|
|
Why is it important to know about this story? For the simple reason that it is your money that is being wasted, because:
- The IAEA is financed with the contributions of the IAEA Member States, that is, with your taxes, and, you have the right to know how your money is spent;
- Neither, the former Director General (former DG), Mr Mohamed ElBaradei, nor the Deputy Director General, Head of the Department of Management (DDG-MT), Mr David Barclay Waller, who, with your taxes, are (was for the former DG) earning a lot of money, are (was for the former DG) qualified for their positions.
They have neither technical (for example, nuclear engineering), nor scientific (for example, nuclear physics), nor diplomatic, nor management (administration) education. And, with regard to their experience in these fields, only the former DG could claim some diplomatic experience before joining the IAEA, and both can surely claim management experience, although here
only in their bad management of the IAEA. They are only lawyers, but in the case of the DDG-MT, most probably not even in international law!
As for their diplomatic experience in the IAEA, Ms Condoleezza Rice, the former US Secretary of State, said it clearly: "The IAEA is not in the business of diplomacy. The IAEA is a technical agency…" A simple example:
the former DG says that nuclear energy is good for the environment because nuclear power stations do not emit any CO2, which is true, but he does not say anything about how nuclear fuel is produced [the situation in the north of Niger (near Akokan, Arlit and Agadez) prove that this is the dirtiest side of the allegedly clean nuclear energy], for example about the enormous amount of environmentally harmful energy needed for this process. The film "YELLOW CAKE - The Dirt Behind Uranium" by Joachim Tschirner (2005 - 2010, 108 Min.) illustrates very well how, with the help of propaganda, disinformation and lies, this truth has been kept hidden to the public. And, more importantly, he
does not say anything about the enormous problem with the nuclear waste either, which has not been solved yet. The case of the nuclear waste site in Gorleben in Germany has proved this fact.
Until now several nuclear-power states have been throwing their nuclear waste at sea or they have been sending it to Siberia without the IAEA doing anything against. The consequences of this practice cannot be predictable at present because nuclear waste is extremely dangerous and will be so for many thousands of years. This is also the proof that he is lying to the world public!
- As a consequence of point B above, many of the other high-level IAEA officials, who, with your taxes, are also earning a lot of money, are also not qualified for their positions. This is the case with Mr Manfred Boemeke and was definitely the case with Mr Magnus Olafsson, whose appointment, in spite of this fact, was extended several times. Therefore, the question arising here is, did he have to pay to the DDG-MT, or to the former DG, or to both for his appointment? And, if yes, how many other IAEA officials had to pay to the DDG-MT, or to the former DG, or to both for their appointments?
- As a consequence of points B and C above, much of the work of the IAEA is useless, wasteful and tainted by corruption. For example, I myself have witnessed how trucks full of (IAEA published) books to be thrown away because they are not sold, leave the premises every year. Also, the commissary (the duty-free shop for its staff members) is worth mentioning here. At least at the time when I worked there from 1988 to 1990 (still a student) and was in charge of the statistics, I could see how every year some 300.000 to 500.000 Austrian Schillings (some € 22.000 to € 36.000) worth of merchandise was stolen [in particular, French Champagnes, wines and perfumes, and cigarettes (Marlboro and Dunhill)], most of it by staff of the commissary
and at delivery, that is, before the merchandise entered the shop. As I well recall, I always wondered why there were no investigations on these losses (the reader will quickly understand why). Instead, these losses were recovered by increasing the prices of all items the year after!
- Also as a consequence of points B and C above, there is nepotism at the IAEA, which results in that many IAEA staff members do little or nothing at all, but, with your taxes, are not only earning a lot of money, but are even promoted with the credit of the work of those staff members who really work.
And, apart from a few exceptions, the staff members who really work are those with short term (of some days, weeks or months) appointments, the TA (Temporary Assistance)s, representing 15 % to 20 % of all staff members. These TAs are recruited mostly to carry out tasks that fixed term staff members (those with fixed long-term appointments) cannot or do not wish to carry out, but these fixed term staff members are those who decide on the extension of the appointments of the TAs.
As a result, there are many fixed term staff members, who do little or nothing at all (like Ms Cristina Vilaplana Milla, Mr Raymond Nader and Mr Markus Lané) and, if anything, then only give orders to the TAs [one of the five specialties of Ms Cristina Vilaplana Milla.
