The Uranium One Deal
Uranium One is a corporate organization in Toronto. The company belongs to a corporation of nuclear technology owned by Russia, known as the Rosatom Global Mining Company. The uranium One has various mills ad large tracts of land at Utah and Wyoming. Other mills and land tracts in other states amount to 20% of the total Uranium production. Uranium One is among the largest companies in the world to produce Uranium. The company has holdings in the United States, and its headquarters are located in Canada. The decision to allow Rosatom to buy Uranium One was made during the reign of Obama, a period when Hillary Clinton was the secretary of the state[1]. The Uranium One donated some aid to the foundation of Clinton. Because the state department was among the agencies that approved this deal, it created concerns on if there was a link between donations and approval of the agreement. Various scholarly sources are describing this controversy. Most of these sources establish that the collusion between Ms Clinton and Russia was at a very insignificant degree.
The Uranium One deal involves the sale of the company with its interests of mining in the United States to Rosatom, an agency of nuclear energy in Russia. The sale of the company took place in different stages. It began in 2009 when Rosatom bought a minority state from the company. In 2010, the nuclear agency of Russia took over 51% of the ownership of Uranium One[2]. The last transaction occurred in 2013 when Rosatom attained full ownership of the company. This transaction gave Rosatom the power of controlling 20% of the capacity of Uranium’s production in the US. The new licenses that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued to the Rosatom’s subsidiaries in the US prevent it from exporting its Uranium into other countries. Since Uranium is a vital asset with implications on national security, the sale to Rosatom in 2010 was to be approved by an intergovernmental agency in the US (the Committee on Foreign Investment). The agency includes inputs from Departments of Energy, Homeland Security, Treasury, Commerce, Defense and the Office of Trade Representative in the United States. Although Clinton Foundation received some finances from one investor in the Uranium One, other claims in this deal were overblown. Ian Telfer, the investor, donated $1.3 million and $5.4 million during and after the review of the foundation[3]. However, Frank Giustra, the major donor in the company, divested himself from the company stake three years before Rosatom bought it, and 18 months before Bill Clinton was appointed as the state secretary.
This issue fell to the wayside soon after the 2016 presidential elections. The issue came up presumably because Hilary Clinton was a private US citizen running for a top seat in the country. In a recent report by Kaitlyn, it was reported that there was an ongoing investigation by the FBI on whether Russia was trying to obtain influence in the nuclear industry in America. The report also postulated that the FBI had already discovered substantial evidence that the officials of atomic energy in Russia were involved in bribery, money laundering, kickbacks and extortion to gain expansion in the US even before the Uranium One was approved. Nevertheless, the report stated that the US Department of Justice continued with the investigation years after the findings, instead of reporting to the public and congress regarding corruption in the US by Russia. It was during this period when the administration of Barack Obama made two decisions that boosted the ambitions of Russia’s nuclear in the US.
One claim in this controversy was that Hillary Clinton had approved the selling of the Uranium One to Russia. As David states in his article, Clinton lacked any power in stopping or approving the sale of the company because she was the state secretary[4]. The US authorities had the obligation of reviewing the sale of Uranium One to Rosatom because the company had mines in Wyoming[5]. The nine-member committee on foreign investments in the US has the responsibility or reviewing foreign investments that may implicate the country’s national security. This committee flags threats in security and reviews such transactions. Only the president can stop such transactions, not the committee. The objection of Clinton in her capacity as a state secretary could not have prevented to sale, neither could she be able to approve it. The secretary is among the nine votes in the CFIUS that recommends the president to reject or accept[6]. In such a case, there were no security concerns raised by this committee. Moreover, the right-wing media does not give any evidence showing that Clinton intervened either for or against the Uranium One.
