The director of the International Atomic Energy Agency Rafael Grossi was in Paris this Thursday, August 25, to meet French President Emmanuel Macron. In full preparation for his mission to the site of the Ukrainian nuclear power plant in Zaporijjia, Rafael Grossi evokes the need to go there, while Ukrainians and Russians accuse each other of bombing the plant, the largest in Europe. The director of the IAEA also evokes the efforts to revive the Iranian nuclear agreement (JCPOA), at a time when several sources believe that a compromise is possible.
RFI: When will you be able to go to the site of the Ukrainian nuclear power plant in Zaporijjia, at the head of a mission from the International Atomic Energy Agency?
Rafael Grossi: We’ve been working on this for months, I must say. The idea is to carry out a mission with experts to establish an inventory, to see what is happening. We know that the plant has been the object of attacks, indirect ones perhaps. There was an episode at the beginning of the war, in March, where a building was targeted. And subsequently, we also experienced problems with the supply of external electricity, which continues today as well. We must try to restore the transmission systems of the data that arrives in Vienna and also try to stabilize the situation a little in the installation.
Russia has given the green light to the arrival of this mission. What obstacles remain?
It is a complex mission. First, there is the simple fact of arriving on site, which is not easy. It’s a war zone. I have already been to Ukraine twice (to Chernobyl then to the south of the country) but here it is in the middle of a war zone.
So we have to secure our route, we have to do it in coordination between the two countries, which is not easy in the circumstances. We must also count on the support of the United Nations and their armored vehicles which will bring us there. That’s the logistics, then at the technical level, you have to clearly define the parameters of the mission and – possibly – establish a continuous presence of the Agency on site.
A few days ago, before the UN Security Council, you said: “The situation is serious”. Is the situation dangerous on the site of this Ukrainian nuclear power plant occupied for months by the Russian army?
I said that at this session of the Council and I believe that it helped me to generate an international consensus. This session was obviously stormy and the political differences were clear, but it nevertheless demonstrated everyone’s agreement on one point: the need for the International Atomic Energy Agency to come, the need to set up a presence impartial, international and technical. This is the role we are trying to fill.
The world has experienced disasters in the civil nuclear field: Chernobyl, Fukushima… Were the world and the IAEA prepared for this new situation: a major nuclear power plant caught in an armed conflict?
It’s a conventional type of war that is very similar to the Second World War, with tanks, infantry… we didn’t imagine that, we were thinking more of cyber warfare and missiles! But the Agency is a reservoir of talent and international expertise. We have “the cream of the crop” of nuclear technology and safety experts. So I would say that even if we did not expect such an event, we are prepared.
Another hot topic: the Iranian nuclear issue. Do you, like others these days, believe that a deal is within reach to revive the JCPOA, the 2015 Iran nuclear deal?
After months and months of negotiations, it looks like the parties are closer to an agreement than ever. Close to reinstating this agreement which had been emptied of its content. The IAEA plays an essential inspection role. We will give the guarantees related to the agreement. I believe this is an opportunity that will also give us the level of access and verification that we need given the scale, ambition and dimension of Iran’s nuclear program.
What will happen if the deal is revived. And on the contrary if there is a failure to put it back on track?
If the agreement is relaunched, politically it is up to the countries to say what they expect. But it is clear that on the nuclear level, we will have the possibility of verification and control over a very vast nuclear program. Possibility that we do not currently have. It is an undeniable added value. If the deal doesn’t go through, I think we’re going to face a challenge: how do we get Iran to agree to the levels of inspection and verification that a program like this demands- there, which enriches uranium to levels pretty close to military grade.
What you are saying is that in recent years Iran has come dangerously close to the ability to obtain the atomic bomb?
I say that Iran has an ambitious program, a program which requires a certain level of verification, I do not impugn its intentions. Conclusions can be drawn… it is up to you, analysts, journalists, politicians to draw the necessary conclusions. I say that it is not trivial, if you enrich uranium to 60%, you are close to a military level. So if you do that OK… but you have to let yourself be inspected otherwise obviously the alarm bells will start ringing.
Voices are raised against the idea of relaunching the agreement, particularly in Israel. What do you say to those who question the very idea of an agreement?
I should not, as an international civil servant, judge the individual position of a country. A country sets its positions according to its national interests and therefore it is not for me to judge them. But if we can agree with Iran on a credible and robust system of inspection, we remove the arguments that could justify a hostile position towards Iran. So I think it’s “win-win” in this case. It is in everyone’s interest that Iran be able to open up to international inspection if it has nothing to hide.
Iran’s position is to say, “we don’t want the US withdrawal to happen again,” like when Donald Trump’s America pulled out of the deal in 2018. It’s a sensitive point of the negotiation?
I understand that. Without judging the decisions of the US government in the past, I can understand that. They [les Iraniens] want to commit and they want a guarantee that it will continue over time. I think it is ultimately a question of political will. If the political will exists, we can shape and modulate the agreements.
If an agreement is relaunched in the next few days on Iran’s nuclear program, will an important project open up both for Iran and for your agency, the IAEA, so that Iran return to the framework from which it has largely freed itself in recent years?
Absolutely. We will have a vast work of inspection and restoration. Do not forget, for example, that a few months ago Iran disconnected 27 cameras from the Agency. So, we will have to restore these systems, restore what is called “the continuity of knowledge”. It will be very important work.