I am not allowed to write here about the principal one (which does not matter, because everyone in the IAEA knows, but due to the IAEA's confidentiality, cannot speak about it), but the other three being writing job descriptions, performance review reports and secret Email-reports full of lies to the IAEA Management against her colleagues (like Appendices 110 and 32)]. And, not to forget to mention here that the credit of the work of the TAs goes,
of course and without the TAs’ knowledge (thanks to the confidentiality), to the fixed term staff members who command them (this is very much the case in the six translation sections with the temporary translators who are appointed and very well paid for some days or weeks, time during which some of the respective section heads who appoint them, do little or nothing themselves, but officially register the translations produced by the temporary translators as their own work), who remain as real slaves all the time, some of them for many years (5 to 10!), this time depending on how good slaves they are!
- Assertion No. 6: The former DG and the DDG-MT, who, managing the IAEA as if it was their private enterprise, spend more than half of their working time hiding their lack of qualifications ["Carlson commented that ElBaradei was a very bad manager and morale throughout the IAEA staff was 'appalling.'" (Confidential diplomatic cable dated 18 February 2005, WikiLeaks)] and the resulting misdoings and attacking those who discover them.
And they have many staff members working full-time for this purpose and, with your taxes, earning a lot of money. The Special Assistant to the Director General for Management, Mr Johan Rautenbach together with all the staff of the Office of Legal Affairs (OLA),
Mr Tijani Chaouch Bouraoui together with all the staff of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), Ms Gabriele Fouchard (Grade P-4, reportedly without university degree!), Ms Eva-Maria Moosbrugger (Grade P-4, reportedly without university degree!), Mr Douglas John Northey, Ms Angela Jackson, Ms Cynthia Valenzuela, Ms Catherine Monzel
[“AmCit”! "Management is always right!", "Mission meets at least monthly with the IAEA's Head of Recruitment to discuss the status of U.S. candidate applications and to exchange ideas about U.S. chances for specific positions." (Unclassified diplomatic cable dated 11 December 2009)],
Ms Naomi Bichler-Bell (the very first having learnt about this Story in 2004, she immediately reported it to Mr Verasak Liengsririwat, a very probably reason for her promotion to grade P-4. With regard to the three phrases a, b and c mentioned in paragraph 16 below, this is what she reportedly said sometime in 2005 or 2006: "Everything José said is true!") and Mr Austin McGill are definitely only some of a long list of them. This story extensively proves this fact.
And, all the staff members mentioned in this paragraph, together with many other mentioned in this page, are of course, not subject to the IAEA’s rotation policy, which states that appointments for professional staff can be extended up to a maximum of seven years, regardless of the performance of the incumbents. But, according to the IAEA Board of Governors (BoG), “instead of instituting effective performance evaluation, the rotation policy has been used for the purpose of removing poor performing staff from the IAEA payroll.”
This assertion by the BoG not only contradicts the official rotation policy and confirms that the Management of the IAEA lies to its staff, but is also wrong, because there are many professional staff members in the IAEA, including several of them mentioned in this page (firstly and most notably Mr David Barclay Waller, but also Ms Cristina Vilaplana Milla and Mr Manfred Boemeke),
who are not subject to the rotation policy although they are “poor performing”. This means that the IAEA Management applies this policy arbitrarily and that, in the IAEA, it is not the “highest degree of excellence” that counts, but other criteria like “good relationships”! Therefore, Mr Douglas John Northey’s answer to the BoG about the benefits of the IAEA’s rotation policy is wrong: “...the long term retention of those with the highest degree of excellence”;
- As a consequence of points B to F above, the results of the work of the IAEA are poor. This fact has even been recognized in several occasions by the former DG himself, but the reason he gave for this was the lack of funds. And, it is well known that the former DG kept asking the IAEA Member States for more money;
- The fact is that the IAEA has only a history of inability. All it does is: conduct endless investigations, while explaining all the time that more information is needed; ask all the time to let the Organization do its job; and don’t say anything when it is discovered that in something it didn’t do its job.
The question arising from point H above is: why do the IAEA Member States tolerate such a situation? The reason for this is simple: the countries having the say in the IAEA are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the USA, the UK, the Russian Federation, China and France), which are also the five permanent members of the IAEA Board of Governors and the only with the right to veto.
These countries are at the same time the five declared nuclear-weapon states, whose paramount interest is to keep their supremacy in nuclear weapons in the world. And they have an instrument for this purpose: the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which entered into force in 1970 and which establishes a safeguards system (used to verify compliance with the Treaty through inspections, but of course, only in non-nuclear-weapon states) under the responsibility of only one Organization, the IAEA.
In accordance to the paramount interest of the five declared nuclear-weapon states, this Treaty allows these five states to keep their nuclear weapons for nuclear deterrence… with a view of “gradually” reducing them (without giving a time frame for this), while impeding other states to acquire them.
