The Week the IAEA Applied a Double Standard

By: Gareth Porter – Truthout

In 2004, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) revealed that a member state had violated its Safeguards Agreement by carrying out covert uranium conversion and enrichment activities and plutonium experiments for more than two decades. The nature of certain of those enrichment activities, moreover, raised legitimate suspicions of interest in a nuclear weapons program.

The state was found to have lied to the IAEA even when it began investigating these suspicious activities, claiming that its laser enrichment research did not involve any use of nuclear material.

If that sounds like a description of Iran's troubled relationship with the IAEA up to 2004, that's because it bears striking resemblance to it. In fact, however, it is a description of the deception of the IAEA by the government of South Korea.

There was just one major difference between the South Korean and Iranian cases: Iran never enriched uranium at a level that could only represent an interest in nuclear weapons, but South Korea did.

Yet the IAEA treated Iran as a state to be investigated indefinitely, after failing to give South Korea even a slap on the wrist.

Even more remarkable is the fact that the two cases were the subject of IAEA reports issued within the same week in November 2004.

Three months before the report on its nuclear activities was published, South Korea admitted doing everything in violation of its Safeguards Agreement that Iran was found to have done up to 2003.

In the early 1980's, South Korea had carried out uranium conversion in a facility that was kept secret from the IAEA. It had also secretly extracted plutonium from a hot cell, and had carried out at least 10 covert uranium enrichment experiments from 1993 through 2000 using undeclared natural uranium metal.

South Korea had used 3.5 kg of natural uranium metal for its unreported enrichment experiments; Iran had used 8.0 kg of natural uranium for the same kind of experiments.

But by far the most important finding by the IAEA was that, during a series of covert experiments in uranium enrichment using atomic vapor laser isolate separation (AVLIS) in 2000, Korean scientists enriched the uranium to 77 percent. South Korea finally admitted that experiment in its August 2004 declaration to the IAEA.

"Not only did they have an undeclared uranium-enrichment program, but they were actually making something close to bomb-grade, so you have to conclude someone wanted to develop a capability to make nuclear weapons," said David Albright of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security after the Korean violations were revealed.

Despite covert activities that could only be reasonably interpreted as evidence of an intention to develop nuclear weapons, however, Seoul was given what amounted to a free pass. .

After its August 2004 confidential admission to its covert activities, South Korea mounted an aggressive diplomatic offensive, aimed at avoiding any legal consequences.

First, South Korean officials put pressure on IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradei not even to disclose the enrichment in his report to the Governing Board. The South Koreans threatened to undermine El Baradei's reelection bid, according to a Nov. 25, 2004 Washington Post story.

El Baradei was well aware that South Korea's ally, the George W. Bush administration, was seeking to oust El Baradei, because of his refusal to conform to U.S. policies toward Iraq and Iran.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration had made no secret of the fact it wanted the IAEA Board of Governors to call for Iran to be reported to the U.N. Security Council.

U.S. officials understood that the South Korean covert enrichment and other violations were, if anything, worse than those of Iran. At least some officials were prepared to support a resolution in the IAEA Governing Board to send Korea's case to the Security Council in order to establish a precedent that could then be applied to Iran, according to the Post story.

But the British, French and Germans were negotiating with Iran on an agreement under which Tehran would maintain its suspension of uranium enrichment, and they were threatening to send the Iranian file to the Security Council if Iran did not agree.

Given those negotiations, El Baradei felt no need to write a report that would be the basis of a resolution from the IAEA Board of Governors in late November 2004 to refer the South Korean case to the U.N. Security Council.

El Baradei's Nov. 11, 2004 report on South Korea confirmed that enrichment had gone as high as 77 percent but did not raise the obvious question of whether its covert nuclear activities had been military-related.

It recounted without comment the South Korean authorities' explanation that both the plutonium and uranium enrichment experiments had been "performed without the knowledge or authorization of the Government".

Given the fact that South Korea had admitted that the covert uranium
enrichment had been carried out by no less than 14 government scientists, an IAEA investigation was obviously in order. But the report gave no hint that there was any need to find out who had authorized it and why.

In effect, El Baradei's report on South Korea effectively eliminated the issue from the agency's agenda.

Three days after the report, Iran reached agreement with the Europeans on a
voluntary suspension of enrichment and more negotiations. Since there was no chance of getting the Iranian case referred to the U.N. Security Council,
Secretary of State Colin Powell told the South Koreans at a meeting in Chile
that the United States was now prepared to "accept Seoul's explanation" for
its covert enrichment to bomb-grade levels.

That clearly signaled that the United States had decided against a resolution to send the South Korean case to the Security Council after the European agreement with Iran.

The subject of South Korea's violations of its Safeguards Agreement was
never raised again at an IAEA meeting. In 2007, an IAEA Safeguards report
said the agency was "able to clarify all issues relating to past undeclared
activities".

It offered no explanation for the enrichment to bomb-grade levels and the
obvious official falsehoods surrounding the activities, or for its own
acquiescence in it.

In contrast to El Baradei's lack of curiosity about the obviously suspect
official South Korean explanations for its bomb-grade enrichment, his report
on Iran, issued four days later, concluded that it would "take longer than
in normal circumstances" to "conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear
materials or activities in Iran".

