Latest news with #NuclearNon-proliferationTreaty
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
07-07-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Best of BS Opinion: US trade deal or not, India must cast its net wider
Hello and welcome to BS Views, your doorway to today's opinion page. The deadline for US-imposed higher tariffs is almost upon us, and yet there is little to suggest that it has reached a trade deal with India, notes our first editorial. Reports suggest that the US is seeking greater market access in agricultural commodities and genetically-modified (GM) foods, which India is uncomfortable with. One thing is clear, though: the US will have much higher tariffs, increasing friction in global trade. While India and the US might yet reach a deal, the former must seek deeper engagement with other partners. This is necessary also because of China's arm-twisting: it recently recalled some of its engineers working in India as a means to disrupt India's growing strength in mobile manufacturing. Doing all of this won't be easy, but ways must be found to advance engagement with multiple trading partners. Vehicle pollution needs structured solutions, argues our second editorial, as shown by the recent ban - and withdrawal soon after - on selling fuel to overage cars in the national capital. It might have been well-intentioned but was inherently impractical solution to the issue Delhi's toxic air pollution. While the science and law was behind the ban, inadequate monitoring equipment has made a mockery of the directive. Then there was the public outcry, which had political implications. A more structured approach towards vehicular pollution, such as accelerating the adoption of electric vehicles and offering more rigorous testing standards, would work better. Sunita Narain writes on behalf of a cohort that grew up in the post-colonial era and witnessed a world order that was intensely inequitable but still seemed capable of reform. She rues the changing world order, where countries can take unilateral action to bomb another, and the world stands by, helpless and silent. Her lament is in the context of the Israeli bombing of Iran, which is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (unlike Israel, which is suspected of having a covert nuclear programme), and was under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The attack on Iran is, she argues, about the future of a world order built on rules, or even the future of multilateralism. All this adds up to crisis of the commons, and one that can only be solved by consensus and trust. Our columnist Ajay Shah argues that China's recall of some of its engineers to stymie efforts by Foxconn to shift globalised manufacturing to India reflects its weakness, not strength. While this may delay movement of high skill activities from China to India, it increases incentives for global firms to do less in China. Globalised manufacturing is a high wire act, requiring building complex firms and deep knowledge, which is available in many places other than China. What's more, China faces two key issues: first, its foreign policy is one of strategic autonomy but at a much lower scale than, say, the US; the second is a lack of intellectual leadership. India's firms need to redouble their efforts at obtaining frontiers knowledge from abroad, rather than just mobilising factory workers into shifts. That is quite a journey ahead. Megan Greenwell's BAD COMPANY: Private Equity and the Death of the American Dream maps the rise of private equity, one of the most powerful forces in America's, if not the globe's, financial and corporate world. Jennifer Szalai says the book emphasises the human costs of private equity, but offers stories that are textured, not one-note tales of woe, stories of tentative hopefulness followed by a rude awakening. The author, herself the editor of an online magazine that was taken over by a PE firm and then run into the ground, notes that she wrote the book not out of spite but of curiosity towards how powerful private equity had become. The catch is that PE firms charge fees and benefit from tax breaks that delink risk and reward. The book points out how abstractions like 'consolidation' and 'efficiency' have given cover to real betrayals.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
01-07-2025
- Politics
- First Post
Why a nuclear-armed Iran doesn't spell doom for Israel or the West
The West claims that Iran's nuclear weapons pose an existential threat to Israel and possibly the United States. However, if and when Tehran develops a nuclear weapon, this may not be the case. The reason? Nuclear deterrence read more There is a strong likelihood that Iran's nuclear programme is on course. Representational Image - Reuters Benjamin Zala, Monash University As the ceasefire between Israel and Iran seems to be holding for now, it is important to reflect on whether this whole episode was worth the risks. Wider escalation was (and remains) possible, and we do not know whether Iran will seek a nuclear weapon with renewed vigour in the future. So, could we live with a nuclear-armed Iran, if it does indeed continue to pursue a bomb? Why does the West worry The conventional wisdom, at least in the Western world, is that an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose an existential threat to Israel, and possibly the United States as well. