The United Nations must “return to realism” or risk sliding into irrelevance. That is the blunt assessment of Rafael Mariano Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency nuclear watchdog, who argues the 80-year-old organization has become too diffuse to shape events in a world increasingly defined by war and geopolitical rivalry.
Grossi, who last year launched a bid to succeed Secretary-General António Guterres, said the U.N. should focus on what it can realistically accomplish rather than resign itself to the role of spectator.
“There is a need to go back to realism in the U.N.” and restore “focus on where the organization can really make a difference,” Grossi told a select group of outlets, including The Parliament Magazine, at the IAEA’s Vienna headquarters on Friday. “It’s clearly a huge task ahead, but we have to do it.”
“The risk of the U.N. becoming completely irrelevant is very high,” he added, arguing that an institution trying to do all at once risks achieving very little.
“By trying to do everything, it ends up being very thin in terms of delivering and changing things.”
His criticism comes as the war in Ukraine grinds into its fifth year, an uneasy détente between Washington and Tehran hangs in the balance, and civil wars across the world are deepening.
The U.N, has faced mounting criticism over its inability to answer decisively to these crises, with many pointing to the veto power held by the five permanent members of the Security Council as a source of paralysis.
Since entering the race for secretary-general, Grossi has cast himself as the man to cure the U.N. of its absenteeism, touting his role in brokering a ceasefire in the Zaporizhzhia power plant as “living proof” that multilateral organizations can take a hands-on approach to conflict management.
Other figures gunning for the U.N.’s top job includes former president of Chile and former U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet, Secretary-General of the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development Rebeca Grynspan and former president of Senegal Macky Sall.
This interview took place on June 12 in Vienna before the United States and Iran reached a preliminary peace deal. The questions were asked by a select group of media, including The Parliament Magazine. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
There are reports that the U.S. and Iran are getting very close to signing a deal. The draft that's currently being circulated calls for an IAEA Board of Governors resolution. How are you preparing the IAEA for any role in the peace deal?
We've been in touch throughout with all of them. Until February, we were part of a conversation in terms of being present. And since the war restarted, most of the grand work has been done. Now it's about what can be decided, and on this, of course, we don't know and we will have to wait a little bit. The most important thing about the agency is verification. When they ask us to do the verification, I have to go to my board [of governors] to ask them for permission to do that. In this sense, if there is an agreement, there will be a resolution and also at the UN Security Council.
What is your top priority for the IAEA to verify?
Everything. You cannot say [that] this is important, and the other is less important. The material is critically important because this is 60% and ... you know very well what this means. [Uranium enriched to 60% is considered sensitive as it can be further enriched to reach weapon-grade levels.] But, obviously, if you still have the capacity to enrich at that level, getting rid of the material in itself would be of relative value.
The IAEA has helped brokering a ceasefire at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine. Are there any talks on how to protect the plant from losing power again?
Constantly. You have the impression that it’s a never-ending story because, when you repair it, it gets broken and then you repair it again. Zaporizhzhia is on the frontline. It's one of those places which are very dramatic, because a Russian soldier looks in the eye of a Ukrainian soldier … [and] the power lines are very frequently hit by one or the other side. We negotiated the entry into force and then immediately there was an attack. Now we are working [on it] again. It's not an easy conversation because there's always suspicion. Why do they want a ceasefire? Why from here to here? Are they going to cheat? Ceasefires are very fragile.
The interesting thing — but also worrying for me because we’re exposed — is that both sides [Ukraine and Russia] have requested us now to monitor the demining, which makes the repairs possible. We normally check the repairs. Now the situation is so fragile that we also need to monitor the demining. The conversation continues, and so far, so good: we have avoided a nuclear accident. We hope that this will continue to be the case.
Over the past few years, many countries have expressed a desire to go nuclear, while nuclear power plants have been on the frontline in active conflicts. Do you think that the IAEA should be entrusted with a more robust mandate?
It's a very good question, and one that has been put several times whether — in the context of Iran or the war in Ukraine — there should be an expanded mandate, such as safety inspections. We do this kind of work, but it's different from inspecting to detect [nuclear] weapons. We do it on a more voluntary basis. My impression is that there is an evolution already.
It might be difficult to have it sanctioned or formalized in the way that you have safeguards [or] inspections, but the reality today is that if you want to have a nuclear power plant and you don’t have peer reviews and safety checks by the IAEA, there is no confidence. Not that we are a super-government in Ukraine, but people tend to believe more in the IAEA than in the national governments.
The latest review conference of the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) last May ended in a stalemate, marking the 16th year that the treaty hasn’t been revised. How do we stave off a further paralysis in the future, particularly given the risk that continued deadlock could intensify criticism of multilateral institutions?
I would make a difference there. One thing is a review process for a treaty, and I would not conflate this with the criticism of international organizations. My first NPT review conference was in 1985. I've seen them in all colors and shapes and at different historical moments, [even] during Soviet Union times. My take might be a bit provocative, but it would be to say that the success of the NPT is not defined by the absence of a final statement. And the reason is very simple: a review conference is always an easy prey to the issues of the time. So one day could be the Ukrainian-Russian war, the next time it will be the Middle East mass destruction zone, etc. It's like in national politics: when you have a referendum, people end up voting because of the price of bread or whatever.
The NPT is far from being perfect, but it’s a treaty that is relatively successful. Everything we can do [is] because there is the NPT. Otherwise, we could not be giving technology [or] supporting countries. At these times of enormous uncertainty, the NPT is a solid piece of international law that should be protected.
How do you rate your chances of gaining the office of U.N. Secretary-General? And given the current state of world affairs, how would anybody even want to do this job?
[It] wouldn't be prudent to say anything about that. There is a selection process that I take very seriously. I respect everybody else in the process. Of course, once somebody candidates himself or herself for something is because one feels that he or she can do it. I'm working hard on that. Why? It's because I believe that the U.N. is in a very difficult state, and what we do here [at the IAEA] is living proof that one can have a multilateral organization working well [and] have a positive and constructive influence in world affairs. And so, based on this experience and being a convinced multilateralist as I am, I think we need multilateralism more than ever. The only difference is that we need multilateralism that works.
If you were to succeed in your candidacy, which would be your first measure to reverse the current stagnation?
It has many dimensions because, if you're looking at the peace and security pillar, then it will be about doing what I'm doing now here with the ceasefires. It will be about engaging and talking to belligerents. And there are a few conflicts out there — some of them are becoming almost chronic.
But when it comes to other areas which are very important to the U.N., like the development area, I think that goes hand in hand with reform and ... making the organization more focused. It has lost focus. No one would dispute this fact and, by trying to do everything, it ends up being very thin in terms of delivering and changing things. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has close to 200 multinational development agencies and offices. The U.N. system has fewer than that, but there are bureaucratic disputes like a governmental structure, so that conspires against the ability of the U.N. to influence positively on the ground.
There is a need to go back to realism in the U.N. — to focus on where the organization can really make a difference. It is clearly a huge task ahead, but we have to do it. The risk of the U.N. becoming completely irrelevant, in my opinion, is very high.
Sign up to The Parliament's weekly newsletter
Every Friday our editorial team goes behind the headlines to offer insight and analysis on the key stories driving the EU agenda. Subscribe for free here.