Talk:Hans Blix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Sweden The article on Hans Blix is supported by WikiProject Sweden, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents

[edit] Regarding False Statements

I re-added this. "In his report to the UN Security Council on Feb. 14, 2003, then-UNMOVIC head Hans Blix claimed that "If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament -- under resolution 687 -- could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided." [[1]] This contradicts stated U.S. policy throughout the 1990s, which was to maintain stanctions whatever the Iraqi regime did, see: Autopsy of a Disaster: The U.S. Sanctions Policy on Iraq [[2]] ."

And I want to know why anyone would want to take it out (again).

I removed:

  • claim Iraq has, with Blix as the chief weapons inspector. Although Iraq claims it got rid of all its weapons of mass destruction, Blix's team reported in early December 2002 that they found mustard gas in a shed whose door was blocked by heavy equipment.

Where is the source for that? Pizza Puzzle

[edit] My objection to "False Statements"

I took the "False Statements section out and I think it should be removed again.

1. What is classified as a false statement strikes me as an assertion of opinion. Of course no one knows what the future may hold exactly, so any statement about the future is just a prediction or opinion, not a factual statement. Moreover, while I don't dispute that the US gov't would have been opposed to lifting sanctions, and may even have exercised a UNSC veto given the opportunity, it is not certain that sanctions would have remained had Blix's antecedents occurred. Blix's view as expressed here may well coincide with the views of many other nations. Accordingly, the notion that this is a false statement appears to me to be the author's opinion rather than a clear objectively verifiable fact, and Blix seems to be guilty of neither ignorance nor misleading intent.

2. This whole section just does not belong in here. How many other bios have such a section at all, let alone so prominently displayed? (when I removed it it was the first section of the article!). This strikes me as something not of central importance to the bio and not meriting inclusion. User:67.172.157.77/Steve (Unsigned)67.172.157.77 02:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Something else not pertaining to the False Statements Section.

I'm not sure but shouldn't it be *those". I couldn't find the actual quote though.

"I have my detractors in Washington. There are s who spread things around, of course, who planted things in the media."


From the article:

  • "While head of the IAEA in the 1980's, Blix made repeated inspection visits to Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor before its destruction by the Israeli Air Force. Despite the regular inspections of Iraq's research facilities, Blix and the IAEA never discovered a highly advanced nuclear weapons program in Iraq. In fact Iraq was repeatedly praised by the IAEA for its full cooperation with the IAEA. It was only after the first Gulf War that the full extent of Iraq's nuclear programs were known."

I'm not saying this is wrong -- it may well be right -- but it's a large portion of a short article, it's politically loaded, and it's unsourced, all of which lead me to be suspicious. Does anyone have any documentation for this? -- Jmabel 21:49, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ask the Mossad, after all Israel bombed it.--Tomtom 06:54, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This paragraph is completely wrong. There's no evidence there has ever been a nuclear program at Osirak. How can you discover something non-existant? As for the Iraqi intent to develop nuclear weapons, neither Blix nor IAEA questioned that that was a strong possibilty. "Praised"??? Whole paragraph is POV and non factual.

I'll remove it within a couple of days if no responses.

See http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/cqr_proliferation.pdf and http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull394/fischer.html and http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/index.shtml --80.217.225.208 15:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I would refer you to the discussion below for a background on this paragraph. TDC 15:28, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll duplicate my comments so that they can be read in both sections that discuss this particular paragraph. --80.217.225.208 01:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Although the person who added the thing about the OCGC didn't add a reference as requested, the info appears true - that's the lead release right now on their website (sorry, they don't seem to have permalinks). Infact, Blix seems to be the ONLY such advisor. It's questionable if this is really that worthy of a mention in Wikipedia, however. - Dave

I realize that several people (apparently including Rama) have attempted to point to Israel's bombing of Osiraq as the catalyst for Iraq's nuclear program, but it just does not hold up to scrutiny. Iraqi defectors as well as the IAEA's post Gulf War investigations found that Iraq had a clandestine program dating back to the late 1970's.

Most of Iraq's nuclear work was done at Al Tuwaitha. Although the IAEA had access to Al Tuwaitha, it was extremely limited with the majority of the complex off limits to IAEA inspectors because no “declared nuclear activity” was taking place there. Evidently Blix saw nothing wrong with this.

For the section quoting (although I did not include the quote to avoid POV) Blix praising Iraq compliance on the eve of the Invasion of Kuwait and during the beginning of Iraq's crash bomb program: NuclearFuel, August 20, 1990

The matter with the present formulation is that is leave the impression that the Iraqi military nuclear program held place at the Osiraq facility; for what I read, the IAEA stood by its position that its monitoring of the facility allowed it to certify that no military project could be held there [3]. So I think that to actually state that the Iraqi nuclear program was indeed held at Osiraq, we would need very good links to point to. In any case, the article is meant to be about Hans Blix, not the IAEA and especially not the work of the IAEA in Iraq between 1980 and 1991. So could we perhaps formulate things a little bit differently, like
"While head of the IAEA in the 1980's, Blix made repeated inspection visits to Iraq's Osiraq nuclear reactor before its destruction by the Israeli Air Force. In the following years, the IAEA did not discovered the nuclear weapons program being pursued by Iraq since 1971, and Iraq was repeatedly praised by the IAEA for its full cooperation." ?
It would also be nice if we could document the "the nuclear weapons program being pursued by Iraq since 1971" with links, naturally. I'll try and see wether interesting things can be found on this perticular issue in Disarming Iraq. Rama 17:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This paragraph is completely wrong. There's no evidence there has ever been a nuclear program at Osirak. How can you discover something non-existant? As for the Iraqi intent to develop nuclear weapons, neither Blix nor IAEA questioned that that was a strong possibilty. "Praised"??? Whole paragraph is POV and non factual.

I'll remove it within a couple of days if no responses.

See http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/cqr_proliferation.pdf and http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull394/fischer.html and http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/index.shtml --80.217.225.208 15:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


The proposed paragraph by Rama: "While head of the IAEA in the 1980's, Blix made repeated inspection visits to Iraq's Osiraq nuclear reactor before its destruction by the Israeli Air Force. In the following years, the IAEA did not discovered the nuclear weapons program being pursued by Iraq since 1971, and Iraq was repeatedly praised by the IAEA for its full cooperation." ?

  • Any links/evidence that Iraq did pursue a nuclear program since 1971? (remember, the pursuing of a nuclear program by a nation is somewhat different than a desire to one day have nuclear weapons)
  • Any links/evidence that IAEA did not ’discover’ any information that Iraq in the ’following years’ was interested in building/acquiring nukes? (remember; inspections are carried out because there is an assessment that a regime might acquire WMD)
  • Any links/evidence that Iraq was praised by IAEA? (remember, IAEA uses carrot/stick. In plenty of comments from above links provided by me you can read that IAEA repeatedly admonished Iraq when they felt Saddam failed to cooperate)

My POV:

What’s the general purpose of the paragraph? In what way does it illustrate the career of Hans Blix? False/unsubstantiated, irrelevant POV-material that doesn’t belong in Wikipedia. A better way if someone wants the article reflect badly on Blix, yet be factual and NPOV, is to include other controversial actions by Blix that can be supported by evidence and/or to include quotes from Wolfowitz and other critics. --80.217.225.208 02:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


To reflect negative opinions about Blix I suggest something like the following paragraph instead:
Newt Gingrich said approving Hans Blix as chief U.N. weapons inspector was a mistake made "even though he was clearly opposed to war and determined to buy time and find excuses for Saddam Hussein." (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84856,00.html)

--80.217.225.208 19:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

So Blix and the IAEA gives Iraq a clean bill of health in 1990 for their nuclear program, and it has no significance to his effectiveness as a weapons inspector? How could any competent inspector miss a WMD program as big as Iraq’s in 1990, considering that the IAEA had inspectors at the same facility the work was being carried out in? The information is sourced, and written in a NPOV manner. TDC 19:38, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

First question: No, it hasn't according to the US government, the UN or the IAEA. Don't confuse "a clean bill of health" with an abscence of nuclear weapons/program. It only means that inspections have been carried out and no evidence has been found.

As of August 1990, the IAEA believed Iraq had no covert nuclear weapons program. Let me repeat that for you As of August 1990, the IAEA believed Iraq had no covert nuclear weapons program. This in spite of the fact that two years later they found out about Iraq's nuclear weapon program, and just how advanced it was. If you can produce an IAEA document dated before the first gulf war that Iraq had a nuclear weapon program, then do so. TDC 22:01, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
"Don't confuse "a clean bill of health" with an abscence of nuclear weapons/program. It only means that inspections have been carried out and no evidence has been found."

Second question: If his competence was in question he wouldn't have been offered the job. Like all similar inspections of this kind it has to do with funding, personnel etc. What's your point? How does it relate to the paragraph in question?

Of course, after all incompetent people are never put in places of high responsibility in the UN.
Blix stated that the Iraqis never touched the nuclear highly-enriched uranium which was under our safeguards, which in some ways indicate also that the safeguard had an effect.
Out of context. The Iraqis never did touch the uranium until after the inspectors were thrown out. So Blix was correct.
Iraq later had secretly moved the highly-enriched uranium in January 1991 and not reported its location to IAEA for several months, in violation of its safeguards agreement. Moreover, the Iraqis had cut the ends off some HEU fuel elements---in preparation, as Iraq later admitted,25 for HEU recovery operations. The IAEA refused to back down on this point until after General Kamel's 1995 revelation of the crash program.
At the time that the crash program was discovered, Iraq claimed that it had planned to build a 50-centrifuge cascade to re-enrich the 80% enriched HEU of Russian origin, but had barely begun construction by January 1991. The IAEA, in public statements, used this claim to support its argument that the crash program would not have achieved its goals by April 1991, when the next IAEA inspection had been scheduled to take place.[4] TDC 22:01, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Would you please answer my earlier question regarding what/where these sources are that says Iraq pursued a nuclear program since 1971. Any sources that say there was a nuclear program at Osirik. Any sources that say that Blix praised Iraq any more than he admonished them. Any sources that he praised them at all. Any sources that it is possible to fail in discovering something when that something doesn't exist. Any sources that Iraq had "highly advanced nuclear weapons program" yet produced no nuclear weapons, not even upgraded uranium/plutonium or any technology needed to produce these materials. ? --80.217.225.208 20:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

A secret nuclear weapons program is initiated by the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC). The newly appointed chairman of the physics department of the Nuclear Research Center (NRC) is Dr. Khidhir Hamza. Hamza is approached by the two men in charge of the IAEC, the secretary-general, Dr. Moyesser al-Mallah, and the newly appointed director of the NRC, Husham Sharif, both Baath party members. Al-Mallah and Sharif request that Hamza develop a plan for acquiring nuclear weapons, one that uses an ambitious and carefully designed civilian nuclear program as a guise to obtain the technology, skills, and infrastructure required to successfully create a nuclear arsenal. [Note: Whether at the direction of Saddam Hussein or simply as a ruse to generate revenue for the poorly funded nuclear program, it is unclear who or what prompted the two scientists to approach Hamza with the idea of building a nuclear weapon.] [5]
As to Blix praising Iraq, it was cited earlier (NuclearFuel, August 20, 1990), I have not been able to find sources in which Blix "admonished" them. Please correct me if I am wrong. And let me get this strait, are you really saying that in 1990-1991 Iraq did not have an active and advanced nuclear weapons program? TDC 22:01, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Was it an op-ed in NuclearFuel that claimed Blix was praising Iraq? Why has no credible news source repeated this information, especially considering the continous assault on Blix by pundits?
As for non-praise: "United Nations chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it attempts to hinder or delay his mission." BBC
"The United Nations' chief weapons inspector, Dr Hans Blix, warned Saddam Hussein last night that there must be no "cat and mouse" games on the ground in Iraq." Telegraph
I personally put as much faith in Khidhir Hamza as I do in Ahmed Chalabi. You do realize that almost everything Hamza has claimed has been proven false. And let me get this strait, you don't really have any sources to back up the false assertion in the article that a highly advanced nuclear weapons program was being pursued by Iraq since 1971?
Or any explanation for why Osirik is mentioned twice in the paragraph. My guess is that you want to insinuate that Hans Blix failed to discover a nuclear program that you believe were there before Israel bombed it. Without sources - even Israel hasn't laid forth evidence that Osirik was anything but an ordinary nuclear plant.
The overall tone of the paragraph is that Blix was incompenent and overly friendly with Saddam. That is your POV - not the assessment of his peers, the International community or the Bush-administration.
--80.217.225.208 00:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Sources for Iraq weapons program dating to 1971. Well, here is some info from the CFR [6]. Some more from Global Security [7]. Even more from the FAS [8]. And yet some more from ISIS [9]
Your attempt to paint all those who agree with the 1971 starting date for Iraq’s nuclear weapons program as INC shills lacks any concrete evidence.
As for Osirik being an “an ordinary nuclear plant” , this statement shows your complete ignorance of this whole debate. Tammuz was a 40MWth reactor, no electricity was being produced there or could be produced there for that matter. It sole purpose was to advance the Iraqi weapons program. All reactors generate plutonium, but some reactor types produce more than others. Non pressurized reactors, like Tammuz, are not used for the production of electrical power, and have no value, other than making nuclear materials. A 40MWth reactor would have given the Iraqi’s the ability to produce about 3 bombs a year. After Tammuz’s destruction the Iraqis began developing HEU bombs as opposed to Pu.
If you wish to have a discussion on nuclear technology, I would love to demonstrate to you just how far out of your league you are. TDC 15:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
As far as Blix’s competency, chew on this: the IAEA inspectors worked day in and out a few hundred feet from the buildings where Iraq’s covert nuclear weapons program was being performed. TDC 15:30, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Osirak clearly was a research reactor; however, this does not make a proof that a military program was going one there, especially a "highly advanced one". Do a few physicists fiddling with the theoritical basis for a bomb make for a "highly advanced programme" ? Furthermore, how would one be supposed to detect this ?
Your reference to this so-called "Council on Foreign Relations", a US right-wing think tank, opens with gems like
"Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?
That seems certain. Although Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein claims to have destroyed his entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons-and the capability to rebuild his arsenal-in accordance with U.N. Security Council resolutions imposed after the 1991 Gulf War, virtually no experts believe him."
You may cite it as an example of the atmosphere which was reigning in the USA before and in the beginning of the invasion of Iraq, but that certainly cannot be cited as factual and acurate inforamtion.
The article on GlobalSecurity.org, very interesting and relevant, says that "When Israeli intelligence confirmed Iraq's intention of producing weapons at Osiraq, the Israeli government decided to attack"; the following part regards Israeli evalution of the situation, which led to the bombing. The bombing of Osirak is an actual and verifiable fact, the fact that an operational military programme was going on there is not -- Isreali intelligence says there was one, the UN and France, notably, seem not to have had the same evaluation. Israeli intelligence has soemtimes been faulty, and Israel is well-known for taking drastic and sometimes violent actions, so it is possible that they bombed installations which did not serve in a military programme. The link is valid and interesting, but does not prove anything.
The article on FAS is the same that on GlobalSecurity.org.
The ISIS article is certainly the most interesting of all, and does provide some actual information. Note that amongst these informations are things which might make a much more detailed description than "highly advanced programme".
Regarding your comment "As far as Blix’s competency, chew on this: the IAEA inspectors worked day in and out a few hundred feet from the buildings where Iraq’s covert nuclear weapons program was being performed", it might be intersting to know whether the IAEA was allowed in the said buildings. The article mostly discusses the lack of information fed to the IAEA, and I fail to see any question about its competency in interpreting such information should it have had them. As for "If you wish to have a discussion on nuclear technology, I would love to demonstrate to you just how far out of your league you are", you are welcome to produce evidences if you have them. Rama 16:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
How does someone determine if a weapons program was ongoing? I don’t know, maybe the IAEA could have done its job. The IAEA inspectors were not allowed in the buildings to investigate the activities, that’s the whole point! The Tuwaitha facility is a very large sprawling complex with dozens of buildings, many of which were off limits to the IAEA on grounds that the work going on in them was classified military work. The equipment and documentation contained in these buildings, and later verified by the IAEA’s follow up of defector Hussein Kamel statements, showed just how far along Iraq actually was in its nuclear program. Incompetence is the only reason I can see for the IAEA’s lack of concern that self declared “classified military work” was taking place in a nuclear research facility. It does not take a genius to make that connection.
Would you like more evidence of Blix’s incompetence:
the Iraqis never touched the nuclear HEU which was under our safeguards, which in some ways indicate also that the safeguard had an effect. Had they touched anything (it would have been) immediately discovered, and these would have been reported, and they would have evoked a governmental opinion and governmental action. They didn't want to do that. So they never touched the material which was under safeguard
-Hans Blix, National Press Club, May 20, 1993
But, as the IAEA later discovered Iraq moved its HEU in early 1991 as well as cut the ends off of HEU fuel. All of which Blix refused to admit to until 1995.
I suppose it does come down to what the definition of the phrase “highly advanced” means, and there is certainly room for interpretation on the subject. Since by most estimate, all Iraq needed was some HEU to make their bomb, having a design that most experts believed to be workable, and secondary/tertiary materials for the bomb, I would consider that “highly advanced”.
The FAS article and the GS article are the same, so here is another from the Nuclear Threat Initiative [10].
I am afraid you lost me when you called the CFR a US “right-wing think tank”. I think you meant elitists. What in the body of the CFR’s page could be argued with the information available in 2003, or more importantly, who in 2003 argued that any of the information contained on the CFR’s page was faulty? TDC 17:17, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Khidir Hamza was a member of INC (and a con artist). So my assertion that INC were the ones stating that a 'highly advanced nuclear weapons program' was being pursued since 1971 stands. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
--80.217.225.208 17:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Once again your lack of documentation is stunning. None of your sources prove that Hamza was a member of the INC, and secondly none of your sources provide evidence that either the INC or Hamza was their source. Keep on chugging though. TDC 17:17, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
"In 1994, Chalabi conjured an Iraqi defector named Khidir Hamza, who claimed to be a senior member of Hussein's nuclear weapons team. According to Hamza, Iraq was very close to completing the development of nuclear weapons. He was given to CIA agents, who subsequently decided he was utterly without credibility. Imad Khadduri, the Iraqi nuclear physicist who was in charge of documenting nuclear development stated flatly that Hamza, "Did not, even remotely, get involved in any scientific research, except for journalistic articles, dealing with the fission bomb, its components or its effects."
Hamza, in attempting to establish his credibility, coughed up a 20-page document which had apparently been developed by "Group 4," the Iraqi department responsible for designing nuclear weaponry. At first, the report appeared to be damning evidence that Hussein was developing nuclear weaponry in defiance of UN sanctions. After a further review by the International Atomic Energy Agency, however, it was determined that the report was "not authentic."
In fact, analysis suggests this purported Iraqi nuclear document was, in fact, a manufactured fraud created by Iranian intelligence. Several technical descriptions in the report used phrases that would only be used by an Iranian. The use of the term 'dome,' 'Qubba' in Iranian, instead of 'hemisphere,' which is 'Nisuf Kura' in Arabic, is particularly instructive. The usage of these words indicate the document was originally written in Farsi by an Iranian scientist and then translated into Arabic.
Iran, apparently, was creating and disbursing false information intended to demonstrate that Hussein was building nuclear weapons. This particular fraud, and Hamza himself, was used repeatedly to justify the invasion of Iraq. It appears to have been a masterful intelligence operation out of Terhan, one that came to the attention of American officials by way of Ahmad Chalabi. Thus, the new accusations that Chalabi is a tool of Iran have a basis in past activities." one of my submitted sources
--80.217.225.208 17:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
TDC, I am afraid that your comment about the IEAE "doing its job" by stepping outside of its mendate shows a gross misunderstanding of International Right. Which, by the way, Dr. Hans Blix happens to be graduated in. UN work is Internation Right, it is complicated stuff.
As for "who in 2003 argued that any of the information contained on the CFR’s page was faulty" ? Well, the IEAE and Hans Blix, notably, these very people who you claim were so incompetant, but happen to have been absolutely right. I am most surprised that you produce documents dating from 2003, which are now proven to be based on incorrect, faulty or even dishonest information.
The article by NTI is also a good reference, and I would be delighted if the Wikipedia article could reflect its precision and exactitude (while staying on focus, this article is about Hans Blix, not about the Iraqi nuclear programwhere lengthly details belong). Rama 17:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
PS: Oh, incidentaly, you wll have noticed that I have just attempted a restructuration of the article, including some miscalenous informations quickly taken from the French, German and Swedish article. More work will be welcome of course. Rama 17:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with this paragraph (disregarding the muddiness)? What are not verifiable facts other than contributions from you such as; Iraq has pursued nukes since 1971, Osirak was anything other than an ordinary nuclear plant, Blix repeatedly praised Iraq???

