NationStates Jolt Archive


United States working behind scenes to oust head of UN nuclear agency

Dobbs Town
09-01-2005, 13:14
Just when I'm starting to feel slightly less queasy than I have in a few months...this:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

United States working behind scenes to oust head of UN nuclear agency


VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Even though he's running unopposed, Mohamed ElBaradei may still fail in his bid for a third term as head of the UN nuclear watchdog agency, tripped by his main opponent, the United States.

Unable to find a candidate willing to go toe to toe against the independent-minded Egyptian diplomat, Washington is now quietly lobbying other countries on the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency in a bid to unseat ElBaradei. Then it hopes to engineer the choice of a replacement more to its own liking - one harder on Iran and other countries on the U.S. enemies list.

Since the agency spearheads international efforts to halt the spread of nuclear weapons, the issue of who controls the IAEA is key for officials in the administration of President George W. Bush. They want someone in charge who shares their view of which countries constitute nuclear threats and what to do about them.

But ElBaradei has challenged those views - particularly over Iraq and Iran, both labelled part of the "Axis of Evil" by Bush.

He first disputed U.S. assertions that deposed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear weapons program - claims that remain unproven. He then refused to endorse assertions by Washington that Iran is working to make nuclear arms.

A direct U.S. attempt to unseat ElBaradei fizzled late last year, with the Americans unable to find anyone to challenge him for a third term by a Dec. 31 deadline shortly after the Bush administration called on him to step down after he completes his second term next summer.

Since then, the nuclear power struggle has moved underground, but even before Dec. 31 much of it was cloak and dagger, including reported U.S. wiretaps of ElBaradei's phone to try and show he was demonstrating favouritism toward Iran in his investigation of its nuclear activities.

It's not the first U.S. campaign against UN officials deemed at odds with its foreign policy. Washington blocked Egyptian Boutros Boutros-Ghali from a second term as UN secretary general in 1996.

More recently, in 2002, Jose Mauricio Bustani was voted out as director-general of the UN Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons after Washington accused him of mismanagement and rallied other countries in a vote to have him dismissed.

At the time, Bustani's supporters said Washington wanted him removed not because he performed poorly but because he supported making Iraq a member of his organization, which might have interfered with U.S. plans for war with that country.

U.S. officials in Vienna and Washington refuse to discuss Washington's strategy in toppling ElBaradei. But diplomats accredited to the Vienna-based IAEA said the United States has a new candidate in the wings, who will be presented if Washington swings enough countries on the IAEA board of governors to back its demand for a non-confidence vote in the incumbent.

"They've already started lobbying in the capitals," said one diplomat, who insisted on anonymity like others who spoke the issue.

"Whether or not they call for a (non-confidence) vote depends on the support they will get."

ElBaradei appears to be taking the campaign to oust him in stride.

"Member states have asked me to continue to serve," he said.

"I see that as confidence in my stewardship."

Agency officials close to the soft-spoken, austere diplomat said he is of two minds about what they called a sometimes nasty U.S. campaign against the IAEA leader. One official said ElBaradei tried to ignore the reports his phone calls were bugged but also was angry his conversations with family members had been monitored.

To oust ElBaradei, Washington must find backing from 12 other member countries on the 35-member IAEA board of governors. It can already count on traditional allies Canada and Australia and several others and diplomats said it hopes to swing enough others from Europe behind it for the required number.

Key here are countries like Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, all with strong loyalties to Washington that also are supporters of the U.S. campaign in Iraq. Other potential supporters include West European countries now sitting on the fence over whether to back ElBaradei.

"He continues to enjoy our confidence," one West European diplomat said of ElBaradei.

But then, hedging his comment, he added his country agrees with the consensus among states paying the bulk of UN bills that heads of UN organizations should serve only two terms.

Also crucial to whether ElBaradei will be ousted is who Washington has waiting in the wings.

With candidates from nuclear weapons countries unwanted in the job, any replacement is unlikely to be American. Diplomats also said they doubt the Bush administration can put forward anyone who will find broad acceptance from the IAEA board, which has been skeptical about U.S. efforts to control the direction that the agency takes.

A wild card, played Friday, was the announcement from Washington that U.S. undersecretary of state John Bolton was being replaced. Bolton, an administration hawk, was considered the chief architect of the anti-ElBaradei campaign.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050108/w010842.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isanyonehome
09-01-2005, 13:39
This bothers you why?
Portu Cale
09-01-2005, 13:56
This bothers you why?


