Commentary Magazine


Posts For: November 17, 2007

The UN’s Last Chance

On Thursday, the International Atomic Energy Agency issued its long-awaited report on Iran’s nuclear program to its 35 board members. The report states that Tehran is prohibiting inspections at sites that may be housing a nuclear weapons program. Moreover, the IAEA says the scope of Iranian cooperation is diminishing.

So is Iran building a bomb? The IAEA has no conclusive proof one way or another, and, it appears, neither does any other party outside the country. Yet we do not need to know the answer to that question. The report’s most important conclusion has been known by the international community long before the agency began its most recent investigations: the mullahs are continuing to enrich uranium. The report backs up Tehran’s claims that it is operating 3,000 centrifuges in Natanz. That number of machines, if working well, can produce enough weapons-grade material for a single nuclear weapon in a year’s time.

The spinning of centrifuges is by no means proof of bad intent. The machines can produce both lowly enriched uranium to generate electricity and highly enriched uranium for the cores of weapons. Which is it? In my view, that’s irrelevant because the United Nations has previously demanded that Iran halt enrichment and has imposed two sets of sanctions for its failure to stop.

Nuclear weapons are so inherently dangerous that merely violating the mandates of the United Nations with regard to them should, by itself, be considered grounds for the use of force. The Bush administration should not have tried to make the case that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. It should have premised its decision to go to war on the inarguable failure of Saddam Hussein to comply with the U.N.’s weapons inspection regime. On Tuesday, Ronald Kessler released a book, The Terrorist Watch, which reveals that the Iraqi dictator was bluffing about his possession of weapons of mass destruction in order to forestall an attack from Iran. In order to maintain the appearance of the possession of an arsenal, he made a mockery of UN inspections. So in the process he undermined the security of the international community by weakening its first line of defense against the spread of the world’s most destructive weaponry.

There is no point in maintaining an organization designed to provide collective security if it cannot enforce its mandates. The UN failed with regard to Iraq and left the matter to the United States and the other members of the Coalition in 2003. The world body has one more chance to prove that it still has a role in the world. And on Thursday, the IAEA put the issue squarely before the Security Council.

On Thursday, the International Atomic Energy Agency issued its long-awaited report on Iran’s nuclear program to its 35 board members. The report states that Tehran is prohibiting inspections at sites that may be housing a nuclear weapons program. Moreover, the IAEA says the scope of Iranian cooperation is diminishing.

So is Iran building a bomb? The IAEA has no conclusive proof one way or another, and, it appears, neither does any other party outside the country. Yet we do not need to know the answer to that question. The report’s most important conclusion has been known by the international community long before the agency began its most recent investigations: the mullahs are continuing to enrich uranium. The report backs up Tehran’s claims that it is operating 3,000 centrifuges in Natanz. That number of machines, if working well, can produce enough weapons-grade material for a single nuclear weapon in a year’s time.

The spinning of centrifuges is by no means proof of bad intent. The machines can produce both lowly enriched uranium to generate electricity and highly enriched uranium for the cores of weapons. Which is it? In my view, that’s irrelevant because the United Nations has previously demanded that Iran halt enrichment and has imposed two sets of sanctions for its failure to stop.

Nuclear weapons are so inherently dangerous that merely violating the mandates of the United Nations with regard to them should, by itself, be considered grounds for the use of force. The Bush administration should not have tried to make the case that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. It should have premised its decision to go to war on the inarguable failure of Saddam Hussein to comply with the U.N.’s weapons inspection regime. On Tuesday, Ronald Kessler released a book, The Terrorist Watch, which reveals that the Iraqi dictator was bluffing about his possession of weapons of mass destruction in order to forestall an attack from Iran. In order to maintain the appearance of the possession of an arsenal, he made a mockery of UN inspections. So in the process he undermined the security of the international community by weakening its first line of defense against the spread of the world’s most destructive weaponry.