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his country's strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were aimed at rolling back 'the Iranian threat to Israel's very survival'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt described an Iranian bomb as 'an existential threat, not just to Israel, but to the United States, and to the entire world'. The same mantra has been repeated by leaders in Europe, at the G7 meeting, and in Australia. Iran, of course, did not yet possess a nuclear weapon when the strikes occurred, as the UN nuclear watchdog attested. The strikes were aimed at preventing Iran from being able to do so in the future – a prospect seen by Israel and the US as simply ' unthinkable'. But if Iran had built a nuclear weapon before the Israeli and US strikes – or manages to do so in the future – would this pose an existential threat to Israel or the US? The answer is no. And for a very simple reason: nuclear deterrence works. How does nuclear deterrence work? If Iran had a monopoly on nuclear weapons, it would be different. But it does not. Israel has maintained a robust nuclear arsenal for more than half a century. Every authoritative assessment of global nuclear weapons stockpiles includes Israel's roughly 90 nuclear warheads. The Israeli government officially neither confirms nor denies the existence of its nuclear arsenal. But thanks to leaks from inside the Israeli nuclear program – as well as the best assessments from around the world – we can be quite sure they exist. It also explains why Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty – it can't without giving up this stockpile. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The US, of course, has been nuclear-armed since 1945 and openly maintains an inventory of thousands of nuclear warheads. These provide a deterrent against nuclear attacks on the United States. Washington also provides extended nuclear deterrence guarantees to over 30 states, including members of Nato, Japan, South Korea and Australia. It does not need to provide this for Israel, given the Israeli arsenal. But if there was ever any doubt about Israel's stockpile, it certainly could. After 80 years of living with nuclear weapons, we know the deterrent effect of assured nuclear retaliation is very powerful. It deterred both the Soviets and Americans from using nuclear weapons against each other through multiple Cold War crises. It has deterred both India and Pakistan from using them in multiple standoffs, including quite recently. It has deterred both North Korea and the US from striking each other. Similarly, Iran would no doubt be deterred from using a nuclear weapon by a certain Israeli or American response. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD If Iran had built a nuclear weapon before the Israeli and US strikes – or manages to do so in the future – this would not pose an existential threat to Israel or the US because of nuclear deterrence. File image/Reuters Iranian leaders have called for the destruction of Israel, and the chants of 'death to Israel' and 'death to America' are a common occurrence at rallies held by supporters of the regime. But beneath the fiery rhetoric lies a truism: no Iranian leader would destroy Israel with a nuclear weapon if it came at the expense of the destruction of Iran. In the history of the nation-state, not a single one has ever knowingly committed suicide. Not for any reason – ideological, religious, political or any other. All nations value survival over everything else because this allows for the achievement of other goals, such as power and prosperity. Further, Iran is ruled by a brutally authoritarian, theocratic regime. And for authoritarian regimes, staying in power is the number one priority. There is no staying in power the day after a nuclear exchange. A risky business This does not mean an Iranian nuclear weapon would be a welcome development. Far from it. Every new nuclear-armed state provides another opportunity for miscalculation or accident. It adds extra stress to an already fragile non-proliferation regime. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In addition, nuclear deterrence is not just and can be considered ethically questionable. It may not even be sustainable over the longer term. There is no doubt the existence of over 12,000 nuclear weapons globally poses a potentially existential risk to all of humanity. But the idea that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a unique risk to Israel or the United States simply does not stand up to scrutiny. If we can live with a nuclear-armed North Korea, nuclear-armed Pakistan, and for that matter, a nuclear-armed Israel, we can live, however reluctantly, with a nuclear-armed Iran. Regardless of whether the current proposed ceasefire between Israel and Iran holds, the military operation initiated by Israel and bolstered by the United States was extremely dangerous and unnecessary, based on both countries' justification. The regime in Tehran is brutal, authoritarian, openly antisemitic and worthy of our disdain. But there is no evidence it is suicidal. The claim an Iranian nuclear bomb would pose an existential threat to Israel or the United States and justifies unilateral, preventive military attacks makes no sense. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD It is time to stop repeating it. Benjamin Zala, Senior Lecturer, Politics & International Relations, Monash University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Malaysian Reserve
