Foreign opinion: Trevor Findlay on Reform of the IAEA

In June 2012 a Center for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) Senior Fellow Trevor Findlay released a long-waited report, Unleashing the Nuclear Watchdog: Strengthening and Reform of the IAEA. A phone interview with Professor Trevor Findlay on key findings of his report. The speaker discusses the role that the IAEA plays in the world, the problems it is facing now, the challenges that will shape the Agency’s future, and about Russia in the IAEA.

Interviewee: Trevor Findlay, CIGI Senior Fellow

Interviewer: Maria Prosviryakova, RIAC

July 3, 2012

In June 2012 a Center for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) Senior Fellow Trevor Findlay released a long-waited report, Unleashing the Nuclear Watchdog: Strengthening and Reform of the IAEA.

A phone interview with Professor Trevor Findlay on key findings of his report. The speaker discusses the role that the IAEA plays in the world, the problems it is facing now, the challenges that will shape the Agency’s future, and about Russia in the IAEA.

Theme music by Vicnet under Creative Commons License.

Transcript

This is a phone interview with Trevor Findlay for Russian International Affairs Council. Professor Trevor Findlay is an Australian diplomat, a delegate to the United Nations and a Center for International Governance Innovation Senior Fellow. He is an author of the long-waited report Unleashing the Nuclear watchdog: strengthening and reform of the IAEA. Hello!

Trevor Findlay is speaking.

So, The IAEA was created in 1957 in response to the deep fears and expectations resulting from the discovery of nuclear energy. On July, 29 2012 the Agency is marking its 55th anniversary. Based on the findings of your recent report, how effective is the IAEA? And how influential are its decisions?

Well, it is relatively effective according to the research I have conducted. It is obviously not totally efficient. And it does need to modernize some of its practices, but overall it seems to me, it is one of the most efficient and effective of the UN family of organizations. It is quite influential particularly because it has a role in nuclear safeguards, which means that it determines whether states are in compliance with the obligations not to acquire nuclear weapons, and it is an incredibly important aspect of international security. So, the agency is influential, it needs strengthening, it needs reform and in particular needs much more support from its member-states, which there are now 153. So, the overall conclusion is that yes, it is a very important organization, functions reasonably well, but needs reform and more support from its member-states.

What are the main problems that the Agency is facing now?

Well, one of the main problems is budgetary, of course. It has been held to zero real growth for the last 20 years which is a long time for any organization to be held back in that way. So it needs funding. My report doesn’t recommend any particular amount or like others say that it should be doubled in terms of its funding, but it certainly does need more support in almost every program that it runs. So in my report I argued that agency itself should make a better case for what it needs for each program, rather than outsiders saying that the budget should be doubled. They need to do a better job with justifying why they need extra funding. Second issue with the agency is a politicization of its governance: the Board of Governance and the General Conference. And it is really up to member-states to solve that problem. There has been a huge issue over Iran, of course, and that has tended to sully the consideration of the Board on various issues which have nothing to do with Iran. So, that is the problem. The third issue I would point to would be the Agency’s need to institute modern personal practices, modern management practice, particularly in the area of information technology and verification technology, because it really needs to keep to date with technological development and use it in its various operations, regarding safety, security and non-proliferation.

One of the problems is politicization of the Board of Governance. What can you suggest to solve this problem?

Well, the Board of Governance is really in charge of its own destiny and it could really collectively lower the level of politicization in its discussions and I think there have to be a general agreement if this happens. Over the years it has gone from being a consensus body to a body that takes votes on issues, so it is really up to the Board to do that. There is currently a proposal to expand the Board, but I think that would be a mistake. It certainly hasn’t worked in the case of the Conference on disarmament and I think it actually made things worse. So, I would suggest not expanding the board, but look at the electoral system which is currently designed to reelect countries year after year whether they make much contribution or not. So, I think there should be a reform of the electoral system on geographical basis so that geographical regions elect the best country suited to the Board membership. That won’t solve all the political problems, but it would help to create a fairer electoral system and the developing countries then presumably would feel that it is a much more representative body and that they have much bigger chance to get onto the Board.

What challenges will shape the IAEA's future?

Well, one challenge would be the case of non-compliance from Iran, if we had another case of Iran that would be quite a challenge, because the Iran issue still remains unresolved for 10 years. So, that would be one challenge. Another is if we had a very sudden revival of interest in nuclear energy, at the moment is has been held down somewhat by the results of Fukushima, and Germany and other countries that decided to get out of the nuclear energy business, but it could be that because of climate change we have an increased interest and some states might actually try to have rapid building programs for nuclear reactors so that would be a challenge. The third challenge would be in terms of nuclear disarmament because the IAEA has been muted as a possible verification agency for nuclear disarmament and already they are in talks with Russia and the USA on how to safeguard excess materials from weapons dismantlement, so as that picks up and as other states potentially join, the agency would be required to be more active in that regard. It may not be chosen as a verification agency for the entire abolishing of nuclear weapons but certainly will be involved in some respect with regard to weapons material.

What role is Russia playing in the IAEA now? What problems do you see in Russia - IAEA cooperation? How Russia’s participation in the work of the IAEA can be improved?

Russia plays a very important role in the IAEA and historically has. Russia was an original member of the Board of Governance and it is constantly reelected to that position. So, Russia’s position in the agency is extremely important, it helps make some of the biggest decisions about what the IAEA does. One of the difficulties over the years with Russia was that it has not been as engaged as it really should be considering its power and its influence and effective nuclear weapons state. It hasn’t contributed in the same way as the USA in terms of voluntary contributions or the provisions of technical assistance. So, in my view it should be able to do much more particularly now as its economy is doing much better. So, I think Russia should play a bigger role. Russia has being putting forward some interesting ideas in some areas such as mandatory pre-review for nuclear safety purposes and I think that is very good. Unfortunately other states haven’t agreed to that proposal, but it would be really helpful if Russia pursued that goal of mandatory pre-review because it is hoping to export nuclear reactors and, of course, Russia itself has a very big nuclear industry So, Russia’s role in the area of nuclear safety would be particularly useful. In the area of safeguards, unfortunately, Russia seems to be holding back some proposals for reform and strengthening of nuclear safeguards. And I am not absolutely sure why that should be the case, because traditionally Russia has not had problems with safeguards. So, it would be unfortunate if Russia continues along that path. To my mind, nuclear safeguards are extremely important as we have seen in case with Iran, though they have not always worked as well as they should. So, strengthening and reform is necessary and I believe it is in Russia’s best interests to support strengthening and reform of safeguards.

Professor Findlay, thank you so much for this interview and have a wonderful day. Good bye.