Int’l atomic agency’s intervention approach needs review

The intervention and regulatory framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in pursuing nuclear disarmament needs a second thought. The agency’s role is more of pursuing disarmament, research, development and practical application of atomic energy for peaceful uses and ensuring nuclear weapons (nukes) are not used for military purposes.   While these objectives are […]

The intervention and regulatory framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in pursuing nuclear disarmament needs a second thought. The agency’s role is more of pursuing disarmament, research, development and practical application of atomic energy for peaceful uses and ensuring nuclear weapons (nukes) are not used for military purposes.  

While these objectives are being pursued with some degree of success, the political aspect of negotiation and complying with agreements are often ignored, which is a principal element crucial in the de-escalation of tensions and convincing other countries, which often see nukes as shield for their survival not to follow the same path.

Ukraine, for instance, as at 1994 had the third largest nukes globally, but with the intervention of IAEA, it voluntarily surrendered its nuclear arsenal and the country is today the target of invasion from Russia. Where are the agreements signed in 1994 which guaranteed the sovereignty and security of Ukraine?

Muammar  Ghadaffi toed the same line in 2003 when he dismantled Libya’s Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) plant and Libya’s nuclear programme in exchange for economic aid and his government was toppled seven years later (2011). 

These two examples are indirectly throwing questions to countries like Syria and Iran which are trying very hard in achieving a nuclear status as a form of deterrence to tackle the West, and at the same time communicating to Pakistan and North Korea on whether dissolving their huge nuclear arsenals despite sanctions from the United Nations (UN) and the international community will be worth it.

Lastly, while nuclear disarmament is crucial to global peace and security, the method of pursuing it must be done on a fair ground and not at the disadvantage of non-permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), who also want to protect their territories and also rightfully pursue international political goals within legal limit. The current IAEA objectives need to be comprehensively reviewed to accommodate prioritising compliance with agreements signed leading to denuclearisation in some countries.

Moshood Olajide, Faculty of Law, Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Ile–Ife, Osun State. He can be reached via [email protected]