IAEA Head on Nuclear Weapons at “The Frontline of War”

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: We turn now to Brussels, where world leaders are gathered for the first ever nuclear energy summit. It aims to highlight the power of nuclear energy in tackling the climate crisis and enhancing energy security. Our next guest, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, co-chaired the event, which is more urgent than ever given the wars and tensions that are happening around the world, such as Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, and willingness to conduct military operations that threaten the massive nuclear power plants there. Just before the summit, Walter Isaacson spoke to Rafael Grossi about these serious safety concerns.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And, Rafael Grossi, welcome back to the show.

RAFAEL GROSSI, DIRECTOR GENERAL, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY: Yes. It’s my pleasure. Hello.

ISAACSON: You recently met with Russian President Putin about this Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine. It’s one — it’s the largest, I think, in Europe, and Russia controls it. What were your concerns and what did President Putin say to you?

GROSSI: Well, you know, this is part of my efforts, ongoing efforts in fact, since the plant was, you know — it came under the control of the Russian Federation. So, we have been working there. We have — I have established a permanent presence, the IAEA there. And as part of that consultation, we need to have, I was in Kyiv as well. I met with President Zelenskyy. And then, of course, I needed to go to the other side. And, you know, we discussed a number of things. We discussed some technical issues. You know, as you said, this is the largest, the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe. Six big reactors, six gigawatts of installed capacity there, and many, of course, open questions because we should never forget that this installation, this facility is exactly on the front line of the world. So, it’s not in the vicinity or somewhere here or just in occupied territories on the front line. It’s quite dramatic in that sense. So, we’ve had in the past situations of sharing at the plant. We’ve had several blackouts and a blackout in nuclear power plants, you know, is very dangerous because this would (INAUDIBLE) a cooling function, thereby potentially leading to a nuclear accident. So, there are many, many issues that we needed to discuss. And you’re referring to my last trip to Sochi, in fact, in South Russia, where we had a long conversation with President Putin. And I could pass a number of messages, things that we believe that the — that should be done there, and also look into the wider perspective of the plant, the situation of the plant, and other efforts to bring the situations to a more stable phase.

ISAACSON: So, you were in Sochi with President Putin, sitting with him for a while. Tell me what was that like and what else did he discuss? What did you make of what is his mindset now?

GROSSI: Well, I must say it’s not my first time with him. Since the war started, I was — I had — a year ago, more or less, another long meeting in St. Petersburg. And these meetings, I’m going to say, objectively speaking, are very professional, very (INAUDIBLE). He has a very, you know, good understanding of nuclear technology. So, it is possible to have a very, very focused conversation of specific issues related to the functioning of the plant, and also some others that are of a more general nature related this situation there, the military situation around the plant and so on. So, you also — I would say, yes, it was a very, very pointed and very meticulous technical conversation.

ISAACSON: You say he’s very good at the technicalities of understanding the nuclear plant. How convinced are you that he would absolutely want to make sure there was no big accident at that plant or any of the others in Ukraine?

GROSSI: Well, you know, it’s a bit of a speculation, isn’t it? But I — for me, one very basic, even one could say, common sense rule tells us that a nuclear accident there would benefit no one. Ukraine, Russia, or the rest of Europe. So, it is — in this sense for me, for my job, it is easier to convince the leaders to do certain things or not to other things in order to avoid situations that could scale up to some confrontation around the plant, which would be, of course, extremely dangerous.

ISAACSON: A year ago, when you were talking to Christiane Amanpour on this show, you talked about trying to establish a zone of protection around the plant. How’s that going?

GROSSI: Well, that approach changed. I went to the United Nations Security Council a few months ago, and instead of trying to establish at the limitation with a territorial connotation, we moved into a behavioral sort of thing. Basically, in plain English, don’t do this, do that, which is something that can be easily understood by everybody at a time where the Security Council is a place where agreements are almost impossible to get. I got widespread, if not absolute support for this, which was not a proposal by the Russians or from the Ukrainians, it was something that the DG (ph) of the IAEA was saying, this is what we need to do now, if we want to avoid a nuclear accident. So, it’s a very clear set of criteria that need to be observed. And this — I mean, this was what we had considered initially as a zone sanctuary, if you want, around the plant of bubble. This, as I was saying, at the front lines of a war, it’s very, very difficult to obtain. Military commanders on one hand, on the one side of the other, will be very — you know, it will be very difficult to convince them to — not to operate there, to move there, to do certain things. So, I shifted my approach into certain things that needed to be avoided at all costs. And of course, I don’t want to jinx it, but so far, we have been able to avoid the risk. Naturally, and I want to say this, you know, very clearly, until we come to the end of this story, without a nuclear accident, I will never say that things are OK or stable or whatever, because they are simply not. And it’s a day-by-day effort that we go through.

ISAACSON: You say things that are not totally stable, that there’s always some worry. What’s your biggest worry?

GROSSI: Well, I have two, basically. One is, of course, the possibility that there are always some episodes of a shelling of something. Now, we have the appearance of the drones, and some drones are loaded with explosives. So, that is another threat that we are seeing. That is one. And the other, as I mentioned a minute ago, is the blackout. So, the possibility that the station is without any power, any external power supply for a long period of time, then the emergency generators ran out of fuel, and then you have a meltdown. So, that — those scenarios are not impossible, and this is what we need to avoid. And this why we have our team there, team of experts who is there, who’s living there informing us, by the minute, what is the situation. You may have noticed that, from Zaporizhzhia, you very rarely get fake stories or strange stories, and it’s because the IAEA is there. So, we can say exactly what is happening. If somebody says, we are being attacked or whatever, or the contrary, fire is coming from the station, I have my guys there. So, they are telling me exactly what’s going on, what was going on on more technical aspects that would be perhaps a little bit boring to describe here. But anyway, the important thing is that the IAEA is there, we’re not going anywhere until this comes to a better place.