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Malaysian Reserve
Malaysia condemns US' illegal strike on Iran's nuclear facilities
The move was a breach of international law and a violation of Iranian rights under the Nuclear-Non-proliferation Treaty by AUFA MARDHIAH THE US continues to intensify tensions with its swift responses whenever Israel calls for support. On June 22, it carried out coordinated air strikes on Iran's nuclear sites — Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, calling it a 'successful' operation to dismantle Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity. The illegal attack was unprecedented against a civilian nuclear site and globally condemned as being responsible for risking the lives of millions of inhabitants of the entire region. Iranian authorities said the sites had been evacuated in advance and no radiation leaks were detected. However, more than 600 people have been killed and 3,500 injured since Israel's bombing campaign began on June 13, according to Iran's Health Ministry. Following the attack, Tehran condemned the move as a breach of international law and a violation of its rights under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). The situation raised fears of a wider war, but a ceasefire was later brokered with US' help, albeit it was not a unilateral declaration, and support from regional mediators like Qatar. Both Israel and Iran confirmed they would stop fighting — on the condition that the other side does the same. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel had met its military goals and agreed to the truce with US coordination while Iran responded more cautiously, with President Masoud Pezeshkian saying Tehran would respect the ceasefire if Israel did. Iran's leadership framed the pause as a result of its military strength, not a diplomatic concession. Meanwhile, Malaysia supports the ceasefire but defends Iran's right to self-defence. On June 24, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said Iran would stop military action if Israel ends its attacks on Palestinian and Iranian territories. He said Pezeshkian conveyed the message during a phone call, and urged Muslim countries not to fall for biased narratives about the conflict. Anwar condemned the recent Israeli and US attacks, calling them violations of international law that have killed civilians, military leaders and scientists. He also welcomed Iran's willingness to seek peace with all parties, including the US and Israel, if fairness and sovereignty are respected. Nuclear Treaty Rights Violated Geo-strategist Prof Azmi Hassan described US' action as illegal and undermines the global non-proliferation treaty framework. He said Iran, as a signatory of the NPT, has the right to pursue a civilian nuclear programme, and under the international law, US has no authority to curtail the treaty members from developing their own nuclear programme. While some feared an escalated war, he said the prospect of a full-blown regional conflict was unlikely, citing the US' call for a ceasefire just hours after Iran attacked US' airbase in Qatar on June 23. No casualties were reported. 'Everybody has learned a lesson. The US cannot just bomb and expect Iran to surrender. Nobody — including the US, Iran or Israel — wants a full-blown war in the region,' he told The Malaysian Reserve (TMR). Azmi said the air strikes were irresponsible, and had Iran not pre-emptively moved its enriched uranium to safer locations, the attack could have caused radiation leaks. When asked if the strike was in line with US President Donald Trump's typical approach to foreign policy, Azmi said, 'there's nothing consistent about Trump', suggesting the decisions were driven by instinct and domestic popularity rather than long-term strategy. 'His announcement of a truce between Iran and Israel — likely made without consulting either party — shows he is acting on impulse,' he added. On ASEAN's role, Azmi said Malaysia has already voiced support for a ceasefire, but called for broader dialogue involving all global powers. 'We hope the superpowers — China, Russia, the UK, France and Germany — can come together to pressure Iran, Israel and the US to talk. That's the least Malaysia and ASEAN can do,' he said. Illegal Under International and US Law Political analyst Rizal Hamdan described US' air strikes as a violation of both the international law and its Constitution. He emphasised that Trump had 'no legal basis to authorise the attack', as it was carried out without the approval of Congress and without any direct threat against US interests. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 clearly limits the president's power to launch military action without authorisation from lawmakers. The air strike also breached Article 51 of the United Nations (UN) Charter, which permits self-defence only in the event of an armed attack. On top of that, Rizal also pointed out that the US intelligence community had, as recently as March, assessed that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons — which makes the strikes 'illegal under international law'. While Washington described the operation as a pre-emptive move to dismantle Iran's nuclear capacity, Rizal warned that it risked destabilising the region further and could potentially endanger hundreds of millions of lives. 