Interview by Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the International Organizations in Vienna Mikhail Ulyanov to «Press TV»

You met on Wednesday with IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi. What was the outcome of your talks and did you raise concern over double standards in the Agency's approach toward the Islamic Republic of Iran?

I am a diplomat and Rafael Grossi is a good colleague of mine. It is not my intention to insult him talking about double standards. But on substance, I always touch upon issues where the Secretariat of the Agency behave not in a perfect manner. We discussed a lot of aspects related to the Iranian nuclear dossier. Rafael Grossi informed me of the current talks between the Secretariat and Tehran on modalities of the Agency's activities in Iran in future after the aggression organized by Israel and the United States. It was one of the meetings I meet with Rafael on a regular basis, we discuss current issues. As a rule, such exchanges are useful.

The September session of the IAEA Board of Governors is coming up, do you view it as a genuine platform for technical dialogue or has it become a political tool for Washington and its European allies?

For about 50 years since its establishment, the Agency remained a technical body. Over the last 15 years, we observed the trend towards politicization, which started, I believe, with the issue of Syria when Israel ruined a Syrian facility, claiming that it was a nuclear reactor. Since then, discussions in the Board of Governors have become politicized. And normally, the discussions on Iran are always not about technicalities.

Even technicalities are seen through the prism of political affairs. E3 and the United States, maybe especially E3, politicize the issue, and they on a regular basis undertake steps which lead to further deterioration of the situation. Just one example. The Secretariat of the Agency and Iran discussed modalities of hypothetical future activities of the Agency in Iran, and when the progress has become seen for the negotiating parties, E3 launched a «snapback» mechanism in New York. Of course, it was not helpful for discussions, but this is a pattern. Europeans time and again create problems in the sphere which relates to the nuclear dossier of Iran. It’s very irrational, it's very strange, it has no plausible explanation, but this is a matter of fact.

Soon after Mr. Grossi's latest report on Iran, Israel carried out new acts of aggression, many argue that the IAEA provides cover for such attacks. Do you believe the Agency is complicit in this?

To my mind, it's an exaggeration. Definitely, the Agency, or the Secretariat to be precise, we need to differentiate between the Agency, which consists of almost 200 states plus Secretariat, the Secretariat is a bureaucratic body which provides assistance to member states. So, the Secretariat is definitely not perfect. We criticize some steps done by the Secretariat and the Director General publicly, at the sessions of the Board of Governors. We criticized him in private communications, but to my mind, it would be too much to say that the Agency or the Secretariat is conducting intentional anti-Iranian policy. They make mistakes, but at the same time, they are trying to maintain certain impartiality to the extent possible.

The IAEA issues reports on Iran, yet it never condemns Israel and the United States for unjustified acts of war against Iran. Israel, a nuclear power, also has never signed the NPT. What prevents the Agency from taking a fair and balanced position?

Well, it's not safe to criticize Israel and especially the United States.

The USA and Europeans talk about reviving the so-called «snapback» sanctions. From Russia's perspective, is this even legal after Washington abandoned the JCPOA?

No, definitely. Washington has nothing to do with it. Donald Trump withdrew from the JCPOA and Joe Biden did not rejoin the Deal. So, Americans don't have a say in what regards «snapback». It was not occasional that the «snapback» mechanism was launched by three European states who formally still remain participants to the JCPOA. They don't have legal, procedural, or even moral right to do that because they are violators. They violated the JCPOA very significantly as well as UN Security Council Resolution 2231. And according to the legal opinion of the International Court of Justice of 1971, if a party violates an agreement, it has no right to refer to the same agreement for blaming another counterpart.

That's exactly about E3, plus one additional moment. «Snapback» is described in Paragraph 11 of Resolution 2231, but there are similar provisions in the JCPOA itself, paragraphs 36 and 39, which, among other things, apply dispute resolution mechanism and establishment of an advisory group which tries to find a compromise solution. These provisions have never been implemented. The E3 went directly to the UN Security Council and thereby they became even greater violators of the resolution and the Nuclear Deal than they were before August 28, when they started this «snapback» procedure.

 If the West pushes «snapback» sanctions forward, will Russia limit its response to condemnation or will Moscow take concrete steps to counter the unilateral move?

