Post by Anwaar on Oct 9, 2005 21:11:57 GMT 4
A Kick in the Shin?
By Anwaar Hussain
Is the 2005 Peace Nobel for Mohamed ElBaradei a kick in the shin for the US Government or a routine award?
Born on June 17, 1942, in Cairo, Mohamed ElBaradei is the son of the late Mostafa ElBaradei, lawyer and former president of the Egyptian Bar Association. He earned his Bachelor of Law degree at the University of Cairo in 1962, and doctorate in International Law at the New York University School of Law in 1974, receiving several other honorary degrees along the way.
ElBaradei joined Egyptian diplomatic service in 1964, serving in missions to the United Nations in New York and Geneva, in charge of political, legal and arms-control issues. He joined the IAEA in 1984 and held a series of high posts before succeeding Hans Blix as director general in 1997. A charge that he holds to date after being reappointed to the same portfolio for a second and a third term in years 2001 and 2005 respectively despite firm opposition from the United States.
Since his taking over the charge of IAEA, ElBaradei has been swimming in treacherous waters. The reason is simple. He heads an agency whose objective is, “To seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world. It shall ensure, so far as it is able, that assistance provided by it or at its request or under its supervision or control is not used in such a way as to further any military purpose.” The head of the IAEA is supposed to ensure this through the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty).
In straight language, shorn of the gloss and the lofty spin, the IAEA objective and the NPT simply mean that, “The Agency shall ensure that the disarmed are unarmed while the armed to the teeth i.e. the five permanent members of the Security Council, are allowed to continue the exercise without undue distractions from other aspiring world powers that feel insecure due to any reason.”
The brazenly discriminatory nature of the NPT regime is obvious from the fact that despite all their efforts, the Big Five have not been able to stop the proliferation of nuclear technology. An alarming recent MI5 report suggests that the resolute efforts of countries across the Middle East and Asia to develop nuclear arsenals and other weapons of mass destruction have, in fact, increased many folds. More than 360 private companies, university departments and government organizations in eight countries, are apparently involved in the activity to procure nuclear technology by hook or by crook, the report reveals.
It is plain to see that ElBaradei has been doing a tight rope walking since he assumed his charge of this agency. He knows the truth of NPT, obvious from so many of his statements, yet has to do this double-faced bidding for the UN--a tough task for a man of conscience that he apparently seems to be.
In the run up to Iraq war, and in the action replay in case of Iran, ElBaradei has been in constant tussle with the United States. The US was angered at his dogged persistence that Saddam Hussein had no nukes. He has been constantly threatened and vilified by the American administration and the CIA has reportedly been tapping his telephone calls to find out what he is planning.
In his several reports to the UN Security Council on his team's search for nuclear weapons inside Iraq, ElBaradei continued to maintain that although Iraq had not cooperated fully, his team had "found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear activities in Iraq." He repeatedly asked the Security Council to give the inspectors more time to complete the task. The American administration not only refused to listen but expressed cynicism about the exactness of ElBaradei's reports. ElBaradei also told the Security Council that documents that said that Iraq tried to procure uranium from Niger, the ones that the Bush administration had used to validate preemptive strike against Iraq, were forged. Time has proven ElBaradei right and the US Administration wrong.
Dr ElBaradei has held a steady course through these perilous seas. He is tactful, calm and even-handed. In Iran’s case, though he has recently helped in paving the way for the matter ultimately to be referred to the Security Council—the Big Five’s den, he has been arguing that Tehran is no more entitled to make a bomb than the five official nuclear powers are to ignore their obligatory disarmament responsibility.
"The U.S. government demands that other nations not possess nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, it is arming itself," he told Germany's Stern weekly. Several noted nuclear nonproliferation experts have joined him in saying that Washington is discouraging the goal of global disarmament by showing continued interest in exploring smaller scale atomic weapons, like nuclear "bunker-busters."
As if to join the growing international chorus of truth-tellers, the Nobel Peace Committee on Friday the 7th September, 2005, delivered a kick in the shin to the current US administration by awarding this year’s prize jointly to IAEA and its director general, Mohamed ElBaradei for their efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons.
To leave no doubt about their reason for awarding the prize to ElBaradei, the Nobel committee extolled him as an "unafraid advocate". Indirectly alluding to the frequent nuclear saber rattling by the United States and a few others, the committee said ElBaradei’s leadership tenure of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog comes "at a time when disarmament efforts appear deadlocked, when there is a danger that nuclear arms will spread both to states and terrorist groups, and when nuclear power again appears to be playing an increasingly significant role."
Forever the diplomat, ElBaradei suggested that the tension with the United States was over and said that Rice had called and "wished me well." To keep up the charade, the U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice promptly called the honor "well-deserved" in a statement and noted the United States "is committed to working with the IAEA to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons technology."
A similar kick in the shin was delivered to the incumbent US administration earlier this year by Amnesty International when it branded the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a human rights failure and called it a “gulag of our time." The difference is that the Amnesty made no bones about it and said it like it was.
Nobel committee chairman Ole Danbolt Mjoes, however, rejected the implication that the choice was a couched censure of the United States. "This is not a kick in the shin to any country," he maintained.
The 2002 Nobel Peace prize went to former President Jimmy Carter although President George Bush’s ‘freedom’ bid was already doing the rounds in the Middle East and he, along with Prime Minister Tony Blair, was nominated for the coveted prize.
The reader can decide for himself whether the 2005 ElBaradei Nobel was indeed intended as yet another kick in the shin for the current US Administration or was merely a routine award as the committee chairman suggests. The scribe, however, is reminded of a car sticker that read, “I do not believe in any thing unless the Government denies it.”
