The Hindu : Opinion / Editorials : A VINDICTIVE MOVE

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Dec 20, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - Editorials

A VINDICTIVE MOVE

THE UNITED STATES has launched an ill-judged and bloody-minded campaign to deny the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed ElBaradei, a third term after his current tenure expires in 2005. In justification of its campaign, Washington cites the "Geneva rules" that are generally observed by the 14 countries that provide the bulk of the funds for the various United Nations institutions. According to the U.S., these rules stipulate that those who head U.N. agencies should not serve more than two terms. However, the commonly held view is that these so-called rules have no binding force. Most countries represented on the IAEA's board of governors have a positive assessment of Dr. ElBaradei's performance in office since his appointment in 1997 and are prepared to set aside the convention. Under these circumstances the U.S. might not be able to win the support of 12 countries on the 35-member board so as to be in a position to block the Egyptian technocrat's re-appointment. As an alternative, Washington is looking for a candidate who can oppose the incumbent in an election. However, if the recent voting record of the board is an indication, these efforts might not produce the desired result.

The U.S. recently failed to persuade the IAEA board to condemn Iran for pursuing a nuclear weapon programme and to have the matter referred to the U.N. Security Council. Washington believes it would have succeeded had the IAEA chief categorically stated that Iran had violated its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. (According to reports that have not been denied, the Central Intelligence Agency tapped Dr. ElBaradei's telephones in search of evidence that he was hiding vital information about the Iranian programme.) However, other members of the board believe that the IAEA chief did a commendable job during tough negotiations with Teheran. While Dr. ElBaradei took the view that the Iranians did not pose an imminent proliferation threat, he consistently pressed them to dispel all doubts. The IAEA chief worked closely with a troika of European Foreign Ministers to secure an agreement that led to the suspension of Iran's uranium enrichment activities. France, Germany and the United Kingdom now believe that they can provide the incentives necessary for making Iran give up any plans it might have to acquire nuclear weapons. These countries are not likely to support any change in the leadership of the IAEA at this juncture since that will complicate the process of arriving at an amicable settlement.

The opposition to the U.S. plans is at least partly attributable to the widespread perception that the real reason for the move against the IAEA chief is quite different from what is cited. Dr. ElBaradei incurred the displeasure of the U.S. administration when he certified that Iraq did not have a nuclear weapon programme — and thereby negated a principal justification advanced for the illegal invasion. The call for his ouster became more strident after the IAEA announced several hundred tonnes of explosive material were missing from an Iraqi depot because the invading U.S.-led forces had failed to secure the site. Opinion-makers sympathetic to the Republican Party accused the IAEA chief of engineering this supposed leak at the peak of the campaign season in order to damage President George Bush's prospects for re-election. The Bush administration, which has a record of punishing those who oppose its schemes, should not be surprised if others believe it is acting against Dr. ElBaradei out of vindictiveness.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

A PROMISE BROKEN

A VINDICTIVE MOVE

Palestine after Arafat

Democracy in the dock

Time to get tough

Re-engaging religion

Safety on trains

Legend in her lifetime

Bane of globalisation?