'The attack will never resolve the conflict — it will prolong it. Iran's allies like the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas will be drawn into this. 'The Gulf states will be caught in the middle, especially as Tehran is already moving toward closing the Strait of Hormuz,' he said. Any disruption to the oil supply chain would trigger global price shocks and deepen geopolitical volatility. This will result in the increasing of oil prices globally. 'If the conflict isn't mediated diplomatically, I'm worried it will turn into a full-scale war that tears the Middle East apart for a decade — just like Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq,' he added. While he does not believe the world is entering a new Cold War, he indicated that the current conditions resemble a period of growing geopolitical uncertainty. 'The new Cold War required a proxy war. Iran is not being openly assisted by China or Russia,' he said. However, he said there is a possibility of a pre-World War III — pointing to the ongoing war on the Ukraine-Russia front, the Middle East and the current conflict boiling in the East (threat perception of China annexing Taiwan). On Malaysia's role, Rizal called for neutrality, but stressed that it does not mean silence. 'Malaysia and ASEAN must remain neutral, but also push for conflict mediation and humanitarian support through platforms like the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the UN,' he said. Rizal emphasises that Trump has no legal basis to authorise the attack (Source: Rizal's X) Dangerous Precedent Clean Energy Xpeditors Sdn Bhd (Cenergy) director Dr Azrudi Mustapha described the air strikes on Iran's enrichment facilities as reckless and potentially destabilising to global nuclear security frameworks. He said while the targeted sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan are believed to be uranium enrichment facilities, their exact status — whether declared as civilian or military — remains unclear to the public. 'We don't know for sure if these are declared facilities. Possibly only Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have that information,' he told TMR. Still, he said the attacks on nuclear sites, especially those potentially operating under the NPT, could severely damage trust in international safeguards. 'It is unwise to target facilities that have been declared as part of a civilian nuclear programme under the NPT, which Iran has signed. If countries complying with the treaty are still attacked, others will begin to question the value of remaining within the system,' he said. Although the US bombing targeted uranium enrichment facilities, which do not contain high-level radioactive materials such as nuclear waste or fission products, Azrudi explained that the stored material — uranium hexafluoride (UF6) — poses chemical hazards. 'UF6 is highly corrosive and, if leaked, can cause severe skin burns and kidney damage. But the danger is localised and unlikely to lead to regional contamination,' he said. While Azrudi did not believe the US had triggered a nuclear disaster in this instance, he cautioned that others may now feel emboldened to attack nuclear power plants, which could be catastrophic. 'We've already seen examples of this at Zaporizhzhia in 2024. Attacks on nuclear power plants don't win wars. They only inflame public outrage and normalise high-risk targeting,' he said. Nevertheless, Azrudi, who works in civilian nuclear energy focused on clean power, said the attack marks a troubling shift in how nuclear sites are viewed during conflict. He further described the strike as both 'reckless and dangerous'. Geramm Urges Protection of Press Freedom Through journalists' lens, Gerakan Media Merdeka (Geramm) warned that the rising tensions in the Middle East, particularly after US air strikes on Iran's nuclear sites, underscore both the geopolitical risks and the serious threats faced by journalists reporting from the region. Citing data from Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists, Geramm president Radzi Razak noted that as of June 2025, over 100 journalists and media workers — many of them Palestinian — have been killed since the Gaza-Israel conflict began in October 2023. He described the period as one of the deadliest for the media in modern history. Radzi also criticised recent moves by Israeli authorities to ban Al Jazeera and restrict foreign media access, calling such measures deeply troubling, and that it not only limits transparency in times of war but directly suppresses the public's right to know. 'These blanket bans are a form of censorship that go against the very principles of press freedom and accountability — especially in a conflict where misinformation is rampant and civilian lives are at stake,' he told TMR. Nevertheless, Geramm stands in solidarity with journalists risking their lives on the ground and calls on all parties — including the US, Israel and Iran — to ensure the safety and neutrality of the press. 'War should never be an excuse to silence the press. Instead, it is precisely in moments of violence and confusion that independent journalism becomes most vital,' he added. A satellite image showing destroyed buildings at the Isfahan nuclear technology centre after recent airstrikes (pic: AFP/Maxar Technologies) Qatar Calm Despite Drone Strike Meanwhile, a Malaysian living in Doha said the situation in Qatar remains calm and largely unaffected, despite Iran's missile strike on the US Al Udeid Air Base located about 30km from the capital. Amir Hamzah Abdullah said businesses were advised to close early on June 23 as a precaution, but operations have since returned to normal. 