"Success not evident" u say???

Considering Bolton as the front-end of the opposition, supported by Cheney who in turn has Bush doing the bully-pulpit thing, that fact that ElBaradei accomplished as much as he did is testimony to his abilities.

I mean, u couldn't ask for a more UN-balanced fight.

This is a "stick in the eye" Nobel pick to the Bush/Cheney administration. It's basically a big FU...

i'm in basic agreement with John B.... although i think it is more forward looking than only a "big FU". the collapase of the NPT has got people scared.. this gives ElBaradei more standing for future work - including calling us to account for our violations.

Yep, it's a big FU to Bush and especially Bolton, a serial underminer of antiproliferation bodies. ElBaradei was proved effing right about Iraq (as opposed to Judith Miller).

Do you have a list of polite, reasonable Republicans who would have been better choices, Steve? ;)

The Nobel Peace Prize is often topical or motivational (ie the Northern Ireland one, which still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth)

I don't think you can judge the IAEA or El Baradei on results, given things like the wristslap given to AQ Khan or the posturing over Iran - they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.

"But still. . .this should have gone to someone who was making real sacrifices on behalf of global peace."

Actually, this should go to someone who is forcing others to sacrfice for global peace.

I personally agree with many commenters above. Having said that and with my own very limited knowledge base of these issues, I would be interested in finding out if Mr. Clemons would share who he thinks is perhaps more deserving at this time and represents the profile he mentioned at the very end of his post??

Well, it's a better choice than Bono and sends a message. There are years when Nobel doesn't award any Peace Prize, and that might have been a better message to the world this year.

Selise, I agree with your addition and modification to my comment.

Honestly people, why wasn't President Bush considered for the Nobel Peace Prize? He ended tyranny in Iraq, he is successfully containing Iran and North Korea nearly single-handedly, and under his watch China hasn't invaded Taiwan. Also, most of you reading this don't have a terminal illness, right? Yeah, that's W. at work for you again. Ingrates.

I agree also, this feels like a big FU to the administration, which worked so hard to discredit ElBaradei over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.

Otherwise, what has the IAEA achieved? AQ Kahn got a wrist slap, North Korea is going full speed ahead, and Iran is waffling (but would be foolish NOT to pursue nuclear weapons).

John B, Its not so much an insult towards the bush admin, as anti Nuclear crusaders have been voted during the 40th, and 50th anniversaries of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing, and El Baradei fits the trend. ( International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War in 1985 and Joseph Rotblat in 1995, respectively). The Committee has been pretty careful not to make such outright political statements. Personally I think its more support for general disarmament, than any overt political statement.

Personally I think that El Baradei has not done a great job at his post. Individuals I've spoken to from foreign ministries outside of the US, have indicated that he was likely not to be re-nominated a third time because his performance has been "very average" as one person put it to me. It was the Bush Administration's vocal in its opposition, going as far as tapping his phones, that pushed the political opinion outside of the US to vote him in.

I think its one of the weakest winners in a while. Then again, if Yasser Arafat can win a peace prize…

(I)Otherwise, what has the IAEA achieved? AQ Kahn got a wrist slap, North Korea is going full speed ahead, and Iran is waffling (but would be foolish NOT to pursue nuclear weapons).(/i)

To understand what the IAEA does is somewhat difficult, but it provides a very useful instrument for disarmament. It provides a clear benchmark for assessing and verifying the capabilities of aspiring nuclear states, that is independent of national interests. Essentially what it does is to ensure that states have what they say they have. If a state decides to start a nuclear weapons program, then the IAEA’s job is to catalogue it (or the State rejects IAEA controls, thats within its means as well.) This is immensely useful as most states probably wouldn’t be comfortable with allowing in verification teams from other states. Can you imagine if the North Koreans would allow in US nuclear arms inspectors into their country to verify that they are complying with non-proliferation? The IAEA provides an impartial independant agency to do this. Enforcement of Violations is not within the purview of the IAEA's mandate, actually its with the UN security council (issues get referred to there). So asking “why hasn’t it done anything about Pakistan’s nuclear proliferation” is pretty pointless because this isn’t its job.

I don't know what Steve and Richard are thinking here. This is an excellent Nobel choice. Note too that it was split equally between the agency and Mr. ElBaradei. Read the citation again. It's a forward looking posture on the committee's part. >> At a time when the threat of nuclear arms is again increasing, the Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to underline that this threat must be met through the broadest possible international cooperation.