And the truth here is that the “intention” of “gradually” reducing their nuclear-weapons has been the same intention since 40 years and will continue to be only an intention forever. This fact has been demonstrated by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who recently said that he would not renounce the nuclear weapon "guarantor of the security" of France. The former DG has also recognized this:
"...it is becoming increasingly difficult to call on non-nuclear-weapon states to renounce such weapons in perpetuity and accept new measures to strengthen non-proliferation if nuclear-weapon states continue to modernise their nuclear arsenals and almost glorify them. A case in point is NATO's current Strategic Concept, which says the purpose of the Alliance's nuclear weapons is 'to preserve peace and prevent coercion and any kind of war.' NATO's strategic nuclear forces are 'the supreme guarantee' of the security of the Allies since 'conventional forces alone cannot ensure credible deterrence' " (The DG's Statement to the IAEA General Conference in September 2009).
Exactly this fact will be fatal to the IAEA, because it will be the reason for the end of its existence most likely already in a few years time. The nuclear deterrence of these five states is logically directed against each other and they do not and will never trust each other! Neither France, nor the Russian Federation, nor China will want to experience again an invasion like the one they suffered during World War II.
The sad reality here is that, once in the world, nuclear weapons will stay and definitely only proliferate. Not even US President Barack Obama, who has recently declared in Prague that he wants a nuclear-weapons-free world, will be able to free the world from such weapons. For this reason, this is the most important matter in the IAEA and any other matter has no much importance.
And the proofs for this are the facts that:
- That the NPT-verification (safeguards) system takes up 60 % of the IAEA’s regular budget (of about € 260 million) while only 40 % (about € 100 million) are dedicated to the "other tasks” of the IAEA [nuclear applications in medicine and agriculture, nuclear energy and nuclear safety and security (technical cooperation depends mostly on voluntary contributions)] …in its some 150 Member states (although most of these € 100 million are used to pay for the staff),
the great majority of which, like Mexico, do not need nuclear energy at all as they have several other sources of energy, for example, a lot of sun energy, and furthermore, they have too many other extremely urgent problems to solve, like poverty and hunger;
- Only the five declared nuclear-weapon states pay more than 50 % of the IAEA’s regular budget. And because they have the right to a number of professional posts in proportion to their contribution to the IAEA’s regular budget, more than 50 % of the (higher level) professional staff members in the IAEA come only from these five countries, which, together with their right to veto, have so the Organization in their hands. The other less than 50 % of the IAEA’s regular budget is paid by the other some 145 Member states (although it is said that only 17 of them pay their contributions regularly and completely).
Under these circumstances, these "other tasks” of the IAEA are no more than “covert-tasks”, which are there to give the impression (to the other Member States) that the IAEA is not there only for NPT-verification (these are the proofs here for). This makes of the IAEA a lie in itself, a fact well known by many other IAEA Member States (a very probable reason why they do not pay their contributions regularly) and by the IAEA’s Management as well, which does not hesitate in taking advantage of.
That is the reason why the IAEA Member States (or better to say, the five permanent members of the IAEA Board of Governors) tolerate such a situation within the Organization.
For the same reason and in order to keep all other states within the NPT-regime, it is not in the interest of the five declared nuclear-weapon states to uncover any matter, like this Story, discrediting the IAEA.
For the USA and the UK the IAEA, as the UN Security Council, is no more than a useful and very cheap [for the USA the IAEA costs only about € 60 million every year, which is about half the price of one American F-35 stealth fighter jet (which costs about € 100 million)] instrument for justifying their wars. For France, the Russian Federation and China it is very important to be in the IAEA (and in the UN Security Council), because only they (with their right to veto) can stop the USA and the UK to do what they want.
The degree of desperation of the five declared nuclear-weapon states of keeping all other states within the NPT-regime, has been seen with Iraq and can now be seen with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, with the Islamic Republic of Iran and with the new US nuclear weapons strategy, by which the USA for the first time explicitly commits not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states that are in compliance with the NPT. Exceptions are “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that would have violated or renounced the NPT.
This is equivalent to a direct threat: “You do not comply with the NPT, so can you expect that I use my nuclear weapons against you.” One should remember that, at the beginning, the signing of the NPT was voluntary. Now it is evident that, once inside, never out! This means that the states which have signed the NPT were actually fooled
(it is clear that it is the USA that orchestrated the signing of the NPT and this is how they did it: for the other four declared nuclear-weapon states it was clearly in their interest, some of the other states signed it out of ignorance of their leaders and the other states whose leaders realized what was at stake resisted the signing at first but did it at the end through checkbook-diplomacy). This was particularly the case of Brazil and South Africa, which with good faith, abandoned their nuclear weapons programs.
