So Mohammed ElBaradei of the IAEA is a Nobel laureate. This is disappointing. While I don't think that the group's work and charge are undeserving of recognition, or that what they are doing is not of the utmost importance in the political games we play, but I don't feel that the track record of the group is worthy of this honor. I'm not referring to Iraq.
Of the nuclear news in the last few years or so, the IAEA has demonstrated not a lack of will or means, but a lack of results. Iran, North Korea, A.Q. Khan. Libya closed their nuclear shop because we intercepted a shipment of materials and strongarmed that result. The IAEA, while necessary, is just another bureaucracy. And we all know the many problems of bureaucracy.
I know the Nobel committee likes to send political messages, especially to the U.S. Like when Jimmy Carter won. While he had a record of deserving the prize, the reasons the committee gave were purely political and aimed directly at President Bush as we discussed the run-up to the Iraq War. This seems equally as political, considering the U.S. tried unsuccessfully to not renew ElBaradei's term at the IAEA earlier this year. It also seems like the committee is making a point regarding the inspector issue in Iraq.
And while the Peace Prize is the only Nobel prize that can be given during ongoing work, it seems past history has shown us that waiting for results of a "peace movement" is prudent. Like the mistake of giving the Prize to Arafat. For peace!
So by my own argument, it might be best to wait for the program to end before rewarding Sen. Lugar and former Sen. Nunn for their work to round up all the missing nuclear material around the world. Same with Bono for all his work to raise awareness on the issues plaguing Africa.
I don't know who would have been a better choice this year, but I would not have voted for this one.
4 comments:
The other front runners, from what I read, were Bush and Blair.
The hair on my neck literally rose at the thought of either of those men winning it.
Given that you still believe there were WMD's in Iraq, I think you're letting your own politics get in the way of seeing the work of the IAEA accredited.
And as for Bono, I'd agree that his efforts should be validated by the Nobel Committee only with more time.
Jeff, I said in the post that I think the IAEA is important, and is a necessary governmental body. I do think there are WMD in Iraq and that much has been proven time and time again. There were not nuclear weapons like we were told, but there were many WMD that were found. And by the way, the IAEA thought there were nukes just like we did.
The IAEA, the inspectors, were given the runaround, taken to places in Iraq that were widely speculated to have recently contained banned weapons. It was smoke and mirrors. There was also evidence that the Iraqis knew where the inspectors were going ahead of time. I'm not saying the IAEA didn't find obvious weapons caches; I'm not even saying anything about Iraq.
The problem is the IAEA's track record which I already wrote about in the original post. They have not had a great couple of years, performance wise, and my argument was that they were selected for political reasons vs. actually deserving the prize for this work at this time.
As for Bono, are you saying that he should get the Prize after a few years, to see some results? If so, do you feel the same way about this year's prize to the IAEA, considering their "work" is not "done," though it may never be...?
JG
arafat's award has forever tarnished the nobel peace prize in my mind. the nobel committee's political games are despicable. They're rewarding a *method* (an ineffective one, as JG points out)for regulating nuclear weapons.
Alright, your buddy Jeff's making you look bad. I'll give you a topic if it'll help. Tax-relief for war widows.
Post a Comment