Your browser (Internet Explorer 7 or lower) is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites. Learn how to update your browser.


Int’l Atomic Energy Agency Wins Nobel Prize: Anti-Proliferation But Bad Legitimization of Pro-Nuclear Promotional Agency

October 2005 marks the month when the International Atomic Energy Agency and its chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, won the Noble Peace Prize for their efforts to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons. This is good and bad.
Good because it goes against the rigid warlike policies of our incorrigible leaders who tried to have ElBaradei fired because he spoke truth to power
about finding no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, pre-invasion 2003. Bad because it
legitimizes nuclear power and the international agency that pushes it around the globe.

Remember that the original nuclear power plant was used to produce plutonium to make nuclear bombs. Then someone decided it would be a great way to boil water to produce steam to turn a turbine to produce electricity. But WHOOPS! about all that messy essentially eternally toxic
nuclear waste generated that mankind still has
not found a way to safely dispose of anywhere yet.

“A few days before Bush launched “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” ElBaradei revealed that
the US had relied on fabricated documents to support its Niger claim [re Iraq purchasing
uranium for a nuclear bomb-making program]. This revelation raised the ire of Bush,
who had included the false Niger assertion in his state of the union address in order to
whip up support for his impending illegal invasion of Iraq. [Concerning which a special prosecutor is investigating Karl Rove and VP Dick Cheney’s office right now, for attempting to discredit Ambassador Wilson’s statement that Iran was indeed NOT doing what George Bush claimed via Niger, and leaking the identity/name of Wilson’s-CIA-agent-wife Valerie Plame to the press: an illegal, and irresponsible act, as most, if not all, CIA agents will most likely tell you.]

In the run-up to the war, ElBaradei said, “No,
we are not finding any evidence of
weapons of mass destruction.” He added courageously, “No, we are not going to give the
US the kind of report they wanted that would have served as a legal justification
for war against Iraq.”

ElBaradei is the first UN official to call for Israel to eliminate its secret nuclear
weapons program. He advocated a nuclear-free Middle East, consistent with
Security Council Resolution 687 that ended the Gulf War in 1991. In Article 14,
the resolution spells out the need to create a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction
across the Middle East. Ironically, this US-crafted resolution created enhanced
powers for the IAEA and arms inspection verification.

“We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction,” ElBaradei said, “yet
morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security – and indeed continue to refine their capacities and postulate plans for their use.”

ElBaradei was likely referring to the hypocrisy of the United States, which continues to expand its nuclear arsenal and promulgate policies that would
allow it to pre-emptively use its nukes, all the while setting its sights on countries like Iran and North Korea for their nuclear programs.

[Phyllis] Bennis [of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC]
hopes the peace prize will encourage ElBaradei to call directly on the five nuclear powers (who also happen to be the veto-bearing members
of the Security Council), and particularly the United States, to give up their nuclear arsenals, as required by the Non Proliferation Treaty [NPT].

Under the NPT, countries that don’t have nuclear weapons agree not to acquire them, in exchange for the promise from nuclear states to progressively disarm. Disarmament and non-proliferation are
two sides of the same coin or two contractual promises exchanged.
Thus, when the Bush administration unilaterally decides not to disarm, but instead to develop and even contemplate using new nukes, it is in
flagrant violation of the NPT. The US cannot “choose” non-proliferation
over disarmament.

Tragically, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation were omitted
from the Outcome Document at last month’s UN Summit that marked the 60th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. It was the
Bush administration that insisted on the omission.” *#*

For your information, the five NPT signed-on nations above mentioned are the USA, UK, France, Russia and China. Israel, Pakistan and India
somehow are not members, though they have developed nuclear weapons.
North Korea has ?temporarily withdrawn from the NPT to entertain its current shenanigans about having the right to develop their own
nuclear weapons program.

Alas, if you have nuclear power, you have both the cover and the actual manufacturial capability to produce or acquire plutonium or uranium to
get into the arms race that some sad day may end in apocalypse. Each nuclear power plant of the average 1000 megawatt size produces between
400 and 1000 POUNDS of plutonium per year. A plutonium powered bomb requires between 10-20 pounds of plutonium to be produced.