ISAACSON: You say that experts from your agency are there. I think you’ve done a couple of rotations in the plant. What do you do when you’re there? What’s it like?

GROSSI: Well, there, normally what we do is — when I personally go there, people there, they have a (INAUDIBLE) team. They go to, you know, a nuclear power plant, especially one with six reactors. It’s a huge site, very, very big site, where there are many safety functions that we need to check that are being performed well. We need check the water levels of the cooling function. We need to go to the control rooms and see how this is going. So, we have like a checklist, if you want, that you have go through every day. When I go, of course, I have the opportunity to meet with the management and then we can raise more general issues as well.

ISAACSON: President Putin has threatened or hinted that he might actually use nuclear weapons or tactical battlefield nuclear weapon in this war, especially, I would guess, if the red lines like Crimea were attacked. How likely is it and what would trigger that, do you think?

GROSSI: Well, you know that the use of nuclear weapons by the five countries that are legitimate processors of weapons, basically the five permanent members of the Security Council, including the United States, according to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. These countries have these nuclear weapons. And what these countries normally have is set doctrine, certain principles, scenarios, according to which they would resort to using nuclear weapons. Normally, they are not so dissimilar, I would say, and normally, they are associated with the obvious things, you know, being attacked with nuclear weapons, or in a more, I would say, general sense being under an existential threat that would make the possessor of a nuclear weapon use it. So, this is the situation, this valid, this has been reiterated by all. At the same time, I wish to remind that these same countries said and repeated that famous old formula that I think was uttered by Secretary General Gorbachev and President Reagan that a nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought. So, if you unleash a nuclear conflict, the logic of it could very easily lead us to total destruction. So, my impression is that there would be restraint. Of course, there are some statements which are regrettable. I would not get into that, of course. Let’s get up an international organization. But what I’m giving you is the parameters, the parameters that do exist and that we hope will be respected.

ISAACSON: When you talk about those parameters, you just said something which is, if the country faces an existential threat, meaning a threat to its existence, do you think Crimea is an existential issue for Russia?

GROSSI: I wouldn’t go into that. First of all, Crimea, is an occupied territory, of course, according to international law. So, frankly speaking, for me to indicate what could be the point where Russia would resort to nuclear weapons would be important. I would simply say nuclear weapon have no place in general. But in particular, in this conflict, I don’t see them being used. I hope this will be case.

ISAACSON: President Putin has said that he’s pulling out of the New START treaty, which is a long-standing strategic arms treaty on nuclear weapons between East and West. What do you think the implications of that are, and is there any way to prevent that?

GROSSI: Well, I think the implications of that is that the arms control, as opposed to disarmament, the arms control structures that prevail between — you said the West, I would say the United States and the Russian Federation are being eroded, and the processes that led to this dialogue that existed and the control reductions in those arsenals, which reached in the 1970s and the 1980s in critical proportions, will cease to be reduced, which is not, of course, a good thing. I think, in general, what we can say is that as soon as possible there should be a return to this dialogue, and that this form could be the start, the New START, or any kind of agreement that may exist, but it is clear that the number of nuclear weapons must be reduced and ultimately eliminated completely, but we know that it is not for tomorrow.

ISAACSON: For the past 50 years, this whole notion of having a nuclear arms negotiation process, whether it was START or SALT or the Intermediate Nuclear Weapons Force treaties, it wasn’t just about the outcome of those treaties, it was a process where the sides sat down and tried to negotiate nuclear arms. Now, we don’t have this process. Is there any way you think we can restart at least negotiations about nuclear arms, just for the sake of having these conversations again?

GROSSI: Well, it’s an excellent point, I think that the contacts and dialogue are indispensable. Look at — I mean, narrowing, if you allow me, the spectrum to what we are doing. At the moment, as the IAEA, we are the only conduit for some type of conversation between Kyiv and Moscow. So, because there’s no direct conversation. There was some in the beginning of the war, in early — the spring of 2022, then thereafter, no process took place. And what we are seeing now, again, at the level of the superpowers, is following that logic of talking past each other, and sometimes in an increasingly alarming talk. So, the — there is a need, of course, always for diplomacy.

ISAACSON: There was a senior official in President Biden’s administration who recently said that right now is when the nuclear risk is most at the forefront. Do you agree with that? And if so, why?

GROSSI: Well, I think what we have been discussing here would be a confirmation of the general validity of that assertion. We are in a world where dialogue among the superpowers is broken down. We see more nuclear weapons, more nuclear weapons being produced. We have a direct confrontation, war at the heart of Europe. We also see and hear than closer to my own mission, which is non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. We see countries toying, playing with the idea of developing their own nuclear weapons on top of the nuclear weapons we already have. So, the configuration is extremely concerning for us. Of course, we — from our perspective, of course, I cannot talk about things that are, you know, beyond my mandate. But on our side and the area of preventing proliferation, you know, weapons we are extremely active. I have just returned from a tour in the Middle East. I was in Baghdad. I was in Syria. I have an open process with Iran, as you may know. So, we are trying to reinforce the norms of non-proliferation wherever we can so that the landscape doesn’t get any bleaker than it already is.

ISAACSON: Rafael Grossi, thank you so much for joining us.

GROSSI: It’s been a great pleasure. Thank you very much.