Joyner: IAEA Exceeds Its Mandate – Biased Because Of Israel

November 13, 2011

Daniel Joyner is Professor of Law at the University of Alabama School of Law. In an Op-ed at Jurist Forum he writes on the recent IAEA report on Iran: Iran's Nuclear Program and the Legal Mandate of the IAEA:

This report is legally problematic in a number of ways.

Firstly and most fundamentally, the IAEA simply has no legal mandate to produce such a report on activities being carried on within an IAEA member state concerning items and technologies that may be related to the development of a nuclear explosive device, but that are not directly related to fissionable materials or associated facilities.
…
Since the IAEA is acting outside of its legal authority in this section of the report, it does not have a legal standard to apply to its conclusions regarding possible nuclear weapons related activities not involving fissile material. […] In short, as the ancient legal maxim states, there can be no illegality where there is no law. The IAEA is simply "concerned."

Why they are concerned is itself a matter of curiosity. There is no knowledge or technical ability related to nuclear weapons detailed in this report, and allegedly possessed by Iran, which other technologically advanced non-nuclear-weapon states like Japan or Germany do not possess. These are specialized bodies of knowledge and technical capabilities, to be sure, but they are well within the knowledge base and technical abilities of these advanced industrial states.
…
Since there is no evidence presented in this new report by the IAEA Director General that Iran has physically constructed a nuclear explosive device or any of its components, one can conclude that the Director General's concern expressed in this report cannot be justified as being based upon a breach of a rule of international law prohibiting the activities outlined in the IAEA report. Such a rule exists neither in Iran's safeguards agreement with the IAEA, or in the NPT. Rather, the reason for the IAEA's and the UN Security Council's attention to Iran can only be based on other factors, primarily including the determination of the US and other states that Iran is a threat to Israel, the region and international peace and security generally.
…
[The IAEA's] track record in devoting so much critical attention to Iran over the past nine years, and not to other non-nuclear-weapon states who have for decades engaged in precisely the same production of knowledge and capabilities, through the same processes, has convinced both Iran and the other members of the Non-Aligned Movement (comprising the vast majority of states in the world) that the IAEA has thereby undermined its independence and objectivity as a technical monitoring and verification body. Instead, they believe, it has become a politicized instrument of the foreign policy goals of the US and other Western states. The agency's overreaching in its new report is simply the most recent evidence of this fact.

With regard to "to other non-nuclear-weapon states who have for decades engaged in precisely the same production of knowledge and capabilities, through the same processes" Joyner mentions, let us just point to two of them (there are many more).

From the Wall Street Journal, October 28 2011: In Japan, Provocative Case for Staying Nuclear

Many of Japan's political and intellectual leaders remain committed to nuclear power even as Japanese public opinion has turned sharply against it. One argument in favor rarely gets a public airing: Japan needs to maintain its technical ability to make nuclear bombs.
…
"I don't think Japan needs to possess nuclear weapons, but it's important to maintain our commercial reactors because it would allow us to produce a nuclear warhead in a short amount of time," Shigeru Ishiba, a former defense minister, said in an interview in a recent edition of Sapio, a right-leaning twice-monthly magazine.

"It's a tacit nuclear deterrent," added Mr. Ishiba, an influential parliament member who made similar remarks on a prime time television news show in August while serving as policy chief of Japan's main opposition party.

This on Brazil from a HufPo piece datelined September 25 2009: Jose Alencar, Brazil VP, Says Country Should Build Nuclear Arms

Jose Alencar, who also served as defense minister from 2004 to 2006, said in an interview with journalists from several Brazilian news media that his country does not have a program to develop nuclear weapons, but should: "We have to advance on that."

"The nuclear weapon, used as an instrument of deterrence, is of great importance for a country that has 15,000 kilometers of border to the west and a territorial sea" where oil reserves have been found, Alencar said.

Like Iran Brazil has not signed the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty plus it has several nuclear activities that awake at least suspicion with regards to possible nuclear weapon manufacturing including an HEU production facility for highly enriched Uranium at Resende that is only partially under IAEA watch. Brazil seems, in total, much more determined and active working towards nuclear weapon capability than Iran.

Joyner is quite right in pointing out that the IAEA is far off its legal basis and highly partisan with regards to Iran. He also points out why this is the case:

.. the reason for the IAEA's and the UN Security Council's attention to Iran can only be based on other factors, primarily including the determination of the US and other states that Iran is a threat to Israel ..