Another claim is that Hilary Clinton gave away 20% of the Uranium of the US to Russia. Brown responds to this claim by stating that there is no any particle of Uranium that has ever been left to Russia after Uranium One was sold to Rosatom[7]. The whole deal failed to transfer any particle of Uranium to Russia, let alone just 20% of the ownership of the Uranium of the US. Capacity and supply are two different things. The facilities of Uranium Ones in Wyoming could supposedly process 20% products domestically produced in the US. However, the capacity of production is not equal to physical supply[8]. The production of those facilities have never had equal quantity in history. Besides, there is no Uranium has ever been transferred from the US to Russia.US imports its Uranium for Canada, Russia and Kazakhstan. Anyway, after acquiring Uranium One, it could be difficult for Rosatom to export its products to Russia. This is because the nuclear regulatory commission would first have to rant license for export. In the case of Uranium One deal, the commission didn’t do this. In 2010, the commission assured that there would never be an export of Uranium from the US.
In addition, there were allegations that Clinton received donations in exchange for the approval of the sale of the Uranium One. This allegation was not true. There was no evidence, and the alleged donor had quitted from the company some years before Clinton became state secretary. The claims that the donations of investors to Clinton and her family foundation affected the decision of the government to approve the sale of the company are insubstantial. Frank Giustra was the star in this scandal. He was an investor in the company who offered $131 million donations to the company. However, he divested his money in 2007 when Clinton was not yet appointed as the secretary of the state. There was another a not player in the scandal known as Ian Telfer who donated $1.3 million to the foundation during the time in study[9]. Here, people can see a conspiracy whereby, the defence establishment officials intervenes in the place of an organization whose mines in the US are not significant enough to be exchanged for donations by an investor who decided to divest his finances years before Clinton took the position of secretary of the state.
The field of public relations has a general rule that states that when someone is in a scandal, he/she can create another scandal elsewhere as a distraction. With Uranium as the 92nd element in the periodic table, resurrecting the controversy of Uranium One is in the top position in the distraction table. The controversy of Uranium One resurfaced in the news media at a period when the investigations of Mueller into the campaign of Trump and White House were at a level of seriousness. Reports on newspapers said that people rumoured that Attorney General Sessions was considering a unique counsel to probe the Uranium One scandal before denying it on November 14, 2017, in a hearing at the committee of house judiciary. However, this story of the wrongdoing of Clinton circulating in the media had no basis. Until today, there is no evidence proving that Clinton was aware of the investigation by the FBI, and other officials said that they weren’t aware neither. Among these officials included Ronald Hosko (assistant FBI director) and Mike Rogers (former chairman of the House Intelligent Committee).
In conclusion, the Uranium One deal and Hillary Clinton are back in the news in the US. This controversy is relevant because Clinton is a private citizen and it was an issue for Russia to meddle with US elections. This deal has more to do with the investigation of Mueller than with Hillary Clinton. In the end, the transaction was not much significant, and it did not have any ramifications to national security.
Bibliography
Brown, M. Leann. “US–Russian Relations During the Obama Presidency: From Reset to a New Cold War?” In Presidential Leadership and National Security, pp. 172-195. Routledge, 2017.
David, Emery. “Did Hillary Clinton Give 20% of United States’ Uranium to Russia in Exchange for Clinton Foundation Donations?” Snopes October 26 2016. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
James, Conca. “Russian Uranium One Deal And Hillary Clinton In The News Again.” Forbes, December 13, 2018. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/12/13/russian-uranium-one-deal-and-hillary-clinton-in-the-news-again/#40731730526d
Kaitlyn, Schallhorn. “Obama-era Russian Uranium One Deal: What to Know.” Pp. 45-68 February 8 2018.
[1] Brown, M. Leann. “US–Russian Relations During the Obama Presidency: From Reset to a New Cold War?” In Presidential Leadership and National Security, pp. 172-195. Routledge, 2017.
[2] Ibid 1
[3] David, Emery. “Did Hillary Clinton Give 20% of United States’ Uranium to Russia in Exchange for Clinton Foundation Donations?” Snopes October 26 2016. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
[4] Ibid 1
[5] James, Conca. “Russian Uranium One Deal And Hillary Clinton In The News Again.” Forbes, December 13, 2018. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/12/13/russian-uranium-one-deal-and-hillary-clinton-in-the-news-again/#40731730526d
[6] Ibid 2
[7] Ibid 3
[8] Kaitlyn, Schallhorn. “Obama-era Russian Uranium One Deal: What to Know.” Pp. 45-68 February 8 2018.
[9] Ibid 3