There appears to be a full court press going on right now by the United Nations. First it was Kofi Annan's deputy (and Soros pal) Mark Malloch Brown deriding Americans and saying we need to work more closely with the UN. Now it's the head of the (toothless) UN nuclear watchdog group, Mohamed ElBaradei. The man under who's leadership the IAEA completely missed North Korea's development of nuclear weapons. The man who's agency just didn't notice Iran building a weapons program. The man who's keen investigative skills didn't see Kahn's nuclear supermarket operating. Despite the searchlights they used at the grand opening and all the full page advertisements they took out. The man who's agency has done more to allow proliferation than anyone at any time in history.
The man who wants "international controls" on all nuclear materials and disarmament of individual nations.
For this reason, I have been calling for new approaches in a number of areas. First, a recommitment to disarmament — a move away from national security strategies that rely on nuclear weapons, which serve as a constant stimulus for other nations to acquire them. Second, tightened controls on the proliferation-sensitive parts of the nuclear fuel cycle. By bringing multinational control to any operation that enriches uranium or separates plutonium, we can lower the risk of these materials being diverted to weapons. A parallel step would be to create a mechanism to ensure a reliable supply of reactor fuel to bona fide users, including a fuel bank under control of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The third area has been more problematic: how to deal creatively with the three countries that remain outside the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): Pakistan and India, both holders of nuclear arsenals, and Israel, which maintains an official policy of ambiguity but is believed to be nuclear-weapons-capable. However fervently we might wish it, none of these three is likely to give up its nuclear weapons or the nuclear weapons option outside of a global or regional arms control framework. Our traditional strategy — of treating such states as outsiders — is no longer a realistic method of bringing these last few countries into the fold.
Maybe if this guy had done anything approaching competent work, he might have a case. But his leadership of the agency has been one dismal failure after another. So, give up your weapons, world. Turn then over to the UN. And trust people like Mohamed ElBaradei with those weapons.
I feel safer already.
The UN is so inept (not to mention impotent and corrupt) and has become so liberal that I truly believe it is time to remove them from our soil. I would also consider withdrawing from the UN altogether. I would think that the UN would be right at home in, say, France.
Amazing, the word IRAN never mentioned…..
What a fool….
Good point David, but not entirely shocking since the UN would rather placate and coddle, as opposed to dealing sternly with rogue nations.
The man under who’s leadership the IAEA completely missed North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons. The man who’s agency just didn’t notice Iran building a weapons program. The man who’s keen investigative skills didn’t see Kahn’s nuclear supermarket operating.
Gosh, and how the did the US, with a far larger budget and with an actual intelligence agency (which the IAEA lacks) do in this respect ? North Korea actually revealed its program to the US in talks. In the case of Iran, it was an outside exile group that broke the story of Natanz to both the US and the IAEA. And about Pakistan, see below. I will point out though that the IAEA has no authority to inspect in Pakistan since Pakistan never signed the NPT.
But of course, in your book, the US can never make a mistake or an oversight. Its all the fault of the IAEA, whose remit is much more limited.
The IAEA is not an intelligence agency or an army. It can only inspect in areas where it has authority. It cannot force its way into an area if the country concerned refuses, and it can only report to the Security Council.
Lets take North Korea: North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 1994 partly in response to the IAEA’s findings in the 90s that North Korea was well, lying and not allowing access to its sites. After 1994, the IAEA had inspection rights under the Agreed Framework, but North Korea blocked them at times and kicked them out finally in 2002. If the IAEA had reported that things had been going swimmingly in North Korea, and NK turned out to have a bomb, your criticism may have some weight, but as is, its just hot air.
The man who’s agency has done more to allow proliferation than anyone at any time in history.
I would suggest talking to Eisenhower about that. His Atoms for Peace program was used by many, many countries to kick start their nuclear activities.
I would also suggest talking to ex-Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr. They turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear program, to all of KHan’s smuggling from Europe during the 80s probably as a quid pro quo in exchange for Pakistan’s support in trai ning the mujahdeen (Like Osama) to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.
Amazing, the word IRAN never mentioned…..What a fool….
Yup, someone is a fool. This article wasn’t about Iran, it was about countries had nuclear capability and had not signed the NPT and could conceivably allow further proliferation (since they have no legal obligations). In fact, 2/3rds of the article was about India. El Baradei came out in support of the BUsh administration’s proposed nuclear deal with India. This is actually a big deal and may mean further support in Congress for this deal.
Get that ? Baradei came out in support of Bush’s deal. But you folks have been so conditioned to bleat “Rush good, IAEA bad”, that you didn’t even notice !! Hysterical.
I did notice. That would be another sign of the UN’s ineffectiveness.
Amazing, the word CLINTON never mentioned…what a fool…
Shhh, BlackJack. Josh thinks I don’t know he’s juggler.