CREDIBILITY OF IAEA UNDER A QUESTION MARK

BY

AYAZ KHAN

International Atomic Energy Agency came up as a consequence of realization that the world is fast moving in the direction of catastrophe by indulging in a fast pace nuclear arms race that was seriously detrimental to the human race. IAEA worked with this mandate for years despite structural problems and resource constraints. However in the recent past, the efficacy and authority of this institution is challenged by unilateral military actions across the globe without UNSC approval, rocket speed technological developments in the realm of Nuclear field, inherent discrimination between nuclear haves and have nots, resource constraints; thus minimizing the chances of IAEA to maintain its weight in the face of these challenges.

                We are very well cognizant of the fact the international relations are ironically driven by ‘realist’ paradigm despite the fact the feeble sweet echoes of ‘liberalism’ keep its existence in the air, but these are not paid any heed. The mesmerizing concepts of ‘liberalism’ might be sweet dreams states do live with, however while they interact with the physical world, it’s the ‘realism’ that provides foundation to the inter-state relations. Quest for power is not a new phenomenon; human kind has experienced it through ages. And still this instinct horrifies the mankind in one or the other shape. As is described by David Fischer, ‘IAEA is asked to do about nuclear energy, and indeed, what it can do and does, are much affected by the vicissitudes of national moods, international politics and technological change’^[1].

The international system of the past century saw multiple ups and downs, alliances systems, quest for super power status, acquisition of tools to testify the military might and so on. As a result, we saw a multi-polar system in the beginning of twentieth century followed by bipolar system (and its forty years of cold war) and finally uni-polarity with United States of America’s military preponderance.

            The arms control regimes of cold war provided a reasonable balance between U.S. and USSR. These regimes were generally initiated by international institutions like UN and IAEA besides bilateral negotiations. For instance, NPT as invoked by IAEA remained a credible regime that kept the objectives of non-proliferation and provision of civil nuclear energy to under-developed and developing countries alive to reasonable degrees. However in the aftermath of cold war, the intransigence of U.S. on verification systems (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty And Fissile Material Control Treaty), the unilateral actions against WMDs (in case of Iraq-2003) without any proof and the resource constraints that IAEA faces puts the credibility of IAEA under serious question.

            The Non Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS-as per NPT) do talk of the ‘Great Bargain’ that they have abided by, yet requires a serious consideration by Nuclear Weapons States (NWS). These reservations led to disagreement and non-conclusiveness of NPT Review conference of 2005. The NWS have not carried out any disarmament and IAEA could not implement that. And that is what Han Blix points out, ‘Although reductions are taking place in overstocked nuclear arsenals, these are still estimated to number some 27,000 weapons; the reductions is in redundancy only’^[2]. In such an environment it becomes highly challenging for IAEA to keep its existing regimes intact and even more difficult to push through new initiatives.

IAEA’s Authority under Question   

            There had been events in recent tense political environment that have undermined IAEA’s authority as a credible authoritative institution. These events are a testimony of IAEA’s loosening grip on nuclear affairs.

·         Technological Pace

o   BMD Shield:  U.S. plans for building a BMD shield in Poland and Czechoslovakia pose a serious challenge to Strategic Stability especially in relation to Russia. IAEA seems helpless or unwilling to challenge this dangerous trend that is proliferating with much faster pace.

o   Militarization of Space:       China recently short down its own satellite thereby giving a message to the world powers to refrain from any misadventures. However, it left more than two thousand pieces of debris hanging in the outer space. Yet, until recently, the UK, U.S. and Israel opposed the discussions with regard to outer space^[3].

o   Bombplex:     U.S. declared its desire to prepare a new kind of weapon - Bombplex – reportedly to the tune of $150 billion and probably more.

o   Keeping Pace with the Latest Technology:                       The pace of scientific advancement in the military technology especially the nuclear field is immense. This pace is maintained by injection of hefty funds into the sector. So, it is pertinent to ask whether or not IAEA has the capacity of the same pace in the absence of an independent great source of finances.         

·         Unilateralism

o   U.S. has adopted the policy of unilateral decision whether or not has the sanction of UNSC. As is evident from the invasion of Iraq in 2003, a full-scale armed intervention in the name of enforcing non-proliferation. The evidence was faulty and concocted and the states launching the campaign blatantly ignored the reports of U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) of IAEA.

o   U.S. commitment to bypass international fora and judicial processes can be easily ascertained from U.S. assertion, ‘Our strength as a nation will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak using international fora, judicial processes and terrorism’^[4]. Such a unilateral resolve undermine the validity of international institutions including IAEA.