There seems to be a consensus on the reason why the Nobel Committee chose El Baradei. They've been known to have done just that in the past and that was in the sciences, not in politics. They've chosen scientists and writers opposed to their governments or exiled, more because of political considerations than for their actual accomplishments. To pick someone to give a big FU to the US is not beyond their scope. Also note a rather slim number Americans among the laureates this year.

Bush and Blair punched on the nose

What I think is particularly interesting about the criticism that El Baradei hasn't been all that effective is that it comes from an American whose country is notable for its hypocrisy: our government, after all, insists on tolerance and often hardline support of nations --take Pakistan -- which have been profiting enormously from the nuclear black market.

For an American to say El Baradei hasn't been all that successful has a particularly intense odor of hypocrisy! And quite apart from friendship with sleaze-balls who profit from the nuclear trade, we have decades'-worth of US politicians with the gall and balls to sanction our own nuclear storehouse and that of Israel while condemning Israel's neighbor, Iran, for wanting its own powerful storehouse.

The choice of El Baradei was not just a reproof aimed at Bush (after all, not everything everyone does is about us, after all!). It was a move which will once again throw the spotlight on the issue of international control of nuclear weapons and illuminate, however indirectly, those who are standing in the way of peace. It puts Bush -- and America -- in an uncomfortable position and it should.

I think awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to ElBaradei was a much needed boost to the UN vis a vis the US and the Bolton juggernaut. One stands for forgeries to justify agression, the other dismissed the forgeries, post haste.

Its a message to the UN to stand firm. It is very difficult to accomplish something diplomatically when Uncle Slam is arm twisitng behind everyone's back, threatening 3rd world countries with calling in their loans, etc. to get them to capitulate on issues.

I sure hope Bolton has a headache and then some.

But as much as I find ElBaradei an interesting person, a celebrity-bureaucrat given his high profile, I haven't found him overwhelmingly successful in his job. We clearly have a collapse in the global proliferation regime. The IAEA may be doing all it can to reverse or stall trends, but still. . .success has not been very evident.....
But still. . .this should have gone to someone who was making real sacrifices on behalf of global peace.

well, I don't think it can be said that Baradei hasn't made sacrifices --- considering the efforts of the Bush regime to discredit him, he's sacrificed a great deal.

And given the overall state of the world, I'm quite hard pressed to name someone who had been successful in advancing world peace. Yeah, sure, Bono and Geldorf would have been a popular choice, but it ain't like they've been all that successful at their chosen missions....

I agree that the primary consideration in the award was the usefulness of IAEA as outlined in Richard's second comment.

The fact that it's ALSO a sharp stick in the eye to Bush and Bolton is just the yummy icing on the cake.

RTB

Its not that I'm carelessly unaware of who he is. I suggest you re-read my posts; I'm pretty aware of what the IAEA does and its history, as well as El Baradei's contributions. However while I believe the IAEA is a vital organization, I believe that Mr Baradei has not been effective in his role, and certainly not worthy of a Nobel prize. If he had been successful at breaking the deadlock at the NPT review conference last May, then yes I would be happy to include his name on the award. But he wasn't. Most other people who are on that list did something exceptional to garner the prize, with an organization behind them. I'd be happy to give the award to the IAEA for its decades of work on disarmament, like how other organizations have done so in the past. But not El Baradei, who by many Diplomats' accounts, has not been effective in his role. And Remember, these aren't even American diplomats who are saying this, these were the beliefs of European representatives, who didn't want to vote him back in to his role because he was ineffective... and he wins a Nobel Prize? I think that speaks for itself.

The UN and ElBaradei have done their work. To say that ElBaradei has not achieved anything is not realistic. The work of the UN is limited to inspections, not enforcement. The US put lots of pressure on ElBraradei to have reports that satisfied US policies, not his findinds in Iraq, but he kept the UN independent. It's his independence and the reliability of his reports that are being recognized with a Nobel Prize. Mother Theresa did not get rid of the poverty in India, but her work was no less comendable.

Richard, I wish you could be more specific about the criticism ElBaradei has received from European representatives. ElBaradei appears to possess rationality, a rare commodity these days, and for this alone I am quite pleased that he and the IAEA won the Nobel. He appears to ignore political pressure from the US and Europe and for that reason alone could be criticized in Europe a la John Bolton.

Richard

The only reason Colin Powell is sitting around with a face as red as a baboon's backside is because of Mohammed el Baradei.