"While head of the IAEA in the 1980's, Blix made repeated inspection visits to Iraq's Osiraq nuclear reactor before its attempted destruction by the Iranians in 1980 and the successful destruction by the Israeli Air Force in 1981. Although most agreed that Iraq was years away from being able to build a nuclear weapon, the Iranians and the Israelis felt any raid must occur well before nuclear fuel was loaded to prevent nuclear fallout. The attack was regarded as being in breach with the United Nations Charter (S/RES/487) and international law and was widely condemned. Blix and the IAEA never discovered the highly advanced nuclear weapons program that, according to the Iraqi National Congress, was being pursued by Iraq since 1971, and Iraq was alternately praised and admonished by the IAEA for its cooperation/lack of cooperation. Blix personally praised the cooperation of the Iraqi government in August 1990, around the same time Iraq had began a crash nuclear weapons program to prepare itself for its Invasion of Kuwait. At other times he personally admonished Saddam for "cat and mouse" games [16] and warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission [17]. It was only after the first Gulf War that the full extent of Iraq's nuclear programs, which had greatly increased since the destruction of Osiraq, were known. Back in 1982, the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the State Department's list of countries that allegedly supported terrorism. The collaboration with Hussein during and after the Iran-Iraq War by several industrialised countries has lead many to believe that there wasn’t a strong political will to fully utilize the IAEA.[18]" --80.217.225.208 04:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Rock band

I have reverted the edit

Hans Blix and The Weapons Inspectors, a newly formed band from sydney Australia. Key to the band is its eathos of loving music and never selling out. The Band a trio are known for there zeppelinesque riffs Doors inspired organ solos and hard rocking style. Such songs as 'seedy sailor' and "Potent Tonic" have givin the band a high profile in the Sydny area. Currently writting and recording there first album The band has some great ideas translated from there insane live performances and a lot of riffing out in the living room. The Blix currently has a fan club of over 100 (official-some estimates put the numbers at thousands) people all eagerly awaiting the forth-comming album. The Band welcomes all those who love to rock out / air guitar etc (look out for the album)

on the policy that Wikipedia should not include material on particular people who are not ("not yet", I wish for them) of notable importance for an international project. See Wikipedia:Vanity page. The material might be welcome later on if the carreer of the group is succesful.