·         Undermining International Regimes

o   Until recently U.S. remained unwilling to ratify ‘Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty’. She primarily did not agree about the verification mechanism until President Obama took over the office in 2007. IAEA had been unsuccessful to make the breakthrough for a longer time. Similarly in case of India and Pakistan who are indulged in a nuclear arms race, and IAEA remains powerless.

o   U.S. has signed the CTBT, however still it has not ratified the treaty. IAEA’s inability and probably the lack of capacity or may be the resolve has put further discussions into almost a freeze. The chances of breakthrough in this regard are bleak.

o   U.S. has thrown the ABM treaty out of the window.

o   The above mentioned events strike straight questions on the viability of IAEA as a strong arm twisting institution that possess the capacity to enforce it’s decisions without fail.

·         Discrimination

o   One of the most successful and long-practiced technology control regime is NPT. It is based on discrimination between ‘NWS’ and the ‘NNWS’ and doesn’t require NWS to accept the safeguards. It snatches the right from all signatories to pursue nuclear weapons may that be the inevitable requirement of their security while NWS do possess them.

o   It does not offer security guarantees to the NNWS by NWS or any mechanism that would ensure security of weaker states and thus would refrain from pursuing nuclear weapons.

o   It has different set of safeguards for different states.

o   Although, it provides a clause to withdraw from the treaty with prior notice of three months; however, there is serious debate to either block this loophole or invoke serious punishments for the one who opts to withdraw.

o   The under-developed and developing states have so far been denied the nuclear technology; however the NWS have not lived up to their promise of disarmament rather they have modernized their nuclear weapons to greater levels.

·         Structural Flaws

o   On the one hand, the mission statement of the IAEA reads: IAEA is an independent intergovernmental, science and technology-based organization. On the other hand, Article X says, ‘Members may make available to the Agency services, equipment, and facilities which…’ that makes it subservient to the member states.

o   The agency’s authority and capacity is limited because its scope encompasses the declared nuclear facilities only and the safeguard function also requires the consent of the states. So, states do have long playing field available (for exploitation) remaining in the parameters of IAEA.

o   Any attempt to assess the intentions, however, inevitably brings in a major dose of politics to a Board selected primarily on the basis of technical competence. Entering the murky waters of politics may be necessary but it complicates the technical role of the agency^[5].

o   The inspections carried out by the staff secretariat are highly professional and competent, but the Board of Governors has been inconsistent in the political attention it pays to breaches of safeguards agreements^[6].

·         Economic Factor

o   The agency had to look after only two states when it was established. Now, the number of nuclear capable states is nine besides the ones aspiring for it. Other than that, 44 countries are using nuclear energy, so it would be relevant to ask whether or not the capacity of IAEA has increased proportionally.

o   The IAEA Safeguards budget is less than that of the police department of the city of Vienna, where the agency is headquartered^[7].

o   The report on the international commission on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament complains about paucity of funds by mentioning that the IAEA should be given a one-off injection of funds to refurbish the Safeguards Analytical Laboratory; a significant increase in its regular budget support, without a “zero real growth” constraint; and sufficient security of future funding to enable effective medium to long term planning. So, it is very clear that IAEA is usually short of funds thus losing its ‘independent’ body’s status.

Conclusion

            There is no second opinion that the credibility of IAEA as a potent international institution is in doubt. It is facing technological hiccups and requires serious efforts to refurbish its technical base to match the prevailing environment. It has been unable to make its way for curtailing immense expenditures in nuclear weapons, militarization of space and nipping the roots from where the nuclear weapons breed. The NNWS had been rightly blaming the agency for being discriminate for it could not persuade or enforce the NWS to comply with their part of ‘Great Bargain’ since long. There had been disrespect to the agency by super powers like U.S. that creates a wrong precedence for others. There had been serious structural flaws in the agency that immediately needs re-appraisal otherwise it will soon loose whatever control it exercises at the moment. Unilateralism had been another great challenge that has led the agency to loose its control on the affairs. Last but not the least, it faces serious financial problems for now. The availability of finances to the agency are not readily available that undermines its role in real terms.

                Having analyzed various factors essential for the existence of IAEA it is evident that it would require immediate attention to address the above mentioned issues lest it will become part of a history very soon.