Doha Debates Special Event: Dr. ElBaradei

TIM SEBASTIAN
Hello and welcome to a Doha Debate Special Event coming to you from headquarters of the Qatar Foundation. Our guest today is the man at the centre of the crisis over Iran and its nuclear intentions. He heads the United Nations nuclear watchdog - the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, so whatever rumours, conjecture and accusations you may have heard about Iran or other countries, he is charged with knowing the facts. Ready to take questions from me and the university and high school students here in Qatar is Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei
(APPLAUSE)
Dr.ElBaradei, it's very good to have you with us. Thank you very much for coming. You arrive in a highly-charged international atmosphere: special statements from the Security Council, talk of threats to international peace and security. This is the way wars start, isn't it?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I hope not, Tim. I think I'm calling on everybody to cool it.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Including the Security Council?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I think Security Council is basically calling on Iran to work to build confidence. I don't see a threat there but I see the Security Council lending its weight, political weight, behind the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency. So I see this as a new diplomatic phase in helping the Agency, in helping me to make Iran understand that they need to work with us to build confidence, so clear their name, to make sure that we will be able in the near future to say that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purpose.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But they're raising the international temperature here considerably, aren't they? They're hyping it, and we're almost at panic levels now, aren't we?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
There's a lot of hype but I don't pay attention to hype. We have work to do.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But the public does, don't they?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, again I call on the public to bear with us. We have work to do.
TIM SEBASTIAN
The public should stay calm, in other words?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
The public should stay calm. Our reports are not saying there is an imminent threat overnight. Our reports are saying we have issues that need to be clarified, that Iran needs to work with us as fast as possible to clarify this issue, but at the same time we have said we have not seen nuclear material directed to a nuclear weapon, but we are not also saying that the programme is exclusively for peaceful purpose because we still need work to do.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But there are shades of the prelude to the Iraq War here, aren't there?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I do not like to make any comparison with Iraq.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But it's clear, isn't it?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
We have learned a lot of lessons from Iraq and that we should not jump the gun, and I think that's also something ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
So is the Security Council jumping the gun here?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
No, the Security Council I think at this stage is saying, 'We are with you, we are supporting you, Iran co-operates ...'
TIM SEBASTIAN
They haven't given you time, they've given you 30 days to come back and tell them that Iran is changing.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
They want to show that Iran is responding and responding fast, and I think that's good.
TIM SEBASTIAN
So we're seeing coercive diplomacy, there are threats of sanctions hanging in the air, there's threat of military action hanging in the air.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
There is no mention of sanction in the statement.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Not in the statement but it had it in the margins from the delegations, didn't it?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Some people are saying, 'Well, if Iran does not co-operate, we have to think of the next steps. Others are saying the issue should not be resolved through pressure. I am saying, 'Wait, let us get the facts out.' I saw today Iran is saying that they are ready to co-operate with the agency, they're ready to continue ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
They've only said that for 18 years, haven't they?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, not really. I mean, for 18 years the programme has been undeclared and that's why it created a lot of these problems.
TIM SEBASTIAN
So they lied their heads off for 18 years?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Their arguments at that time that they could not be above ground because they were under sanction. However ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
They lied didn't they, repeatedly?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Yes they, they cheated the system. They had obligation to do everything above board, they did not do that. As I said, they said they were under sanction and they could not do it above board. However, they created this what I call a 'confidence deficit' and they need to work, they want to go out of their way to build that confidence.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But the international community's on sticky ground here, isn't it, because what they're asking Iran to do, which is to stop its uranium-enrichment programme, Iran is legally going to go on doing, isn't it?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Absolutely. I think the international community again is not saying that, 'Iran, you don't have the right to enrich uranium.' Nobody is talking about Iran's right. Everybody is saying, 'You have the right, Iran.' However, because of that 'confidence deficit' you created ...'
TIM SEBASTIAN
Stop it.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
' ... have a moratorium, if you like, go through a transitional phase.'
TIM SEBASTIAN
You have the right to do something but stop it, that's what it comes down to, isn't it?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, if you don't, if you misuse your right and if you violate your obligations, you know, you go through probation. I mean, I think you will find that in many other applications, you know, in terms of war, Tim.
TIM SEBASTIAN
So is this charged international temperature that we see at the moment, is that justified by events on the ground? You have America whipping it up, you have Britain whipping it up, you have France whipping it up. Aren't they justified in putting it ...
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I think there's a justification in telling Iran, and I am telling Iran the same, that after three years of robust verification, the fact that we are not yet, I am not yet able to say, 'Yes, this programme is exclusively for peaceful purpose,' in the light of concern, and I reported that our Board of Governors. I think the Security Council is echoing that, is basically saying, 'Do accelerate, push the pedal as fast as you can in term of transparency,' so we need to clear that file because, because of the confidence deficit, we have doubt about the future direction of their programme..

TIM SEBASTIAN
But the danger is, I come back to the first point that I made, the danger is that each sides waits for the other to blink. They talk themselves and each other into a corner from which there is only one way out, which is military confrontation.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
No.
TIM SEBASTIAN
That could happen here, couldn't it?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I hope it will not.
TIM SEBASTIAN
You can't rule it out, can you?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I would hope it would not happen.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But you can't rule it out?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Of course I cannot control how states will behave.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But you see how it's going?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
But Tim, I can tell you, there is no military solution to this issue, I mean, let me be clear, there is no military solution. It is inconceivable that you will get ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
That's what you say. Others don't say that, do they?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
So many others, I think Jack Straw a couple of days ago, said that it is inconceivable, inappropriate...