That itself gives me great pleasure in congratulating Mr. el Baradei on recieving this award - but he also outed every single liar in this present US malAdministration, including Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, and Tenet.

It took a lot of guts to stand up and say in the UN that the Agency knew that the Niger papers were forgeries and also the tuth about the alminium tubes, the magnets, etc., etc.!!

The IAEA was able to review correspondence coming from various bodies of the government of Niger and to compare the form, format, contents and signature of that correspondence with those of the alleged procurement-related documentation.

Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded with the concurrence of outside experts that these documents which formed the basis for the report of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded. However, we will continue to follow up any additional evidence if it emerges relevant to efforts by Iraq to illicitly import nuclear materials.

Just read his statement to the UN "Transcript of ElBaradei's U.N. presentation", on Friday, March 7, 2003 Posted: 12:39 PM EST (1739 GMT), and that speech ALONE quaified Mr. el Baradei for this award. He was not cowed down by a totally corrupt US malAdministration.

The Bush administration has exacerbated the proliferation problem with its gratuitous threats to the "axis of evil", its refusal to take diplomacy seriously, and the Iraq invasion. ElBaradei is the only game in town opposing the destructive effects of Bush on this most dangerous of national security issues.

Hear, hear!!! I'm with Jacob and bob h on ElBaradei and feel a certain sense of security knowing that he the UN Agency had the courage and honor to stand up to Uncle Slam.

Norway was very involved in the peace process when they intervened, diplomatically, with the Oslo Accords on the Palestine/Isreal issue, during the Clinton administration. We came very close to peace then and it all fell apart with the Coup de Court, presidential selection in 2000.

Recognizing ElBaradei and the UN is notice to Busholini and squad, that they do not rule the world.

The Bush Administration also is the first in many decades to be developing new nuclear weapons, i.e., bunker busters, and also is wasting money on Star Wars that scientists tell us won't work instead of putting money into securing nuclear materials in former USSR. This takes us back to the 1950s and 1960s and to a "Dr. Strangelove" mentality, doesn't make us or any humans on this planet safer. So while we can debate how effective this year's Peace Prize winners have been, at least they are doing something.

Just did a little interesting research at nobelprize.org. First of all, no Peace Prize was awarded in these years: 1939-1943, 1955-56, 1966, and 1972.

Then I looked at awards aimed at disarmaments and
as well as all the Americans who have won it since 1940. I might have missed one or two, but here's the list in reverse order:

2002 - Jimmy Carter (who was absolutely right on energy policy when he was President)

1997 - Jody Williams, International Campaign to Ban Landmines

1995 - Joseph Rotblat of UK and Canada's Pubwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs--work on eliminating nuclear arms

1986 - Elie Wiesel

1985 - Internation Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War (includes its US affiliate, Physicians for Social Responsibility)

1973 - Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho

1970 - Norman Borloug, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center

1964 - Martin Luther King

1962 - Linus Pauling

1953 - George Marshall

1950 - Ralph Bunche - for work on Palestine-Israel

1947 - American Friends Service Committee

1946 - Emily Green Balch, International President, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, and John R. Mott, Chairman, International Missionary Council and President, World Alliance of YMCAs

1945 - Cordell Hull, helping to organize UN

The above makes it very clear that why U.S. is not respected in the world.

I should have added that there are two Americans who should be candidates for the Peace Prize: Ted Turner and Sam Nunn for founding the Nuclear Threat Initiative.

This blog is proof that any moron with a computer can offer his opinion and other morons will be there to agree with him. Neither you nor any of the previous posters knows jack shit about Mohamed ElBaradei.

When you read the headline, you used Googe, did ten minutes worth of "research", and then posted your opinion.

What a crock. Any 8th grader could do the same, with equally valid results.

Slapshot -- You must be new to my blog. If you don't think I know anything about the IAEA and ElBaradei, you are sorely mistaken. I'm not opposed to him or his work. I just don't feel that he and his agency deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. My view. I'm entitled...like you.

Steve Clemons

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
maker of Heaven and earth and of all things
visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus
Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten
of his Father before all ages, God of God,
Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten,
not made, consubstantial with the
Father, by Whom all things were made; Who
for us men and for our salvation, came down
from Heaven, and was Incarnate by the Holy
Spirit of the Virgin Mary and was made Man;
He was crucified also for us under Pontius
Pilate, and was buried. And the
third day He rose again according to the
Scriptures, and ascended into Heaven. He
sitteth at the right hand of the Father: and He shall
come again with glory to judge the living
and the dead: and His kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and
Giver of life, Who proceedeth from the Father and
the Son, Who, together with the Father and the Son,
is adored and glorified: Who spoke by the
prophets. And I believe in one holy Catholic and
apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism
for the remission of sins. And I expect the resurrection
of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
Amen.