Because El Baradei is independent and competent. He says the truth about Iran, not what the USA wanted to listen. So the USA is pushing to put someone that they can manipulate into accusing Iran of enriching Uranium for nukes, since they El Baradei is too independent, and wont do that, since there is not proof of that.
Isanyonehome
09-01-2005, 14:32
Because El Baradei is independent and competent. He says the truth about Iran, not what the USA wanted to listen. So the USA is pushing to put someone that they can manipulate into accusing Iran of enriching Uranium for nukes, since they El Baradei is too independent, and wont do that, since there is not proof of that.


Some people say he is independant, others do not. Do you have any idea who is correct because I certainly dont. Everybody who is voicing opinions(from the press to the US to the people at the UN) has a stake in promoting their own interests, why should I believe any one of the groups involved is more objective than the other?
Jeruselem
09-01-2005, 14:39
I think the Americans wanted the current Australia foreign minister, Alexander Downer, to replace him but he's happy who he is.
Pershikia
09-01-2005, 14:58
Because El Baradei is independent and competent. He says the truth about Iran, not what the USA wanted to listen. So the USA is pushing to put someone that they can manipulate into accusing Iran of enriching Uranium for nukes, since they El Baradei is too independent, and wont do that, since there is not proof of that.

That's not anything new, but thanks anyway.
Dobbs Town
09-01-2005, 18:40
Bump!
Kryozerkia
09-01-2005, 18:43
I think the Americans should stay the fuck out of this. So, an independant doesn't agree with their freakin' warped foreign policy. Cry me a river!
Eutrusca
09-01-2005, 19:26
I think the Americans should stay the fuck out of this. So, an independant doesn't agree with their freakin' warped foreign policy. Cry me a river!
Hmm. Perhaps Americans think YOU should stay the fuck out of this. :D
Dobbs Town
09-01-2005, 19:27
Hmm. Perhaps Americans think YOU should stay the fuck out of this. :D

Yes, well we're all painfully aware of what Americans think...
Eutrusca
09-01-2005, 19:28
Yes, well we're all painfully aware of what Americans think...
Somehow I rather doubt that. You're far too prejudiced to listen ( read ) with any degree of objectivity. :headbang:
Sdaeriji
09-01-2005, 19:57
Somehow I rather doubt that. You're far too prejudiced to listen ( read ) with any degree of objectivity. :headbang:

I see you've met Mr. Kettle, Monsieur Pot.
Axis Nova
09-01-2005, 20:09
In during flamewar.
Kryozerkia
09-01-2005, 20:11
I see you've met Mr. Kettle, Monsieur Pot.
Indeed he has, hasn't he?!
Niccolo Medici
09-01-2005, 20:13
Actually Eutrusca, people ARE painfully aware of the US opinions on this matter. Look at the article again:

They have already tried to directly oust him and failed.
The failed ousting had nothing to do with his ability, just his politics.
They are now attempting to oust him indirectly because he refuses to support US stances on issues, even though he in fact does not support the regimes the US is targeting.

Simply put; the US is trying to oust an independent and put in a yes-man for their policies.

Regardless on how right you think the US's currect policies are, installing a yes-man in a post is a BAD IDEA. After all, independant innovation with a solid grasp of all sides of an argument is the best way to create policy no?

So what are you arguing here? That the US is right for trying to set up a Yes-man in a key post in the War on terror? Wouldn't that jepordize the entire operation, having someone with no mind of their own wielding such power? How is mindless chanting of US policy going to help the world warm to US intervention and goals? How will it help legitimize US actions, when they can't even convince an independant that their actions are the right thing to do?

I fail to understand your point.
Kryozerkia
09-01-2005, 20:16
Niccolo Medici, you put it so eloquantly. I tip my hat to you on this. Very well done.
Sdaeriji
09-01-2005, 20:18
Niccolo Medici, you put it so eloquantly. I tip my hat to you on this. Very well done.

Niccolo's posts are always impressive. I think he's the best poster on NS.
Armed Bookworms
09-01-2005, 20:25
Because El Baradei is independent and competent. He says the truth about Iran, not what the USA wanted to listen. So the USA is pushing to put someone that they can manipulate into accusing Iran of enriching Uranium for nukes, since they El Baradei is too independent, and wont do that, since there is not proof of that.
Bullshit. Firstly, he's the one that "mysteriously" leaked the supposed Al Qaqaa story which turned out to be complete BS. Somehow he managed to "uncover" this the month before the election. Secondly, there is no proof whatsoever that the IAEA strategy is working in Iran, especially since they seem to want to start playing blind man's bluff there.
Eutrusca
09-01-2005, 20:28
Actually Eutrusca, people ARE painfully aware of the US opinions on this matter. Look at the article again:

They have already tried to directly oust him and failed.
The failed ousting had nothing to do with his ability, just his politics.
They are now attempting to oust him indirectly because he refuses to support US stances on issues, even though he in fact does not support the regimes the US is targeting.