I believe it's too early, premature to discuss how Russia will react because we still have about three weeks to find a diplomatic solution. Sanctions may be re-established hypothetically only in 30 days after the launch of «snapback» mechanism, which means that it may happen on the 27th or 28th of September, if I'm not wrong, if my calculations are not wrong. So we still have time. But I ask Western counterparts one simple question. Do you have an exit strategy? Okay, let's just imagine that you manage to re-establish previous economic sanctions against Iran. It's hardly possible to my mind because such an attempt would be illegal, but let's imagine. What next? Sanctions are reintroduced. What next? What is the purpose? To keep Iran under economic pressure or to find an amicable political diplomatic solution? And they don't have an answer. They say in general terms we are in favor of diplomacy, but I observe no diplomacy on their part.

Considering Russia and China's opposition to the «snapback» as outlined in a letter signed by the foreign ministers of Iran, Russia and China, if the previous resolutions are reimposed and sanctions return, how would the enforcement of these sanctions proceed in a situation where two permanent members of the Security Council do not recognize them as legal or legitimate?

Once again, it's premature to discuss this issue. I would like to draw your attention to another aspect. Russia and China prepared a draft UN Security Council resolution extending Resolution 2231 and the JCPOA for another six months in order to get more time for diplomacy without «snapback». It's our response to the launch of «snapback» mechanism. We demonstrate a better way ahead, which provides an opportunity for finding a solution. One additional element important in this context, in the same draft resolution, we mean to call upon all initial participants to the JCPOA to restart their discussions collectively. You can see for yourself attempts to do something useful through limited channels did not bring positive results. Five rounds of consultations between the United States and Iran, indirect consultations, no result at all, just a military action. Iranian side met a number of times with political directors of the E3, no result at all. Iranian colleagues, high-level colleagues, deputy foreign ministers met with Russian officials a few times. And here, at least, we have something practical.

The above-mentioned letter of three ministers, it did not appear just from the air. It was prepared by three countries in advance. So our contacts with Iran were much more productive than similar contacts of Tehran with E3 and the United States. We expressed the view that from now on, without prejudice to bilateral channels, it would be advisable to resume consideration of the topic, the issue of de-escalation in the format of all regional participants to the JCPOA. And this is something new.

Iran had previously, at the level of former president, announced that in the event of a «snapback», it would withdraw from the NPT. What is Russia's assessment of this matter? And how does it view such a scenario? Many believe that after military attacks against safeguarded nuclear facilities in Iran and the re-imposition of sanctions through «snapback», remaining in the NPT would have no justification. What is Russia's evaluation in this regard?

The NPT itself contains a provision on possible withdrawal. Article 10, I believe, if I'm not wrong. But we believe that withdrawal from the NPT would have very negative consequences for Iran itself and for international non-proliferation regime. So I can tell you for sure that, well, probably we understand the logic of the Iranian side. But we do not welcome such a step, definitely. We believe that there are better ways which are not yet exhausted. Among them, the consultations in the format of all JCPOA participants. Iran's nuclear program is under the most intrusive inspections in the world.

Why do you think the IAEA ignores this fact while treating Iran as guilty by default?

No, they do not ignore this fact. They know better than I or you that Iran is the most verifiable country in the world. A lot of inspections even now when additional protocol does not apply to verification in Iran. International relations, multilateral diplomacy is a rather complicated thing. Each country, each participant may make mistakes which lead to confusions, etc. Maybe the Secretariat should be more flexible, more reasonable. But I can tell you that on many occasions Rafael Grossi and his staff take into account our recommendations in this regard. So the picture is not black or white. It is a multicolored picture to my mind.

At the beginning of our conversation you said the IAEA has been a technical body for 50 years, but in the past 15 years it has become politicized. What sparked this development?

Vladimir Lenin said once upon a time: «it's impossible to live in a society and to be free of the society». Turbulent developments in the world finally affected the Vienna diplomatic side, including the IAEA. For a long time Vienna or multilateral diplomacy in Vienna were famous for the Vienna spirit, the spirit of consensus. Now the spirit of consensus vaporizes step by step. I don't know if it still exists to a certain extent, but definitely there is a big difference in the functioning of multilateral bodies in Vienna.

If you compare 2018 when I came to the Austrian capital to represent Russia to international organizations in Vienna and today, a big difference and this change was not for the better. We are moving from cooperation and consensus to confrontation and politicization. It's very unfortunate, but there are no magicians who can change everything at once. At least my country is trying to preserve the remaining parts of the Vienna spirit of cooperation, consensus building, etc. We are doing our best and Iran is our good partner. We act in unison on many occasions. We coordinate our positions, which is extremely useful for both sides.

