IAEA and Syria–A Complex Relationship
Though Syria has withdrawn its bid to represent the Middle East on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it has said that it will allow nuclear inspectors to continue investigating within its borders–with caveats. Syria claims that it will not allow inspectors into its military sites, claiming this will hurt its ‘national security’ interests.
The IAEA has described Syria’s cooperation thus far as ‘good,’ though not without some interference. Of course, excluding inspectors from the very locations where one might expect to find weapons (its military locations) is problematic. However, Syria has shown itself to be more transparent than a lot of other countries in terms of its nuclear programs (or lack thereof). The BBC report on this issue illustrates the complexity of the situation–the headline claims that Syria has ‘rebuff[ed]‘ the IAEA while seeming to contradict itself later in describing the relations with the IAEA as ‘good.’
Syria’s withdrawal from consideration from the board is a setback for what was a promising bid to maintain international transparency on its programs and send a signal for its support of such transparency for other regimes in the region. However, claims that showing its military bases jeopardizes national security (whether that claim illustrates Syria’s true reluctance for full inspections) is a valid one. International bodies investigating sensitive military areas may be necessary for full disclosure and as a ‘fact check’ for any state’s claims, but it does invite problems: are investigators going to be more loyal to the integrity of the IAEA’s investigations–only regarding nuclear programs–or might they compromise other security secrets under the legitimate guise of the IAEA? Surely Syria has expressed its reservations (whether sincere or motivated) about the IAEA’s ability to be perfectly objective in such matters.
Joshua Bark