Simply put; the US is trying to oust an independent and put in a yes-man for their policies.

Regardless on how right you think the US's currect policies are, installing a yes-man in a post is a BAD IDEA. After all, independant innovation with a solid grasp of all sides of an argument is the best way to create policy no?

So what are you arguing here? That the US is right for trying to set up a Yes-man in a key post in the War on terror? Wouldn't that jepordize the entire operation, having someone with no mind of their own wielding such power? How is mindless chanting of US policy going to help the world warm to US intervention and goals? How will it help legitimize US actions, when they can't even convince an independant that their actions are the right thing to do?

I fail to understand your point.
Um ... perhaps that's because I didn't really have a "point" I was trying to make. I was responding to this comment: "I think the Americans should stay the fuck out of this."

As you may have noted, I tend to respond in a highly negative manner to this sort of innane and marginally insulting post. :D
Celtlund
09-01-2005, 20:37
Because El Baradei is...competent.

:) :) :) ROFL He couldn't find his ass in the dark with a flashlight and a full length mirror on the wall.
Corneliu
09-01-2005, 20:41
Because El Baradei is independent and competent.

He is anything but competent! As for Independent, that can be debatable.

If he is competent then why isn't he doing anything about oh say Iran and umm North Korea?
Andaluciae
09-01-2005, 20:46
In during flamewar.
Portu Cale
09-01-2005, 21:09
:) :) :) ROFL He couldn't find his ass in the dark with a flashlight and a full length mirror on the wall.


People like you said the same thing about Hans blix, guess who turned out right..
Dobbs Town
10-01-2005, 01:59
What the Hell, it's an important story, I'm bumping it back for others to read...
Von Witzleben
10-01-2005, 03:02
Bump
Utopio
10-01-2005, 03:45
As you may have noted, I tend to respond in a highly negative manner to this sort of innane and marginally insulting post.
In an equally inane and marginally insulting way....
Tactical Grace
10-01-2005, 03:53
Well let's see. The US say they want regime change in Iran. They say the issue of its nuclear programme is a vitally important one. Thus it would be helpful if the guy in charge of the IAEA agreed with them. He doesn't.

Clearly they have a problem. You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to see that it makes good sense from the US point of view to replace him with someone more like-minded.
Von Witzleben
10-01-2005, 03:56
Well let's see. The US say they want regime change in Iran. They say the issue of its nuclear programme is a vitally important one. Thus it would be helpful if the guy in charge of the IAEA agreed with them. He doesn't.

Clearly they have a problem. You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to see that it makes good sense from the US point of view to replace him with someone more like-minded.
Such a puppet would also be usefull for future use. Not just in the case of Iran.
Tactical Grace
10-01-2005, 04:02
True. They can do nothing about North Korea of course, because it appears that they actually have nuclear weapons. But there are other countries keeping the nuclear option open, or other countries which it may be useful in future to accuse of pursuing a nuclear weapons programme, whether they are or not, so yes, it would help to have a partisan guy heading the IAEA.

In fact having your man at the head of any international authority is a good thing, if you're into global power games.
Von Witzleben
10-01-2005, 04:03
True. They can do nothing about North Korea of course, because it appears that they actually have nuclear weapons. But there are other countries keeping the nuclear option open, or other countries which it may be useful in future to accuse of pursuing a nuclear weapons programme, whether they are or not, so yes, it would help to have a partisan guy heading the IAEA.

In fact having your man at the head of any international authority is a good thing, if you're into global power games.
Gleichschaltung.
New York and Jersey
10-01-2005, 04:04
I think the Americans should stay the fuck out of this. So, an independant doesn't agree with their freakin' warped foreign policy. Cry me a river!


Ummm..the agency is a UN agency right? The US is apart of the UN right? So why should the UN stay out of it? Are you advocating the US stay out of the UN?
Tactical Grace
10-01-2005, 04:09
Ummm..the agency is a UN agency right? The US is apart of the UN right? So why should the UN stay out of it? Are you advocating the US stay out of the UN?
I wouldn't go that far, but it would be nice if the US knew its place. In other words, not screwing the process, through wiretaps, character assassination and behind-the-scenes maneuvering to install "their man" into positions where the incumbent is too independent.
Niccolo Medici
10-01-2005, 12:11
Niccolo's posts are always impressive. I think he's the best poster on NS.

Thank you! Have a cookie.

Well, if there's another mass-exodus of talented writers, like those after the server switch, I might agree with you ;). But that's last man standing, not best writer to begin with.

Until then, I'll settle for "Worth reading" status and the occasional ego stoke on the "who's good at debating" threads.