You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq-Jordan
U.N. Didn't OK Uranium Transfer to U.S.
2004-07-08
The United States didn't have authorization from the U.N. nuclear watchdog when it secretly shipped from Iraq uranium and highly radioactive material that could be used in so-called "dirty bombs," U.N. officials said Wednesday. The nearly 2 tons of low-enriched uranium and approximately 1,000 highly radioactive items transferred from Iraq to the United States last month had been placed under seal by the International Atomic Energy Agency at the sprawling Tuwaitha nuclear complex, 12 miles south of Baghdad, the officials said. "The American authorities just informed us of their intention to remove the materials, but they never sought authorization from us," said Gustavo Zlauvinen, head of the IAEA's New York office.
Doesn't that imply you're not in charge? Think about it.
However, U.S. nuclear authorities said late Wednesday they had Iraqi approval and didn't need U.N. authorization to move the material. "We are in custody of the material only, and we have the permission of the Iraqi government to take this out of the country," said Paul Longsworth, deputy administrator for defense nuclear nonproliferation in the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration.
"So piss off. Go trade some oil for food."
U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham disclosed the secret airlift from Iraq on Tuesday as "a major achievement" in an attempt to "keep potentially dangerous nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists." The material was taken to an undisclosed U.S. Energy Department laboratory for further analysis. The airlift ended on June 23, five days before the United States transferred sovereignty to Iraq's new interim government. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said in a letter to the Security Council circulated Wednesday that Washington informed the agency on June 19, 2003, that "due to security concerns" it intended to transfer some nuclear material stored at Tuwaitha to the United States. At the time, the agency took note of the U.S. intention to remove the nuclear material "from agency verification ... and only expressed a view on the agency's verification requirements," he said. Longsworth said the U.S. authorities had "exceptionally good" relations with the IAEA and ElBaradei didn't raise any objections.

According to the letter, the United States informed the IAEA on June 30 that approximately 1.8 tons of uranium, enriched to a level of 2.6 percent, another 6.6 pounds of low-enriched uranium, and approximately 1,000 highly radioactive sources had been transferred on June 23. A U.N. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said there was some concern about the legality of the U.S. transfer because the nuclear material belonged to Iraq and was under the control and supervision of the IAEA. The U.S. Energy Department statement said "the U.S., consistent with its authorities and relevant United Nations resolutions, took possession of and removed the materials to ensure the safety and security of the Iraqi people." Longsworth said the material was now at a facility where it can be examined by the IAEA.

In 1992, after the first Gulf War, all highly enriched uranium - which could be used to make nuclear weapons - was shipped from Iraq to Russia, the IAEA's Zlauvinen said. After 1992, roughly 2 tons of natural uranium, or yellow cake, some low enriched uranium and some depleted uranium was left at Tuwaitha under IAEA seal and control, he said. So were radioactive items used for medical, agricultural and industrial purposes, which Iraq was allowed to keep under a 1991 U.N. Security Council resolution, Zlauvinen said. IAEA inspectors left Iraq just before last year's U.S.-led war. After it ended, Washington barred U.N. weapons inspectors from returning, deploying U.S. teams instead in a so far unsuccessful search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. An exception was made in June 2003 when Washington allowed an IAEA team to go to Tuwaitha to secure uranium after reports of widespread looting when the fighting ended. The IAEA recovered most missing material and Zlauvinen said the uranium was put in sealed containers and left for the Americans to guard.

But because U.S. authorities restricted inspections of Tuwaitha, the IAEA team was unable to determine whether hundreds of radioactive items used in research and medicine across the country were secure. ElBaradei's letter said that an unspecified amount of nuclear material still at Tuwaitha consists mainly of natural uranium, some depleted uranium and some low enriched uranium waste, which is subject to IAEA monitoring. Some radioisotopes are also still in the country and come under the agency's responsibilities, he said. Tuwaitha is now under the control of Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology.
I'm certainly relieved that the stuff is out of Iraq.
Posted by:Steve White

#29  I want the USA to work on it's own group of country's that would rather work with us than against us--Long Hair Republican

Beautiful!
Posted by: jules 2   2004-07-08 8:38:20 PM  

#28  Dear U.N.

F-U!

-- U.S.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2004-07-08 6:52:18 PM  

#27  I don't want the UN to leave the USA, I just want the USA to leave the UN. I want the USA to start pulling all US Troops out of country's that are under a UN action. I want the USA to work on it's own group of country's that would rather work with us than against us. Set the Building up right next to the current UN building and see how long it takes before the UN building becomes empty...or is it already empty.
Posted by: Long Hair Republican   2004-07-08 6:36:14 PM  

#26  Sorry this might affend some,but the UN can suck my left nut.
Posted by: djohn66   2004-07-08 5:06:19 PM  

#25  This is part of the grand charade in which the IAEA pretends that it is an effective and relevant organization. I guess they're upset because we wouldn't enable the delusion.

Actually they're doing SUCH a good job with Iran and North Korea and Egypt and ....... that they thought that we would naturally want them to do the same in Iraq.
Posted by: RWV   2004-07-08 4:53:32 PM  

#24  Does this mean we can't pass GO?
Posted by: Shipman   2004-07-08 4:26:28 PM  

#23  Deliver it all up to Kofi's office so he can keep an eye on it.
Posted by: tu3031   2004-07-08 4:13:14 PM  

#22  When will the UN learn that the US doesn't need it's permission for a damned thing?!?