TIM SEBASTIAN
And America doesn't rule it out.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, as I said, I am not God, I cannot judge future intention neither of Iran or others. However, what I really would like to see and what the Security Council would like to see, what the world public opinion would like to see, is all the parties to go back to negotiation. I think the only solution to the Iranian issue, the only durable solution, is a negotiated solution, as we have learnt.
TIM SEBASTIAN
OK, what's your message to the Security Council, calm down, wait, be patient?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
No. My message to the Security Council, 'Thank you, you are giving me a month to do my work. I'll do my very best with Iran,' but my message is primarily to Iran. 'You have heard the message loud and clear, that the international community is getting impatient and you need to respond. You need to respond by arming me with the facts so I can go to Security Council and say ...'
TIM SEBASTIAN
But it's too impatient. Tehran is not waving nuclear missiles around. On the contrary, we have North Korea that's actually threatening a pre-emptive strike and there's total silence about that. There's a disconnect, isn't there? Why is North Korea being treated with silence and Iran which is five to ten years away minimum from a nuclear weapon, being treated like this?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, this is a very good question, Tim, that if we want a non-proliferation regime to be effective, to be durable, we need to have a same standard applied for everybody.
TIM SEBASTIAN
So how do you explain the difference in the standards?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, I explain the difference now that unfortunately North Korea are saying that, 'We have nuclear weapons,' so we have to deal with them in different way that we are dealing with Iran, but the lesson we learned from North Korea in fact that you should not wait until a country will develop nuclear weapons, but it's another lesson also, that if you really want a regime to have a moral authority - the weapon states - the countries that have nuclear weapons, should try to reduce drastically the nuclear weapon as they are committed under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and move toward nuclear disarmament. I've been always saying, in the long run you cannot have two - the nuclear haves, and nuclear have-nots. That is not sustainable, so we need to make sure that not additional countries will develop nuclear weapons but at the same time, in the same breath, we need to work as hard to move towards a security system that does not rely on nuclear weapons. A security system that relies on nuclear weapons mean that over the next decade or two, we'll have more countries ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
Right, I now this is going to feature in some of the questions a little later ...
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Sure.
TIM SEBASTIAN
... but you're not impressed by the way the international community has handled Iran, are you?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I think there's still a lot of work. I'm not impressed that Iran has not co-operated with the full transparency they need to do, but I also would like to see a comprehensive dialogue between the international community and Iran. I have been saying for quite a while ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
They've treated them in a condescending way, haven't they?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, I would not make a judgment on that but I would like to say that ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
But you wouldn't quarrel with my characterisation of it?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I won't pass a judgment on that. I would like to see that at the end of the day, all the concerned parties including the United States, sit at the same table, with Iran, discuss all the issues, all the grievances between Iran and the international community. The nuclear issue masks a host of security issues. It masks economic sanctions, it masks regional security, it masks trade, boycott. I think the only solution is a comprehensive solution whereby all the parties, particularly the US, should sit at the table with Iran. When it comes to regional security, at the end of the day fundamentally this is about regional security or insecurity. Only the US can address the insecurity or security concern of Iran, so I hope Iran will take the first step, I hope as we move forward, that we'll get something similar to the six parties to talk with North Korea, that all the concerned parties should sit together, negotiate a solution which looks like fair, provide Iran with its legitimate needs, use nuclear energy for peaceful purpose, but at the same time provide the international community with all the security assurance that that programme is a peaceful programme and is not a cover for nuclear weapons.
TIM SEBASTIAN
This is a tough job for you, isn't it? It's taken its toll on you. You have a lot of pressure, there's a lot of disinformation put out there, you had the Americans bugging your office in 2004 looking for dirt on you before you came up for re-election. That's tough, isn't it, when the biggest power in the world tries to trash your reputation?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, it's tough, but if you are in public service, it comes with the territory, Tim.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Did you think it was that dirty?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, you don't know how far you really can go. However, I should say, the Agency and I getting the Nobel Peace, which is recognition by this silent majority of the world basically saying, we are doing a good job, you are creditable, continue to do what you do. You have no idea how much that has strengthened my resolve, and if at the end of the day when I complete my job, I would be able to say that I am able to resolve that issue through peaceful means, I will be a really happy man indeed.
TIM SEBASTIAN
You're looking at solving it by peaceful means because in part you've seen what happens when people have tried to solve things by non-peaceful means. In particular in Iraq, you've spoken of the 120,000 civilian casualties since the hostilities started there, that's four times George W. Bush's estimate, do you believe that to be true?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, that's what I saw in many news media, American media and other media.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But you're appalled by what has been happening in Iraq?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I am absolutely appalled because I care deeply about every innocent civilian who loses, he or she loses her life in armed conflict. I don't believe frankly .. in most cases armed force does not solve issues. In fact, as I said at the Nobel lecture, it opens new ones.
TIM SEBASTIAN
And in Iraq it's done what, the use of force?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I think Iraq right now is, as I see it, it's a total mess. I hope we will be able to put, you know, that situation in Iraq together.
TIM SEBASTIAN
You'd call it civil war?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I don't know what I'd call it. I have no clue of what's happening but as I said, I saw today that at least an average of 50 people will die every day. That is 50 people too many, every single day, so you know, we need to learn our lessons, we need to know durable solutions cannot be through armed force.
TIM SEBASTIAN
So what you're saying is the price so far that Iraq has paid for getting rid of Saddam Hussein is too high, in your view it's too high?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I think Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator, nobody questions that, but I ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
That wasn't my question.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I think I would have liked to see Saddam Hussein's removal without the sacrifice of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, absolutely.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Too high a price then?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I think so.

