Rafael Grossi: “The visit to the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant is delicate, it is a war zone”

The director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Argentina’s Rafael Grossi, warned a few days ago that the situation at the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine is “serious”, while Ukrainians and Russians accuse each other of bomb Europe’s largest nuclear power plant.

Grossi will now be part of a mission by the UN agency that will finally be able to inspect the plant, in a combat zone, which has been focusing the attention of European leaders for weeks.

The diplomat was in Paris on Thursday to meet with French President Emmanuel Macron. In the midst of preparations for his trip to Ukraine, Grossi spoke about this mission and also about the efforts to revive the nuclear deal with Iran in the face of the possibility of a compromise.

-When will you be able to visit the Ukrainian nuclear power plant of Zaporizhia, at the head of a mission of the International Atomic Energy Agency?

-I have to say that we have been working on it for months. It is about carrying out a mission with experts to assess the situation, see what is happening. We know that the plant was attacked, perhaps indirectly. There was an episode at the beginning of the war in March when a building was attacked. And there were also problems with the external power supply, which continues even today. We must try to restore the data transmission systems that reach us in Vienna and also try to stabilize the situation at the facility a little.

-Russia has given the green light for the arrival of this mission. What are the remaining obstacles?

-This is a complex mission. First there is the simple act of getting there, which is not easy. It is a war zone. I’ve been to Ukraine twice before (to Chernobyl and then to the south of the country), but this is a war zone. So we have to secure our course, we have to do it in coordination between the two countries, which is not easy under the circumstances. We also need to have the support of the United Nations and its armored vehicles that will take us there. This is logistics, therefore, on a technical level, we must define the parameters of the mission and – possibly – establish a continuous presence of the Agency in the field.

-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, which has been occupied by the Russian army for months?

-I said it at that Council session and I believe it helped me 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 entry of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the need to establish an impartial, international presence and technique. This is the role we try to play.

-The world has experienced catastrophes in the field of civil nuclear energy: Chernobyl, Fukushima … Were the world and the IAEA prepared for this new situation: a large nuclear power plant trapped in an armed conflict?

-It is a type of conventional warfare very similar to World War II, with tanks, infantry … we didn’t know it, we thought more about cyber warfare and missiles!

-And how do you deal with this situation?

-The Agency is a reservoir of international talent and experience. We have the “crème de la crème” of experts in nuclear safety and technology. So I would say that even if we didn’t expect such an event, we are prepared.

“It’s a type of conventional warfare very similar to World War II, with tanks, infantry … we didn’t know it.”

The nuclear deal with Iran

Another hot topic is the Iranian nuclear issue. Do you think, like others these days, that an agreement to revive the JCPOA (The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), the 2015 agreement, is within reach?

-After months and months of negotiations, it seems the parties are closer than ever to an agreement. Next to restore this agreement which had been emptied of its content. The IAEA has an indispensable inspection role. We will give the guarantees related to the agreement. I think this is an opportunity that will also give us the level of access and verification needed given the scope, ambition and scale of the Iranian nuclear program.

-What happens if the agreement is reactivated?

-If the deal is resumed, it is politically up to the countries to say what they expect. But it is clear that on the nuclear front we will have the opportunity to verify and control a very large nuclear program. This is a possibility that we do not have at the moment. It is an undeniable added value.

What if you can’t get it to work again?

If the deal fails, I think we will face a challenge: how to agree with Iran to accept the levels of inspection and verification required by such a program, which enriches uranium to levels close enough to those military.

“If the deal is unsuccessful, I think we will face a challenge: how to agree with Iran to accept the levels of inspection and verification required by a program that enriches uranium to levels close enough to military ones.”

– What are you saying is that in recent years Iran has come dangerously close to the ability to obtain an atomic bomb?

-I am saying that Iran has an ambitious program, a program that requires a certain level of verification, I am not making any accusations. It is up to you, analysts, journalists and politicians, to draw the necessary conclusions. I say that it is not common, if you enrich the uranium to 60%, it is close to the military level. So if you do, that’s fine, but you have to let yourself be inspected, because if you don’t, of course, the alarms start ringing.

-Some voices have been raised against the idea of ​​reactivating the agreement, especially in Israel. How do you respond to those who question the very idea of ​​an agreement?

-As an international official, you should not judge the individual position of a country. A country sets its positions on the basis of 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 inspection system, we eliminate the arguments that could justify a hostile stance towards Iran. So I think it’s a win-win situation. It is in everyone’s interest that Iran opens up to international inspection if it has nothing to hide.

-Iran’s position is to say: “We do not want the US withdrawal to be repeated”, as when Donald Trump’s US withdrew from the agreement in 2018. Is this a sensitive point in the negotiation?

-I understand. Without judging the US government’s decisions in the past, I can understand. They (the Iranians) want to compromise and they want the guarantee that it will continue in the long term. I think it is ultimately a question of political will. If there is political will, agreements can be shaped and modulated.

-If an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program is resumed in the next few days, an important field of work will open for both Iran and the IAEA so that Iran can return to the framework from which it has largely deviated in recent years ? ?

-Of course. There will be a lot of inspection and recovery work. We must 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 we call “continuity of knowledge”. This will be a very important task.

Source: RFI

CB