This is an almost "every day issue" in the news headlines, something Mr Mohamed ElBaradei was very enthusiastic of,
as he loved appearing on TV and give the impression that he had something to say, when he perfectly knew that he had absolutely nothing to say ["The IAEA is not in the business of diplomacy (Ms Condoleezza Rice, former US Secretary of State)."]. It is the five permanent members of the UN Security Council who make the decisions.
These five declared nuclear-weapon states do not want to see any other nuclear-weapon State like Pakistan, India and Israel, outside the NPT-regime. This may well be the reason why the IAEA is called "the UN nuclear watchdog" by the international press. In reality it is "the nuclear watchdog of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council".
It is quickly forgotten, that after the First World War, the Treaty of Versailles should provide the conditions for a lasting peace, and thus prevent another world war, that however, this Treaty caused exactly the contrary, as it was the reason for the Second World War!
As the Treaty of Versailles, the establishment (by the U.S.) of the UN Security Council and of the State of Israel, and the NPT (incidentally, also by the U.S.), should also provide the conditions for a lasting peace after the Second World War, and to prevent a third world war. And exactly the contrary will happen again, as they are founded on the basis of injustice and lies and have therefore already caused several wars, they will also be the reason for the Third World War.
By reason of point F above, the IAEA’s Management has attempted several times to destroy this Website!!!
The IAEA’s Management has been very busy writing many letters to Permanent Missions of IAEA Member States, to the Austrian Foreign Ministry, to the Austrian Police, to the press, etc., most probably even to Google and to my provider... and, as it has been reported to me, they have one or two staff members {one of them was (in the meantime he has left the IAEA) Mr Massimiliano Falcinelli [Systems Services Section, Division of Information Technology (MTIT)], who used to inform Management by Email (with messages like "read on wed") and has now been replaced by Mr Minori Hara [Japan. Head, Open Systems and Security Unit (MTIT)]} checking every day every change I make (to see if they find something that they could use against me)!
“IAEA Personnel Office reviewed the documents published by Mr. M.R. and made a research if any troublesome and alarming message would be found" (Appendix 124).
A typical working day of an average IAEA (mostly G-) staff member with a fixed-term appointment starts by checking in (= the official start of his/her working time) between 8:30 and 9:00 and go directly to the Cafeteria, where he/she has his/her breakfast during some 30 minutes, mostly with other staff members. At 10:00 or 10:30 he/she has his/her coffee for 30 to 40 minutes, also mostly with the other staff members of his/her Unit/Section. From 12:00 to 14:00 he/she has his/her lunch.
Officially the lunch-time is only one hour to be taken between 12:00 to 14:00, but most staff members in all categories take the two hours with no one saying anything about it. Between 15:00 and 16:00 he/she has his/her coffee and/or goes to the Commissary (the duty-free shop) to do his/her shopping for 30 to 40 minutes. Between 17:00 and 17:30 he/she checks out (= the official end of his/her working time). Although the Austrians have a similar working day, the difference with them is that they start their working day at
7:30 and end it at 16:30 (as there is flexible working time, meaning that a staff member can start anytime from 7:30 to 9:40 and end anytime from 16:00 to 19:30 in winter-time).
If we take an example during the winter-time, when the working day lasts 8 hours (in summer-time it lasts 30 minutes less), then, if the staff member started at 8:30, he/she would finish at 17:30 taking the official one-hour lunch-time into account. In reality, however, taking also into account private telephone calls and Emails, the average effective working time (during the winter-time) of a (mostly G-) staff member with a fixed-term appointment
in the IAEA is only between 4 and 5 hours, with some extreme exceptions of staff members doing close to nothing at all (this was, or still is, most notably the case with Mr Raymond Nader, who spent, or still spends, much of his working time outside the IAEA Headquarters, and who, for this reason, was denounced to the Head of the Service Administration Unit, Division of Human Resources, at that time Ms Cynthia Valenzuela, whose response was: "There is nothing we can do about it!" Or like a former
secretary of the French Translation Section who used to read the French magazine “Paris Match” the whole day for over 15 years; or a Mexican staff member working in the INIS Section who used to play chess with a computer the whole day while from time to time producing microfiches of publications; or some staff members in the Publishing Section whose offices are always closed and no one knows what they do).
Little can be said about higher-grade staff members (Grade P-5 and above) as their offices are always closed when they are in their offices (they are often in duty travel). Exceptions to this privilege are TAs (staff on "Temporary Assistance") and “the internal enemies” of the IAEA’s Management. The TAs, because they are the slaves of the staff members with fixed-term appointments and the “the internal enemies”, because the IAEA’s Management uses this (among other things) against them.
|
|
