IAEA Report On Syrian Nuclear Reactor Site
Posted by Atilla89 on November 24, 2008
Last year on September 6th, a suspected Syrian Nuclear reactor was destroyed by Israel. There has been a lot of controversy around the world whether this was an actual nuclear reactor or something else less sinister. Finally the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) has published a report (which cannot be accessed by the general public) which decided that in spite of overwhelming evidence it will not make an ‘…unequivocal statement that the site housed a nuclear reactor under construction when it was destroyed on the night of September 6, 2007.’ The Institute for National Security Studies has penned a report stating that:
By leaving out these two elements [referring to the omitted technical details of the sampled uranium particles found in the vicinity of the Syrian reactor site], the report gave everyone what it wanted: Syria and its supporters could happily claim that there was no reactor at the site, while others could vary in their conclusions from uncertainty to firm belief that the destruction of the construction prevented or at least delayed Syria from acquiring a military nuclear capability. This ambiguity on the part of the IAEA should have been expected, since it is in line with its organizational culture – try to have something nice to say about member states.
It should be now very clear to everyone just how toothless the IAEA really is, in fact, I believe that it should be dismantled and replaced by an organisation that has more power to actively search out suspected nuclear reactor sites in states that have finished or are currently building them. At the moment, all the IAEA can really do is inspect reactors that the host state has declared available for inspection. I’m sure you can now see where the problem lies. As you can see the problem of the IAEA can be clearly seen in its latest report to its Board of Governors:
“Regrettably, as a result of the lack of cooperation by Iran in connection with the alleged studies and other associated key remaining issues of serious concern, the Agency has not been able to make substantive progress on these issues.”
This was obviously part of the problem when trying to find out if Iraq in 2002/3 had Weapons of Mass Destruction or not.