In a time when the world is focused on potential nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran, when the Taliban can come within sixty miles of the capital of another unstable nuclear country, and when nonproliferation is one of the first words out of many leaders’ mouths, one might reasonably assume that the IAEA, the world’s nuclear watchdog, would be the one global body that, even in a tight financial climate, everyone would agree should be fully funded. But alas, it’s a UN agency, so, unsurprisingly, some countries are balking at contributing the funds that the IAEA needs to do its job.
What is surprising is that the United States, for whom the nonsensical policy of “zero growth” was once a mantra, is not among these reluctant donors. In keeping with Congress’s refreshing decision to fully repay U.S. arrears to the UN, the Obama Administration has pledged to up its contributions to the IAEA by 20%, a not insignificant amount from the agency’s biggest donor. The IAEA has long been seeking an 11% budget increase, but some European countries, as well as Japan, the body’s second largest donor, are still trying to push the budget back down to a level of zero growth.
The IAEA’s Director is understandably frustrated at this situation — perhaps he is also feeling the stress from the Board of Director’s continued struggle to elect his successor — but, as I’m sure Ban Ki-moon can attest, he might want to choose his words a little more carefully, even when the doors are closed.