| vs. | |
Recently, Washington was the scene of another round of absurdist congressional political theatre: The secretary general of the IAEA, Yuki Amano was 'grilled' by US lawmakers, who sternly demanded he disclose details about the implementation of the deal the US had made with Iran. Predicatably, Amano referred to the IAEA's obligation to confidentiality.
Because the details are confidential, and they knew Amano wouldn't, couldn't disclose anything, they were able to fill the resulting vacuum with hot air. That was the very point of the exercise.
And so, the phalanx of pro-Israel/anti-deal congress critters were "not reassured" (Bob Corker, R – TN) or "worried" (Bob Menendez, D – NJ), and one could be forgiven to add "deeply cynical" or "dumb as a bag of hammers" to the list of descriptions of congressional distress.
IAEA confidentiality
Confidentiality is essential for effective cooperation between the IAEA with the Iranians. The US and every other member state enjoy the same privileges of confidentuality as Iran does i.e. the confidentiality is entirely normal and necessary.
The US wouldn't be pleased, and it would adversely affect US cooperation, if the IAEA released its confidential details about inspections of DoE sites to the Russians or Chinese. Amano is right that if the IAEA shared such details, not just for Iran, states would cease cooperation, rendering the agencies' work impossible.
Antiwar's Jason Ditz points out that
"Iran has complained that US inspectors working for IAEA have previously acted as de facto spies, leading them to insist the IAEA maintain a level of secrecy on their legal activities, particularly as they relate to conventional military programs."
The work of the IAEA has gotten a sharply political dimension over Iraq and Iran, given the extent to which political players have seized on its work to further their own political goals (notably regime change). The IAEA must be one of the primary espionage and penetration targets for western and in particular Israeli intelligence services. Neutrality is crucial for the IAEA being effective. Confidentiality is part of that.
What the IAEA is
The IAEA is an international agency, founded to implement the IAEA statute and it was later tasked to implement the NPT. It's employees are international public servants, sworn to implement these treaties. That means that their mandate is bound by what the member states have comitted themselves to under the treaty. That is the limit of their mandate, and that limited mandate is a reflection of the sovereignty of the signing member states.
That said, the IAEA does not answer to Congress. Even if the IAEA answered to the US, which it doesn't, it wouldn't answer to Congress. They answer to the executive branch of the US government which is its 'contracting partner' so to speak. It's a bit of a mystery to me why Amano was speaking with Congress to begin with. If Congress wants anwers on the deal, they need to go to Obama, not invite Amano.
| vs. | |
Meanwhile in Israel, the sabres keep rattering. Israel's defence minister Moshe Ya’alon stuck to the line that, lack of evidence notwithstanding, Iran's nuclear program is a military one. He suggested a direction which Israel could take, saying
"I'm not responsible for the lives of Iranian scientists."
The Israeli way of bragging ... Jason Ditz comments that
"Though Ya’alon did not dispute the assessment by Israeli intelligence agencies that Iran isn’t working on nuclear weapons, he talked up the idea of threatening to attack Iran if they don’t dismantle their civilian program, saying Iran should view complete abandonment of nuclear technology as a matter of survival."
Israel has not signed or ratified the NPT, but joined the IAEA because it's so damn practical to reap the benefits* that come with that. Israel demands that Iran, an NPT member state, abandons its inalienable right** to use nulear energy for peaceful purposes, or else.
What the IAEA does, or "How the Atom Benefits Life"
The usual attribute for the IAEA offered by US media to the American audience is that the IAEA is a 'nuclear watchdog', suggesting it is some sort of police. It is far more than that. As far as oversight is concerned, it's job is safeguarding nuclear materials and making sure there is no diversion of declared material for non-peaceful purposes.
In focusing on that IAEA's 'watchdog' role over allegations that Iran's nuclear program has a possible military dimension, it is very easily overlooked that the IAEA's objectives in Article II and II of its statute are about facilitation, not policing:
"ARTICLE II: Objectives
The Agency shall 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.
ARTICLE III: Functions
A. The Agency is authorized:
1. To encourage and assist research on, and development and practical application of, atomic energy for peaceful uses throughout the world; and, if requested to do so, to act as an intermediary for the purposes of securing the performance of services or the supplying of materials, equipment, or facilities by one member of the Agency for another; and to perform any operation or service useful in research on, or development or practical application of, atomic energy for peaceful purposes;
2. To make provision, in accordance with this Statute, for materials, services, equipment, and facilities to meet the needs of research on, and development and practical application of, atomic energy for peaceful purposes, including the production of electric power, with due consideration for the needs of the under-developed areas of the world;
3. To foster the exchange of scientific and technical information on peaceful uses of atomic energy;
4. To encourage the exchange of training of scientists and experts in the field of peaceful uses of atomic energy; ..."
That should amply explain why Israel was so keen to join the IAEA. It is part of the IAEA's job to help states, including Israel and Iran, to access nuclear technology and to benefit from the various and diverse blessings of civilian use of nuclear technology. That means that the IAEA is an equal opportunity facilitator to whom Israel and Iran are peers, equally deserving of support.
That was the very point of Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace program. Just to get an idea what else the IAEA does:
The Israeli government's idea is that Iran should limit itself to receiving all of this, if at all, from the outside and not develop these technologies on its own - because the Israelis don't trust them, assert a possible military dimension or rather, don't want them to develop economically because that would give them power.
It's the modern equivalent of demanding them not to master fire.
by confusedponderer
* ... like access to [dual use] nuclear technology, materials and expertise etc pp
** The full text of Article IV 1. NPT reads: "Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes".