The IAEA and Adverse Non State Actors

The IAEA and Adverse Non State Actors
The IAEA is currently the lead international organisation to govern the development of, storage of, effective administration and auditing of nuclear technology and associated resources. States that are signatories to the Nuclear NPT and the Combined Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) are effectively supporting the IAEA as the governing body for nuclear strategic assets. With this in place, and the current intent and sophistication shown by organised crime networks and terrorist organizations, has caused many States to question the security measures associated with their current structures and that of their neighbouring States. Crime networks are money motivated whilst terrorist organisations are ideologically motivated. Both can profit through the proliferation of nuclear technology and material. Both defy State laws but under current guidelines can only be countered when a nuclear incident occurs by the suspension of normal legal processes on the official side. Prompting the need for emergency legislation to assure quick action and transparency for the time frame dictated by the situation.(refer footnote 1)

International liberalism, with all its benefits has provided an appropriate structure for individuals to develop beliefs and followings that are not reflective of international norms. The freedoms and equality attributed to individuals within a liberal system poses a threat both domestically and internationally. Especially, if the individuals are linked to criminal or terrorist activity and work within either civil or military nuclear programs for advances for either materialistic or ideological reasons. Without sufficient monitoring and reporting networks in place, detection of potential nuclear incident would only be after the incident.

Referring to ideological reasons, it is pertinent to mention the ideology of international Islamism, that has been associated with providing the main motivation for Al Qaeda and other Jihadi organizations associated with it. Mr Raman has identified that one of the main components of this ideology “is the religious right and obligation of Muslims to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and use them, if necessary, to protect Islam. This is as a means to prevent the occupation of a Muslim homeland by non-Muslims, the liberation of a historic Muslim homeland, which is now occupied by non-Muslims and to avenge insults to Islam. Advocating the possession and use of a WMD as an act of self-defence for the Muslims as well as to commit an act of reprisal.”(refer footnote 2)

This ideology has been silent in relation to the Iranian nuclear issue, raising questions whether they identify the religious right to acquire WMD as being universally a Muslim right or whether they restrict this right to being only a Sunni-Wahabi right. The connotations from this ideology is that as the ideology is not restricted by State borders then the only way that WMD proliferation can be effectively monitored and contained is through the establishment of an international institution with sufficient jurisdiction and powers. This would ensure that security and safety of all States can be assured. Cooperation and coordination of all States needs to be effectively implemented.

Similarly, crime that is materialistic based, or opportunistic in application would also be able to be prevented by the implementation and empowerment of such an international institution. This would be keeping within the tenets of liberalism on an international level to ensure nuclear security and the safety of the international community as a whole. The former, ideologically based crime would be easier to map and monitor without the implementation of such an institution but the latter, materialistic based acquisition would be difficult to monitor or detect under current structures and arrangements.

Footnotes
1. Brian Crozier. A Theory of Conflict. 1974. London. p150 Brian Crozier provides a legal guideline for the countering of insurgency activity that is associated with revolutionary action and violence. He identifies that the State needs to have emergency legislature implemented that is able to be enforced for a limited time frame to assure the security of a population when a group has taken the law into their own hands. His proposed idea of emergency legislature that is enforced for a limited time frame for legitimising counter-insurgency activity translates directly to that which is needed for effective control of strategic nuclear assets where threats to security and safety have consequences that are significant and international.
2 Mr B. Raman. The Sunni A Bomb vs the Shia A Bomb- International Terrorism Monitor- Paper No. 202. Noida. 2007. p.1