아마노 유키야 국제원자력기구 사무총장 “北 김정은의 핵정책 판단 아직 이르다”

아마노 유키야 국제원자력기구(IAEA) 사무총장 인터뷰
핵사찰 범위 놓고 협의 진행

“국제원자력기구(IAEA)는 현재 북한과 사찰단 복귀 문제를 두고 협의를 진행하고 있습니다.”

서울 핵안보정상회의에 참석하는 아마노 유키야 IAEA 사무총장(사진)은 25일 동아일보와의 서면 인터뷰에서 “북-미 합의에 IAEA의 역할이 포함된 것에 주목하고 있다”며 이같이 말했다.

북한은 2월 미국과 핵실험 및 장거리로켓 발사, 영변 핵시설 가동을 일시 유예하기로 합의했지만 북-미 합의를 깨고 장거리로켓 발사 계획을 추진하고 있다. 그러나 북한은 IAEA 사찰단 수용은 받아들이겠다고 밝혔다. 이를 염두에 둔 듯 아마노 총장은 ‘김정은으로 권력이 이양된 북한 새 지도부의 핵정책 변화가 감지되고 있느냐’는 질문에 “아직 변화가 있다거나 없다고 얘기하기엔 이르다”라며 신중한 모습을 보였다.

아마노 총장은 서울 핵안보정상회의가 핵 안보 문화를 확산시킬 아주 좋은 기회라고 강조했다. 핵과 관련된 전반적인 사항을 다루는 국제기구의 수장으로서 아마노 총장은 “핵물질과 방사성 물질이 악당들의 손에 들어가는 것을 막는 수단을 강화하는 방안에 세계 지도자들이 동의하길 기대한다”고 말했다.

그는 “이번 회의가 국제법 체계의 필수적인 고리인 ‘개정 핵물질방호협약(CPPNM)’ 발효에 필요한 비준국 수를 늘릴 기회가 되기를 희망한다”고 말했다. 1987년 발효된 원래 협약은 다른 국가로 이전되는 핵물질에 대한 물리적인 방호 조치만을 다뤘지만 2005년 개정된 협약은 핵물질 보호, 이동 및 저장은 물론이고 테러 행위로부터의 핵시설 보호 등으로 범위를 확대했다.

아마노 총장은 핵안보정상회의의 유용성에 대해 “2010년 1차 워싱턴 회의 이후 세르비아 빈카 핵시설의 고농축우라늄(HEU)을 비롯해 많은 핵물질을 안전하게 보호하게 됐고 15개국이 CPPNM을 비준하는 등 많은 진전이 있었다”고 설명했다.

그는 세계 원자력발전소 435개 시설 가운데 80% 이상이 20년 이상 된 시설임을 지적한 IAEA의 최근 보고서를 거론하며 “20년이 지났다고 안전하지 않다는 뜻은 아니다. 다만 관리가 필요하다”고 덧붙였다.

이란의 핵 활동에 대해 그는 “최근 보고서에서 밝혔듯이 IAEA는 이란 핵 프로그램의 군사적 측면을 심각하게 우려하고 있다”며 “IAEA는 이란이 핵폭발장치를 개발했다는 전반적이고 신뢰할 정보를 갖고 있는 만큼 이란은 이에 답해야 한다”고 지적했다. 그는 특히 이란의 핵무기 개발 의혹을 풀기 위한 출발점은 군사시설인 ‘파르친’ 핵시설에 대한 IAEA 접근이라고 강조했다. 하지만 그는 이스라엘의 무력 사용에 대해서는 반대 의사를 분명히 하며 “대화를 통해 구체적인 결론을 이끌어내야 한다”고 강조했다.

