| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Africa: North | |
| Nuclear Agency Rejects U.S. Help in Libya | |
| 2003-12-31 | |
The U.N. nuclear agency does not need American help in dismantling Libya’s nascent weapons program, the agency chief told The Associated Press on Tuesday, echoing differences with Washington over Iraq and Iran.
"After all, look at our record in Iraq!" The Bush administration is convinced Libya’s nuclear program was far more extensive than assumed by the Vienna-based IAEA. In response, Washington has decided to send its own inspectors and British technical experts to Libya to help survey and dismantle its weapons programs. Seems like we don’t have a lot of confidence in the IAEA. Wonder why? ElBaradei spoke to AP a day after returning from a visit to Libya, where he and an IAEA team visited four once-secret nuclear sites in the capital, Tripoli. They said that, from what they saw, Libya was still years away from developing nuclear weapons. They thought the NKors were years away, too. During the trip, ElBaradei met with Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi, who assured the IAEA chief that Libya would cooperate fully with inspections and eliminate its long-secret nuclear program, saying he wanted to turn Libya into a ``mainstream’’ nation, IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said. In Washington, State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke with ElBaradei before and after his visit to Libya. ``It’s going to take time before we can draw final conclusions about the Libyan program,’’ Ereli said, adding that the Bush administration is planning to work with the IAEA to determine the nature of Libya’s weapons activities. We’ll point, they’ll dig. If they don’t we will. Another official said U.S. weapons experts are expected to consult with Libyan experts about the program either in Libya or a third country in early 2004. Justifying the joint U.S.-British plans in Libya, a senior Bush administration official pointed to ElBaradei’s visiting of only four nuclear sites. CIA and British intelligence have concluded there are 11 such sites, said the official. But ElBaradei said Tuesday he made no suggestion that Libya had only four nuclear-related sites. ``I think I made it very clear that our assessment was based and what we have been told and what we have seen,’’ he said. ``We’re not saying, ’This is it, guys.’’’ Nor will you while we’re watching! Indirectly contradicting U.S. assertions of an extensive program, ElBaradei said that what he has seen suggests Libya did not go beyond ``low-level, small-scale’’ testing of enrichment equipment. ElBaradei described the equipment he saw as, ``nothing really special,’’ calling them, ``components which had not been assembled .... mothballed and in containers.’’ Ready for assembly. ``It was much more modest in comparison with the Iranian program, which is much more ambitious, large-scale industrial production’’ of enriching uranium, he said. [A] diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Libya seemed to posses far fewer centrifuges than Iran. While a few dozen were assembled, most were still in their original shipping crates and lined up along warehouse walls, as were crated uranium conversion units that were opened only for the visiting IAEA team, he said. Libyan nuclear scientists interviewed by the IAEA team ``swore up and down they never had any weapons activities,’’ said the diplomat. ``They said they were never told to develop a weapon, they were only told to develop enrichment capability.’’ "We know nothing!" Gadhafi’s recently acknowledgment that Libya had been seeking nuclear weapons and his decision to renounce them - made after months of secret negotiations with the United States and Britain - came as a surprise to the IAEA, the U.N. body charged with keeping watch on nuclear programs. Everything is a surprise to the IAEA. | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #3 Or "Steve"... they may be an army, Dave, but don't encourage them....damn |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-12-31 8:50:57 PM |
| #2 There's always Herr Blix, why don't they put a real inspector like him on the job? He could clear up the entire mess in a couple of days. |
| Posted by: Ed P. 2003-12-31 4:35:08 PM |
| #1 I have exactly ZERO trust in the IAEA so long as it's headed by someone named "Mohamed". I don't give a fat rat's ass what his qualifications are. Put someone named "Jim" or "John" in charge, and then I might have some confidence in that organization. Or "Steve"... |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2003-12-31 6:45:49 AM |