Rafael Grossi: ‘The United Nations has forgotten its purpose’

A new Secretary-General of the United Nations will be elected in 2026. Argentina, under President Javier Milei, has just officially nominated Rafael Mariano Grossi (Buenos Aires, 1961), Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) since 2019, the UN agency responsible for nuclear safety and non-proliferation. The interview takes place on the 28th floor of the UN building in Vienna, where the atomic agency is headquartered — the site of the “great Vienna lie” in August 1986, when the Soviet delegation assured the world that the worst nuclear disaster in history was due to human error, not to reactor design or safety management. IAEA technicians deployed today to Chernobyl, Ukraine, report that the colossal sarcophagus preventing radioactive leakage has lost its protective function after being attacked by a drone.

Question. Are you concerned about the state of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant sarcophagus?

Answer. Yes. The drone impact in February caused a hole and a fire that compromised the sarcophagus’s watertight seal. The report has taken us several months. The sarcophagus’s insulation capacity is compromised. There is currently no external radiation, but the cleaning work cannot continue and the situation threatens to deteriorate.

Q. Will it be repaired?

A. So far, the hole has only been covered to prevent rain, snow, and birds from getting in. The repair must be extended under that arch to ensure the level of insulation it had before.

Q. The risk of an accident generates panic. It’s a psychological weapon. Ukrainian authorities claimed the drone was Russian. Do you think a decisive military attack on Chernobyl is possible?

A. Not directly. What happens there and elsewhere are drone incursions with explosive payloads, sometimes very large ones, the main protagonists of this war.

Q. How should we interpret Vladimir Putin’s threat to use nuclear weapons capable of destroying civilization?

A. I haven’t registered any threats of a nuclear attack. What has happened at some point in the war, which has now lasted more than three years, is that there have been statements warning that, in the event of an existential threat, nuclear weapons are available. This is actually the doctrine of nuclear weapons use for almost all countries. Nuclear weapons as a deterrent. I believe that, at the current stage of the conflict, it’s more a war of words than a real possibility, while there is undoubtedly an increase in international tension and a latent risk.

Q. Is the U.S. preparing to resume nuclear weapons testing, as Donald Trump has warned?

A. It follows the logic of the response. It must be clarified that Russia has not tested nuclear weapons, but rather weapons systems that have nuclear propulsion.

Q. We are just a few months away from the expiration of the last treaty that still restricts the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia. Is this the end of an era? The definitive closure of the era of nuclear control that began during the Cold War?

A. There is a decline in the validity of those agreements. But I know there was some initial discussion between the two presidents on the subject at the Alaska summit. I expect some movement.

Q. What is the current situation at Europe’s largest nuclear power plant, Zaporizhzhia, occupied by the Russian army and operated by Ukrainian personnel?

A. It remains extremely fragile, very dangerous. We must not forget that it is a nuclear plant located in a combat zone. On the front line. In territory that Russia has fully occupied.

Q. When you visited in 2022, on your first mission across the front, your convoy was attacked and you were in the gray zone under open fire. Do you still not know who was responsible?

A. No, we never knew. And it’s happened again a couple of times, so we had to change the access route to the plant to avoid putting our personnel at risk. Before, we always went through Ukraine, and now we go directly through Russia. I have to maintain this operation, which is very important for peace and security in the world.

Q. IAEA staff rotate every three weeks. What was Zaporizhzhia like in 2022 and what is it like now?

A. It’s a nuclear facility that has changed hands, just like the surrounding territory. A truly atypical situation, to put it neutrally. Those who live there now have Russian passports. Many of the workers left, but a significant number stayed. As in the logic of occupation during World War II, some resist, some leave, and some adapt to the situation.

Q. Argentina has officially announced its candidacy for the position of UN Secretary-General. Do you have a good relationship with President Javier Milei?

A. Very good. I’m not an Argentine official, I am Argentine. I have a good relationship with my country and I’m also grateful that my own country is putting me forward as a candidate; it would seem absurd to aspire to anything else or to seek a free pass.

Q. The new head will be elected in six months. Who are your supporters?

A. This is a bit like papal conclaves. We must exercise diplomatic prudence. I have a lot of support and I will have more. Italy and Paraguay have already expressed their support.

Q. What is your proposal?

A. A functioning UN, because it doesn’t work. It functions poorly. In certain areas — humanitarian aid, food security, health, what we do — it fulfills a task that, albeit fragmentarily, must be acknowledged, but clearly the United Nations has forgotten its purpose. If you read the Charter, you understand that it was created to prevent wars, to bring about peace… and this is not discussed. If you analyze the hotspots of war on a world map — Sudan, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, Thailand and Cambodia, the Sahel, Azerbaijan and Armenia in their time, Gaza… — the common denominator is the absence of the UN. It is not there. It does not act. And this can be remedied.

Q. What use is the UN in a war like Russia’s in Ukraine where the aggressor country has veto power over Security Council resolutions?

A. That’s right, correct. But the UN can serve many purposes. In this conflict, I could have argued that the IAEA’s reach is very limited; there’s also an implicit veto there, and yet here we are. Active diplomacy must be deployed, and solutions must be proposed as an impartial, but not indifferent, interlocutor. Whoever holds the position must speak with those who initiated the attacks. That’s the first thing I did: speak with Putin, and many people criticized me for it. But who else am I going to talk to?

Q. The Damascus Dossier documents [an investigative work by the German public broadcaster NDR and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists] reveal that the UN paid $11 million to a security company linked to Assad’s secret services.

A. I’m not aware of that. But I am aware of other processes, such as the investigation led by former French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna into the work of UNRWA (the UN agency for Palestinian refugees in the Middle East), for example, where apparently some employees belonged to Hamas. That’s not a problem with the institution itself, but with those who manage it.

Q. The UN has just turned 80. Isn’t it time there was a woman Secretary-General of the United Nations?

A. What we need is a Secretary-General chosen for their merits. How many female heads of government has Spain had? Will they say in the next elections, “Now it’s a woman’s turn”? It’s an artificial debate. I increased the number of women in leadership positions at the IAEA from 28% to 52%. These are facts, not words. Someone should be chosen for their vision, not because after 80 years of men in the position it’s time for a woman, or someone with blue eyes, or a secularist, or a religious person.

Q. You are a career diplomat, Argentina’s ambassador to Austria before becoming the first Latin American to head the UN nuclear agency since its creation in 1957. Can’t we speak of U.S. political intervention in Argentine politics when the Trump administration is conditioning the financial bailout on Milei’s electoral victory?

A. I am an international civil servant. It is not my place to comment on Argentine domestic politics.

Q. Israel and the U.S. bombed Iranian nuclear and military facilities in June. Have IAEA technicians returned to work in Tehran?

A. With difficulty. For the moment, we have managed to inspect the facilities that were not attacked. Negotiations are ongoing. Let’s not forget that the 60% enriched nuclear material that Iran possessed before the attacks is still there. Legally, Iran must show us where it is and guarantee that its nuclear program is for peaceful use.

Q. Israel has never confirmed nor denied possessing a nuclear arsenal. Is the UN atomic agency in no position to clear up this uncertainty?

A. Israel is not a member of the NPT (the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) and therefore is not obligated to place all its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards or inspection. It’s an open secret, but there’s no real confirmation. It’s ironic, but that’s the way it is.

Q. Television series offer a popular culture perspective on a key moment in history. Did you see Craig Mazin’s Chernobyl?

A. The series isn’t so bad; it could have been much worse. I was particularly interested in the episode about the accident. The entertainment industry has been quite anti-nuclear, and I think that’s changed.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition