US bugged UN nuclear chief's phones in ouster bid

Aargh - I began to read that article - and need to read it more fully.

From what I DID read, I am shocked. It appeared that this was about him daring to disagree with the US over Iraq - and to not be prepared to jump to the US whistle over Iran.

Need to read it more fully, though - and weigh it up.

Interesting that even Downer wasn't ready to do as told.

Same ol', same ol'.

Anything "we" do is acceptable.
BUT, should the opposition employ the same tactics... it is an OUTRAGE!
(i.e., Possession of WMDs is not problematic, no, not unless "they" possess them.)

The laws/restrictions should only apply to "them"... "Us" should always be exempt!

Inequities and iniquities...

Yes, I know: if someone else murders, I can do the same.

Nuclear proliferation is a serious issue and no one should be surprised that the U.S. (and other countries as well) takes it seriously enough to monitor carefully the actions of officials who administer the international conventions designed to contain this particularly dangerous genie within its present domain. The shock and dismay expressed here don't pass the laugh test. I believe it is a safe bet that there were British, French, Chunese, and Russian taps on his communications as well

Oh - i have no doubt.

As far as i can see the US is the only country trying to oust him, though - and I have yet to see evidence that it is for anything more than not being a US yes man.

Well, he has completed two terms in office, the conventional limit for such appointments. His track record in enforcing the convention and blunting the Iranian (and other) attempts to develop nuclear weapons has been poor at best. He doesn't own or have a right to his position. He is accountable to the Security Council and the signatories to the Convention. Why shouldn't we wish to see him replaced.?

Few large corporations would leave a figure with his track record in office for so long. I can't think of anyy modern governments that would do so either.

There are serious stakes in this game, and this fretting over the fate of one somewhat inept international bureaucrat is quite absurd.

If he is truly inept, I am not fretting.

Given the way that the US government deals with folk who oppose it, I AM concerned if this is an example of more US bullying, and attempts to silence the voices of those saying things it does not wish to hear. Look only at the dissenting voices within your own military over Iraq, for instance.

I am STILL not hearing other countries agreeing with thee US on this - including those with governments with a track record of supporting the US, such as my own.

Do you have references re his ineptness?

Her is a bit from a Washington Post article, for instance:

"Although eavesdropping, even on allies, is considered a well-worn tool of national security and diplomacy, the efforts against ElBaradei demonstrate the lengths some within the administration are willing to go to replace a top international diplomat who questioned U.S. intelligence on Iraq and is now taking a cautious approach on Iran.

The intercepted calls have not produced any evidence of nefarious conduct by ElBaradei, according to three officials who have read them. But some within the administration believe they show ElBaradei lacks impartiality because he tried to help Iran navigate a diplomatic crisis over its nuclear programs. Others argue the transcripts demonstrate nothing more than standard telephone diplomacy.

"Some people think he sounds way too soft on the Iranians, but that's about it," said one official with access to the intercepts."

AND:

"ElBaradei, 62, an Egyptian diplomat who taught international law at New York University, is well-respected inside the United Nations, and many of the countries that sit on the IAEA board have asked him to stay for a third term beginning next summer.

To block that, Washington would need to persuade a little more than one-third of the IAEA's 35-member board to vote against his reappointment.

But even some of the administration's closest friends, including Britain, appear to be reluctant to join a fight they believe is motivated by a desire to pay back ElBaradei over Iraq. Without clear support and no candidate, the White House began searching for material to strengthen its argument that ElBaradei should be retired, according to several senior policymakers who would discuss strategy only on the condition of anonymity."

AND:

"Gareth Evans, a former Australian foreign minister who now heads a high-level panel on U.N. reform, said that ElBaradei has been excellent in his job and that Washington would be making a mistake to challenge him:

"If they think they can get anyone who could have better handled the complex and difficult issues surrounding North Korea, Iran and other controversies, they are not understanding the world right now." "

I have a lot of time for Evans' opinions, BTW - and he is no unthinking opponent of the US.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57928-2004Dec11.html?referrer=email

An interesting twist - the Oz connection! Apparently Alexander Downer was seen by the US as a suitable lackey to replace Mohamed El Baradei. However he's been very coy about it since the story broke in Australia today. Apparently he's not interested. Hmm....
Honestly, the nerve of the US is staggering!

Last Update: Monday, December 13, 2004. 12:29pm/ABC online

Downer silent on nuke job offer

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer is refusing to comment on whether he has been approached to replace Mohamed El Baradei as the head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog.

The Washington Post says the Bush administration wants the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed El Baradei, to step down.

The article says Mr Downer is the top choice to take over the position but that the the Foreign Minister has been unwilling to mount a challenge.

Defence Minister Robert Hill thinks that is the right decision.

