Proliferation Press

A webpage devoted to tracking and analyzing current events related to the proliferation of WMD/CBRN.

Archive for the ‘New York Times’ Category

NYTimes Shines Light on IAEA Head ElBaradei, But What About the US-India Nuclear Deal?

Posted by K.E. White on September 17, 2007

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy, snagged the The New York Times front page—well at least the front page of their morning on-line edition.

The piece is part diplomatic update and even-handed psychological portrait of the IAEA director general. The piece shows ElBaradei as industrious and ambitious, tasked with the perhaps impossible situation of mediating the Iranian nuclear crisis.

The article is a good read, but its attempt to caste a general narrative to ElBaradei’s career is a bit madding owing to one glaring exception: ElBaradei’s approval of the US-India nuclear deal.

The discussing ElBaradei’s unprecedented third terms at the IAEA, Elaine Sciolino and William J. Broad leave out a critical wrinkle in the IAEA Chief’s career. What does it mean that the IAEA is supporting what critics consider an unfair nuclear give-away to India?

Also what did America extract from ElBaradei for his third term? Perhaps nothing—but perhaps it was endorsing the US-Indian nuclear deal—or merely coming out in force with his approval.

One other addition may have added some flavor to the piece: ElBaradei storming out of an IAEA board of governors meeting. Why the temper tantrum? Anger over the EU not fully supporting his Iranian nuclear time-table, the very diplomatic nugget the article is trying to elucidate.

Advertisements

Posted in Elaine Sciolino, ElBaradei, IAEA, Iran, New York Times, Nuclear Deal, U.S. India Nuclear Deal, William J. Broad | Leave a Comment »

WaPo Endorses Surge in Iraq, New York Times Avers Pullout

Posted by K.E. White on September 14, 2007

From today’s Washington Post editorial:

Still, there are no easy alternatives to the present policy. In the past we have looked favorably on bipartisan proposals that would change the U.S. mission so as to focus on counterterrorism and training of the Iraqi army, while withdrawing most U.S. combat units. Mr. Bush said he would begin a transition to that reduced posture in December. But according to Gen. Petraeus, Mr. Crocker and the consensus view of U.S. intelligence agencies, if the U.S. counterinsurgency mission were abandoned in the near future, the result would be massive civilian casualties and still-greater turmoil that could spread to neighboring countries.

Mr. Bush’s plan offers, at least, the prospect of extending recent gains against al-Qaeda in Iraq, preventing full-scale sectarian war and allowing Iraqis more time to begin moving toward a new political order. For that reason, it is preferable to a more rapid withdrawal. It’s not necessary to believe the president’s promise that U.S. troops will “return on success” in order to accept the judgment of Mr. Crocker: “Our current course is hard. The alternatives are far worse.”

And from the New York Times:

Instead, Mr. Bush would do what the vast majority of Americans want — plan an orderly withdrawal while doing what he can to mitigate the consequences of the war.

If Mr. Bush had a new strategy, he would have talked to the American people last night about what he would do to draw Iraq’s neighbors into a solution. Last January, when he announced the troop increase, Mr. Bush promised to “use America’s full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East.” The world is still waiting.

A strategy for ending the war would include real efforts to hold Iraq’s government to verifiable measures of political conciliation — and make clear to Iraq’s leaders that they cannot count on America’s indefinite and unquestioning protection.

Posted in Crocker, Iraq, New York Times, Petraeus, surge, Washington Post | Leave a Comment »