We should also take a look at ElBaradei’s November 2003 report. The independent diplomats at the IAEA stated that the use of words with double meanings and ambiguous remarks that are against the spirit of the IAEA treaties and agreements has been a major factor behind the delay in the finalization of Iran’s nuclear dossier.
For example, the sentence: “We have not found any evidence indicating that Iran’s unreported nuclear activities were meant for military purposes” legally means that all the evidence shows that Iran’s nuclear activities are meant for peaceful purposes. However, he has paved the way for the U.S. to create ambiguities about Iran’s nuclear dossier by using the sentence: “Further time is needed to verify the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear activities.”
At another point, ElBaradei uses the word “concealment” where he could have said “reporting problem”. Concealment is basically a deliberate and organized measure meant to conceal an action, while reporting problem indicates a country’s failure to deliver a complete report for various reasons. Since Iran’s breaches were not violations of the NPT but a reporting problem, using the expression concealment prepared the ground for the U.S. to take advantage of the issue politically. The illogical remarks of the U.S. representative to the IAEA Board’s previous session are proof of this.
Another issue is the simultaneous use of the two expressions “breach” and “failure”. In ElBaradei’s previous reports, such as the one issued in June, the word failure was used, but after Iran presented the agency a complete report of its nuclear program, he used the word breach. ElBaradei said that he obtained the information through inspections. However, the majority of the Vienna-based independent experts believed the word breach was added to his report as a result of U.S. pressure.
No treaty prohibits uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes and Iran has not done otherwise. In addition, in reference to the nuclear installations in Natanz, ElBaradei’s report stated that “enriched uranium has been discovered in Iran” while the management sector of the agency’s inspection team said: “Traces of enriched uranium were found in the Natanz nuclear cycle waste.”
Also, at beginning of the IAEA Board session in November, ElBaradei said that Iran’s past actions showed that further time was required to clarify the accuracy of the information presented to the IAEA and to prove its nuclear program is meant for peaceful purposes. These remarks created an atmosphere of mistrust toward Iran among members of the IAEA Board of Governors.
According to the agency’s regulations and the safeguard agreements, Iran’s nuclear dossier should not be referred to the UN Security Council at the current stage. The NPT outlines a procedure entailing various stages for members that fail to abide by one of the terms of the treaty. The IAEA is first required to suspend the signatory state’s privileges. The agency can only refer a country’s nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council for punitive measures if the country continues non-compliance with the terms of the NPT. In addition, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been deprived of its NPT privileges, but ElBaradei has done nothing to remedy the situation.
According to Inspection Agreement 153 between Iran and the IAEA, there was no need to inspect or monitor many of Iran’s activities mentioned in the report. A controversial issue in this regard was the p-2 centrifuge that did not require inspecting for two reasons: (1) it was genuinely in an experimental stage, and (2) it did not need inspection according to Inspection Agreement 153.
Illogically, ElBaradei repeatedly magnified the issue of the unreported nuclear projects in Natanz and Arak. After CNN reported the propagandistic remarks of a member of the terrorist group Monafeqin Khalq Organization (MKO) in 2002, ElBaradei stated that he was completely aware of all of Iran’s nuclear activities, adding that the CNN revelation was nothing new. According to Inspection Agreement 214 between Iran and the IAEA, Iran was not required to announce a large part of its nuclear activities, even under the term “nuclear installations” as newly defined in the additional protocol.
In addition, IAEA reports should be based on official information from the member country or information obtained through the agency’s inspection teams rather than from irresponsible and unofficial sources such as any third country or the Monafeqin terrorist group.
It seems that ElBaradei has forgotten that many of Iran’s research activities and scientific efforts in the area of nuclear technology did not use nuclear materials. The fact that a complete report on these activities was presented to the IAEA should have been enough to demonstrate Iran’s goodwill toward the IAEA director and gain his trust.
None of the IAEA articles of association or safeguard agreements have conditioned monitoring on the cooperation and reporting of the member states but have assigned this responsibility to the agency’s inspection teams. Thus, the agency’s failure to make complete inspections does not indicate a breach or failure on the part of a member country.
However, ElBaradei has always been inconsistent in regard to Iran’s nuclear dossier. At one time he is neutral, at another time he leans toward Iran, then he acts like a member of the U.S. delegation to the IAEA Board, and then he seems independent again. If he would have remained independent and neutral toward Iran’s nuclear dossier the finalization of the case would not have been delayed to this extent.
ElBaradei has never explained why he didn’t order the IAEA secretariat to adopt an impartial stance. Why didn’t he try to depoliticize the IAEA? Why does he remain silent in regard to the one-sided and false reports published under the name of IAEA officials? And why doesn’t he try to clarify the IAEA position and win Tehran’s confidence instead of constantly asking Iran for transparency?
In conclusion, I return to the unofficial conversation of the Egyptian diplomat mentioned earlier. In the nuclear chess meant to deprive Iran of advanced nuclear technology, ElBaradei has always been a grey player.
However, ElBaradei and the agency are now being put to the test, a test which will present the world either a good or bad model of cooperation with the IAEA.
ElBaradei should take into account the fact that world public opinion views a person or organization following orders from Washington in the same light as it views the U.S., with its arrogant claims to being a country which has promoted world peace and prevented the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
HL/MS/HG
End
MNA
Your Comment