Yukiya Amano, director general of the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke exclusively with The Wall Street Journal in Vienna on Friday following the agency’s talks with Iran. Here are excerpts of the interview:
Q: Mr. Director General, are the talks with Iran at an impasse?
MR. AMANO: We expected that we could finalize a structured approach hopefully today, but if not today then hopefully in the near future. We have been working for this in a very constructive spirit. We were ready to accommodate some of their proposals, which were stated before. We are disappointed; we don’t think the process is broken down. The talks will continue. The date is not yet fixed. We need to digest the exchange of views from today. But after today’s meeting without any progress, and with some setbacks, I cannot be in an optimistic mood.
Q: How do you compare this meeting with your previous meeting in Tehran?
MR. AMANO: The meeting in Tehran was positive. This was the first time I met with [Iran’s chief negotiator] Saeed Jalili. The most important meeting on the structured approach was with Mr. Jalili. We covered many fields. He explained the basic position of Iran. We did not have the same view in many areas, but we had common ground, too. I sensed that the differences were very narrow. I was told the differences would not be the obstacle. I had hoped we would be able to reach an agreement, sign and implement it quite soon.
Q: Do you have a sense of what backtracked?
MR. AMANO: We need to analyze. Quite often we gradually gather pieces of information like a jigsaw puzzle. We gradually come to understand—not completely, but we will have a better idea of why this happened—and what should be the best way to move forward. It takes time. And some reasonable time is needed before having another meeting.
Q: How do you respond to criticism that Iran is just dragging this on and criticism that the visit to Tehran was premature?
MR. AMANO: I don’t think there is a division with the international community or that my visit would be conducive to this division. There was an IAEA board of governors resolution in November that clearly states the request that the IAEA and Iran should intensify their dialogue. And we have had two rounds of discussions, and it was quite obvious that the differences were quite narrow or limited and that another push was needed. That is why I went, and it was in my view a very logical move. And the outcome of my meeting was not good, and looking at the result of today’s meeting, we need to think and analyze how we move forward.
Q: Iran demands copies of documents from the IAEA investigative file. Will the IAEA comply?
MR. AMANO: I don’t think this is a serious issue. Of course we cannot give all documents, and especially we can’t give the documents that don’t belong to us. So I cannot commit that we will give all of the documents. But if countries are willing to provide documents and when we have our own information, and when appropriate, we can give the documents. And of course when we judge that some information is not credible enough, we will not give the document. It would be misleading. We always analyze the documents, and when the documents are in our possession, and we find it appropriate, we are ready to provide it to Iran. And we explained this very clearly to Iran. So I don’t think this is the major problem.
Q: How about the modality of the investigation? Iran demands issues be investigated one after the other, either individually or in clusters, and that once an issue or cluster is closed, it can never be reopened. What is the IAEA approach?
MR. AMANO: There are ways to strike a compromise. But if we are told we have to close one chapter before going to another, that is not possible. That is not in line with our established verification practice. We said we were disappointed, but it is good to be clear. Today’s result was disappointing. We stated it. Now we need to think how we can proceed for the future.
Q: How central is Parchin, the military installation where test of explosive arrays required for nuclear weapons were allegedly conducted?
MR. AMANO: Parchin is a priority for us, but it is one of the issues. It is not the only issue or the issue. There are also other important issues as elaborated in the November report annex. Underplaying the importance of Parchin is wrong, but overly emphasizing the importance of Parchin would also be wrong.
Q: How concerned are you about sanitizing of the grounds at Parchin so you won’t find anything, razing buildings, removing soil, spraying water inside buildings?
MR. AMANO: We have concerns, but we can’t say how concerned we are because we don’t have staff on the ground. So what we can learn is through satellite imagery. And also these are activities in progress. What we have observed yesterday might not be true tomorrow, and we don’t know their plan. So at this stage I cannot say how much we are concerned. How deeply our activities will be hampered. But as a general nature, these activities are not helpful to the verification activities. We would like to have proactive cooperation with them.
Q: How would you describe your relationship with Iran? Iran’s ambassador has accused the IAEA of spying and implied the agency is complicit in the targeting Iranian scientists for murder. How do you respond?
MR. AMANO: In defining or characterizing the relationship, responding to the Iranian position would be wrong. On our part, we work on basic principles. We have a comprehensive safeguards agreement and other relevant Iranian obligations. And we have to implement it. I have an obligation under the statute to be impartial. I should be factual. I keep sticking to this principle. I like to be clear. Clarity is very important, even though Iran does not like it. In order to solve the problem, we should have a clear understanding of the current situation, and what are the problems. Otherwise we cannot make progress.
The relationship between the IAEA and Iran has ups and downs. I am not very much concerned. I think I have to do my job properly in accordance with the principle of discipline. My belief is in the statute. And I hope this will be appreciated by countries such as Iran because this is a way to find a solution.
Q: How closely interconnected are the IAEA discussions with Iran and the separate talks led by Russia, China, France, Germany the U.S. and the United Kingdom?
MR. AMANO: The IAEA and EU3 +3 processes are separate, independent, different processes. They are different because the scope of the issues that we are discussing is different; the participants are different, so naturally these are different, independent, separate processes. Of course, there are some common elements, so we need to recognize these elements. The rhythm is very different. Sometimes the EU3+3 makes progress; sometimes we don’t make progress. Sometimes we have a better prospect than the EU3+3. I don’t have to worry that much about these ups and downs. We need to work based on our mandate. Good progress is helpful not just for the EU3+3. It is also beneficial to the international community.
Q: In the November report you were very specific about allegations of activities going on in 2008 and 2009: Computer modeling of warhead designs or core detonations. What are the concerns you have that the IAEA needs to investigate in Iran?
MR. AMANO: It is difficult to say what is most important, most worrying now because they are all interrelated. What we did not say [was that] Iran had nuclear weapons. We never said such. We also did not say that Iran made a decision to obtain nuclear weapons. That we also did not say. But we said that we have concerns in various areas that indicate activities that are relevant to nuclear explosive devices. And the conclusion is therefore we need to clarify. This is where we stand now. And if we cannot clarify, we get more concerned. And this ambiguous situation will continue. If we can start the clarification process and we can clarify, then our concern will decrease.
Q: What do we know about allegations that Iran continues efforts to develop nuclear weapons technology?
MR. AMANO: I am not a weapons scientist. Most of the activities were before 2003. There were some that may have continued after 2003.
Q: Some projects related to nuclear-weapons development may have continued after 2003. What do you know now about this activity?
MR. AMANO: This is one of the important elements of the outstanding issues. We have a better information and understanding of the structure, and we would like to discuss with our Iranian partners to clarify. What we knew in the past was more limited than what we know now.
Q: Iran’s alleged nuclear-weapons development appears to have devolved in an ever-changing structure. Is it coming together again?
MR. AMANO: We don’t have the impression that they are re-concentrating their activities. Before 2003 the work was quite systematic. And after that it is more dispersed. And this situation continues.
By JAY SOLOMON And DAVID CRAWFORD
Source : Wall Street Journal