Nippon Steel-US Steel deal closes with United States safeguards
Agencies
Nippon Steel completed its multi-billion-dollar acquisition of US Steel on Wednesday, granting rare veto-like power over strategic decisions to Washington with a 'golden share'. The announcement concludes a saga that began in December 2023, when Nippon Steel agreed to acquire the linchpin of American steelmaking for $14.9 billion. An outright buyout sparked bipartisan political opposition, including from President Donald Trump, who railed against the proposed deal throughout the 2024 presidential campaign.
But last month he announced a pivot, branding the revamped venture—blocked by former president Joe Biden on security grounds—as a 'partnership' rather than a takeover.
A national security agreement between the companies and the US government provides that approximately $11 billion in new investments will be made by 2028. And Washington's non-economic golden share allows it to appoint one independent director as well as granting consent rights for proposed capital budget cuts among other powers.
Nippon Steel CEO Eiji Hashimoto said Thursday in Tokyo that this 'won't hinder activities that we hope to conduct.' 'The agreement is fully satisfactory to us, as it ensures the management freedom... essential for business investment,' Hashimoto told reporters.
'We intend to start implementing measures for revitalization and development as soon as possible,' he said, promising not to 'transfer jobs and production sites elsewhere.'
It is 'only natural' that the US government would be concerned about the takeover of a symbolic company, which dates back to 1901, Hashimoto added.
A source close to the matter said Nippon Steel had bought all common shares of US Steel, completing the merger. The deal creates the world's fourth biggest steelmaker—but Nippon Steel faces several big challenges, from trade tariffs to weak demand for steel products worldwide.
Nippon Steel shares were up 2.4 percent Thursday afternoon, even as Tokyo's benchmark Nikkei index slumped 0.9 percent. Pennsylvania Senator Dave McCormick, a Republican, thanked Trump on X and called the outcome 'a massive victory for working families in the Mon Valley, our economy, our national security, and America's manufacturing future!'
But the United Steelworkers (USW) union, which vigorously fought the deal, vowed to 'continue watching, holding Nippon to its commitments,' according to a statement. 'We will use the most powerful tool workers have against global corporations: collective bargaining.' Biden had blocked the transaction in early January, shortly before leaving office. He said that placing 'one of America's largest steel producers under foreign control' could 'create risk for our national security and our critical supply chains.'
Besides agreeing to keep US Steel's Pittsburgh headquarters and to maintain US production, the national security agreement calls for a majority of US Steel's board to be US citizens, as are key leaders including the CEO.
The 'golden share' does not entitle the US government to dividends, nor does it require Washington to make investments in the company.
While the structure gives the government 'extraordinary' influence, the mechanism could be difficult to enforce in a downturn if Nippon fails to comply, said Atlantic Council senior fellow Sarah Bauerle Danzman.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Are Israel's attacks against Iran legal?
United States President Donald Trump is considering joining Israel in what it claims are its efforts to destroy Iran's nuclear programme, based on its stated belief that Iran is 'very close' to developing a nuclear weapon. Israel argues that it has carried out attacks on Iran's military and nuclear sites over the past week in anticipation of an Iranian nuclear attack. But is this a valid justification? The United Nations Charter, which is the founding document for states' rights since World War II, outlaws aggressive war, allowing military action only as self-defence. Only the UN Security Council is empowered to decide if military action is justified, once countries have tried and failed to resolve their differences peacefully. If a country is attacked while the UNSC deliberates, that country still has the 'inherent right of individual or collective self-defence', however. The question of the legality of Israel's strikes on Iran, therefore, revolves around whether Israel – and any allies coming to its aid – can justify its attacks on Iran as 'anticipatory' self-defence. Many experts say they are not. 'This is not a situation in which Israel is allegedly responding to an Iranian attack occurring now, whether directly or through proxies such as the Houthis,' wrote Marko Milanovic, a professor of public international law at Reading University who has served on the International Criminal Court (ICC), in the European Journal of International Law, which he edits. Israel cannot make the case that an attack is imminent, argued Milanovic. 'There is little evidence that Iran has irrevocably committed itself to attacking Israel with a nuclear weapon, once it develops this capability,' wrote Milanovic. 'And even if such an intention was assumed – again, it would be for Israel to provide any further evidence of such intention – I don't see how it could plausibly be argued that using force today was the only option available.' 'Even if the broadest possible [legally plausible] understanding of anticipatory self-defence was taken as correct, Israel's use of force against Iran would be illegal,' he concluded. The United Kingdom's chief legal counsel, Richard Hermer, advised Prime Minister Keir Starmer against getting involved in any attack on Iran, 'unless our personnel are targeted', according to Sky News. 'The possibility of acting in self-defence in view of an attack that might be coming is illegal in international law and we're all very, very clear about that,' agreed Maria Gavouneli, a professor of international law at Athens University. She said nuclear weapons have been discussed in international legal circles as a special case. 'There might be a chance for anticipatory self-defence, in other words, an exception to the rule, when we have clear evidence that there is a nuclear weapon being built,' Gavouneli told Al Jazeera. Israel might try to make the case that its 'continued existence was at stake and they had to act', she said. To make this case, Israel would need 'warranties, some kind of evidence offered by the International Atomic Energy Agency', the UN's nuclear IAEA has said that it cannot verify what Iran is doing. But it has not clearly suggested that Iran may be building a bomb. Iran stopped cooperating with the IAEA in February 2021 after Trump annulled a key agreement during his first term that obliged it to do so. That agreement – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – had been negotiated by Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama, in 2015. On June 9, IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi said Iran's failures to comply with reporting obligations had 'led to a significant reduction in the agency's ability to verify whether Iran's nuclear programme is entirely peaceful'. He said Iran had 'repeatedly either not answered, or not provided technically credible answers to, the agency's questions' regarding the presence of man-made uranium particles at three locations – Varamin, Marivan and Turquzabad – and had 'sought to sanitise the locations'. Grossi also described Iran's 'rapid accumulation of highly-enriched uranium' as a 'serious concern'. He was referring to 60 percent pure uranium enrichment facilities at Fordow and Natanz, and the IAEA's discovery of 83.7 percent pure uranium particles at Fordow in 2023. Weapons-grade uranium is at least 90 percent pure. Under the JCPOA, Iran was to have uranium at no higher than 5 percent purity. On June 12, just before Israel launched its assault on Iran's military and nuclear sites, the IAEA approved a resolution declaring that Tehran was not complying with its commitment to international nuclear safeguards. However, this week, Grossi emphasised that the IAEA had found no evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons production. 'We did not have any proof of a systematic effort to move into a nuclear weapon,' he said. Iran has responded that it is a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), under which it has agreed not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons, and the discovery of highly enriched particles at its sites may be the result of sabotage or malicious acts. On Monday, Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that lawmakers were preparing a bill to withdraw Tehran from the NPT, in light of the Israeli attacks. In 1981, Israel attacked and destroyed Iraq's unfinished Osirak nuclear reactor, which was being built by French commercial interests, invoking anticipatory self-defence. But the UNSC Resolution 487 (PDF) strongly condemned the attack as a violation of the UN Charter and the 'inalienable and sovereign right of Iraq and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes'. It also noted that Israel is not a signatory to the NPT. Israel is currently believed to possess 90 nuclear bombs. Then-President George W Bush also invoked the argument of preemptive self-defence when justifying the 2003 US war against Iraq. He suggested Iraq might one day 'cooperate with terrorists' to deliver a weapon of mass destruction on US soil, even though UN weapons inspectors said there was no hard evidence Iraq was developing such a weapon. The UNSC refused to endorse Bush's war, but he went ahead anyway with a 'coalition of the willing'. Once in control of Iraq, foreign troops discovered no weapons of mass destruction. In 2018, Israel revealed it had bombed a Syrian reactor 11 years before, apparently only just before it became operational, believing it to be part of a plan of the then-government of Bashar al-Assad to acquire nuclear weapons. Under Operation Outside the Box, it destroyed the North Korean-built plutonium reactor in Deir Az Zor in September 2007. Israel's justification was, again, that it was anticipating a Syrian nuclear attack. Israel killed several top Iranian physicists working on Iran's nuclear programme on June 13. It is suspected of having been involved in several more assassinations of Iranian physicists and engineers since 2010. Milanovic said scientists who were enlisted in the armed forces of Iran could be considered fighters and targeted. However, he said, 'scientists who are civilians – and most probably are – cannot lawfully be made the object of an attack. Simply working on a weapons programme as a researcher does not entail direct participation in hostilities that could remove civilian immunity from an attack'. Both countries have been criticised for carrying out attacks on each other's hospitals. About 70 people were injured when Iranian missiles hit the Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba in southern Israel on Thursday. Israel accused Iran of a 'war crime', but Iran said the hospital was close to a military site, which was the real target. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi claimed the missile attack hit an Israeli military and intelligence centre located near Soroka hospital, causing only 'superficial damage to a small section' of the health facility. Meanwhile, Israel itself has damaged or destroyed the vast majority of hospitals and medical centres in the Gaza Strip since its war on the Palestinian territory began on October 7, 2023. In many cases, it has argued that Hamas was using those sites as cover for its operations. But it is not permitted to strike hospitals and medical facilities under international law. The International Committee of the Red Cross, referring to international humanitarian law, states: 'Under IHL, hospitals and other medical facilities – whether civilian or military – enjoy specific protection that goes beyond the general protection afforded to other civilian objects. This elevated protection ensures that they remain functional when they are needed most. These protections were put in place by the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims in 1949.' Israel also struck the Iranian state broadcaster IRIB, interrupting a live broadcast on Monday. TV anchor Sahar Emami denounced the 'aggression against the homeland' and the 'truth' as a blast went off and smoke and debris filled the screen. The footage then showed her fleeing the studio as a voice is heard calling, 'God is greatest'. Israel has also targeted and killed more than 200 journalists and media workers in Gaza since October 2023. In 2021, a building housing the offices of Al Jazeera and The Associated Press news agency in Gaza was destroyed in an Israeli strike. Media professionals do not have special protections under the Geneva Conventions, but they are protected under the same clauses that protect all civilians in armed conflict, according to the British Institute of Comparative and International Law.
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Is it time for Europe to choose China over the US?
As Donald Trump barrels through his second term in the White House, Europe faces a question it has long avoided: Should it continue clinging to its alliance with the United States, or is it time to chart a new course – perhaps one that leads eastwards? In April, Chinese President Xi Jinping urged Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez to encourage the European Union to 'resist together' against Washington's 'unilateral coercion'. This coercion is not limited to trade; it extends to politics, culture and global strategy. For Europe, the question is not simply whether the US remains a powerful ally but whether it is still the right one. A closer relationship with China now offers distinct advantages – an idea likely to be discussed at the EU-China summit in July. While European attitudes towards China remain cautious, as demonstrated by recent tariffs targeting low-cost imports from platforms like Temu and Shein, Europe's strategic reflex still defaults to the US, especially in finance and defence. That reflex, born of history, is increasingly out of step with Europe's long-term interests. The US has long pursued a consistent global aim: to preserve its position as the world's sole superpower. But under President Trump, US global leadership has taken a darker turn. Basic democratic principles are being eroded. Human rights, academic freedom and social justice have come under sustained assault. From unconditional support for Israel's devastating assault on Gaza – widely condemned as a genocide – to greenlighting a newly launched war on Iran, mass deportations and the dismantling of university funding, Trump's United States is actively undermining the values it once claimed to champion. China, of course, has its own challenges. It lacks press freedom, censors dissent and tightly controls public discourse. But is the democratic West still so different? In an information landscape dominated by a handful of tech billionaires, platforms like X and Facebook amplify misinformation and conspiracy theories while marginalising serious public debate. The treatment of whistleblowers such as Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden further suggests that truth itself has become a threat to what now passes as American democracy rather than a foundation of it. Europe must also confront the economic and political model it shares with the US. Democracy, once a source of pride, increasingly functions as ideological cover for oligarchy – rule by and for the few. Trump embodies this shift, treating democratic norms as obstacles to unending accumulation. But he is not alone in this. Across the West, wealth is increasingly concentrated and politics increasingly unresponsive to the needs of most of its people. The contrast between Washington and Beijing in foreign affairs also warrants attention. China maintains one overseas military base, in Djibouti, and a handful of small