TIM SEBASTIAN
When we last met, towards the end of 2004, you said that you felt the situation in the Middle East in general was unsustainable, we could be moving towards a catastrophe. Is this, what's happened in Iraq, the catastrophe that you envisaged, or do you see even worse things on the horizon?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, it depends how we take it from here. I mean, you know, Iraq is, as you said, is moving, sliding towards a civil war situation. I see Afghanistan not in the greatest situation. I see the tension in the Palestinian territory. I see Lebanon, Syria and Lebanon are really going through a difficult time. I see the reform process of the Arab world as not going with the speed it should be going, so I see a Middle East that is really in a very dangerous situation. It's at a cross-point. Either we will be able to catch up with the rest of the world, or we will slide back, and I see the extremism that is taking place in the Arab world, which is not the way we go. I think we need to work with the broad, moderate majority, and that this moderate majority is taking the back seat right now. It's extremism which is taking the front seat. We need to change that. We need to change that both by taking internal action by better governors, by freedom, spreading freedom, by democracy, but we also need to take external action by making sure that these centuries-old conflict, like the Palestinian conflict, is coming to an end, like the Iraq situation, like the Kashmir situation. I mean, there's a lot of frustration in the Arab world, if I should say in the Muslim world, Tim, there is a situation of despair and ultimately humiliation. It is not poverty that drives this extremism as I have come to realise. It's really the sense of humiliation, and I think many people are getting it both ways, are getting it on the hands of the old governments, you know, repression, their abuse of human rights, and they're getting it from the outside world, the feeling that they are not being treated by the same standard that should apply everywhere else, so there's a lot that needs to be changed and the sooner we change it, the better off we are.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right.

TIM SEBASTIAN
We have a lot of questions from the audience. Let's take the first one, if we may, from Laila Siddiqui, could we have your question please. We'll get a microphone to you.
AUDIENCE Q (F)
My question follows with what you said earlier. Do you believe that America, Britain and France would be justified if they were to punish Iran for its uranium-enrichment programme?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Laila, I don't think it's a question of punishment, and I hope I hear from everywhere I go that the whole idea is not to punish Iran. Nobody has the right to punish Iran for enrichment. I think what we are really talking about is, we need to encourage Iran to continue to work to build confidence. It's not a question of punishment, it's a question of distrusting the future intention based on present behaviour, and the more Iran clarifies the present, the more it's in a better situation to regulate the future with Europe, with the United States, with the rest of the world, so I don't like to talk about punishment. I am not in the punishment business. I don't think the Security Council is talking about punishment right now. I think the Security Council is saying ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
That's in the background though, isn't it?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, the promises always have to be backed by pressure, if you like. I mean, that's part of the rule of the international security system, but people forget that the primary role of the Security Council is to peaceful settlement of dispute, Chapter 7 of the Charter. It's only when you can't do it, it's only when there is a breach of the peace, a threat to the peace, acts of aggression, it's only when, you know, then you start to talk about enforcement measures, sanction, use of force, but sanction, use of force could only be resorted to when it is the last and best option available, and we are still very far away from that.
TIM SEBASTIAN (to the questioner)
Do you think Iran needs to be punished? You asked the question.
AUDIENCE Q (F)
No, not at all.
TIM SEBASTIAN
How do you think it needs to be treated?
AUDIENCE Q (F)
Because Iran says it's good for the country, so I don't think anyone has the right to go and interfere into some other country's matter.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Laila, I don't think, again in fairness to the Security Council, I am not talking about individual members, the Security Council is telling Iran, 'We recognise your right,' nobody is questioning the right, these are rights they have under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but they are basically saying, you know, 'Until you build confidence, because of your past behaviour, because we still have issues that has not been clarified, please exercise restraint, if you like.' They all recognise that Iran's suspension of enrichment uranium is a non-legally-binding voluntary measure, and if you see all the resolution by the IAEA Board of Governors, they do not say, 'We'll take away your right.' We'll simply say, 'Well, we need first to make sure that you are in a position to exercise that right without presenting or posing a threat to the rest of the international community.' If you like, I mean, I can make the analogy; they're basically saying, 'Show us that you are able to exercise that right in a peaceful manner and then we'll let you drive the car. So make sure that you prove that you able to drive the car and if you prove that to us and you are not presenting by that programme any threat to the pedestrian, then we'll allow you to do it,' but nobody can take the right from Iran, and I don't think anybody's talking about that.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right. Question from Sara Khrorasani please.
AUDIENCE Q (F)
Apart from sanctions, what other peaceful solution would you suggest and can there be one that does not leave the Iranian people having to pay the price for the government's policies?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, I'm not sure we're even talking about sanctions, Sara, right now. I think we are, I hope we can avoid sanctions, and the whole idea, and I have been, you know, recently last week in Germany, I have been talking to many of the world leaders, and everybody is keen to see that the condition created for Iran to go back into the negotiating table, I hope we will be able to avoid sanctions. You see, we can go through sanctions, we can go through escalation, but escalation in my view will not resolve the issue. Until we reach the point where everybody sits at the negotiating table, puts their grievances on the table, finds a compromise whereby everybody feels that they are getting a fair deal, I don't think we'll get a durable solution. We can continue to hurt each other and I think sanctions in my view will hurt everybody, will hurt those who are applying sanctions, Iran probably would retaliate, so I hope very much we can avoid that. I think the people of Iran obviously will have to work with their government, they have to decide what is good for them, but that's something between the Iranian people and their government, so I will not make a judgment on this.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But isn't it a question that the talking has gone on long enough? You say sanctions are a bad idea, but you've been talking for years, and you're getting nowhere.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
But we are also making a lot of progress, Tim. I think people forget that in the last three years ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
Not if we're seeing threats that could lead to a war. Is that progress?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, I'm not sure anybody's talking about a war right now. I hope nobody is thinking about a war right now. As I said, I think this would be the most counter-productive thing that one can think of right now. We have made a lot of progress, we understand fully in a way, you know, the extent of the Iranian programme, but we still have ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
But you have gaps.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
We have gaps.
