S. Korea required to make ironclad nonproliferation guarantee over nuclear submarine plan: IAEA chief

Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, speaks during a press conference in Seoul, Wednesday. AP-Yonhap

South Korea must reach agreements on safeguards with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) before proceeding with its planned nuclear-powered submarine program, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi said Wednesday.

“It is indispensable to have technically sound agreements with the IAEA, if the international community sees that this project is a project under IAEA safeguards, so that the IAEA inspectors have the ability to check that the nuclear material is only being used as the engine for a submarine and nothing more than that,” Grossi said during a press conference in Seoul.

“Once the formal process has started, we will have to have important conversations with the different levels of the government, military, the naval shipyards, shipbuilders — everyone who is going to be involved in this process — to have an ironclad guarantee that this activity is not conducive to nuclear proliferation."

He added that the IAEA is already going through this process with Australia and Brazil, two other countries that have decided to develop their own nuclear submarines.

Grossi's remarks come as South Korea is planning to build its own nuclear submarine after U.S. Donald Trump signaled his approval at a bilateral summit last October. Under the existing Korea-U.S. nuclear cooperation agreement, Seoul may enrich uranium up to 20 percent and reprocess spent nuclear fuel for civilian purposes, only with U.S. consent.

As a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), South Korea is committed to not developing nuclear weapons, and the government has repeatedly stressed its adherence to those obligations to the international community.

Grossi said discussions between South Korea and the IAEA will help ease concerns from the international community over a potential arms race toward nuclear weapons, adding that his talks with South Korea's Foreign Minister Cho Hyun would be the starting point for a broader process.

In the meeting with Grossi, Cho reaffirmed that South Korea has fully upheld its NPT obligations and maintained the highest level of safeguard commitments, pledging that Seoul will communicate with the IAEA transparently and closely throughout the process of acquiring nuclear submarines. Cho also requested the agency’s continued cooperation.

A uranium enrichment plant in Yongbyon, North Korea / Captured from 38 North

Grossi is in Seoul on a two-day visit — his third as IAEA chief — covering a broad agenda that includes the Middle East situation, North Korea's nuclear program and cooperation on nuclear safety technology.

On North Korea, he said the agency witnessed a rapid increase in Pyongyang's ability to make nuclear weapons. “All that points to a very serious increase in the capabilities of the DPRK in the area of nuclear weapons production, which is estimated at a few dozen warheads,” he said, referring to North Korea by its official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

He also stressed the need for talks between the two Koreas.

“We are also following with great interest in the possibility of dialogue which must be reestablished between the ROK (Republic of Korea) and DPRK.”

He added that North Korea and Russia appear to have a nuclear arrangement at the civilian, non-weapons level, but expressed hope that this cooperation will remain limited and not evolve into the development of nuclear arms.

When asked about Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, he said that “60 percent, which amounts to approximately 440-something kilograms of material, is located mainly in Isfahan.”

However, on Iran’s negotiations with the U.S. over a ceasefire that would suspend nuclear enrichment for a certain period, he said it is more a “political decision” than a technical issue, because there is no significant difference in enrichment technology based on how many years the suspension lasts.

"When it comes to moratorium, it's a political decision to be made. There is no big difference, technically speaking, between five, 10, 20 years. It's a matter of political confidence whether you go for a shorter, medium or longer period without enrichment," Grossi said.