김영식 기자 spear@donga.com　　

:: 아마노 사무총장 약력 ::

△1947년 5월 일본 출생
△2002년 8월 일본 외무성 군축비확산 및 과학부 심의관
△2005년 9월 빈 주재 일본대사
△2009년 12월 IAEA 사무총장

▼아마노 유키오 인터뷰 영문 풀버전▼

Yukiya Amano, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said IAEA can play an essential role in verifying the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
And he hoped the Seoul Nuclear Security Summit will provide renewed impetus for countries that have not yet ratified the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials(CPPNM) to do so.
About possibility of Israeli attack on Iran, "I am against the use of force. Dialogue is the only way forward, dialogue must produce concrete results," said in an email interview with the Dong-A Daily. The details are as follows;

Q. The 2nd Nuclear Security Summit is about to open in South Korea. What do you expect the most to be discussed and produced out of the Seoul meeting?

A: Nuclear and other radioactive material falling into the hands of terrorists is a real threat, and it must be addressed as a priority issue. The Seoul Nuclear Security Summit is an excellent occasion to enhance the nuclear security culture. The IAEA can help its Member States build a sustainable and effective global response to this global threat.

Q. What is IAEA's goal for the Seoul Nuclear Security Summit?

A: I hope that the world leaders gathered here will agree to strengthen measures to prevent nuclear and other radioactive material from falling into the wrong hands. The IAEA provides a unique platform for strengthening nuclear security, as it has an extensive membership of 153 states.

I also hope the Summit will provide renewed impetus for countries that have not yet ratified the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials (CPPNM) to do so, in order that this vital link in the international legal framework can finally come into effect.

The original Convention covers only physical protection of nuclear material in international transport. But the Amendment would expand its coverage to include the protection of material in domestic use, transport and in storage, and would protect nuclear facilities themselves against acts of terrorism.

Q. The Washington Nuclear Security Summit had welcomed President Obama's call to secure all vulnerable nuclear material in four years to enhance nuclear security. Since then, two years have already passed. Is the '4 year lock-down initiative' still likely to be achieved?

A: Nuclear security threats are real and immediate, and need to be addressed with urgency. There has been real progress in nuclear security since the 2010 Summit, including securing a considerable amount of nuclear material around the world for example high enriched uranium from the Vinca site in Serbia. A further 15 countries have ratified the CPPNM Amendment, which is a crucial legal instrument in the nuclear security field. The Agency has also seen a rise in demand from Member States for its expert peer review missions to assess nuclear security on the ground, including requests from countries with mature nuclear programmes such as France, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. But there is still much more to be done.

Q. After the 1st nuclear security summit meeting, the Fukushima incident occurred, creating new circumstances regarding nuclear safety. Now the world is more aware of the close relationship between nuclear security and nuclear safety, because nuclear incidents are all dangerous, intentional or otherwise. What would be the most effective way to deal with the risks involving the peaceful use of nuclear energy?

A. Nuclear safety and nuclear security have common goal: to protect human health and the environment. The IAEA's safety standards and security guidelines, which provide a benchmark for high levels of safety and security, both state that practical measures in each of these two areas have to be designed with the other in mind. For example, the principle that power plants should be fitted with multiple safety systems, so that if one fails, another kicks in, is relevant both in preventing accidents and in guarding against possible sabotage. I have also set up a Nuclear Security Guidance Committee in which all Member States can help to develop best practices in nuclear security, taking account of safety considerations.

Q. After the Fukushima incident, some countries including Germany announced their intention to abandon nuclear power as a whole. How realistic do you assess such an approach? If the humankind is bound to use the nuclear energy for some time, what are the criteria that must be met?

A. One of the effectsof the Fukushima Daiichi accident has been to damage public confidence in nuclear power around the world, and this has led some countries mainly in Europe to turn away from nuclear energy. At the same time, others have continued with their plans to adopt or expand nuclear power programs while strengthening nuclear safety.

Global use of nuclear power will continue to grow in the coming decades, though at a slower rate than we had previously projected. The reasons why it may be interesting to individual countries have not changed: notably, concern about climate change, the desire for security of energy supply and the volatility of fossil fuel prices.

The most important thing is that nuclear power should be generated as safely and securely as is humanly possible. Lessons are being learned, changes are being made around the world, and nuclear power is now safer as a result. But we must never let down our guard on safety and security.