In any case, this information does not belong here, but in something like Hans Blix and The Weapons Inspectors (rock band). You are of course welcome to crate the page, but there are high chances that it would be swiftly voted for deletion, at this stage of the carreer of the band.

Sorry about this, and wishing them the best (any chance that they'd make some of their records available as Free music ?). Rama 05:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Team America

For what purpose is this piece of information in an article about Hans Blix? I don't see references to Team America in articles about Kim Jong-Il, Mount Rushmore or the War on Terror. --80.217.225.208 15:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

I am rather pleased to see people interested in improving this page, which has stayed in an awkard state for too long.

80.217.225.208, would you consider registering a user account ? it takes seconds, and will be much more convenient for everyone to recognise you easily, talk to your user page, etc.

The recent edits are interesting, and I am delighted to see them coming with references. This being said, I am a little bit afraid that the timeline is not emphasised enough, events from 1990 begin next to events of 2002, with a "back to 1982" following... It would probably be better to "flatten" this out and use a chronological order.

Also, even though it will obviously be difficult, we must be cautious not to make this article a summary of the stance of the USA toward Iraq, but stay focused on Blix himself -- I mean, not wander too far and too long in subjects not directly related to Blix; the "Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the State Department's..." part, for instance, is OK but slippery. In doubt, posting a part for consultation, like it was done above, is a very good idea.

I look forward to seeing the developments here. Rama 10:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll create an account (even though it probably means I'll be spending more time than planned here on Wikipedia).
I agree re your concern about the timeline. The whole paragraph might be difficult to interpret for someone not familiar with the subject.
Indeed, there's a lot of 'Blix-material' that is more appropriate for this article than the usual speculations about how/why/where Saddam had/didn't have WMDs.
The "Reagan Administration"-line was included so that other claims in the article would be in context. TDC went out of his way to insinuate that Blix was incompetent and overly friendly with Saddam, using a blend of logical fallacy and unsubstantiated claims (i.e. 1971, Osiraq and praise). Including POV'lines like: "Despite the regular inspections of Iraq's research facilities, Blix and the IAEA never discovered a highly advanced nuclear weapons program in Iraq."
I suggested (still do) that we could use quotes to reflect the opinions of those of Blix' critics that expressed the notion that Blix was incompetent and far too cosy with Saddam. I offered this one; "Newt Gingrich said approving Hans Blix as chief U.N. weapons inspector was a mistake made "even though he was clearly opposed to war and determined to buy time and find excuses for Saddam Hussein."' FoxNews
--80.217.225.208 11:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia can be somewhat of a chronophage activity :) Welcome aboard !
The timeline thing is probably symptomatic of the way that people form different sensibilities tend to add layers of informations rather than rework an article as a coherent entity.
Speaking of which, I always found that "highly advanced nuclear weapons program in Iraq." thing was always very bizarre; I can't see what criteria was used to say that the nuclear weapons programme was "highly advanced"; I very much doubt that the French would have left this Osirak system with military capabilities, they are rather jealous of their Force de frappe (I think that most people have trouble distinguishing between a nulcear reactor and a nuclear bomb, so the difference between a nuclear nuclear for civilian or military applicationsis reallly a challenge !). Also, the article which documents the consequences of the bombing of Osirak says that the subsequent programme was much more important than the previous one; since we now know that it never went anywhere, that would sort of relativise the dangers f the first one... At least regarding its "highly advanced" state and the "failure" of Blix to recognise it.
Quotations are indeed a very good way to do this (either about or by Blix). For instance, I think that we might conclude the "Iraqi weapons" part with the one where Blix speaks the word "bastards", and his subsequent comments about it (where he says that, having studied in Cambridge, he did not measure accurately the impact of the word on the American public).
Cheers ! Rama 12:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
TDC, please state your concerns and suggested improvements on the talk page if you have any. The edits by 80.217.225.208 are clearly better documented and more exact than some other parts of the article (That "highly advanced nuclear programme", for instance...), and even if they can be sbject to more improvements (which are discuted right above), they are quite clearly a step toward a better article. So I would appreciate if you did not take on just reverting back to a previous version of the article without good reasons for doing so. Thank you. Rama 15:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Rama, Thank you! I've got a feeling that I, against my better judgement, might end up with a wiki-habit.
About reworking an article as a coherent entity; I read and learn.
The "highly advanced nuclear weapons program"-thing is absurd. A relative term that easily can be used in an intellectually dishonest way. Does Blix' country Sweden, for example, have a highly advanced nuclear weapons program? Afterall, they almost finished building a nuclear bomb in the 1950's before a political decision was made not to follow through. They still have the materials neccessary as well as the technology and the know-how (plans & blueprints). There're even some Swedes that advocate becoming a nuclear nation.
The term carry different connotations if you're familiar with the field or if you're a layman. I don't think many people realize that just because Iraq had a nuclear program it didn't mean that they, by default, posed an immediate threat. Or that the inspections had no impact. Or, as you commented on, that a civilan nuclear program isn't necessarily equivalent to a military.
Excellent point about the subsequent programme being more important than the previous!
What do you think about including the Gingrich-quote, followed by the 'bastards/Washington detractors'-stuff from Blix? And maybe some back-and-forth quotes between Blix and those who saw him as an errand boy for the US. (He did take heat from all sides)
--Tsaddik Dervish 20:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I've added the two quotes now. The Gingrich-one from April 2003 and the Blix-one from June 2003. Don't know if more context is necessary or not. I mean, since HB, most likely, didn't refer to Gingrich specifically. --Tsaddik Dervish 12:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blix personally praised Iraq?