TIM SEBASTIAN
So you don't understand it fully then.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
We have, but we also have not gotten the feeling that this is, as I said, a clear and present danger of tomorrow, is an imminent threat, and as long as the assessment of all the national intelligence, that we are not, you know, facing an imminent threat tomorrow, which gives me hope that there's still ample room to negotiate, to sit together, to dialogue. You know, we have a lot of time to dialogue and I hope that opportunity we will make full use of it, both the Iranians in the first place and the international community.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Let me go back to the questioner, if I may. Are you worried about the situation at the moment?
AUDIENCE Q (F)
I am Iranian and yes, I think so, because it would affect me if something serious happens.
TIM SEBASTIAN
What do you feel the international community should be doing or should have tried that maybe it hasn't tried already?
AUDIENCE Q (F)
Well, I don't agree with my president at all. I think he is not right and he should let the US or anyone to come in and look at the nuclear weapons or whatever we're making but, yes.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But he's not doing anything he isn't able to do legally, is he, Dr. ElBaradei, as far as you know?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
As far as we know, but also they have an obligation to come and clarify the gaps we have. As I said, they are the one who went underground for 18 years and therefore ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
And they're a proud country, they're being pressured from all sides, they lost a million people in a war with Iraq.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
We treat them with full respect. I have the best relations ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
Not everybody does, do they?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I do, the Agency does and I have treated them with absolutely respect. You are right, they're a proud nation, they have to be treated with respect. Even in Iraq before the war, we treated the Iraqis with respect. I think respect is a key to resolving issues. This is something which you will probably come to later in that debate. Respect is a key to understanding each other. Respect is a key to building trust and even if we have a lot of disagreement, and we do, we still have to be correct and treat each other with respect. I think some of the statements that have been made by the Iranian President have not been very helpful obviously, and I have been saying for everybody that we need to lower the pitch, we need to cool it and, as I said, understand that we should act in a responsible way both sides. I mean, I can see additional tension in the Middle East. The Middle East, as I said, is messy enough right now, and to have additional crisis in the Middle East right now would simply be adding lots of oil to the fire that we have already around us.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right.

TIM SEBASTIAN
We Let's take a question now from Doua Benhida please.
AUDIENCE Q (F)
What would make Iran seem more dangerous than Israel, when Israel already has the atomic bomb whereas Iranians are only asking to produce atomic energy?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, it's a good question because we still have a system of security that is dysfunctional, if you like, in the Middle East. We still have countries that do not recognise each other, we still have Israel that's completely outside the non-proliferation regime, that is known to have nuclear weapon capability. There's a feeling of impotence in the Arab world that Israel, you know, is sitting on a nuclear weapon programme while everybody else is part of the regime, but if you also talk to the Israelis, the feeling that, 'Well, we are not recognised by many of the region so we have to keep our weapons as a deterrent.' I think the solution frankly, again in the context of the Middle East, is regional security, dialogue, in parallel with the peace process. I don't think you'll have peace in the Middle East without having a security system that undergirths that peace process. I don't think also you will have peace without having a security system whereby everybody feel that they are secure, that they are not threatened, so this is a lot of work that we need to do. I think just letting emotions run high is not going to help. I think if we move with the Middle East process, if we do not get statement like the one made recently by the President of Iran, that Israel need to be wiped off the map, if we start to engage in a serious effort for mutual accommodation, both with regard to accommodating the right of the Palestinian, both with regard to creating an independent Palestinian state, both with regard to ridding the Middle East of weapons of mass destruction, that's the only way we can survive together, I think so.
TIM SEBASTIAN
I think the question was about whether you thought Israel was just as dangerous as Iran.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, there is a lot of threat perception which, I have my own views but that's not what ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
That's what we'd like to hear.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, I think there's a lot of agitation clearly in the Middle East because Israel is sitting outside of the non-proliferation regime, there's no question about it. I said this sense to anger, this sense of impotence, but if you look at it from the Israeli point of view, they say, 'How could we give our deterrent without our neighbouring country recognising our right to exist?' So we need to work, we need to tackle these two issues in parallel: the security concern of Israel, the security concern of the Arab world, we need to put them together and see how do we build a future Middle East that is at peace with each other, at peace with itself, and where every country is at peace with each other.
TIM SEBASTIAN (to the questioner)
Did you want to come back? You wanted to say something else?
AUDIENCE Q (F)
I just wanted to know; don't you think there should be a balance in the region?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Of course. I mean, ultimately we need to have the Middle East completely free from all weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological, nuclear, but the Middle East right now is in a total turmoil. The Middle East right now is an area where we don't even have peace agreement with all the countries of the region, when we still have lots of extremists, where we still have countries that are under occupation, so there's a lot of work, that is all part of security. You know, when you talk about security, you talk about sovereignty, you talk about rights of people to self-determination, you talk about nuclear weapons, chemical weapons. We need always to understand why people try to acquire weapons of mass destruction. It's a sense of insecurity. Why we don't have proliferation concerns in Northern Europe, for example, and we have a lot of it in the Middle East? Its insecurity and we need to address not only the symptoms as we're trying sometimes, but the causes, the root causes of why countries feel insecure.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right.

