New York City, October 8, 2005.

On October 3, 2005, Benny Avni, writing in The New York Sun, informs
us:
“Last week, the 135 countries of the IAEA conference approved 10 new
members
to sit on its board of governors, including Cuba, Syria, and Belarus.
The
35-member, Vienna-based IAEA board is seen as the ultimate
international
arbiter on nuclear proliferation. The possibility of nuclear weapons
falling
into the hands of terrorists is a looming security risk, and now terror
sponsors have become decision makers.”

“Fresh from its poor performance two years ago as a U.N. Security
Council
member, isolated Syria will join those who next month will decide
whether to
refer its ally, Iran, to the council, where sanctions could be imposed.
The
board - sans - Syria - approved a measure last week declaring Tehran in
noncompliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty.”

Syria, along with Iran, sponsors the terrorist group Hezbollah, which
could
become a factor in Tehran’s nuclear calculations. “If Iran acquires the
bomb, it will encourage other countries in the Middle East to join this
nuclear arms race, especially Egypt, and perhaps Saudi Arabia, Turkey,
Algeria, and Syria - it would be difficult for a country like Egypt,
the
leader of the Arab world, to stay out of this circle.”

Similarly, the objection to Belarus, the remaining Stalinist State
among the
former members of the Soviet Union, and a State that was seemingly
involved
already in selling nuclear material, and Cuba which to the displeasure
of
the United States will join on the IAEA board Venezuela as
representatives
of the Latin region, can be expected to clash with the United States
and the
Europeans. Previously it was Venezuela alone that posted a negative
vote on
the question of Iran. At the time there were 22 supporters of the
resolution and 12 abstentions. in short, the IAEA is exactly the kind
of
organization that must be reigned in as one could conclude from what
was
presented by Mr. Mark Malloch Brown and the other speakers, on October
6,
2005 at the evening organized by the US National Endowment for
Democracy
(see this website - the article dated October 6, 2005 - “Crutches to
Help
the UN”  www.SustainabiliTank.info).

Our website differs somewhat from the New York Sun when it comes to
Cuba.
This because we sympathize with the Cubans for whom Petrocollapse has
come
early on — when the Soviet Union fell apart and Russia could no more
subsidize Cuba’s energy needs. The Petrocollapse Conference of October
5,
2005, was shown a film about the resourcefulness of the Cubans when
adapting
to a post-petrolleum economy, and we feel that eventually the rest of
the
world will have to learn from them.

In any case, remembering the Avni article, it came to us as a total
surprise
that the Nobel Committee decided to give the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize, in
equal parts, to the IAEA and to its head, Mr. Mohammed ElBaradei. We
cannot
avoid remembering the 2002 Peace Prize awarded to President Jimmy
Carter not
long after he had written a heated denunciation of President Bush’s
Iraq
policy. At the time the chairman of the Nobel Committee acknowledged
that
his intention was to chastise the Bush Administration.
So, not to seem blind, even though we do not endorse the way how the
war in
Iraq unfolded, while we actually have admiration for Mr. Carter as a
great
ex-President, we nevertheless are clear that this year’s Nobel Peace
Prize
is the second time a negative prize was awarded - that is not a price
for
what was done but a prize to show that the Nordics disagree with what
was
done, and this is a pity. The Nobel Price should rather go to positive
examples of people and organizations that have achieved something good.

Alfred Nobel intended the Peace Prize “to the person who shall have
done the
most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition
or
reduction of standing armies and the holding and promotion of peace
congress.” This years choice does not live up to such standards.

In effect, among the 199 candidates this year, there were three
outstanding
choices that were considered the front runners: the Finnish successful
peace
mediator Marti Ahtissari who was the favorite of the folks at the UN,
the
Irish rock singer Bono for his campaign for debt relief for the poorest
developing nations and for the downtrodden in general, and the
antinuclear
activist and survivor of the August 1945 bomb on Nagasaki, Senji
Yamaguchi.
Further on, in 1985 the prize was given to the International Physicians
for
the Prevention of Nuclear War, led by Yevgeny Chazov of the Soviet
Union and
Bernard Lown of the United States. The 1995 prize was given to the
veteran
anti-nuclear campaigner Joseph Rotblat and his Pugwash organization,
and it
seemed quite reasonable, that this year, the 60-th anniversary of the
bombing of Japan, the price should be given to the activist
organization of
the remaining survivors. But the Nordics deemed differently.

The text of the Peace Prize for 2005 says: “at a time when disarmament
efforts appear deadlocked, when there is a danger that nuclear arms
will
spread both to states and terrorist groups, and when nuclear power
again
appears to be playing an increasingly significant role, IAEA’s work is
of
incalculable importance.” This is a very serious assumption –
specially as
the new energy crisis may bring about a proliferation of nuclear power
plants that can also provide material for nuclear bombs, as well as
materials for the so called dirty suitcases — the main future
ammunition in
the hands of terrorists. The IAEA, under its present leadership simply
is
incapable of dealing with this situation.

The Libyan nuclear potential was not dismantled because Dr. ELBaradei
moved
them to do so, but rather because the US and their European allies were
responsible for dismantling the program after intercepting a shipment
of
equipment sent by the network created by A.Q.Khan of Pakistan. The IAEA
just
folded when North Korea, Iraq, or Iran asked them to do so — it simply
is a
weak organization with an increasingly weakening board. Will Dr.
ElBaradei
be able to withstand Arab pressure, or will we see again a UN
organization
dedicated to Israel bashing.

Most political leaders had to put up a good face to the decision of the
Nobel Awards Committee, but Greenpeace spoke up the truth: “SHOCKED!”
The
U.N. agency’s promotion of atomic energy has increased the risk of
nuclear
weapons proliferation, and Jan van Putte, an atomic expert with
Greenpeace,
said: “With the awarding of the Nobel Prize to such an organization,
the
meaning of the instrument of peace is seriously put into question.”

Terumi Tanaka, secretary-general of Hidankyo, which represents the
Japanese
survivors of the 1945 US bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, said about
IAEA; “It’s not an organization that conducted peace activities. It’s
very
disappointing.”

So, it is Swedish and Norwegian money that was amassed by selling
explosives. They can spend it the way they wish - but are we supposed
to
look up to the grantees of their favors? Are we not obligated to
express our
real feelings on such important issues? The IAEA is a UN nuclear
watchdog
organization created in 1957 and suffering since from all the UN
weaknesses.
As long as it is dependent on an uncertain board of directors it can
not be
entrusted with real secrets. The simple fact is that the US, and
others, do
not entrust it with intelligence needed to do a good job - so it is
just one
more organization waiting for changes at the UN itself.

Attachment #1: October 10, 2005 - based on reporting by The Epoch
Times (www.theepochtimes.com).

Peder Giertsen, Epoch Times Norway, writes: “A Norwegian Member of
Parliament, Ms. Julie Christiansen, has supported the nomination of two
U.S. senators,
Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar, for their efforts for disarmament in the
earlier
Soviet Union and nonproliferation.”

“The IAEA is a key in this work, of course, but a Prize to Nunn and
Lugar
would have had a bigger impact in the U.S., and thus put disarmament
and
nonproliferation higher on the international agenda”, she said.