U.N. Nuclear Agency and Its Chief Win Nobel Prize for Peace
I was under the impression that prizes, especially the most prestigious ones, are supposed to reward success and remarkable achievements. I was wrong. As it turns out, inaction and repeated failures may not prevent a person and/or organization from winning.
Tags: Nobel Prize, Nobel Peace Prize
Farewell to Steve Silberman
1 day ago
Since Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace prize, the the bar is set very very low.
ReplyDeleteSince Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace prize, the bar is set very very low.
ReplyDeleteIn any case the once laudable principle of Non-Proliferation has failed miserable. Now the IAEA is both nuclear policeman and salesman at once. And Iran has signed the NPT but hasn't got nukes (yet), Israel has never signed it and is Nuclear Power No.6 in the world...
ReplyDeleteEven though I support Israel having nukes for self defense, the fact that there's no heat on us to give them up is another failure of the IAEA. It's a failure I'm happy about, though.
ReplyDeleteThe real problem is not Israel. The world should worry about Iran and North Korea, who will be (and in NK's case, maybe already are) happy to give or sell nukes to terrorists.
I've posted a response to your comment on my "Iran and the NPT" post.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with Israel is that to Israel the problem is always... someone else. Israel developed nuclear weapons in total secrecy, without signing a single scrap of paper and in defiance even of the US.
Now Iran wants the bomb too (I'm not naive enough to believe their tongue in cheek comments about "civilian use"). Thanks to the Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal, expect nothing but well deserved Iranian intransigence. Of course the corrupt SuperCop of the world is already threatening to air strike Iran but that's tantamount to launching the third WW.
Is developing nukes without signing any agreements worse than developing nukes despite signing treaties?
ReplyDeleteAccording to your thoughts, Bush will still be able to win a Nobel prize even though his presidency will be defined as one big failure after another.
ReplyDeleteFailure and success apparently don't play a part. The Norwegian Nobel Committee picks those they see as peaceniks, successful or not. So since Bush is certainly no peacenik, especially not in the eyes of the Norwegians, he has no chance of winning.
ReplyDeleteSo exactly what's wrong with picking individuals or organizations that have contributed to global peace as recipients of the award?
ReplyDeleteThat the IAEA has not been as successful as one would have hoped can be blamed on its members, including the USA. Oh, btw, the IAEA successfully dismantled the Iraqi nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.
Emmanuel said:
ReplyDeleteIs developing nukes without signing any agreements worse than developing nukes despite signing treaties?
My reply:
You're missing the point entirely and the argument you're presenting is self-defeating, as it's actually one that says "anyone can develop nukes, treaties or not", which also applies to Iran.
The point about Iran and the NPT is that Iran is able to laugh any demands off the table because of the Israeli precedent. The Americans of course will continue to make threatening noises but I feel strikes against Iran could effectively lead to another global war and I doubt if the US has the stomach for that. I certainly hope not.
And in the medium-long term Israel will have to come to accept that it cannot remain the only nuclear stakeholder in the region. Continuing to believe that that's possible is naive and ostrich-like. But hey, what's new...
"I was under the impression that prizes, especially the most prestigious ones, are supposed to reward success and remarkable achievements," writes political science student Emmanuel Schiff. "I was wrong. As it turns out, inaction and repeated failures may not prevent a person and/or organization from winning."
ReplyDeleteASSHOLE, TENET'S MEDAL OF FREEDOM FITS YOUR RANT PERFECTLY.
As I see it, as long as most of the countries around Israel want to destroy it, we need the nukes. When peace with more Arab countries comes about, we'll be able to disarm.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, any democracy threatened by many hostile, despotic regimes, should be able to have nukes.
Anonymous said:
ASSHOLE, TENET'S MEDAL OF FREEDOM FITS YOUR RANT PERFECTLY.
You must think I'm some right wing fanatic if you think that I agree with Tenet getting the medal. He was a failure too, and didn't deserve it.
Who's the asshole now?
Another Anonymous said:
So exactly what's wrong with picking individuals or organizations that have contributed to global peace as recipients of the award?
That's the thing. I don't think the IAEA and ElBaradei have contributed to world peace. Sure, maybe they have good intentions but they've failed to succeed in their mission. Are good intentions good enough for the Nobel? I wouldn't think so, but the committee thinks otherwise.
The same Anonymous said:
Oh, btw, the IAEA successfully dismantled the Iraqi nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.
Indeed. After the Gulf War. Before the war it reported that Iraq had no nuclear program.
Part of the problem with the IAEA is certainly its membership, each country looking out for its own interests. That makes it dysfunctional and even less deserving of an award.
You might want to take a look at my post I, Radical (?!?)
ReplyDeleteEmmanuel said:
ReplyDeleteAs I see it, as long as most of the countries around Israel want to destroy it, we need the nukes. When peace with more Arab countries comes about, we'll be able to disarm.
And yes, any democracy threatened by many hostile, despotic regimes, should be able to have nukes.
My reply:
You're being very naive again.
Firstly the threat of destruction is mutual but strongly asymmetric, which in itself is a very dangerous situation. You pointed out yourself that the guarantee that Israel won't strike unilaterally is based (according to you at least) on the fact your politicians would be in for a good kicking. That, Emmanuel, is a guarantee of the weakest kind possible. And after a smouldering pile of radioactive remains would have been created, elections won't seem that important to me...
Also, the idea that "we'll be able to disarm" is ludicrous to say the least. That would really be like trying to put the genie back into the bottle. The truth is that nuclear fission and its applications is a technology which will become more and more available to societies whom previously might not have had the technical know-how. A lot of the knowledge is now basic textbook material. That makes proliferation inevitable, see the many examples.
As regards, "any democracy threatened by many hostile, despotic regimes, should be able to have nukes", you're making the same mistake you made before. It's not about "democracies can have nukes/non-democracies can't": that would be relying on a distinction between democracy and non-democracy which in many cases is impossible to make and depends mostly on one's perspective, not on some universally applicable benchmark.
No, in plain English, what you're saying is "we can have them/they can't". Because "we're good/they aren't", because "we're us, they're the enemy", because "we're democrats/they're theocrats", because "we have a PM/they have a despot" etc etc, ad nauseam. ("l'Enfer, c'est les autres", J.P.Sartre).