TIM SEBASTIAN
We have a gentleman in the fourth row who wants to make a point on that.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
We've been looking at Iran lately but there has been no proof of nuclear weapons being built or tested. However, a country like India which has had tensions with Pakistan over the dispute of Kashmir has produced and tested nuclear weapons. So what measures are to be taken by the IAEA to make sure that no nuclear weapons will be tested, because there's still tension within the region?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
In the India/Pakistan region?
AUDIENCE Q (M)
India and Pakistan, yes.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, unfortunately we have no mandate to verify India and Pakistan. Some of you I'm sure, most of you would know, we (the IAEA) verify nuclear programmes in countries that have accepted the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state. We have three countries outside the Treaty: India, Pakistan, Israel, and that's why our hands are very much tied in doing any verifications - in fact very little verification in these three countries. Just as I mentioned before, in addition to these three, we have five nuclear weapon states recognised as such, as a nuclear weapon state: the US, Russia, China, France and the UK, but they are recognised as nuclear weapon state with a commitment to move toward nuclear disarmament. You see, the Non-Proliferation Treaty was based on a balance. Those who do not have nuclear weapons should commit themselves not to have nuclear weapons. Those who have nuclear weapons should commit themselves to move toward nuclear disarmament.
TIM SEBASTIAN
There are a lot of holes in the system, aren't there?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
There are a lot of holes because the nuclear disarmament process has been very slow. As I said a couple of days ago, we still have 27,000 warheads in existence. That's to me 27,000 warheads too many. We still have a lot of countries that rely on nuclear weapons and telling others that relying on nuclear weapon is dangerous for you. That's not ideological. Whatever you call it, that's simply not sustainable.
TIM SEBASTIAN
OK. The lady in the fourth row wants to make a point.
AUDIENCE Q (F)
Good afternoon. Shouldn't we be more concerned about getting Israel and Pakistan and India to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty instead of being concerned about what Iran does not have or we have no proof of?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I think we should be concerned with all the countries that have nuclear weapons, with all the countries that are trying to have or suspected of having nuclear weapons. I am concerned about the US, the UK, Russia, France, China, Israel, India and Pakistan. These are countries that have nuclear weapons or have nuclear weapon programme at least.
AUDIENCE Q (F)
They have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
No, they haven't signed and they are supposed to work through disarmament negotiation to move toward nuclear disarmament. India, Pakistan and Israel were supposed to join the NPT but the NPT as we know is a voluntary measure. It is not compulsory. They haven't signed, they said, 'Our security situation does not allow us to join the NPT.' I would like all these countries to disarm, nuclear disarm. If you do that, you would obviously have a lot of much stronger moral authority to go after the other and say, 'Do not develop nuclear weapons,' but I should continue to be concerned about those who are suspected of developing nuclear weapons because frankly we have 8 or 9 nuclear weapon states today, if you count North Korea, then we probably have 9 states who are nuclear weapon states, with nuclear weapons. If we will end up as President Kennedy predicted in the 60's, that we'll have 20 or 25 nuclear weapon states in the next couple of decades, that's the beginning of the end for us - the possibility of having nuclear holocaust because of a computer error, because of human fallibility, is much more by factor of 10 or 100 than what we have today.
TIM SEBASTIAN
That's unsustainable, is it, a world with 20 or 25 nuclear weapon states?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
It's not sustainable, so we need to reverse the course of what we are having right now. We need to go backwards, we need to move toward a system of security that does not rely on nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right.

TIM SEBASTIAN
Let's take a question please from Hamza Ahmed.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
Thank you. My question is, why should we trust America with nuclear power when its track record shows that it's the only country to use nuclear weapons on human beings, namely Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I don't think I ever said I trust any country with nuclear weapons. I say that all nuclear weapons, you can't really say, 'We are good guys and we keep nuclear weapons. You are bad guys and you cannot keep nuclear weapons.' I say that nuclear weapons are inherently bad, that we need to, the challenge for you guys, young people, is to try to find a security system that provides inclusive security for every country but does not rely ultimately on nuclear weapons as a deterrent. What we see right now in the European Union for example, there are 25 countries who you would not think that they will, in case of disagreement, attack each other even by conventional arms, because of the inter-dependence in the relationship. They're too much inter-dependent with each other. I'd like to see the same thing happening here in the Arab world for example. I'd like to see that happening in Africa, in Asia. We will end up in a global world that believes that we are, at the end of the day, one human family that can succeed together or fail together. We will need to make sure that nuclear weapons have no room in our collective conscience. The way we treat human trafficking, the way we treat slavery, it should be a taboo, but that's a lot of work ahead of us to do that.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right. Lady in the fourth row has a question.
AUDIENCE Q (F)
Coming back to North Korea, who will ultimately take an initiation step towards resolving North Korea's nuclear programme, and how is it going to be different from Iran's issue?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I think we have now the so-called 6-party talks that's Japan, South Korea, North Korea, the US, Russia and China sitting together around a table to try to find a comprehensive solution to the Korean issue, the Korean sense of insecurity, the Korean need for economic assistance, the international community's concern about Korea's stated acquisition or development of nuclear weapons. We need a comprehensive package for the Korean situation. Again, it's not that much different from Iran. The nuclear issue is usually at the top of one iceberg. If you scratch the surface, you see a lot of complicated issues of insecurity, and what is happening with Korea I'd like to see happening with Iran, all the concerned parties sit at the table, try to find an agreement. The Korean is difficult, is going through fits and starts, but ultimately we have to endure, we have to continue to talk because there's no other solution.
