Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) today threatened to resign if Iran should be subjected to unwarranted military attack by any party.
Now, that’s leadership!
I am just sitting here and thinking how different the world would be today if former Secretary of State Colin Powell had shown comparable moral grit and expressed an exactly similar intention, either publicly, or privately to the president, in the lead-up to Bush’s launching of the war against Iraq… Powell reportedly had considerable reservations about the wisdom of the attack, but at a certain point he took a deep breath and went along with it, as “a loyal soldier.” Indeed, he even agreed to lend the considerable political legitimacy he had accrued both at home and overseas to the shameful and mendacious effort to “sell” the war to the national and global publics with his UN speech.
The worldwide impact of ElBaradei’s statement, which he made to the broadly pro-US Al-Arabiyya television station, is huge. Its impact here in the US is doubtless considerably less than a public Powell declaration of intent-to-resign would have been, but it is by no means trivial. For finally, after being immersed in neocon-generated delusions about America’s global supremacy etc for so many years, the American people and even many members of our political elite are waking up to the fact that the US is not a widely admired and unchallengeable Uberpower any more.
In this new, post-Uberpower world, that vital, if still somewhat hard-to-capture quality of “legitimacy” has become more and more important.
In the 19th century, the US Cavalry could go charging around the American west rounding up and expropriating the native peoples, and the European Big Powers could continue doing exactly the same thing in Asia or Africa– and essentially there was nothing to stop them. The oppressed peoples themselves had nothing like the firepower required to resist the “White” armies, and public opinion back in the metropoles only rarely intervened to stop the massacres. News of the military forces’ depradations took weeks, sometimes months, to reach “back home”, if it ever did. And if the publics in London, New York, or Paris should receive news of a massacre here or there in the non-“White” world– well, how much did most of them, actually, care?
We are no longer in the nineteenth century. Thank goodness.
We’re in a century in which:
- 1. The international information environment is fast approaching global transparency. Now, we citizens of big, powerful nations often have real-time information about the effects of our military’s actions on others around the world. We can never again say with conviction that “We didn’t know.”
2. The norm of the equality of all human persons has become much more solidly recognized (even if still only imperfectly respected) than ever before. It is impossible to stand up in any chancery or parliament today and say, “Oh, but it was only a bunch of fuzzy-wuzzies or towelheads who were harmed.” Humanity matters.
The above two developments have transformed world politics. In the era of transparency and human equality, the legitimacy of any government or other body that is contemplating taking a radical action has become central.
ElBaradei embodies global legitimacy on issues of nuclear power and nuclear weapons. George Bush does not. (To put it mildly.) With his statement of intention to resign, ElBaradei has thrown down a challenge to the warmongers in Washington and Israel that I believe they will be unable to overcome.
Thank you, Mr. ElBaradei!
(In terms of “legitimacy”, it is also notable that Sergei Lavrov, the Foreign Minister of a newly stabilized and new self-confident Russia– which still, of course, has a veto-bearing seat on the Security Council– has also recently issued a strong warning against the use of force against Iran.)
Dr.ElBaradei is an exceptional man. (By the way I believe he didn’t say “unwarranted” attack.) Russia has supported him. Who in the US, or on the UN Security Council will support him? Will any leading US politician or either presidential candidate buck AIPAC? I don’t think so.
I’m afraid that the IAEA is about to get a new chief. First ElBaradei dragged his feet on Iraq and now on Iran. Will UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon deliver for his US patrons?
I think you’re right on the “unwarranted”, Don, though I’m still checking for the exact text.
I have this from the Jerusalem Post: “I don’t believe that what I see in Iran today is a current, grave and urgent danger. If a military strike is carried out against Iran at this time … it would make me unable to continue my work,” said the IAEA chief.
He just played a major political hand and may not be considered politically objective. Some will say he must go either way now. Even if he is right.
The role he plays demands that level of nutrality.
El Baradei has been an extremely ineffective IAEA director by any standards, except for the factually correct reports on Iraq in 2002 written by the Safeguards Division. The Nobel Peace Prize went to his head, and if you look at the IAEA’s website, it practically sings a hymn to him.
El Baradei’s conception that he is a kind of nuclear Pope or global prime minister for nuclear affairs instead of the head of an aggressive nuclear watchdog makes it imperative that the current term be his last at the IAEA.
But agreed, Colin Powell lost all claims to the respect of Americans when he addressed the UNSC on the ‘case’ against Iraq.
Colin Powell showed his true colours in 2002 and after. His performance in front of the UN was the ultimate demonstration of his true character.
I feel sad to have to say this, but of the 50 or so people I interact with regularly, I bet less than 5 even know who ElBaradei is, much less care whether he resigns. He’s basically meaningless.
Lots of people I know seem already resigned to an attack on Iran, of some major kind, before Bush is gone. Bush has basically promised it already, and it won’t be a surprise to anyone I know. No one is cheering it on, but everyone expects it and seems to believe we are totally powerless to prevent it. Bush does whatever he wants, and we few people who do care are powerless to stop him.
I believe Obama’s AIPAC remarks are positioning – Obama too has concluded that this attack will occur, and he is making sure he is on the “winner’s” side.
I am sorry to report these things, and burst your balloon that ElBaradei’s threatened resignation is important. I believe we are headed into a very dark period; our elected leaders have shown by their torture, rendition, aggressive war and targeted assassination policies that they have resigned from the civilized world. Our people have shown by their apathy that we will go along. I the atheist feel only these words capture my feeling at the moment – God help us!
tjallen
Helena, I saw you on DemocracyNow!, and I think I can explain some of the motivation for the complicity of the U.S. in assisting/allowing Israel to prepare for an attack on Iran. The NeoCons want to invade Iran. The U.S. citizenry definitely do not want such an invasion. If Israel uses U.S. planes and U.S.-controlled airspace in attacking Iran, then Iran will probably attack U.S. troops in Iraq. Also, such an Israeli attack can be relied upon to drive Iran to support fighters opposing the U.S. in Iraq and to use such fighters as proxy soldiers in reprisals against the U.S.
As usual, the U.S. will pay for the atrocities and military adventurism of Israel.