‘Don’t see logic in having India in 3 export control regimes and not in NSG’: International Atomic Energy Agency Director General

The IAEA has taken (an) unprecedented role in talking actively to both sides… the only international organisation doing so. I spoke to President Putin and President Zelenskyy. It’s not a mediation exercise, but an exercise of active involvement in what is happening — technical advice, views and technical observation and monitoring.

In 2023, I presented at the UN Security Council a number of principles that should be observed in order to avoid a nuclear accident, and in that regard, the IAEA was accepted as monitoring the observance of this point.

On the other hand, as a result of the conflict, talks of nuclear weapons, its deployment, its eventual use, tactical nuclear weapons… have come to the fore in a way not seen before. Needless to say, we are concerned, and we believe that utmost restraint should be observed by all involved in throwing into the discussion of a conventional conflict the issue of nuclear weapons…

Of course, there should be peace as a first point, but it should not be resolved by resorting to nuclear weapons.

We also see the possibility of the erosion of the non-proliferation regime as something that should be prevented or avoided. As a result, many countries, which had renounced the development of nuclear weapons, are equally and more freely discussing the possibility of having their own deterrent.

From the IAEA’s perspective, where we defend and sustain the non-proliferation treaty, we don’t see this as a good idea. We believe that in the current circumstances, the emergence of new nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon possessing states, would add to the fragility and perhaps the use of nuclear weapons… international system needs to protect its measures to control and check further proliferation. Even India has been acting with great circumspection in order to avoid its technology being used for nuclear weapons development in other countries…

Q. So, you think there is a danger now that more powers will want to sort of re-nuclearise, especially in the Middle East?

I just hear what they say, it’s not a secret. Some countries are openly saying that if country A gets the bomb, we will also get it… And you can put names and flags to the words I’ve just said, so it is there. So I think crossing that line would be very detrimental.

Q. In this volatile situation what do you tell those who have abided by the rules?

What we tell everybody is we have a regime that has served us relatively well. There is no need to get into a sort of a nuclear jungle, and countries resorting to nuclear weapons or developing it, leading to a situation where any minor conflict could easily escalate into nuclear exchanges…

Q. When this particular fear of nuclear escalation was really clear, at that point of time, India was also asked by countries to mediate or pass on messages. Can you give a sense of what happened where India played a role?

India has been playing a very constructive role. I must say Dr Jaishankar and I have been in consultation frequently. The voice of India is heard in many corners. So a voice for calm and restraint coming from a country with the influence and projection that India has — has a very strong effect in the big economies and also in developing countries as well, which, in many places, see India as a role model.

Q. What kind of role specifically did India play? Was Russia receptive?

Discrete diplomacy has discrete results as well, in the sense that you do not go about trumpeting what has been achieved, but it has. It’s a very useful and efficient way of conveying views, not only from me as the DG of IAEA, but from the country itself.

… I had discussed in the past with PM Modi or Dr Jaishankar, and explained my vision, and they happen to agree with it. This is invaluable because they can talk to other leaders and say, well, what DG Rossi is saying is reasonable. Why not try this? You know, middle of the road, sort of alternative, instead of polarising more. So I am definitely grateful and seeking the advice of people that I respect here in India.

Q. India has been seeking membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group… India is part of three export control regimes… What’s your assessment of the state of play?

When I was the chair of NSG, we were in the middle of a process that was tantalisingly close to success. Then change of government in the US, elections here and there, positions of other bigger countries frustrated this outcome. For me, it was always a logical thing to have India and other countries which have an active civil nuclear industry, and that can be part of the supply chain or exporters or importers, be part of the effort… I don’t see the logic of having India in three export control regimes and not in the fourth… India is a global player in the nuclear industry and is one of the most important countries. We need to work with India… I don’t see the advantage of marginalising India…

Q. There’s a sense in Delhi that China, at the behest of Pakistan, was creating challenges. Did you have a conversation with the Chinese interlocutors?

I must say, this was almost 10 years ago… So it would be disrespectful to my successors who have been at the chair dealing with that, and perhaps I’m not familiar with the conversations and developments that might have been taking place. I must tell you that at that time, we were very, very close.

Q. How do you view India’s concerns about Pakistan’s nuclear proliferation and nuclear programme, which India says it has been aided and helped by China?

For us, I recognise the regional sensitivities and at the same time, I need to work individually with countries so that they help us in nuclear security and safety. I recognise that in the subcontinent, there has been a particular history, and that two countries have nuclear arsenals. I must always work with India. I must also work with Pakistan and with everybody else, so that we do not make things in any way worse, and that everybody acts responsibly…