It would have been too farfetched for Iran to expect impartiality from a UN body. After all, the Iran-Iraq war should have been a lesson. When Iranians were being killed by chemical weapons financed by the U.S. and its allies, the United Nations refused to intervene for three years. Why should the IAEA, a UN body, be any different? It does not make sense to continue supporting Iran when the U.S. makes the most contribution to its coffers and its pleasure or displeasure at the Director General goes a long way. Ahmadinejad should have known better when he appealed to the UN's sense of justice in New York. What was it that President Bush was desperately trying to articulate:
The IAEA resolution adopted on September 24, 2005 regarding the 'implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran' will long be remembered as an infamous day when hypocrisy and discrimination made a mockery of legal institutions so as to oppress a nation fighting for its rights.
The IAEA and the Board of Governors, yet another political tool of the American foreign policy, will do well to recall its concerns about the illicit nuclear activities of South Korea, which involved plutonium and uranium. Seoul had repeatedly stressed it had no intention of building nuclear weapons. However, in September 2004, the IAEA team returned to South Korea for the second time in a month to continue investigations into the country's clandestine nuclear experiments. The inspectors were to investigate why South Korea failed to declare three separate sites for the production of uranium metal which was used as a raw material for some of the experiments. However, through hard lobbying, this staunch ally of the U.S. was not referred to the Security Council. The whole matter was conveniently hushed up.
Mr. ElBaradei who speaks in metaphors, his most famous one being "As long as you continue to have countries dangling a cigarette from their mouth, you cannot tell everybody not to smoke with a high degree of credibility", should be reminded of his own native country's illicit activities. Egypt has said it failed to disclose the full extent of its nuclear activities to the UN's atomic watchdog, but insist that their program is peaceful. These revelations came after Western diplomats visited a laboratory in Egypt used to reprocess plutonium. They insisted that Egypt was fully co-operating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and its nuclear program was peaceful. Western diplomats recently said IAEA inspectors in Egypt had visited a laboratory used to reprocess plutonium. A senior official from Egypt's atomic energy program said that the IAEA had asked it to "take some corrective steps in declaring research activities".
Egypt is one of the dictators that is 'fully compliant' with the U.S., as such, it can process plutonium used for 'peaceful purposes' and not declare its research activities - in violation of the Treaty. Both these incidents were forgotten by the media within 24 hours. Neither one was hauled in front of the IAEA Board. Course, neither has oil. U.S. already has troops on S. Korea soil and it has Egypt wrapped around its finger.
In short, if one is America's friend (and EU-3), one can violate the NPT and the IAEA will look the other way, unless one is not a signatory, such as Israel, in which case America will reward it handsomely. Ultimately, friendships determine "non-compliance" and not the law. The resolution passed today, is full of factual errors, and so much room for legal arguments, but given that it is a political stick, why take up time addressing it?
1. BBC online September 19, 2004. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4045999.stm
2. Reuters, 24 June 2004.
... Payvand News - 9/25/05 ... --