'There was no panic. Flights at the airport were only delayed, not cancelled, and resumed regular operations the following morning,' he shared with TMR. He added that the Iranian government had notified Qatari authorities a day before the strike, and US forces had already evacuated the base prior to the attack. 'The strike was targeted, not like the missile attacks on Israel. It didn't disrupt the city,' he said. Amir also noted that BRICS nations have been increasing financial investments in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) since early 2025, and said there was no sign of economic instability on the ground. 'It's business as usual here,' he said. However, Qatar's government issued a strong condemnation of the Iranian attack. In an official statement on June 23, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs called the strike a 'flagrant violation of Qatar's sovereignty, its airspace, international law and the UN Charter.' It also reaffirmed that Qatar reserves the right to respond accordingly under international law, though its air defences had successfully intercepted the incoming missiles. The government warned that continued military escalation could destabilise the region and urged all parties to return to dialogue and diplomacy. Qatar also reiterated its long-standing position against Israeli aggression and called once again for peaceful solutions to regional conflicts. At Press Time On June 25, regional media reported that Iran's Parliament passed a bill to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, pending approval from its Supreme National Security Council. Trump, meanwhile, claimed the ceasefire between Iran and Israel is 'going very well', despite rejecting an intelligence report suggesting the US bombings had merely set back Iran's nuclear programme by several months rather than destroying it entirely. Both Iran and Israel have since declared victory in the 12-day conflict, with celebrations erupting in Tehran and Netanyahu calling it a 'historic triumph'. Iran's Health Ministry reported that at least 610 people, including 13 children, were killed and over 3,000 injured since Israel began its offensive on June 13. In Israel, at least 28 people were killed in Iranian retaliatory strikes. This article first appeared in The Malaysian Reserve weekly print edition
The Hindu
13-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
European leaders call for de-escalation and diplomacy as Israel and Iran conflict flares up
Europe urged de-escalation and diplomacy as the continent woke up to news of Israel's strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and officials and Iran's drone counterstrike on Israel. In their reactions, European leaders sought to navigate the complexities of their partnership with Israel, growing frustration with Israel's actions against Gaza, the threat of Iran developing a nuclear weapon and the risk of a full-blown war in West Asia in reacting to the news. Israel strikes Iran: Follow LIVE updates on June 14, 2025 The European Union urged parties to de-escalate, refrain from retaliation and 'exercise maximum restraint'. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called the incidents 'deeply alarming' and called for a diplomatic resolution. 'The reports of these strikes are concerning and we urge all parties to step back and reduce tensions urgently. Escalation serves no one in the region,' U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in an early morning tweet on social media site X, as he called for diplomacy, and restraint. Mr. Starmer said the U.K. was engaging its partners with a view to de-escalation. Germany was engaging with allies, especially the U.S., U.K. and France, according to its Chancellor, Friedrich Merz. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had informed him in the morning of the attacks on Iran, Mr. Merz said. Also Read | Why Israel struck Iran? The Chancellor said that Iran had threatened to accelerate uranium enrichment to a grade that violated the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, reiterating a message that Germany, the U.S., U.K. and France had sent the Board of the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) in a resolution on Thursday. 'The goal must continue to be that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons,' Mr. Merz said on social media site X. The authorities in Germany would enhance the protection of Jewish and Israeli institutions, he added. COMMENT | The endgame of a 2,611-year-old Jewish-Persian enmity Germany re-affirmed Israel's right to 'defend its existence' and the safety of its citizens, Mr. Merz said. Germany has a unique relationship with Israel, which 'stems from Germany's responsibility for the Shoah [Holocaust] ,' as per the German Foreign Ministry. In recent weeks, Mr. Merz had, however, criticised Israel's action in Gaza saying the extent of its military offensive could no longer be justified as a fight against Hamas. The Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Mark Rutte, said it was crucial for allies, including the U.S., to effect a de-escalation.
