This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
Where is the source for that? Pizza Puzzle
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)
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:
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
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." ?
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)
-- 80.217.225.208 19:28, 2 August 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.
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?
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)
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)
I have reverted the edit
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
I'm gonna go ahead and MOVE "Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were found. [19]" into the paragraph regarding "Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the George W. Bush administration".
Since Mr.Blix's statements were indeed reaffirmed in fact, while the U.S claims were not it seems very relevant to the paragraph.
Also, while perhaps being relevant to the entire section, having the statement stand in it's own paragraph just seems excessively random, including the paragraphs placement in the section. This is not my primary argument for the move though.
Annoying username ( talk) 19:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The article notes his Ph.D., but not what the subject was. Does anyone know, and shouldn't that be included in the article?
Why should my changing of Saddam to Hussein be reverted? Beingsshepherd ( talk) 07:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Beingsdhepherd
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hans Blix/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
Dear Sir.
I agree 100% with the article as it was addressed . I was working in Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission ,and at the same time I was assigned as an Iraqi Counter Part with most of the United Nation inspection teams weathre they are under the name of UNSCOM or laterly UNMOVIC.We were saying the truth and revealing what we had to inspection teams,and in fact Iraq was completly destroyed in the second gulf war in 1991 and left with nothing , and also all Iraqis feels very sad to what had been happened to the country,and we did not eager in what so ever to rebuilt what had been destroyed were destructions involved all the infrastructure of the country and in fact the whole thinking were directed to rebuild the civilian structure and no intention what so ever was payed to WMD , and all the accusations were false ,based upon lies and intended to escolate the polatical crises and the whole story of the third gulf war were well known to every body. So Mr.Blix was absolutly right.Thre were not any WMD in Iraq in 2003 or befor that time. Thank you very much Mr.Blix . History will remeber this refernce article . God Bless you. |
Last edited at 23:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 17:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hans Blix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I may have missed something, but I didn't see any mention of his involvement in North Korea's story of nuclear ascension. For example. 2600:8806:A50D:3E00:151B:A01A:EA7B:C42C ( talk) 23:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
Where is the source for that? Pizza Puzzle
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)
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:
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
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." ?
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)
-- 80.217.225.208 19:28, 2 August 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.
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?
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)
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)
I have reverted the edit
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
I'm gonna go ahead and MOVE "Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were found. [19]" into the paragraph regarding "Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the George W. Bush administration".
Since Mr.Blix's statements were indeed reaffirmed in fact, while the U.S claims were not it seems very relevant to the paragraph.
Also, while perhaps being relevant to the entire section, having the statement stand in it's own paragraph just seems excessively random, including the paragraphs placement in the section. This is not my primary argument for the move though.
Annoying username ( talk) 19:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The article notes his Ph.D., but not what the subject was. Does anyone know, and shouldn't that be included in the article?
Why should my changing of Saddam to Hussein be reverted? Beingsshepherd ( talk) 07:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Beingsdhepherd
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hans Blix/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
Dear Sir.
I agree 100% with the article as it was addressed . I was working in Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission ,and at the same time I was assigned as an Iraqi Counter Part with most of the United Nation inspection teams weathre they are under the name of UNSCOM or laterly UNMOVIC.We were saying the truth and revealing what we had to inspection teams,and in fact Iraq was completly destroyed in the second gulf war in 1991 and left with nothing , and also all Iraqis feels very sad to what had been happened to the country,and we did not eager in what so ever to rebuilt what had been destroyed were destructions involved all the infrastructure of the country and in fact the whole thinking were directed to rebuild the civilian structure and no intention what so ever was payed to WMD , and all the accusations were false ,based upon lies and intended to escolate the polatical crises and the whole story of the third gulf war were well known to every body. So Mr.Blix was absolutly right.Thre were not any WMD in Iraq in 2003 or befor that time. Thank you very much Mr.Blix . History will remeber this refernce article . God Bless you. |
Last edited at 23:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 17:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hans Blix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I may have missed something, but I didn't see any mention of his involvement in North Korea's story of nuclear ascension. For example. 2600:8806:A50D:3E00:151B:A01A:EA7B:C42C ( talk) 23:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)