NUCLEAR WAL-MART: ElBaradei says that a vast network of people buying and selling nuclear secrets still exists

Q: You say in your book that you had a front row seat to the nuclear dramas that occurred during your tenure. Do you feel a sense of loss that despite not finding any evidence of nuclear weapons in Iraq, the war happened?

A: I think it was a loss for the entire international community — for international law and legitimacy. We were asked to do verification. We did our job; we found no evidence of nuclear weapons. It was not only the IAEA that was bypassed but the whole Security Council. A lot of people said I should have resigned (when Iraq was invaded). My answer to that was: should the Security Council have folded up? What happened was that a couple of countries decided to bypass international law and legitimacy. That’s why I feel there should be accountability. They should not get away with murder. In the United States and the United Kingdom, someone should be held accountable.

If you want a system based on international law and legitimacy, you should not exonerate the strong and powerful. You cannot just hit out at (Serbian ex-President) Milosevic or (Sudanese President) Al Bashir. It should also apply to the US and UK, who decided to go to war despite knowing that Iraq was not a threat. This was a war that ended with war crimes.

Q: Closer home, does the May 22 attack on a Pakistan naval airbase once again raise concerns about nuclear security?

A: You cannot separate nuclear security from nuclear safety or non-proliferation — they are all in the same basket.

Q: You wrote about a “veritable Nuclear Wal-Mart” in the world, referring to the vast network of people selling and buying nuclear secrets and material. Is the fear real?

A: It’s still there. When we discovered (Pakistani scientist) A.Q. Khan’s sophisticated network all over the globe, we became very concerned. Khan was going around disbursing his goodies. We didn’t know who had access to such technology and material. The whole situation was very murky. We have to still ask ourselves whether we have succeeded 100 per cent in dealing with this network. The question is — can someone imitate what Khan did? The worry is about an extremist group getting its hand on nuclear material.

We never thought that radioactive sources could be used for malevolent purposes. There are thousands of such sources all around, some very powerful. These may not lead to a nuclear explosion, but will terrorise and release radiation in large areas. Some experts have wondered how this has not happened already. We have to continue to keep our fingers crossed.

Q: The recent crises in Japan seem to indicate that in the final analysis, there are no real safeguards.

A: No technology is 100 per cent safe, we have to accept that. And that’s true when we fly, or in whatever we do. Our job — including that of the nuclear establishment — is to maximise the benefits and minimise the risks. In Japan, it was the worst of all circumstances — a tsunami and an earthquake, and it was something nobody ever expected. It was an old reactor that didn’t have the same kind of modern safety devices that we now have. We need to learn from what happened. Old reactors have to shut down, and I think the Japanese are already doing so. I applaud them for this. They need energy, but realise that this should come first. We need to review the siting of power reactors to ensure that they are not linked to any fault lines. We need to have an overall safety review for every civilian and military reactor. We need to become much more vigilant.

Q: In India, it has often been rued that there is no independent safeguard regulatory body for Indian nuclear reactors.

A: I personally believe that, as is the practice elsewhere, regulatory bodies should not be dependent on the promotional body. I know in India they are both linked. My advice — though of course it is for the Indian government to decide — based on my experience is that it creates a sense of confidence among the people when a regulatory body is in no way linked to the promotional body.

Q: You have described Manmohan Singh as among those you most admire.

A: What struck me was his humility. He became the Prime Minister of India — came from a minority community and a very modest background. He was the architect of the opening up of the Indian economy. Yet he is full of modesty and humility. I know that in personal acquisition, he has almost zero. To me, that’s a perfect model of a public servant. I have a lot of admiration for him as a politician and a friend.

Q: Will you stand for the presidential elections in Egypt, likely to be held next year?

A: I will. But I have made it clear that I will only stand if we have a level playing field and a democratic framework.

After I finished my IAEA term and came back to Egypt in 2009, I realised how bad things were. I started working with the youth a year before the revolution, on a petition for political change. We started mobilising people. We had Gandhi as our model. We managed, a year later, through the most peaceful revolution to remove the Hosni Mubarak regime. We feel free — we’ve restored our dignity.

Q: Some see you as an outsider because you’ve lived abroad for a long period. Are you a bit like Imran Khan in Pakistan?

A: I don’t think that’s fair. I have lived here half my life. I joined the Foreign Service. In fact, working for many years abroad is a plus. I come with experience in global management, international relations and development issues. Egypt has to now have respect for technology and humanity. We need to catch up with the 21st century.

Q: A presidential bid will mean spending less time with your three-year-old granddaughter Maya, though.

A: That’s one of the disadvantages of being involved in politics. Now I have another little granddaughter. Maya is an Indian name. My daughter loves the name, and so do I. It shows the bond I have with India!