TIM SEBASTIAN (to questioner)
You want to come back on that?
AUDIENCE Q (F)
But Iran has claimed that they're using nuclear energy for energy purposes, not for weapons of mass destruction and we've already witnessed, the international community has already witnessed what has happened in Iraq's issue, because negotiations have been happening, but all we've seen is destruction at the end, so do we suspect the same result as we've seen in Iraq?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
But as I said, Iran claimed that its programme is exclusively for peaceful purpose, but they still have to do some work to clarify some of the remaining gaps in the IAEA under-standing of that programme. I'd be very happy, as soon as I can, to be able to provide a verdict that the Iranian programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes. I'm not yet in that position, but I'm also not saying that this is a weapon programme. What I have been saying is the jury is still out and I'm not seeing an imminent threat tomorrow, so let us continue through investigation, through dialogue, hopefully try to resolve that issue. We do the investigation, the Security Council does the dialogue, does deal with the root causes. I don't like to make any analogy with Iraq. As I said, Iraq, we're learned a lot from Iraq. We've learned that we should be very careful in weighing the evidence. We should not try to ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
Some people aren't waiting, are they? Some countries have already said they believed Iran is pushing through nuclear weapons, haven't they, they're not waiting for your evidence. Are they crying wolf, just as they did with Iraq?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
The only one who really has the facts I believe is the IAEA and not because we are superhuman, but simply because we are the ones on the ground, we are the one who are doing the investigation, and I am not yet ready to say, 'This is a weapon programme.' There's a lot of suspicion, what you hear ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
A lot of disinformation?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
There's a lot also of disinformation Tim, but what you read that we suspect their intentions, that's a lot of subjective judgment. I work on facts, and I will continue to work on facts. We fortunately were proven right in Iraq. We probably were the only one who said at the time that Iraq, we did not see any evidence that Iraq had nuclear weapons, and I hope this time people should listen to us and should listen to us very carefully.
AUDIENCE Q (F)
Can I come back just a little? IAEA had proved that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, but even then America did succeed in invading Iraq, so does that put the IAEA in a suspicious position that it does not have the control over these issues?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, unfortunately or fortunately, we don't control the world. We have a job to do, to bring the facts out. We expect the world to act on the facts. If countries have their own way of reacting, well, that's something people will obviously have their own different views on it, but we have seen also in Iraq, but because we were not able to say, or we did not say that Iraq had nuclear weapons, the Security Council was quite divided, so it was not that every, there were a lot of people who were ready to listen to us at that time, and I think right now in hindsight, everybody is saying, 'We made a mistake and the IAEA were right,' so everybody learned through experience, and I think this is a lot of lesson we learned from Iraq that, as I said, let's endure, let's try dialogue, let's weigh carefully the facts, let's treat each other with respect. Use of force is not always the best way to settle our disputes. It's a lot of lessons I hope everybody's absorbing right now.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right.

TIM SEBASTIAN
We'll go to a question from Fardan Al Fardan please.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
Many countries have voluntarily given up their nuclear programmes like South Africa and Libya. Is it possible for major powers like the US and China to give up their nuclear weapons for the sake of humanity?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I think that's a commitment in fact under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Article 6 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty says that ultimately that we should move to a world free from nuclear weapons.
TIM SEBASTIAN
And the US is committed to that, isn't it?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
And the US is committed to that.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But it shows no sign of doing it.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
And that's why I've been critical that the pace of disarming, the process of disarming has been very slow. I mean, we still hear a lot of countries, weapons, they're saying, 'We need nuclear weapons for our own security.' Well, that's not the way we should be going. We should be going in the other direction. To be practical, however, we need to continue to work for an alternative to the so-called nuclear deterrents. Lots of countries, not only the weapon states but the countries that are party to the NATO alliance and others, rely ultimately on their survival, on the so-called nuclear deterrents. We need to find another security system that is not based on nuclear deterrent, that's based, in my view, on the unity of the human family, on the sanctity of human life, on an effective Security Council that is working in unison, that is able to deter aggression without necessarily relying on these horrible weapons of mass destruction.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right. Let's go to a question, if we may, from Reem Al Harami.
AUDIENCE Q (F)
Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, since you won a Nobel Prize, how would you use your position to influence other governments in peace?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, Reem, I'm doing as much as I can do to make people understand that what really unites us as human beings is much, much more than what divides us - that, at the end of the day we have the same feeling, the same hopes, the same aspiration, irrespective of our religion, irrespective of our national identity, irrespective of our nationality, and the earlier we come to realise that, the better for all of us. The more we bring a security that is people-centred, that is respect the sanctity of every human life, the better off we are. I am trying to do my very best. I have seen through my life that only through dialogue, only through respect, only through under-standing each other, respect for each other that we can live in peace and harmony, but I can do as much, if I have to succeed, I need your help. I am just one person. I can only succeed if I get the help of this silent majority. I mean, I recognise the Nobel Peace Prize to be a vote of confidence, not by government because that's not a governmental organisation, but by the silent majority of the world. The people of the world are saying, 'We do not want to have a world that is built on extremism, that's based on nuclear weapons,' but it's a world that's based on compassion for each other. When I see that we in a situation like Congo, 3.7 million people died in a span of five years, when I see that in the Rwanda, 800,000 people died in a span of a few months, when I see in Darfur right now thousands of people dying per month and we are sitting here debating whether we can improve our work, this is a lot of work to do. It's the individual responsibility of every human being and I think every one of you should take that responsibility very seriously. Every one of us can make a difference. We should not just wait for our government. I would probably quote Dwight Eisenhower, who in the 60's said that, 'I believe that people want peace so much that at one point they will push the government aside to achieve that peace,' and I think if the government are not ready to do that, we should as a human citizen.