"He's doing an excellent job as Foreign Minister so I'd like him to stay as Foreign Minister," Senator Hill said.

But Labor's Kevin Rudd says he wants to know whether the Howard Government supports Dr El Baradei's leadership.

"I haven't heard anyone so far say that Mohamed El Baradei performed badly," Mr Rudd said.

"If the Howard Government has a view that the current head of the IAEA is not up to the job, then they have a responsibility to tell the Australian people why that is the case."

A spokesman for Mr Downer says the Minister will not comment on the report.
`

'Monitoring' is a really nice word for unlawful buggings.
Is this what it is called and done in the USA?

If others do so too, it doesn't make it more lawful.




Conventional limits are now law or becoming the rule?

And conventions stated by whom?

Walter,

Convention is not law, merely common practice. My point was that there is nothing remarkable in looking for a successor now. What is remarkable is his continuing effort to hang on.

Of course spying is not legal. However, all major countries do it, and have done it for a very long time - Germany included, both before and after reunification. Monitoring is indeed the correct word for the spying techniques we were using.

I am sadly bemused by the excitement over this trivial issue and the silence concerning other truly serious acts of illegality at the United Nations; not to mention the institution's chronic unwillingness to face ad deal with real, serious, and immediate issues in Sudan, Zimbabwe, and many other places.

As long as Europeans believe the U.S. is the problem and not the many real issues gathering before them, they will increase the dangers facing them and the world. This is a sad repetition of a well-established historical pattern - a triumph of pride and envy over common sense..

It's NOT comon practise with this jon.

He is NOT continuing effooting to hang on it but more than 2/3 of the boards members are.

Walter,

You must be in touch with things I do not know. It certainly looks like he is trying to hang on. While he does have his supporters, he has opponents as well. If the U.S. wants to see him replaced, we have a right to seek that outcome.

What is a "jon"?

The Atlantic is getting wider and wider.

Mistrust and disillusion with the utility and integrity of the UN is growing fast in this country.

And, sorry to say, georgeob1, the constant undermining of the UN by the US is a source of great concern & anger for many of us. The function of the UN is NOT to rubber stamp US policies. It's meant to be a forum for ALL the member countries. Certainly the UN is not perfect, but it's the best avenue for peaceful resolution of conflict we have.

While it may be a useful forum, the UN most assuredly is not the "best avenue for peaceful resolution of conflict we have". On the contrary, the UN is paralyzed by the conflicting views of its members. I can't think of any conflicts in recent years that have been "resolved" peacefully by the UN. Can you? The final stages of the problem in East Timur were resolved by Australia under UN auspices, but that is the best I can come up with. Bosnia? Rwanda? Congo? Sudan? Zimbabwe? Georgia? Chechnya? Iraq? --- all UN failures.

No action by anyone is required to "undermine" the prospect of decisive UN action - the institution accomplishes that all by itself. The United States is merely everyone's favorite scapegoat. Our abandonment of this institution has become a possibility, not, perhaps in the near term, but within a decade or so.

I am merely saying that, as imperfect as the UN is, there isn't another forum to do it's work. It's the only avenue we have for resolving conflict. I simply wish the US had not further undermined the UN's effectiveness because the UN hadn't endorsed US policies, particularly in relation to the invasion of Iraq.

BM

I really don't know, George.

But, since on German keyboards the "n" is next to the "b", it could have been that I wanted to write 'job' :wink:


I just read, btw, that EPA director Leavitt has been nominated for the for Health and Human Services post.

And guess, what he did before that? He served three terms as governor for Utah.
Common practice.

Msolga,

And I believe you are wrong in every assertion you have made. The UN is not the only forum able to do "its work". The UN is not the only Avenue we have in which to resolve conflict.

There are numerous regional associations of nations, OAS, ASEAN, EU, etc. that have been far more successful than the UN both as forums for participating nations and as instruments for resolving conflicts. One of the most important trends of the last few decades is the migration AWAY from the UN and towards regional or other alliances to solve serious issues. The UN has been singularly unable to function in a beneficial way in ALL of the serious conflicts I listed in my post above - and they compromise the most serious issues of the last two decades.

The UN has come to be dominated by an expensive and self-serving permanent bureaucracy, and hostage to the narrow views of small countries with poorly developed political systems and generally authoritarian rule. The hopes that once attached to the UN are now, at most, threadbare illusions.

It is important that the developed and democratic nations deal with the UN as it is, not as we wish it was. While it may comfort you to believe it is the United States that has undermined this largely corrupt organization, the facts of it strongly suggest otherwise.

BTW, I doubt that France obtained UN approval for its unilateral intervention in the Ivory Coast to protect French commercial interests. There wasn't even the pretense that France was acting for the benefit of the Ivorians.

Walter,

I don't believe that repeated terms in an elective office in a democracy is at all an analogous situation.