Posted by: spiffo   2004-07-08 4:03:36 PM  

#21  When will the UN learn that the US doesn't need it's permission for a damned thing?!?

Posted by: spiffo   2004-07-08 4:03:35 PM  

#20  UN Watchdog?

watch pussy, more like.
Posted by: Anonymous5624   2004-07-08 3:41:35 PM  

#19  Michael, "does anyone actually care?" Watch the sunday morning news shows for the answer. Maybe your question would be better if posed 2 different ways: Does anyone at the NYT/ABC/BBC... care? OR: Does anyone with common sense care?

Chicago Michael

P.S. Let's see if UNSC issues an urgent resolution imploring US cooperation in this matter. Then let's act like Iran.
Posted by: Michael   2004-07-08 1:59:46 PM  

#18  Sarge them's not hillbillies they is Mountain Williams
Posted by: Dorf   2004-07-08 1:23:21 PM  

#17  Does anyone actually care?
Posted by: Michael   2004-07-08 12:26:56 PM  

#16  Does the un even know how stupid they sounds? This is what happens when you put a bunch of 3rd-world socialists hillbillies in charge of a organization. Problem is that these adminstrators are appointed by people who should know better. please give me a candidate that will kick the whole bunch out of here and deny funding for any furture hate-America organization that spawns in it's place.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter)   2004-07-08 11:30:38 AM  

#15  Alright... which one o' yous forgot to say "Mudder may I" ?
Posted by: eLarson   2004-07-08 10:36:44 AM  

#14  Good ones, Mark!

Maybe the UN wanted some of it for its own nefarious purposes-you know how they are always going off about weak versus strong countries and the ever growing gap between them? Maybe this is their way of evening the odds? That's about where my opinion of the UN is today.
Posted by: jules 187   2004-07-08 10:01:05 AM  

#13  Scrappleface? The Onion? Scott Ritter?
Posted by: Dragon Fly   2004-07-08 8:39:09 AM  

#12  Do you suppose that means the UN inspectors will demand access to the US? Will the Security Council express strong disapproval? Will they--shudder! perish the thought!--impose sanctions?

Ooooh, I'm scared.
Posted by: Mike   2004-07-08 6:40:55 AM  

#11  "never sought authorization"blow it out your ass,Gus.
"U.S. nuclear authorities said late Wednesday they had Iraqi approval and didn't need U.N. authorization to move the material",I reiterate,Gus,blow it out your ass.

Posted by: Raptor   2004-07-08 6:37:05 AM  

#10  We did not issue authorization for U.N. crooks to make a fortune of Saddam's & the U.N'S 'oil for (terrorism, arms & profit)'

Neither did we give the OK for the U.N. to scam the world with their little anti-American Hans Blix doctoring reports and ignoring hard facts that he was well aware of, such as Saddam trucking his WMD into Syria just prior to the Iraqi ground war began.

The U.N. complex on the East Side should be converted into a hotel/convention center/resort for Americans, not every two-bit spy using the building as diplomatic cover.
Posted by: Mark Espinola   2004-07-08 3:15:59 AM  

#9  The more I see and read about the UN, the more I think it is more than time to pull the funding plug and the "you can use our boys" plug. Oh, and by the way, we will be charging you for the use of our high-value real estate. 8 million a month sound good? If it don't we evict your ass baby!
Posted by: mmurray821   2004-07-08 2:39:19 AM  

#8  Too bad the u.n. wasn't a target on 9/11.
You know, Pete, I've thought the same thing.
Posted by: Jen   2004-07-08 2:26:28 AM  

#7  I used to think SA, Pete. But Iran will do. Any place that strict islamic culture is practiced.
Posted by: Lucky   2004-07-08 1:12:38 AM  

#6  The u.n. is as useless as tits on a boar hog. They try to act like they actually matter. Too bad the u.n. wasn't a target on 9/11. FUCK THE u.n., fuck 'em all....

GET THE u.n. THE HELL OUT OF MY COUNTRY!! Put 'em somewhere where they'll fit in.....like russia, or china....or hell, how about that bastion of liberty and prosperity, iran.
Posted by: Halfass Pete   2004-07-08 1:07:44 AM  

#5  I say give it back to the UN.

Finely ground, in a dust.

Sprinkled into the air conditioning system at the UN buildings in NY.
Posted by: OldSpook   2004-07-08 1:03:12 AM  

#4  Prolly should send it all back, appologize, pay the fine, kick the dog...
Posted by: Lucky   2004-07-08 1:01:54 AM  

#3  Um, the UN can take a flying leap into the outhouse. We don't /need/ their permission to do a damn thing. They however, need our permission to exist.
Posted by: Silentbrick   2004-07-08 12:47:23 AM  

#2  Hey, guys - you want out, you're out. All the way out, y'follow me?
Posted by: mojo   2004-07-08 12:43:06 AM  

#1  The United States didn't have authorization from the U.N. nuclear watchdog when it secretly shipped from Iraq uranium and highly radioactive material that could be used in so-called "dirty bombs," U.N. officials said Wednesday.

... egad! And we were to have left it from THEM?! *scoff*
Posted by: Edward Yee   2004-07-08 12:08:47 AM  

00:00