Posted by b on November 13, 2011 at 19:47 UTC | Permalink

Comments

From the beginning, after the 2nd world war, USA thought of the atomic bomb as “ours” and what the USA has done since is based on this misconception.
The reality is that the bomb is a mental construct of the mind , and belongs to no one. Leo Szillard saw this in a sort of anti-vision while walking down the streets of London in 1933 – that the bomb was implied in the physics of the 20th century and when the politcal mind became cognizant, it would want most dearly to possess such a “precious”.
As long as the so-called human race has its present mind-set, there is no way to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapon capability. It’s kind of like trying to keep 14 year old boys from finding pictures of nekked wimmin

Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Nov 13 2011 21:25 utc | 1

It’s kind of like trying to keep 14 year old boys from finding pictures of nekked wimmin
Or those in positions of authority from raping them, or protecting those who do.
b, this is a great find, because Mr. Joyner’s credentials are very specific as far as this is concerned, but even more, he sticks to the law as written and doesn’t overly rely on the statements of those who fomented the law for their compromised interpretation, as politicians and the media are apt to do.
Here’s a link to his bio from the University of Alabama Law School page. He’s written quite a bit about the laws surrounding nuclear proliferation and WMD, so he’s no light weight, in this regard.
http://www.law.ua.edu/directory/People/view/Daniel_Joyner

Professor Joyner’s second book is entitled INTERPRETING THE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY, and will be published in May of 2011 by Oxford University Press. Ambassador Mohamed Shaker, Chariman of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs and author of the seminal 1980 treatise THE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY: ORIGIN AND IMPLEMENTATION 1959-1979, has written regarding this book:
“This study is a remarkable one and is greatly welcomed at an important juncture and after a successful NPT Review Conference in 2010. Daniel H. Joyner has relied on solid grounds in interpreting the Treaty, not relying entirely on statements made by certain officials and personalities involved in negotiating the Treaty. Since my book was published more than 30 years ago, it is a great source of comfort to find such a new and remarkable study that greatly enhances our understanding of the NPT and which can be considered as an inescapable companion to my study of the NPT negotiations. This new study should be a required reading to any one who would wish to deal with nonproliferation. . . . Congratulations for a well thought of study which is original and faithful to the tradition of meticulous interpretation.”

Now, that being said, I fully expect that AIPAC, and its multitude of affiliates and operatives will do everything in their power to discredit this individual and impugn his reputation….going so far as to try to ruin his career. I know of a number of Jewish individuals, extremely wealthy families in Alabama, who are quite influential with the University and are also quite cozy with Bibi…..having him over to their homes after his first stint as Prime Minister of Israel. In my last visit there, they were talking up this Iran thing….meaning they’ve all got hard-ons for taking down Iran regardless of the methods employed. I have no doubt these families will also help apply pressure to have this guy removed from the faculty.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Nov 13 2011 23:05 utc | 2

Very nice, b. This is excellent confirmation of what Arnold Evans has been saying for years over at Mideast Reality.
I would add, that beyond nuclear development, the west opposes ALL of Iran’s industrialization and economic progress. Nano-diamonds, even if they have no nuclear applications whatsoever, make it sound like Iran is progressing just fine despite massive sanctions. That in and of itself is an embarrassment for the PTB.

Posted by: Lysander | Nov 14 2011 2:20 utc | 3

The Palestinians should join the IAEA so that the US will cut its funding.

Posted by: Biklett | Nov 14 2011 2:53 utc | 4

Every American military family, who are about to risk a loved member of their fold to another military adventure launched with lies, deception, and false intelligence, should read the above essay.
In truth, our leaders, and the zionist machine they are prostituting themselves to, are despicable. The whole lot of them make a MOCKERY of what this country purports itself to be, and what Israel is heralded as being. I am ashamed of what we have become.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Nov 14 2011 4:54 utc | 5

.. the reason for the IAEA’s and the UN Security Council’s attention to Iran can only be based on other factors, primarily including the determination of the US and other states that Iran is a threat to Israel ..
Like most ethical academics who want to avoid a drive-by smearing, Joyner avoids stating the obvious when comparing Japan and Brazil’s N-programs with Iran’s program.
USrael’s War on Terror isn’t a war on Shinto or Catholicism (yet). It’s a war on Islam.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 14 2011 6:15 utc | 6

5
You are by no means alone. I share your shame.

Posted by: Base | Nov 14 2011 10:49 utc | 7

Given the IAEA’s penchant for mendacity, Joyner could have called his exposé IAEA Exceeds Its Mendate – if it was in the dictionary.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 14 2011 11:43 utc | 8

@7 and @5, I harbor no illusions that this country was anything other than what it is right now, and never what it was purported to be. It is a Myth, and so long as people continue to believe it is what it is not, or that it was what it never was, there will be evolutionary change for the better.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Nov 14 2011 11:51 utc | 9

it should have read “there will not be evolutionary change for the better.”

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Nov 14 2011 12:09 utc | 10

Here is a bit more of the puzzle from a different angle:
Matthew Gould and the Plot to Attack Iran by former British ambassador Craig Murray.

Posted by: edwin | Nov 14 2011 13:34 utc | 11

Edwin, not to discount your link, but Murray has this to say, amongst other things. Yeah, Zionism is Bullshit, in fact much worse than Bullshit, but so is this statement by Murray.