Ooooopsie, wrong thread, but good fer all ya's eddyfactcation.

"Bolton apparently screened intelligence intercepts of ElBaradei's conversations to find material to help block his efforts to serve a third term as Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency."

What about withholding of proliferation-related intel on Iraq and now Iran on the part of the Bush admin? Did you forget about that?

First off, I don’t think that El Baradei’s performance at the UN was very special. He had a very easy position; it was very clear that Iraq was not seeking to resume its nuclear development, and it had granted full access to the IAEA to its nuclear facilities. All he had to do was to report his findings, and address the concerns raised at the Security Council by US/UK. The whole point that made some “heroic” stand against the US by refuting the Niger Yellow Cake allegation really isn’t that special; he was obligated to discuss the allegations as part of the verification scheme. As it was brought up by the US, he had a duty to respond to it in order to make a clear report. El Baradei’s position wasn’t difficult at all because his answers were clear. He's not going to lie, or omit large parts of his testimony.

Hans Blix on the other hand was put into a far more difficult position as he had very ambigious answers on the state of Iraq. Iraq had been resisting UNMOVIC’s search, and even flouting some aspects of the restrictions imposed on it. He was in a far more tighter position because he had to determine whether a material breach had occur, when his findings weren’t conclusive. Given his position, I think did more to stand up against the US by saying that a material breach had not been proven, and if inspections continued a more definitive statement could be made. He could have stated that a material breach had occurred (with significant evidence supporting the claim at the time), but he didn’t.

The general feeling among some of the people I spoke to about El Baradei, is that he hasn’t been as effective as a person in that position should be. The characteristics of a good diplomat are that they are able to foresee opportunities, and develop actions and policies that take advantage of them. They are able to manage situation, and develop clear positions and consensus on issues. The best example of this is the 1957 Nobel Peace prizewinner, Lester B. Pearson. He used the perception of Canada as being slightly neutral country to introduce a Canadian peacekeeping force into the Suez in order to diffuse the crisis. There wasn’t much reason for Canada to be there, but he saw an opportunity, and grasped it. That’s the mark of an excellent diplomat, and I don’t think many would say that El Baradei lives up to the standards set by other individuals like Dag Hammarskjöld, Kofi Annan or Ralph Bunche. There is a general feeling that the IAEA is an Organization has been somewhat listless at a time when opportunities for a new role are so apparent. Steve’s statement that he is a good international bureaucrat is spot on, because I think the director of the IAEA requires not a bureaucrat, but a diplomat able to speak out in the interests of Nuclear disarmament, and he has clearly not done so.

Given that Kofi Annan and others are trying to reform the UN into a more activist organization with valuation on respect for international norms, the IAEA can quite easily be reformed along these lines, but on nuclear proliferation issues. However the IAEA under El Baradei’s helm hasn’t really moved into the post cold war era.

Its clear that a consensus between the EU-3 and the US exist on the issue of Iran. A good diplomat would be able to build a clear consensus from this (which hasn’t happened, as the awkward grouping of the EU 3 has not brought substantive results) and utilize the IAEA as the lead agency for dealing with Iran. Instead the IAEA has largely remained on the sidelines (A talk shop, with its inspection capabilities being used by the US and the EU as an mere instrument of compliance). The US (and even John Bolton), would have little problem is the IAEA took a more forceful stance against Iran, actually I think they would welcome it, but this is certainly not the case.

I think the IAEA should assume a leadership position, whether under El Baradei stewardship or not. He has an opportunity before him if he takes it with the impetus of the prize behind him. But I am of the opinion, probably a minority one, that Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear power. A strong IAEA could monitor that. Our focus should be as much on disarmament as non-proliferation. That would be a good faith position. So long as Iran or anyone else for that matter feels threatened by our nuclear development plans they will attempt to arm. And there is a terrible logic to it.

Um.

El Baradei stood up against unprecedented pressure, including the shameful wiretapping of UN phones and doubtless attempts to entrap and embarrass him... and told the truth.

Anyone who tells the truth under such conditions deserves a medal.

I mean, what did Carter do for his Nobel? Talk to foreign leaders? That was his job. He didn't have to fend off black bag artists while doing it.