International institutions and norms exist to maintain the rule of law in international relations and to keep international affairs from descending into power struggles between nations. In the throes of a period of increased unilateral action and military intervention, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) merits special distinction as a force for peace, order, and rationality in the increasingly dangerous global neighborhood.
For consistently basing its labor on science and facts in a politically charged environment, for maintaining its commitment to international rules as the path to resolving differences, and for working to protect the planet from nuclear weapons proliferation, the International Relations Center confers the third Global Good Neighbor commendation on the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Created in 1957 to manage and encourage the peaceful uses of atomic energy, the IAEA has become the central agency involved in monitoring the unlawful development of nuclear weapons. The IAEA is not a familiar name to most people, yet its monitoring operations and reports constitute a frontline defense against nuclear proliferation.
The IAEA deserves commendation for its steadfast determination to stop nuclear proliferation and its considerable success in discouraging many nations from pursuing nuclear weapons development. According to IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, 40 nations are capable of developing nuclear bombs but have refrained from doing so—a tribute to the success of the IAEA and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), signed in 1968. Especially since the early 1990s the IAEA has, under UN mandate, organized inspections and investigated suspected violations of the NPT.
IAEA Director General ElBaradei, an Egyptian, and the IAEA itself received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005—an award that was widely regarded as a slap in the face of the Bush administration, which has unsuccessfully worked to unseat ElBaradei because he was, in its view, too soft on Iraq and Iran.
ElBaradei is a longtime opponent of nuclear weapons—both when used as a deterrent and as a means of responding to real or perceived threats. In his acceptance speech for the peace prize, ElBaradei pointed out that 1% of the money currently spent around the globe on developing nuclear weapons would be enough to feed the entire world. Furthermore, he warned that if the planet hopes to avoid self-destruction, nuclear weapons should have no role in security. As a start toward the goal of total nuclear disarmament, ElBaradei has called for the United States and Russia to make deep cuts in their nuclear weapons stockpiles.
Clearly, however, the IAEA is not a fail-safe instrument. Several important countries remain outside its jurisdiction. In large part because the world's great powers—particularly the United States, former Soviet Union, and China—have largely failed to use their considerable influence to persuade their allies or surrogates to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, three countries— Israel, India, and Pakistan—have developed nuclear weapons and stand outside IAEA nuclear trade and inspection accords.
North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003 in response to U.S. charges that it had launched a secret enriched uranium weapons program and in response to the Bush administration's decision to end a bilateral framework agreement under which the country received heavy fuel oil shipments and the promise of two civilian-use nuclear reactors in return for agreeing to halt its nuclear weapons program.
Major nuclear powers have been unwilling to abolish or significantly reduce their nuclear weapons in direct violation of NPT clauses. Not only has the United States continued to rely on its nuclear weapons capacity as a deterrent, but it also insists on the right to use nuclear weapons preemptively against possible threats, even from non-nuclear weapons nations.
At the onset of the Iraq War, the credibility of the IAEA, ElBaradei, and former IAEA chief Hans Blix (who led the UN chemical and biological weapons inspection team) came under intense scrutiny. The assertions by the Bush administration that Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons program—including then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice warning of a “mushroom cloud” that could soon hang over America if Saddam Hussein were not ousted—proved baseless, as well as repeated assertions by Secretary of State Colin Powell and other administration officials that Iraq continued to develop chemical and biological weapons.
Days before the invasion, however, Vice President Richard Cheney challenged the integrity of ElBaradei and the IAEA, saying: “We believe [Iraq] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the IAEA in this kind of issue, especially where Iraq's concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what Saddam Hussein was doing.”
Following the U.S. invasion, occupation forces and the U.S.-constituted Iraq Survey Team found no evidence that Iraq had renewed its nuclear weapons program, which had been completely destroyed under IAEA supervision in the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War. Despite the factual debunking of the accusations of nuclear weapons activity that justified the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration is once again using accusations of nuclear activity to create a diplomatic and perhaps military offensive against another Middle East nation—Iran. And again, the U.S. government has clashed with the IAEA over the issue.
In late 2004 press reports revealed that the Bush administration had been intercepting the phone calls between ElBaradei and Iranian diplomats. The intercepts, spearheaded by former U.S. arms control chief and current UN Ambassador John Bolton, were part of a Bush administration effort to oust ElBaradei as IAEA director general. The Bush administration had previously succeeded in orchestrating the removal of Jose Bustani as the director of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, but the administration has been unsuccessful in undermining ElBaradei's reputation or organizing opposition to his continued tenure as IAEA chief.
The IAEA has been highly critical of Iran's failure to open all its nuclear development facilities to UN inspectors. However, the agency has found no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, although the country is vigorously pursuing a uranium enrichment program.
Iran is a NPT signatory and declares that it has no nuclear weapons program. Unlike Iraq , where the IAEA found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program, the IAEA says it can make no such conclusion about Iran because of restrictions imposed by Iran on its inspectors. Under the NPT, Iran has a right to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes, but the UN Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment program because of its failure to fully comply with the IAEA verification process.
The IAEA, however, has countered the alarmist claims of some U.S. officials and U.S. congressional members that Iran represents an imminent nuclear threat. In mid-September 2006, the IAEA officially complained that a staff report on Iran by the House Intelligence Committee “contains erroneous, misleading, and unsubstantiated information.” Agency officials told the New York Times that their concerns echoed their arguments with the Bush administration prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq .
The report by the intelligence committee's Republican majority falsely states that Iran is “enriching uranium to weapons grade” status, according to the IAEA letter sent to the House Intelligence Committee. The IAEA said that Iran has enriched uranium only to 3.6%, which is capable of producing power but substantially short of the 90% necessary for nuclear weapons. While the IAEA doesn't preclude the possibility that Iran may be covertly proceeding with a nuclear weapons plan, there is no indication that—even should such a plan be in motion—Iran's nuclear program represents a short- or medium-term threat.
No one wants a nuclear-armed Iran, and the IAEA is right in insisting on gaining full access to the country's nuclear development records and to its nuclear facilities. Clearly, if the UN inspectors had been allowed to stay in Iraq, it would have been nearly impossible for the Bush administration to have made the case, as it did, that war was needed to destroy what later proved to be non-existing Weapons of Mass Destruction.
The IAEA and its Director General ElBaradei merit commendation for their important role in implementing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, for providing credible verification of the objectives of nuclear development, and for disputing highly exaggerated threat assessments made by U.S. government officials and congressional members. The IAEA helps ensure that the world's nations—both the nuclear powers and the non-nuclear states—act as good global neighbors.
But the safety of the global neighborhood demands too that the nuclear powers abide by all the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in particular the agreement signed by the United States and the other great powers that they move toward “general and complete disarmament.” Furthermore, the NPT specifies that the Nuclear Weapons States declare not to “induce any non-nuclear-weapon state to … acquire nuclear weapons.” Not only have the nuclear powers failed to disarm, but the United States is also pursuing the development of new nuclear weapons. Moreover, the Bush administration's regime-change and preemptive-strike national security doctrines may be credibly viewed as inducements for targeted nations, notably North Korea and Iran , to develop nuclear deterrents.
The IAEA embodies a model of international relations that is marked by mutual respect of nations, effective international governance, and international cooperation and nonmilitary measures as the best guarantors of security. It is a model that the United States , Iran , other nations would do well to support in full.