Briefly going back to the NPT and our blundering Bush administration, it seems that it is OK for the USA to sell nuclear power plants to
non-NPT-member India, while allowing India to continue to produce their fissile
materials for their bombs – – ostensibly to counter-balance Chinaís influence roundabout the Indian subcontinent, and then yell and scream about bad
evil North Korea having the nerve to want to do the same: make bombs, after
withdrawing/not being a member of the NPT. Meanwhile, the Bush brains forgot
that members of the House energy committee already had approved a measure
making it ILLEGAL to export nuclear technology to India.

And then what about NPT non-member Pakistan? That be-earthquaked nation
might want us to supply them with nuclear technology, nuclear plants, because,
well, we did that for their nuclear rival on the subcontinent, India.

From the Center For Defense Information [CDI] July/August 2005 issue of
ëThe Defense Monitorí :

The NPT ó which is founded on a simple but powerful agreement that nuclear states will provide access to peaceful nuclear technology
to countries that forgo such weapons ó has served the U.S. national interest since it was signed in 1970.
When it came into effect, there were five nuclear weapons states, and it was estimated that the number would grow to 25 by the end
of the [twentieth] century. Thanks in large part to the NPT, the actual number of nuclear powers in the year 2005 is just nine.
According to Mohamed El-Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, more than 40 countries have peaceful nuclear programs that could be retooled to produce weapons. That so many of
them have not done so is testimony to the effectiveness of the carrots and sticks in the NPT.
If Congress accepts the logic of the Bush administration and allows our government to help build nuclear energy plants in India on the grounds that it is an ally, what is to stop China from
offering the same support to its allies? It is only a matter of days before Pakistan ó another country with nuclear weapons that has refused to sign the NPT and thus has been denied certain types of
nuclear technology ó demands to receive the same special treatment that India has.”

This is from an article written by Hon. Lawrence Korb, Senior Advisor to CDI, and Peter Ogden, of the Center For American Progress available at:

Many of us are disturbed that although this non-proliferation side of the story
is commendable, the recognition for a Noble Peace Prize belies the true work
of the IAEA: promoting nuclear power and things nuclear, while, yes, trying
to prevent such intentions from blowing up the planet. Here is an excerpt from
lifelong anti-nuclear activist Russell Hoffmanís thoughts on the implications
of awarding the IAEA the prize:

“This award amounts to a wholehearted endorsement of nuclear power by the Nobel Committee.
It amounts to a wholehearted endorsement of the lie that at most a few thousand people
have died because of Chernobyl, when in fact the deaths are surely 10 or 100 times higher
than the IAEA ever would admit [maybe a FEW hundred times]. And the lie that
nobody died because of Three Mile Island. And the lie that nobody died because of
EVERY nuclear power plant around the world — which together are creating about
50 NEW tons of nuclear waste every day, which the IAEA endorses and supports and supposedly regulates. Their idea of regulation is to allow as much nuclear material to be released into the environment as is necessary to continue
the PROFITABLE operation of nuclear power plants! (This policy even has a technical
term: ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable).)

This award by the Nobel Committee amounts to an endorsement of the continued creation of ever-increasing piles of dangerous, terrorist-targeted
nuclear waste from nuclear power plants, whose byproduct is the very same bomb material the IAEA claims to be opposing, and has hoodwinked
the world into thinking it is stopping the proliferation of.

This is an endorsement of genocide. This is an endorsement of dishonesty.
This is an endorsement of the routine radioactive pollution of our environment by the nuclear industry. This is an endorsement of the destruction of the human genome. This is an endorsement of self-serving, secretive committees of insiders making vital decisions which affect us all.

This is a shame.


Russell Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA”

Thank you for your thoughts, Mr. Hoffman.

While the IAEA promotes nuclear power, this technology obviously can lead to nuclear bombs, as
it was the original technology to produce the plutonium for these bombs, when we were making them in the 1940’s and thereafter to fight first Hitler, then communism, now ourselves.


Leave a comment