There is no point in maintaining an organization designed to provide collective security if it cannot enforce its mandates. The UN failed with regard to Iraq and left the matter to the United States and the other members of the Coalition in 2003. The world body has one more chance to prove that it still has a role in the world. And on Thursday, the IAEA put the issue squarely before the Security Council.

Read Less

Jolie’s Journalism

The current issue of the Economist, a special edition entitled, “The World in 2008,” includes essays by a variety of well-known figures including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Dalai Lama, and . . . actress Angelina Jolie.

The thrust of Jolie’s piece—calling upon the international community to bring the perpetrators of the Darfur genocide to justice—is admirable, if a bit naive, the first quality an unusual one for the political pontifications of celebrities, the second nearly universal. She writes:

I hope that the Sudanese government will hand over the government minister and the janjaweed militia leader who have been indicted for war crimes by the ICC, and that the teenager I met in Chad will get to see the trial he seeks. I hope that those responsible for the atrocities in Darfur will be held to account, not only for that young man’s sake, but for the world’s.

But what are the actual chances of this happening? The Sudanese government has supported the continuation of this conflict for years, and the international community has been able to achieve little—despite the heady warnings of Ms. Jolie.

The phenomenon of celebrities attempting to shape foreign policy is not a new one (think Jane Fonda), but it has become de riguer of late. Despite their fame and popularity, however, it seems that celebrities are usually unable to achieve their goals in the international realm. Daniel Drezner has an excellent cover story in the latest National Interest entitled “Foreign Policy Goes Glam,” explaining why this is the case, and it applies to the specific example of Jolie:

A deeper problem celebrities face is that the implicit theory of politics that guides their activism does not necessarily apply to all facets of international relations. The goal of most social activism is to bring greater attention to a problem. The assumption is that once people become aware of the problem, there will be a groundswell of support for direct action. This is not how politics necessarily works, particularly in the global realm. Any solution to a problem like global warming, for example, involves significant costs. As people become more aware of the policy problem, it is far from guaranteed that a consensus will emerge about the best way to solve it. It is therefore not surprising that celebs have had their greatest successes in touting humanitarian causes and almost no effect on ending militarized conflicts.

The current issue of the Economist, a special edition entitled, “The World in 2008,” includes essays by a variety of well-known figures including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Dalai Lama, and . . . actress Angelina Jolie.

The thrust of Jolie’s piece—calling upon the international community to bring the perpetrators of the Darfur genocide to justice—is admirable, if a bit naive, the first quality an unusual one for the political pontifications of celebrities, the second nearly universal. She writes:

I hope that the Sudanese government will hand over the government minister and the janjaweed militia leader who have been indicted for war crimes by the ICC, and that the teenager I met in Chad will get to see the trial he seeks. I hope that those responsible for the atrocities in Darfur will be held to account, not only for that young man’s sake, but for the world’s.

But what are the actual chances of this happening? The Sudanese government has supported the continuation of this conflict for years, and the international community has been able to achieve little—despite the heady warnings of Ms. Jolie.

The phenomenon of celebrities attempting to shape foreign policy is not a new one (think Jane Fonda), but it has become de riguer of late. Despite their fame and popularity, however, it seems that celebrities are usually unable to achieve their goals in the international realm. Daniel Drezner has an excellent cover story in the latest National Interest entitled “Foreign Policy Goes Glam,” explaining why this is the case, and it applies to the specific example of Jolie:

A deeper problem celebrities face is that the implicit theory of politics that guides their activism does not necessarily apply to all facets of international relations. The goal of most social activism is to bring greater attention to a problem. The assumption is that once people become aware of the problem, there will be a groundswell of support for direct action. This is not how politics necessarily works, particularly in the global realm. Any solution to a problem like global warming, for example, involves significant costs. As people become more aware of the policy problem, it is far from guaranteed that a consensus will emerge about the best way to solve it. It is therefore not surprising that celebs have had their greatest successes in touting humanitarian causes and almost no effect on ending militarized conflicts.

Read Less




Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.