TIM SEBASTIAN
You're not suggesting a regime change, are you?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I'm suggesting a regime change in the way we treat each other, I'm suggesting a regime change in the way we manage our global security.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right, lady in the third row has a question there, you. If we can get a microphone to you.
AUDIENCE Q (F)
To what extent do you believe the Agency is capable of controlling the development of nuclear weapons and thus safeguard the future of our world?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, I think we can do as much, the more we get authority, legal authority to go places, to get information.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Do you need more authority?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I do need more authority. In many countries we still do not have this additional authority, the so-called 'additional protocol'. We still have over 100 countries that have not given us that authority. The more authority I have to go places to get information, the more financial resources I have, I run this whole verification function where we do inspections in over 150 countries on a budget of $120 million. That is less probably than one of the professional football clubs here in Qatar, so we need resources, we need additional legal authority, and we need a full backing by the Security Council in case where a country is not fulfilling its legal obligation, and ultimately we need the nuclear weapon states, those who have nuclear weapons, to lead by example, to show the way. You cannot just tell everybody nuclear weapons are bad for you while we continue to refine our nuclear weapons. I use sometimes that metaphor that you cannot tell everybody not to smoke while you keep dangling a cigarette from your mouth, you don't have credibility if you do that.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Rania Al Khalaf, you have a question?
AUDIENCE Q (F)
Yes. My question is regarding your profession. Why did you choose such a profession, considering that there are many jobs which are less demanding and pay more?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
It's a good question, Rania, my kids ask me that all the time. Well, I choose public service because at the end of the day I'd like to make a difference if I can. Yes, I can make 10, 20 times more money if I go to the private sector, but you reach a point, if you have a decent standard of living, your sense of fulfilment does not really come from having additional money. Your sense of fulfilment comes from the non-monetary aspect of life, having a good friend, taking a walk in the park, making a difference in the life of people, and I think that's where I am. Tim is saying there's a lot of stress, yes, I don't sleep very well at night, yes, but sometimes when I see that I make a difference in resolving an issue, and I should tell you, the Agency is not just about non-proliferation, I mean, the Agency is used for anything, for economic and social development. Recently I was in Ghana, for example, and I see that we were the one who provided a radiotherapy machine to help people who are diagnosed with cancer. You have no idea the sense of fulfilment you have of being able to help somebody who is in need, so it's your future, it's your future, I'm saying people who are in the private sector are doing a wonderful job, but people also, we need people to do the public service and public work, we need both and I have chosen that voluntarily and I'm very happy to be here.
TIM SEBASTIAN (to questioner)
Are you happy to hear that?
AUDIENCE Q (F)
Yes, I am very happy.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right. Esrah Al Muftah, you have a question? (to Dr. ElBaradei) A lot of personal questions.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Yes, that's nice.

AUDIENCE Q (F)
Do you feel it is difficult to draw lines between your job and your morals and loyalty to the Arabs, and do you feel pressurised by the fact that you are a Muslim Arab in the middle of a western/eastern conflict?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I don't feel any of that pressure at all. I think I apply my full morals to my job. My morals are to be honest, are to be credible, are to have integrity, and I hope I haven't compromised any of that at any time in my professional career. I think I continue to be Arab, to continue to be Muslim, but also to continue to be a fellow global citizen. I don't think there is any difference between being an Arab and Muslim and being a fellow global citizen of the world. I spent more than half my life in the West and I believe deeply that we are all one human family. I feel as comfortable in the West as I feel comfortable here in Qatar. I don't think there's much difference. Yes, we are proud of our identity, we are proud of our background, we are proud of our religion, but we can also need to learn to be able to live with each other. I think in where I am, I'm doing a service to my country, to my region, to my religion, to my identity by trying again to bring all these different factions together. Iran is a good example, where I am trying my very best to say, 'Hold your horses, there is a better way to resolve this issue and that is through respect and dialogue and transparency.'
TIM SEBASTIAN (to questioner)
Did you think it would be difficult for Dr. ElBaradei to draw a line between his morals and his duties?
AUDIENCE Q (F)
I think that you have been accused of working under pressure several times, for example in the Niger and Iraq, nuclear transaction between Niger and Iraq, when you clarified that there wasn't any transactions but later many people accused you of, yes, there were transactions but you were covering them up for the sake of Iraq.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I got pummelled by all different parts at different times. I have been criticised by the North Koreans, by the Iraqis, by the Americans, by the Iranians, you name it, but at the end of the day it's like Teflon, it doesn't stick.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Doesn't it, any of it?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
It doesn't, as long as you are on the right track, as long as you go home at night, you look at the mirror, you have a clear conscience, and at the end of the day, I have been vindicated. In the case of the Niger, for example, I have been criticised that I've been soft on Iraq, I've been soft in Iran. Well, after the war in Iraq, everybody discovered that despite the fact I was told, 'Mr. Baradei was wrong, Mr. Baradei was soft,' that none of that did exist and it was absolute bogus. We act like a radar. We record what we see but we do not hide, we do not read future intention, and that's why we have credibility, that's why we've got, not just me but my organisation, the Nobel Peace Prize.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Gentleman in the third row, you've had your hand up for a while.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
Do you think USA will in anyway attack Iran since it has occupied both Afghanistan and Iraq?