There are many good people in government who do not want to see another Iraq.

It’s a statement that seeks to contain the rot and attribute it to a select cast of characters, and by removing those characters, all will be well in the Merry Old Land of Oz….again. Its goal is a continuity of the old ways if, and once, the shit hits the fan. Its purpose is to create the impression that it’s the right form of governance, or that governance is right, and it’s just a matter of dishonest people. Wrong!! It’s both, but the System is the nucleus of it all. The System prepares the environment for the rise of, and consolidation of power of, the Sociopaths. The System must be abolished…..FOREVER, or else we repeat this drama until we are no more as a species.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Nov 14 2011 13:52 utc | 12

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
Craig Murray ex British Diplomat has just given the British/Israeli plans to attack IRAN. This is one of the clearest ,must read, revelations on the subject. This is ‘really explosive’. Please read it.

Posted by: boindub | Nov 14 2011 14:01 utc | 13

For 15 years, I have been saying there will be no attack on Iran.
I’m not ready to change my mind yet.
Israel lives off its belligerent, in-groupy, narrow, murderous status. Bully on the block. So it makes a lot of noise, and later more raucous hysterical noise, and on and on. Its overlord – yes, who holds the power here? – only approves, accepts, discusses, negotiates, treats, acts alarmed or understanding, occasionally castigates, and so forth. Israel is like a upstart vicious yapping poodle that its owner feeds, praises, takes to be groomed, gives treats to, uses as a proxy, but ultimately controls.
It is not in the US interest to attack Iran, not 15 years ago, and not now.
Mind you, poodles do from time to time bite postmen and vets and maitres d’hotel, going a little beyond their pesky allowed, scripted, role, which is part of the scenario. When they do it, they look anxious and proud at once, count on indulgence, and then do it again later.
This vid, from sept. 2009, features Obama, Brown and Sarkozy. (just one example of the endless ‘holding’ situation.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqXCchLmC1o&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: Noirette | Nov 14 2011 16:50 utc | 14

It would be interesting to have information analagous to that furnished by Craig Murray (or even a formulation of questions analogous to those upon which he is insisting) in other national contexts: in the U.S., of course, where there is perhaps a surfeit of possible “plotters”, but also in France, Germany, Canada, and even in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Needless to say, hoping for such leads and analysis is rather optimistic (perhaps even foolishly so), but, given the strong resistance to an Iranian adventure from within the U.S. intelligence community (as indicated by remarks of such “solid professionals” as Charles Freeman, Pat Lang, and Phil Giraldi, there may be some small chance for similar exposés.
It may well be that all this “plotting” (so far only “alleged plotting”) is merely part of the “long game” outlined in the Yinon plan: Iran is definitely a long term target for the international Likud-Shas-Yisrael Beitanou supporters, but for the time being it may be that only the ground work is being prepared, until such time as a “favorable” incident makes it possible to steamroller the opposition, just as the 9/11 attacks made it possible to “take out” Saddam who had long been set up as a super villain whose monstrous crimes necessitated regime change. This point of view is still very much alive, although it never seems to be applied to pro-Western regimes which commit monstrous crimes.

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Nov 14 2011 17:11 utc | 15

India with NAM in slamming IAEA report on Iran
Indian Express
Fri Sep 17 2010, 04:07 hrs
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/India-with-NAM-in-slamming-IAEA-report-on-Iran/682728
New Delhi –
Distancing itself from IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano’s report on Iran and its pursuit of a nuclear programme, India today associated itself with a statement by the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) which criticised the language used in the IAEA chief’s report.
“NAM notes with concern the possible implications of the continued departure from standard verification language in the summary of the report of the Director General,” said the statement which was read during the IAEA Board of Governors meeting on behalf of over 100 NAM member states, including India.
Besides raising the issue of Israel’s nuclear activities and the IAEA investigation of Syria’s alleged nuclear site that was bombed by Israel in 2007, the NAM statement is sharply critical of Amano for accepting at face value Western intelligence information on Iran’s nuclear activities.
While India has been part of all NAM statements in the past, this time it is quite strongly-worded and has raised concerns on procedures followed by the IAEA. New Delhi has maintained that Tehran has an “inalienable right” to use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes but needs to abide by “international rules and obligations”.

Posted by: Cyrus | Nov 14 2011 18:39 utc | 16

On the subject of exceeding mandates, one wonders if the NYT and its Nuclear News deluge could be accused of something similar.
The NYT has a searchable archive called Articles About Nuclear Weapons, in blocks of 20 sequentially dated articles. From June 30, 2008, to June 5, 2009, the NYT published 280 Op-eds and news articles about Nukes.
According to the current search box NYT has archived 16,271 articles up to Nov 14, 2011.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/atomic_weapons/index.html
Note that while the IAEA is in season, the NYT publishes several articles about Nukes each day.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 15 2011 13:24 utc | 17

Back to Main