Many believe the nuclear issue is being used as a geopolitical weapon to contain not only Iran, but also Russia and China. What is your view on that?

Yes, very short answer. There is nothing to discuss. It goes without saying.

Russia together with China and Iran issued a letter to the UN General Assembly this week. What clear message is Moscow sending to the UN, Washington and its allies by delivering this letter together with China and Iran?

The letter is related to the «snapback» procedure. We value the views and positions of individual member states of the United Nations. We know that many of them are not satisfied with the current state of affairs in international relations. We share our views, inviting them to consider the issues from different angles, from different directions. At the same time, I can tell you that in the XXI century, countries are much more intimidated than in the XX century, than at the time of the Cold War. This is a matter of fact. Very often, countries are afraid to pronounce themselves, including conditions like Iran. It's risky. It's dangerous. It may have consequences, as our American colleagues used to say publicly. They can find ways and means to put pressure on countries to create problems for them, and it happens on a regular basis.

This is another stage in the development of international relations. At the same time, it is counterbalanced by another trend, a trend towards a multilateral, multipolar world. You can see for yourself that the world is moving from unilateral stage, unipolar stage to multipolar arrangements. The recent meetings in China, BRICS meeting, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and others clearly indicate that there are healthy trends in international relations. Russia is doing its best to support these trends. Together with Iran, by the way, who is our strategic partner.

Another topic, always on top of the agenda of the IAEA, are the constant attacks on nuclear facilities in Ukraine and also the Kursk Region in the Russian Federation. How do you view the IAEA's response to these attacks?

A very good question. I can tell you that we are not fully satisfied with the position taken by the Secretariat. They turn a blind eye to crimes committed by the Ukrainian side. I would not say that Rafael Grossi takes sides. He is trying to keep equal distance, more or less equal distance, between the Secretariat and Moscow on the one hand and Kiev on another hand. But basically, yes, he and the Secretariat, it looks like they are trying to protect Ukraine, to turn a blind eye to their crimes. And Rafael never ever said publicly that Ukraine was responsible for attacks against the Zaporozhskaya NPP. He knows quite well that it was done by Ukrainians, but he refuses to say publicly. Of course, such a position will just encourage Ukraine to continue with reckless attacks against nuclear installations, nuclear facilities.

We spoke already about differences between the XXI and the XX century. In the last century, in the XX century, it was not permissible to attack nuclear installations. When Israel did it in Libya, Iraq, they were condemned. Now, in the XXI century, countries keep silence about such attacks. It was a massive attack against Iranian nuclear facilities by Israel, by the United States. A couple, maybe two dozen UN member states blamed Israel for that. The number of those who were courageous enough to blame Americans did not exceed one dozen, and the rest of the international community keeps silence. Once again, countries are intimidated.

You've been here in Vienna for over seven years. You witnessed the development of international organizations, the UN and the IAEA. You've previously mentioned that it is a more and more politicized and confrontational body.

And more degradation, I would say, bluntly.

How do you see the chances and what needs to be done to revive the international organizations and turn them again into international democratic institutions?

There are no easy ways. The international community is a big bureaucratic structure above all. International organizations act on the basis of their charters. If there is a need to change something, something basic in the activities of an international organization, usually you need to agree on an amendment, and then this amendment needs to be rectified. Totally, it may take up to 50 years to undertake a concrete step to bring an organization closer to current realities in the world. So it's not easy. A lot depends on the ability of those who are sticked to international law and cooperation. A lot depends on their ability to coordinate, to create alliances, and to speak up at international fora. 

We are trying to do that. For instance, in the field of narcotic drugs, there is the European Union, more than 30 states. Of course, they speak in unison. They usually take the floor on behalf of the European Union. Then each and every of certain nations takes the floor again and repeats the same things, creating a chorus, an impression that the majority of states in the world share the same views. We, Russia, started to counterbalance such activities by initiating collective statements in support of the UN Convention against the legalization of narcotics, etc. And such efforts are more or less successful. We managed to unite about 50 states around joint statements, which we propose for consideration. It's not bad. Of course, it's not sufficient. It does not change the fact that, say, Canada continues to openly violate legally binding UN Convention and legalize not only cannabis. Now, heavy drugs are also being legalized in some provinces of Canada.

As I told you, there are no magicians, but at least Russia is trying to be proactive, to counter negative trends and to support positive trends, which open the way to a better future.