That Blix personally praised the Iraqi government is something that TDC repeatedly claimed he had sources for. Note this TalkPage contribution by TDC:

"For the section quoting (although I did not include the quote to avoid POV) Blix praising Iraq compliance on the eve of the Invasion of Kuwait and during the beginning of Iraq's crash bomb program: NuclearFuel, August 20, 1990"

Upon researching NuclearFuel I found this:

"In August 1990, only weeks after Iraq invaded Kuwait, IAEA safeguards director Jon Jennekens praised Iraqi cooperation with the IAEA as "exemplary," and said Iraq's nuclear experts "have made every effort to demonstrate that Iraq is a solid citizen" under the nonproliferation treaty." Source

Jon Jennekens was quoted in Mark Hibbs & Ann MacLachlan, “No Bomb-Quantity of HEU in Iraq, IAEA Safeguards Report Indicates,” NuclearFuel, August 20, 1990, p. 8.

I suggest that the sentence "Blix personally praised the cooperation of the Iraqi government in August 1990." needs to be greatly altered or other references need to surface. --Tsaddik Dervish 08:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Team America

(re?)inserted a small section regarding Hans Blix in Team America: World Police. I feel this is important because it highlights Blix's high international profile, something that very very few people in the field of non-proliferation have managed to achieve. For a UN employee to be included and recognized in a movie targeted at American teens is high praise indeed. It also illustrates popular American opinion regarding the non-proliferation regime (Blix threatening to write an angry letter if he is not allowed to carry out inspections), and also regarding the North Korean regime (Blix instantly being put to death).

Re the above comment regarding the same, at the moment there are indeed references to Team America in the articles on Kim Jong-Il and Mount Rushmore (not added by me). Burtonpe 15:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I rather doubt that Team America: World Police is aimed at Drew Marthaler. Furthermore, I very much doubt that Blix threatening to write an angry letter if he is not allowed to carry out inspections is indicative of a "popular American opinion regarding the non-proliferation regime"; it is very clearly a satire. Rama 16:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I have shortened the mention. I am not opposed to mentioning this film, but telling the story is not appropriate. Rama 16:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Core question?

Dr Blix said that even if the cooperation from the Iraqies left much to ask for they haven't found any solid evidence of nuclear weapons or related systems,

And after two Gulf Wars we still haven't seen one single piece of solid evidence that he was wrong.

The US lead alliance started the second war to rid the world from this serious threat. And then slowly reverted to 'we are obliged to do this to rid the poor Iraqies from this dictator'.

But so far, several years later, we haven't seen any evidence that Dr Blix and UN successors was wrong. Hdw 14:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] =========================================

RE: Core question

Is your question rleated specifically to Blix's tenor as head of UNMOVIC? Secondly, you narrow the question considerably to the nuclear issue alone unless this is what you mean by "related systems"

Let's go to Exhibit A:

The testimony of Ambassador Rolf Ekeus who served as the head of the UN Special Commission on Iraq for 6 years

Ekeus poses your question this way:

"But a big question remains about the puzzling absence of chemical weapons in Iraq. Detractors of Bush and Blair have tried to make political capital of the presumed discrepancy between the top-level assurances about Iraq's possession of chemical weapons (and other WMD) and the inability of invading forces to find such stocks."

