IAEA rewarded for failure: critics
http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051007162305.9u14p060.html
PARIS
(AFP) Oct 07, 2005Green activists
voiced anger Friday after the UN's atom watchdog was awarded the 2005 Nobel
Peace Prize, saying the agency had worsened the peril of global nuclear
proliferation rather than eased
it.Governments around the world sent
congratulations to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its boss
Mohamed ElBaradei. But among environmentalists and anti-nuclear campaigners, the
response was a loud jeer for an agency they have long despised as a
patsy.
Many said the IAEA's credibility had been
destroyed by its dual role.
One of its
tasks is to promote peaceful use of civilian nuclear power among countries that
sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Yet it also has to police that technology --
while respecting national sovereignty -- to ensure it is not subverted for
military use.
As a result of this
contradiction, these critics said, the agency had been ignored, conned or
sidelined for decades by nations desperate to build a
Bomb.
"There are many reasons why it
should not have received the Nobel Peace Prize," said Gerd Leipold, executive
director of Greenpeace
International.
"The IAEA has spent
nearly 50 years proliferating the very technology and nuclear materials that
have given many countries the ability to develop nuclear weapons, including
Iraq, North Korea and Iran."
A French
group, Sortir du Nucleaire (Get Out of Nuclear) noted that the IAEA had been
unable to prevent India, Pakistan and Israel -- countries in tense regions with
a history of recent war -- from joining Britain, China, France, Russia and the
United States in the nuclear-armed
club.
And the latest standoff
embroiling Iran and North Korea, which face suspicions that they have
nuclear-weapons ambitions, "has confirmed the IAEA's patent failure," it
said.
George Monbiot, a radical author
and commentator with the British daily The Guardian, said the 2005 prize to the
IAEA and its boss "was a reward for failure in an age of rampant
proliferation."
He saw a parallel with
the controversial awarding of the 1973 Peace Prize to Henry Kissinger. The
former US secretary of state and national security advisor helped extend the
Vietnam War to Laos and Cambodia before negotiating the conflict's
end.
"The currency (of the Nobel Peace
Prize) is beginning to be devalued," Monbiot
said.
The response from Russian
environmental groups was particularly
virulent.
They were incensed at what
they saw as the IAEA's complacency after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and its
conclusions that the consequences had been
exaggerated.
Another source of anger is
at ElBaradei's plans, sketched in 2004, under which up to seven countries -- led
by Russia -- would store nuclear waste from countries that could not store or
recyle their own waste.
"The awarding
of the Peace Prize to the IAEA is the biggest error in the history of the Nobel
Committee," said Vladimir Sliviak of the ecology group
Ecodefence.
"Never has the Nobel Peace
Prize been given to such a compromised organisation, working for the
proliferation of dual-use nuclear
technologies."
The IAEA "is an inhuman
organisation and is awarded a prize," environmentalist Alexei Yablokov said
bitterly.
The Nobel jury has rewarded nuclear
non-proliferation twice before in the past two decades, also on major
anniversaries of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in
1945.
In 1995, the coveted award was
given to the Pugwash group and its founder Joseph Rotblat, and in 1985,
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War received the
prize.
In addition to their traditional
worries about nuclear proliferation, environmentalists are concerned that the
civilian nuclear industry -- dealt a crippling blow by Chernobyl -- is on the
rise once more.
Nuclear power is being
eagerly pursued in China and India to help meet surging energy needs at a time
of expensive, vulnerable oil
supplies.
And in Europe, some countries
that vowed to scrap or freeze their nuclear power programmes are now discreetly
looking at reviving them to meet their commitments on greenhouse-gas pollution
from fossil fuels.
Posted: Tue - October 11, 2005 at 01:08 PM