Copyrights : Anwaar Hussain
By Anwaar Hussain
Is the 2005 Peace Nobel for Mohamed ElBaradei a kick in the shin for the US Government or a routine award?
Born on June 17, 1942, in Cairo, Mohamed ElBaradei is the son of the late Mostafa ElBaradei, lawyer and former president of the Egyptian Bar Association. He earned his Bachelor of Law degree at the University of Cairo in 1962, and doctorate in International Law at the New York University School of Law in 1974, receiving several other honorary degrees along the way.
ElBaradei joined Egyptian diplomatic service in 1964, serving in missions to the United Nations in New York and Geneva, in charge of political, legal and arms-control issues. He joined the IAEA in 1984 and held a series of high posts before succeeding Hans Blix as director general in 1997. A charge that he holds to date after being reappointed to the same portfolio for a second and a third term in years 2001 and 2005 respectively despite firm opposition from the United States.
Since his taking over the charge of IAEA, ElBaradei has been swimming in treacherous waters. The reason is simple. He heads an agency whose objective is, “To seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world. It shall ensure, so far as it is able, that assistance provided by it or at its request or under its supervision or control is not used in such a way as to further any military purpose.” The head of the IAEA is supposed to ensure this through the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty).
In straight language, shorn of the gloss and the lofty spin, the IAEA objective and the NPT simply mean that, “The Agency shall ensure that the disarmed are unarmed while the armed to the teeth i.e. the five permanent members of the Security Council, are allowed to continue the exercise without undue distractions from other aspiring world powers that feel insecure due to any reason.”
The brazenly discriminatory nature of the NPT regime is obvious from the fact that despite all their efforts, the Big Five have not been able to stop the proliferation of nuclear technology. An alarming recent MI5 report suggests that the resolute efforts of countries across the Middle East and Asia to develop nuclear arsenals and other weapons of mass destruction have, in fact, increased many folds. More than 360 private companies, university departments and government organizations in eight countries, are apparently involved in the activity to procure nuclear technology by hook or by crook, the report reveals.
It is plain to see that ElBaradei has been doing a tight rope walking since he assumed his charge of this agency. He knows the truth of NPT, obvious from so many of his statements, yet has to do this double-faced bidding for the UN--a tough task for a man of conscience that he apparently seems to be.
In the run up to Iraq war, and in the action replay in case of Iran, ElBaradei has been in constant tussle with the United States. The US was angered at his dogged persistence that Saddam Hussein had no nukes. He has been constantly threatened and vilified by the American administration and the CIA has reportedly been tapping his telephone calls to find out what he is planning.
In his several reports to the UN Security Council on his team's search for nuclear weapons inside Iraq, ElBaradei continued to maintain that although Iraq had not cooperated fully, his team had "found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear activities in Iraq." He repeatedly asked the Security Council to give the inspectors more time to complete the task. The American administration not only refused to listen but expressed cynicism about the exactness of ElBaradei's reports. ElBaradei also told the Security Council that documents that said that Iraq tried to procure uranium from Niger, the ones that the Bush administration had used to validate preemptive strike against Iraq, were forged. Time has proven ElBaradei right and the US Administration wrong.
Dr ElBaradei has held a steady course through these perilous seas. He is tactful, calm and even-handed. In Iran’s case, though he has recently helped in paving the way for the matter ultimately to be referred to the Security Council—the Big Five’s den, he has been arguing that Tehran is no more entitled to make a bomb than the five official nuclear powers are to ignore their obligatory disarmament responsibility.
"The U.S. government demands that other nations not possess nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, it is arming itself," he told Germany's Stern weekly. Several noted nuclear nonproliferation experts have joined him in saying that Washington is discouraging the goal of global disarmament by showing continued interest in exploring smaller scale atomic weapons, like nuclear "bunker-busters."
As if to join the growing international chorus of truth-tellers, the Nobel Peace Committee on Friday the 7th September, 2005, delivered a kick in the shin to the current US administration by awarding this year’s prize jointly to IAEA and its director general, Mohamed ElBaradei for their efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons.
To leave no doubt about their reason for awarding the prize to ElBaradei, the Nobel committee extolled him as an "unafraid advocate". Indirectly alluding to the frequent nuclear saber rattling by the United States and a few others, the committee said ElBaradei’s leadership tenure of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog comes "at a time when disarmament efforts appear deadlocked, when there is a danger that nuclear arms will spread both to states and terrorist groups, and when nuclear power again appears to be playing an increasingly significant role."
Forever the diplomat, ElBaradei suggested that the tension with the United States was over and said that Rice had called and "wished me well." To keep up the charade, the U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice promptly called the honor "well-deserved" in a statement and noted the United States "is committed to working with the IAEA to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons technology."
A similar kick in the shin was delivered to the incumbent US administration earlier this year by Amnesty International when it branded the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a human rights failure and called it a “gulag of our time." The difference is that the Amnesty made no bones about it and said it like it was.
Nobel committee chairman Ole Danbolt Mjoes, however, rejected the implication that the choice was a couched censure of the United States. "This is not a kick in the shin to any country," he maintained.
The 2002 Nobel Peace prize went to former President Jimmy Carter although President George Bush’s ‘freedom’ bid was already doing the rounds in the Middle East and he, along with Prime Minister Tony Blair, was nominated for the coveted prize.
The reader can decide for himself whether the 2005 ElBaradei Nobel was indeed intended as yet another kick in the shin for the current US Administration or was merely a routine award as the committee chairman suggests. The scribe, however, is reminded of a car sticker that read, “I do not believe in any thing unless the Government denies it.”
Copyrights : Anwaar Hussain