Q. IAEA recently issued a report that concerned about world's ageing nuclear plants. It shows that 80% of the 435 facilities more than two decades old at the end of last year. What is your suggestion to use nuclear power more safely?

A. As I said, safety is paramount. Many nuclear power stations have been operating for 20 years or more, but this does not mean they must be unsafe; it means that their age needs to be taken into account.

The IAEA's Nuclear Safety Action Plan sets out a blueprint for national and international action in 12 major areas, and represents a significant step forward in strengthening nuclear safety. For example, it encourages all countries with nuclear power programmes to carry out what have become known as "stress tests" of their nuclear power plants, and the IAEA has developed a methodology to help them do that. The Agency has also stepped up its peer review services to help countries assess and reinforce nuclear safety, and proposals are under way to reinforce the IAEA's Safety Standards.

North Korea

Q. At the North Korea and US high ranking officials meeting in February, North Korea agreed to a moratorium on long-range missile and nuclear tests as well as suspending nuclear facilities in Yongbyon. There's been suspicion that North Korea has Uranium Enrichment Facilities elsewhere. In that context, there are arguments that the recent agreement does not amount to be a genuine progress. How do you assess the recent development?

A. The IAEA has been insisting that it can play an essential role in verifying the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. We have received an invitation from the DPRK, and we have started consultations with the DPRK and other relevant actors.

Q. North Korea's main nuclear negotiator RiYong-ho participated at a forum organized by Syracuse University. Could you sense change in North Korean nuclear policy under the new leadership?

A. It is premature to say whether there has been a change or not. Verification is an important issue and I note in this regard that the Agreement between the US and DPRK contains a reference to the role of the IAEA.

Q. North Korea's nuclear envoy Ri Yong-ho told recently that IAEA nuclear monitors will soon be able to return to North Korea under a recent deal with the United States. When is your target date for monitors return to North Korea? Did you identify the possible activities that IAEA would undertake at Yongbyon with North Korea?

A. We have received an invitation from DPRK, and started consultations with the DPRK. I hope you understand that we cannot discuss the details of our consultation.

Q. What will be the missions of the monitors after they return to North Korea? And what do you think about all this inspection team's work will play out in the future while North Korea confined inspection teams work area at Yongbyon site?

A. Consultations are under way, but you will understand that I cannot say too much at this point on their current status.

Q. The international order wrought in the aftermath of the World War II seems to be wearing out. Particularly, the non-proliferation regime is under serious challenge. Would the North Korean and the Iranian nuclear ambitions eventually nullify the existing legitimacy of non-proliferation regime? What preparations are necessary to face the uncertainties of the future?

A. I understand that, despite all the challenges, the existing non-proliferation regime remains the essential structure within which the international community is operating. It is essential that all countries implement safeguards and other relevant obligations fully.
Iran

Q. Washington and its Western allies accuse Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear program. But Iran still denies such charges. What's your main concern about Iran's nuclear activities?

A. As I said in my recent report, the IAEA has serious concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme, since the Agencyhas overall credible information that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. Iran has a case to answer, and I urge Iran to engage with us to address these concerns in a substantive way.

Q. How do you assess the recent IAEA inspection in Iran facilities?

A. The IAEA conducts regular inspections in Iran's declared nuclear facilities. In this respect, although the Agency continues to verify that Iran is not diverting its nuclear materials, we cannot provide credible assurances that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran. As a result, we cannot conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities. Iran needs to engage with us to provide more information.

If you are referring to the two recent visits to Tehran by a senior team of IAEA experts, we engaged with Iran in a constructive spirit, but the fact remains that we could not reach agreement on a structured approach to solve all the outstanding issues. In addition, we believed that a visit to Parchin could provide a concrete start. We requested this well in advance, but were not granted access during our visits as we had asked.

Q. There's possibility that Israel could attack Iran. What should be done to prevent the war?

A. I cannot speculate on actions or policies of Member States of the IAEA. I am against the use of force. Dialogue is the only way forward, dialogue must produce concrete results, and the IAEA is ready to continue its dialogue with Iran.

Youngsik Kim spear@donga.com