support outposts. The US, by contrast, operates more than 750 military installations worldwide. That vast footprint may soon serve Trump's revived imperial imagination: He recently shared a video envisioning Gaza as the 'Riviera of the Middle East' after saying its Palestinian residents would be resettled elsewhere. China, meanwhile, opposed such forced displacement and reaffirmed the Palestinian right to resist foreign occupation. China is also becoming an increasingly attractive destination for education. With more than 3,000 universities serving over 40 million students, its system is both expansive and accessible. Tuition ranges from $1,500 to $3,000 a year, in stark contrast to the $40,000 charged by many US institutions. Universities like Tsinghua are gaining global recognition for high-impact research. And while these institutions operate under strict censorship, they remain a serious alternative – especially as US campuses now face student repression, visa crackdowns and mounting political interference. Why, then, does the EU remain tethered to an alliance that increasingly undermines its values and interests? The truth is that Europe is not yet politically sovereign. It lacks a unified economy, military, tax system and labour market. From north to south, east to west, the continent is fragmented – linguistically, culturally and politically. In a 2017 speech at the Sorbonne, French President Emmanuel Macron spoke of 'European sovereignty'. But that is precisely what Europe still lacks: the ability to evaluate its interests independently and form alliances accordingly. Until that sovereignty becomes reality, any talk of shifting alliances – however urgent – remains largely theoretical. China is prepared for a new era of cooperation. Europe, paralysed by internal division and outdated loyalties, is not. Yet Trump's United States is doing everything it can to make the eventual choice for Europe clearer by the day. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Al Jazeera
5 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Amid US-Pakistan thaw, two key challenges: Iran and China
Islamabad, Pakistan – Pakistan's army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, has held an unprecedented one-on-one meeting with United States President Donald Trump at the White House, where the two leaders spoke for more than two hours, according to the Pakistani military. In a statement issued on Thursday by Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the Pakistani military's media wing, the meeting, originally scheduled for one hour, was held in the Cabinet Room over lunch and then continued in the Oval Office. After Wednesday's meeting, the ISPR said, Munir expressed 'deep appreciation' for Trump's efforts in facilitating a ceasefire between India and Pakistan after a four-day conflict in May between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. According to the ISPR, Trump welcomed Pakistan's cooperation against 'terrorism'. While the White House did not release any statement on the meeting, which was held behind closed doors and without news media photo opportunities, Trump spoke to reporters briefly after his talks with Munir. He thanked the army chief and said he was 'honoured to meet him'. Yet amid the bonhomie and the promise of a sharp uptick in relations after years of tension between Washington and Islamabad, Trump also referred to the ongoing military conflict between Israel and Iran, which the US president has said his country might join. The Pakistanis, Trump said, 'know Iran very well, better than most', adding that they are 'not happy'. For Pakistan, analysts said, that comment underscored how the reset in ties with the US that Islamabad desperately seeks will be tested by two key challenges. Iran and the current crisis with Israel will force Pakistan into a diplomatic balancing act, they said. And Islamabad's close relations with China could similarly pull Pakistan in conflicting directions. According to the ISPR, Munir spoke to Trump about a range of areas where the two nations could strengthen cooperation, including 'economic development, mines and minerals, artificial intelligence, energy, cryptocurrency, and emerging technologies'. But the Pakistani military conceded that the two leaders also held 'detailed discussions' on the escalating tensions between Iran and Israel with both Munir and Trump – according to Islamabad – emphasising the need for a peaceful resolution. Munir was accompanied by Pakistan's national security adviser, Lieutenant General Asim Malik, who also heads the country's premier intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). On the American side, Trump was joined by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the president's top negotiator in the Middle East, Steve Witkoff. Marvin Weinbaum, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute (MEI), said the lack of a media presence during the lunch could be interpreted as suggesting that 'the nature of the conversation was such that neither party wanted photo opportunities'. Weinbaum told Al Jazeera that neither side likely wanted to reveal much about 'what was discussed, though my read is it was perhaps the US wanting to know about Pakistan's role on what follows in Iran during this ongoing situation'. Later on Wednesday evening, Munir attended a dinner hosted by the