And goes on to describe this as "a distortion and trivialization of a major threat to international peace and security."


" [T]he Iraqi policy after the Gulf War was to halt all production of warfare agents and to focus on design and engineering, with the purpose of activating production and shipping of warfare agents and munitions directly to the battlefield in the event of war. Many hundreds of chemical engineers and production and process engineers worked to develop nerve agents, especially VX, with the primary task being to stabilize the warfare agents in order to optimize a lasting lethal property. Such work could be blended into ordinary civilian production facilities and activities, e.g., for agricultural purposes, where batches of nerve agents could be produced during short interruptions of the production of ordinary chemicals. This combination of researchers, engineers, know-how, precursors, batch production techniques and testing is what constituted Iraq's chemical threat -- its chemical weapon. The rather bizarre political focus on the search for rusting drums and pieces of munitions containing low-quality chemicals has tended to distort the important question of WMD in Iraq...." [1] ~ Spiker_22 129.33.1.37 (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV in last sentence of iraq disarmament crisis

"leading to accusations that the United States, and in particular its President George W. Bush had deliberately inflated intelligence or lied about Iraq's weapons in order to justify an invasion of the country" this is clearly not NPOV, and the citation given is particularly heinous, one of the first sentences it says is "He said U.S. intelligence services owe President Bush an explanation for having concluded that Iraq had." i.e. it accuses the intelligence community and not president bush. While President Bush has certainly been accused of misleading people, i just dont think it is relevant in this article. I am going to keep the final mention that no weapons were found, but i think the mention that Mr. Blix's views ran counter to the bush administration cover all pertinent information. --Cptbuck 04:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Video Interview with Hans Blix

Hello. I have a query. In the past, I have posted a link to an exclusive video interview with Dr Hans Blix and it has now been removed because, according to the person who removed it, it was considered spam. In fact, the link was posted to enrich and enhance the quality of the article as a whole by providing new information with a new media platform. Never was my posting of this link done with the intention to create spam or any other malignant activity. It is a pity that readers of wikipedia can no longer take advantage of this video interview, which, I think (and you may judge for yourself by clicking here: http://www.thetalent.org/Video/frm-main.php?show=12&quality=stop) is an important source of knowledge for those interested in his work; it is, moreover, the only thorough video interview (it comprises three parts) available at this time. Would the readers of this talkpage and whoever who has the authority to remove links please let me know whether they agree to add this link or whether they consider it of no interest to the article in question? Taleinfo 16:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As there were no objections regarding the above, I have added the link to the interview with Hans Blix.Taleinfo 18:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:External links. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Bugged" Paragraph

The paragraph on Mr. Blix's suspicion that his office had been bugged by the United States seemed particularly unencyclopedic. Judging from the editing user's history, it would appear that this tangential addition was politically motivated.

I thoroughly read over the source and, while I can appreciate that Mr. Blix was a paranoid man, and even that such paranoia may have been justified, I fail to see why this bit of detail is any more important than Mr. Blix's favorite color. This is only further compounded by the fact that Mr. Blix's claim was never substantiated in any form. I have reverted the paragraph in question, but welcome further discussion of the matter. -anon 71.238.54.14 (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm, no user registration. How courageous. Calling Blix "paranoid". Yes, how NPOV.

I reverted the changes, demoted it so that it no longer has its own subheading, and added some partial substantion: the U.S. requested that the British help wiretap U.N. security counsel delegates around the time it was seeking their approval for the invasion of Iraq. The leak that substantiated a U.S. interest in wiretapping these delegates was apparently illegal under the British Official Secrets Act -- the documents existed, they reported details of who was to be bugged, and they were sent to a newspaper -- but the British government still, curiously, chose not to prosecute the leaker, ostensibly because it thought ... it didn't have much of a case? Really? When its case is splattered all over the news? I see.

Former UN Weapons inspector Richard Butler said he was bugged? Boutros-Ghali said he simply assumed he was? Former British Foreign Minister Claire Short asserted Annan was bugged, and she read transcripts from the wiretaps? And they didn't haul her in under the Official Secrets Act either? And these admissions or complaints make the news every time? But when Blix says it (being among the first to say so), it's no more noteworthy than his favorite color?

In any case, this incident was notable. A Google News archive search turns up hundreds of news stories around that time. on this very subject. It could use some polishing, but apart from that I'd say just leave it. Yakushima (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)