The report suggested the IAEA would continue to pursue what it called "open source reports relating to dual use equipment and materials" in Iran. That meant that any technology, not matter how innocent, would now be treated as evidence of an Iranian covert nuclear weapons program.

The double standard of treatment of the South Korean and Iranian cases implied that the United States had hard intelligence that Iran had exhibited an interest in nuclear weapons, whereas South Korea had not.

However, the closest thing to such evidence in U.S. possession was a set of documents of uncertain provenance and authenticity.
On the other hand, nuclear physicists working in the Korean nuclear program, who had been recruited by the CIA, had reported in the mid-1970's that South Korea was carrying out a clandestine nuclear weapons program.

The stark contrast between the treatment of the Iranian and South Korean cases by the IAEA Secretariat and its Board of Governors is the most dramatic evidence of a politically motivated nuclear double standard practiced by the agency and its Governing Board, dominated by the United States.

And as the episode showed, that double standard essentially reflected the political-military interests of the U.S. government.

The USA Britain and France Have Hijacked the IAEA

By: Stewart Brennan

Mohammed El Baradei, was pushed out of the I.A.E.A. (International Atomic Energy Agency) by exterior political influences that have their sights on forcing a one sided agreement in regards to the Iranian pursuit of nuclear energy.

Mohammed El Baradei, was the director general of the I.A.E.A. from 1997 to 2009 succeeding Hans Blix who headed the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) that found no evidence for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a report both the Americans & British ignored before their 2003 criminal act of war on Iraq.

ElBaradei disputed the U.S. rationale for the 2003 invasion of Iraq from the time of the 2002 Iraq disarmament crisis, when he, along with Hans Blix, led a team of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. ElBaradei told the UN Security Council in March 2003 that documents purporting to show that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from Niger were not authentic.

Mr. Baradei also confirmed after repeated inspections that Iran was pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and found no evidence of them building Nuclear Weapons. These statements have angered Western Leaders who seemed determined by any means necessary to convince us that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Mr. Baradei also criticized Israel for not opening its nuclear sites to IAEA inspection. This position of standing up for the principals of equality and fairness by applying International Law to all Countries in matters of the IAEA is to be highly commended. Israel however refused...(However, there was no US / UK war or invasion on Israel.) Of course Mr Baradei's position has put him in hot water with the leaders of the bash Iran club, including Israel, the US, France, and Britain. After all, why should the UK, USA, France and Israel be treated the same as every other country? According to the USA, some nations are above the law.

Laws are for Everyone or No One.

International law on nuclear weapons and nuclear energy should be applied to all nations regardless of who they are, or the law is useless. At least Iran abides by the IAEA rules. The Iranian announcement of 10 new proposed Uranium enrichment plants does not break any IAEA laws,  but it does show Iran’s reactionary anger towards the breakdown in communications and diplomatic talks that the West has sabotaged with ultimatums....ultimatums are not called negotiations.

IAEA Negotiations

The IAEA made a proposal to Iran, which suggested that they ship 80% of its nuclear material to Russia, where Russia would then ship the material to France to be upgraded. Iran looked at this proposal as something that could be worked on. However, it was not immediately stressed that 80% of the fuel was to be sent in one shipment. Of course doing so would leave Iran open to military attack and cause minimal nuclear fallout to the oil region or to her neighbor, Russia.

Right from the start, Iran stated that it did not want France to be involved in the exchange program due to past history in which France broke a binding agreement to build a nuclear power station in Iran. So, Iran came up with a counter proposal that stated they would agree to send a smaller percentage of nuclear material at a time instead. This is perfectly acceptable in good faith.

However, the US, Britain, and France immediately condemned Iran and had their representatives in the IAEA turn 180 degrees about face and condemn Iran as well. Two days later Mr. Baradei is no longer the Director General of the IAEA.

I have worked in large corporations near the very top to know that the actions taken in the last few days at the IAEA were made by Political heavy weights behind the scenes. There are political powers at work here with the ability to manipulate important World governing bodies into supporting their specific agenda’s. There will not be another fair assessment made by the IAEA ever again as long as the USA, Britain, and France control the United Nations Security Council.

Mr. Baradei’s presence will be missed now that the IAEA has come under the direct influence of outside parties that have an agenda that benefits their specific ambitions. It is a very bad development for World Peace indeed.

There is one very important question not being asked.

Who at the IAEA issued the new demands on Iran last Friday November 27th, 2009? Which person, was it Mohammed El Baradei the IAEA official that was forced out of the IAEA over the last days of November 2009 or did someone else make the statement?

What we are seeing is the USA, Britain, and France trying to save face from their unproven accusations made at the end of the G20 summit towards Iran.

We are also seeing an Israeli push for military attacks on Iran on top of the new sanctions being proposed by three of the UN Security Council tyrants. They are also trying to strong arm Russia and China to go along with them.

Are we to believe that Israel is allowed to get away without being inspected by the IAEA, and Iran who abides by the rules is to be condemned for negotiating in good faith? We are now repeating a cycle that has the media war drums playing the same sounds as they were before the invasion of Iraq. This time however, there is no longer a man of honor leading the IAEA and that will make war inevitable because Britain, France, and the USA have hijacked the IAEA and desire an end to Iran’s ability to go it alone without Western interference.