The tensions between the US and Ukraine at the White House have once again inflamed Europe's security environment, and the recent meeting of European countries and NATO members in London emphasized the intensification of military aid to Kyiv. Meanwhile, concerns about the situation at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant have also been raised as a potential threat. Warnings about the possibility of a repeat of a disaster like Chernobyl have cast a shadow of fear and uncertainty over these developments.
At the same time, French President Emmanuel Macron has proposed the idea of forming a European nuclear deterrent system and suggested talks with non-nuclear countries. His proposal comes at a time when Europe has traditionally relied on the US nuclear umbrella. This change in approach indicates a fundamental shift in Europe's defense policy, but at the same time, it could create new nuclear rivalries on the continent.
Duality in Europe's nuclear approach
European countries have always claimed to be committed to global nuclear security, but now they are moving towards creating an independent nuclear deterrent. This contradictory behavior raises fundamental questions: How can Europe, on the one hand, limit the peaceful nuclear activities of some countries, but on the other hand, strive to develop a nuclear umbrella? This behavior demonstrates double standards in international security management, which undermines the legitimacy of Western arguments about nuclear arms control.
While Europe and the US have always viewed Iran's nuclear program with suspicion and even imposed widespread sanctions on the pretext, they are now seeking to expand the role of nuclear weapons in their security equations. If nuclear weapons are a deterrent, why is this right reserved only for Western countries? And if they are a threat to the world, why are no actions being taken to achieve real nuclear disarmament?
IAEA’s role and Grossi's meaningful silence
In such circumstances, the silence of Rafael Grossi, the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), regarding these developments is questionable. Grossi, who has always taken a stance on Iran's nuclear program and emphasized the need for Tehran to strictly adhere to its commitments, has chosen to remain silent in the face of escalating nuclear tensions in Europe. If the IAEA's mission is to ensure global nuclear security, why does it not take a stance on France's new plans and those of other European countries?
The IAEA is tasked not only with promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy but also with countering the proliferation of nuclear weapons. However, the agency's lack of response to these developments indicates a biased approach. This not only undermines the legitimacy of the institution but can also pave the way for new nuclear rivalries that threaten global security.
Europe's nuclear security dilemma
Recent developments suggest that Europe is redefining its defense policies. On the one hand, concerns about not relying entirely on the US have driven European leaders to seek independent solutions. On the other hand, the development of nuclear deterrence in Europe can create new tensions at the international level.
In this context, the IAEA, with its dual approach, not only damages its credibility but also reinforces the notion that the world's nuclear policies are shaped more by the interests of major powers than by collective security. In such an environment, the future of global nuclear security is more uncertain than ever.
Note: The translation aims to preserve the nuances and tone of the original text, which appears to be a critical commentary on the IAEA's response to the evolving nuclear landscape in Europe. The language used is formal and analytical, with a focus on highlighting the complexities and contradictions of the IAEA's approach to nuclear security. The text also touches on the broader implications of the IAEA's silence and the potential consequences for global security.
NOURNEWS