Pakistani embassy with nearly three dozen figures from think tanks, policy institutions and diplomatic circles. Al Jazeera spoke to several participants, who all requested anonymity to discuss what Munir said at the dinner. One participant said Munir did not divulge specifics from his meeting with Trump but he remarked that the conversation was 'fantastic and could not have gone any better'. Munir added, according to this person, that Pakistan's relations with the previous administration of President Joe Biden had been 'among the worst' historically. Another attendee told Al Jazeera that Munir said the US 'knows what it needs to do regarding Iran' and reiterated that Pakistan's view is that 'every conflict is resolvable through dialogue and diplomacy'. For the moment, experts said, the meeting represents a major gain for Pakistan in its bid to improve ties with the US. Pakistan has been a close US ally since gaining independence in 1947. They worked closely together in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion in 1979 and then again after the US invasion of Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks. While the US has provided more than $30bn in aid in the last two decades to Pakistan, it has repeatedly accused Islamabad of 'duplicity' and of not being a reliable security partner. Pakistan, in turn, has argued that Washington constantly demands it 'do more' without fully acknowledging the losses and instability Pakistan has suffered due to regional violence. Elizabeth Threlkeld, director of the South Asia Program at the Stimson Center in Washington, DC, said Munir's visit marks a 'significant upswing' in US-Pakistan ties under the Trump administration. 'Given President Trump's central role in shaping foreign policy and his preference for personal relationships, this visit has allowed Field Marshal Munir to solidify a rapport built during the recent crisis,' she told Al Jazeera. Sahar Khan, a Washington, DC-based security policy expert, said that while the meeting was significant, it doesn't mean the two countries are 'now friends'. However, it does indicate a 'thaw in the relationship'. She added that although Trump is unpredictable, Pakistan should consider striking a deal with him to prevent unrealistic demands regarding regional issues. 'For now, Munir's message to the Trump administration is, take the time to understand Pakistan and stop viewing it through the lens of India, China or Afghanistan,' she said. Making that message stick, though, won't be easy, analysts said. China remains Pakistan's most critical partner, with whom it enjoys deep economic, strategic and military ties. But simultaneously, over the past three decades, Beijing's rise as a global superpower has made it Washington's principal rival. Muhammad Faisal, a South Asia security researcher and China expert at the University of Technology in Sydney, said managing ties with both powers will test Islamabad's commitment to a policy of 'no-camp politics'. China has invested $62bn in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a large infrastructure project connecting western China to the Arabian Sea via Pakistan. On the military front, Pakistan procures more than 80 percent of its weaponry from China, and some of those products, particularly Chinese jets and missiles, showcased their worth in the recent conflict with India. 'In the long run, both [China and the US] are crucial for Pakistan in their own right,' Faisal told Al Jazeera. And while the US and China might each want Islamabad on their side, the fact that Pakistan is sought after by both has its own advantage. It 'gives Islamabad considerable diplomatic space to expand cooperation with both Beijing and Washington', he said. Iran, currently under an intense Israeli assault that has targeted key infrastructure and senior military and nuclear figures, presents another sensitive challenge for Pakistan. Analysts argued that Pakistan's proximity and ties to Tehran position it as a potential mediator between the US and Iran. 'It is in Pakistan's interest to play a mediating role. It cannot afford another adversary on its western border, given its internal challenges,' Khan said. Last month, Munir travelled to Iran along with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. During the visit, he met Major General Mohammad Bagheri, chief of General Staff of the Iranian military. In the first wave of strikes by Israel on Friday, Bagheri was one of the several military officials who were killed. Since the Israeli strikes began, Pakistan has strongly defended Iran's right to self-defence, describing the Israeli strikes as violations of Iran's territorial sovereignty and calling them 'blatant provocations'. Home to nearly 250 million people, Pakistan has a significant Shia minority – between 15 percent and 20 percent of the population – who look to Iran for religious leadership. Faisal noted that these demographic and geographic realities would constrain Pakistan's public support for any US military intervention. 'Islamabad can continue to call for diplomacy and cessation of hostilities to contain the conflict. As a neighbour, instability in Iran isn't in Pakistan's interest,' he said. At the same time, Faisal added, 'a spike in sectarian tensions [in Pakistan] can test internal security. Thus, Islamabad will be wary of pro-American public posturing.'