Asharq Al-Awsat
15-03-2025
- Politics
- Asharq Al-Awsat
US Designated South Korea a 'Sensitive' Country amid Nuclear Concerns
The US Department of Energy has designated ally South Korea a "sensitive" country, a spokesperson said on Friday, after the South Korean president briefly imposed martial law and amid talk of Seoul potentially developing nuclear weapons. The administration of then-President Joe Biden put South Korea on the lowest tier of the Sensitive and Other Designated Countries List in January shortly before Biden left office, the DOE said in a written response to Reuters queries. The department did not explain why the Asian nation was added to the list and did not indicate that President Donald Trump was inclined to reverse the measure. The spokesperson said Seoul faces no new restrictions on bilateral cooperation in science and technology. The designation will go into effect on April 15, media reports said, according to Reuters. South Korea's foreign ministry said the government was taking the matter seriously and in close communication with Washington. "We will actively negotiate to ensure that there is no negative impact on energy, science and technology cooperation between South Korea and the United States," the ministry said in a statement. The DOE list of sensitive countries includes China, Taiwan, Israel, Russia, Iran and North Korea, with Tehran and Pyongyang designated as "terrorist", according to a 2017 document posted on the department's website. President Yoon Suk Yeol and then-Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun are among officials who raised the prospect that Seoul would be forced to pursue nuclear weapons amid fears over Pyongyang's weapons program and concerns about the US alliance. Yoon and Kim have been indicted on charges of insurrection over Yoon's six-hour declaration of martial law in December. Yoon was impeached and his presidential powers suspended while a court decides whether to remove him from office. Yoon backed off rhetoric about a nuclear weapons program after negotiating with Biden a 2023 agreement under which Washington is to give Seoul more insight into US planning to deter and respond to a nuclear incident in the region. In return, Seoul renewed a pledge not to pursue a nuclear bomb of its own and said it would abide by the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which it has signed. That, however, has not been enough to ease doubts over US defense commitments that have fueled calls for a South Korean nuclear arsenal. Foreign Minister Cho Tae-yul said last month that nuclear weapons were not "off the table", though it was premature to talk about such a plan. "Given that international situations are developing in unpredictable directions, this is a principled response that we must prepare for all possible scenarios," Cho told a parliamentary hearing. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the nonprofit Arms Control Association, said that in light of such "provocative" statements, South Korea is a proliferation risk and the DOE was prudent to put the country on its list. "Listing the ROK as a proliferation-sensitive country should rule out any chance of a South Korean request for US approval to enrich uranium and reprocessing spent fuel... to produce nuclear weapons," Kimball said, citing the country's formal name, the Republic of Korea. The handling of the designation raised concerns in Seoul. Cho told parliament on Tuesday that his ministry had had no formal communication from the Biden administration and only heard about the possible designation from an informal tip-off. Countries may appear on the Energy Department's list for reasons of national security, nuclear nonproliferation or support for terrorism, though inclusion does not necessarily indicate an adversarial relationship with the United States. "Currently there are no new restrictions on bilateral science and technology cooperation with the ROK," the DOE said. "The Energy Department looks forward to collaborating with the ROK to advance our mutual interests." Though the designation does not prohibit scientific or technical cooperation, visits to the listed countries and cooperation undergo an internal review beforehand, the department said.
