Uranium 238 is heavier stacks below, the unstable uranium 235 stick to the top.
Cool it down, keep the upper part, you have enriched uranium. Keep the lower part, you have depleted uranium (which slowly degrades in plutonium but it takes lots of time).
Also to note, they are illegally a nuclear power.