TIM SEBASTIAN
Thank you very much.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I can't, as I said, I can't read the future, I can't judge the future plan of any country. All I am saying, I'm hoping that all members of the international community act on the basis of facts, all members of the international community understand that the best way to resolve the issues is through peaceful means, that only when there is a clear and present danger which cannot be deterred through peaceful means, that one can think of using force and only again through an authorisation by the Security Council which has the centralised authority to use force in the world according to the system of legitimacy established by the United Nation Charter.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right. Gentleman in the second row there.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
Thirty years ago, the USA provided nuclear reactors for Iran. In 1975, Henry Kissinger signed what was known as the US-Iran Nuclear Co-operation. What do you think changed this situation?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, lots of things change in politics, it's like shifting sands, as we know. There are allies, their people are protagonists and of course the situation if you look at the politics in any particular region, at bilateral relationships between any two countries, it changes all the time and I think the same was in Iraq. In Iran, of course, there was a very close co-operation between the Shah regime and the US. That has changed dramatically after the revolution in Iran, after the taking of hostage in 1979, and there are a lot of grievances from 1979 for over 26 years right now, and that's why the Iranian issue is very complex. There are still very emotional issues on both sides, in Iran, in the US, and the more we try to de-emotionalise, if you like, that conflict, that we try to adopt a cool-headed approach which is based on developing an agreement that respects Iran right as a regional security power, respects the US as a global power right now and try to work a regime that respects the legitimate right of both, rights of Iran to use for economic and social development including the use of nuclear energy, rights of the US and not only the US, the rest of the international community, that Iran's programme is not a threat to international peace and security, so you need to deal with what you have right now, and the situation right now is quite different from what you had, you know, in the 70's.
TIM SEBASTIAN
You talk about these 'emotional positions.' In your negotiations with heads of state and ministers, do you see these raw emotions of people shout at you, that they bang the table, I mean, how are these conversations conducted?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
They don't shout at me, they don't bang the table, I don't let them to do that, Tim, but sometimes we have heated discussions. I express my views, I tell them, 'Here are your options,' but I end always by saying, 'It's your decision, you are paid to make the decision. The party judgment is a government prerogative.' I give them all the option. I tell them how I see things from where I am sitting. I tell them, 'Here are the facts as I see, but how you want to manage a particular crisis, it is your decision. I hope you do not mismanage it,' and that's usually how I end my conversation with them.
TIM SEBASTIAN
People lean on you?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
All the time, you know, but I think less and less. I think they realise it doesn't work any longer.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Right. Gentleman in the second row, you have a question.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
How can we be sure the finger-pointing and the cry of wolf of countries acquiring or of possessing nuclear weapons doesn't become out-of-hand?
TIM SEBASTIAN
It goes back to what we were talking about earlier.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
It's a very good question. I mean, I think there is a fine line between crying wolf and having a policy of appeasement. You need to draw a fine line, you know, between hype and between facts, and in that situation I think you're referring to Iran. I think Iran would be well-served if they work with us, if they work with me, so nobody will be able to cry wolf because all the aspects of the programme has been clarified, which we are not there right now.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
But the thing is that continuously there has been proof that, such as Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Iran doesn't have weapons of mass destruction, Iraq didn't
have weapons of mass destruction, yet they were still invaded and yet they were still pointed at. How can we be sure that it doesn't happen to Iran?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, I think in Iraq we were very clear, I was very clear that they did not have weapons of mass destruction.
TIM SEBASTIAN
But nobody listened to you.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, I hope this time, if we want really a world that is not based on speculation, it is not based on hype, it is not based on, as I said, jumping the gun,, then lots of lesson we need to learn from Iraq. I hope everybody is absorbing what we learned from Iraq. Iraq, it is still an ongoing project, it is not a very pleasant scene to see every day, you know, you put BBC or any other channel and you see every day, every evening, you see the casualties in Iraq, so that's not the best model for me to solve our differences and I hope we are all learning how to do better.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right. Gentleman on the front row here. You have a question.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
Do you think the reason we're here is because of the general mistrust of Iran? And the other part of it is, Iran being a sovereign nation, it seems that because they are a sovereign nation, they should have the ability to have these weapons, not weapons, nuclear energy, and the ability to build a nuclear energy, and as you mentioned earlier about the deterrent, that they could use it as a deterrent if necessary, but at least be able to build their nuclear energy for good as well as a deterrent.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, I think Iran should have the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purpose, nobody question that. Iran in fact next or even this year, will start the first power reactor that has been provided by Russia, so nobody is questioning Iran's right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purpose. I am not sure that we are here because of general distrust of Iran. I think we are here because there is a specific question of whether Iran's nuclear programme is really exclusively for peaceful purposes, and as I said, there are still open questions about the nature of that programme because we need to reconstruct 20 years of clandestine activities in Iran. It is very difficult to go back 18 years or 20 years now and try to see what happened in 1986 for example, so I need Iran to go out of its way to be absolutely transparent. I don't think frankly neither Iran nor any country should use nuclear whatever you call it, nuclear peaceful programme, as a deterrent. As I said, as Tim was saying, a world that relies more and more on nuclear as a deterrent is not sustainable. I think we have seen the destructive force of the atom in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that is just even a sample of the destructive force of nuclear weapons today. The more we rely on nuclear weapons, the more we are doomed to have a nuclear accident, at the very least nuclear war based on accident, based on mis-calculation, so we need to forget this whole concept of deterrents based on nuclear, we need to continue to see how we can support each other, you know.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Do you think that's feasible?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I think we ought to do better, than what the alternative we have right now is, that we have a war every other year. I think it is feasible. I think if we, if people like you who travel around are exposed to multi-culture, who understand that at the end of the day we ought to be able to accommodate each other ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
They may understand it but what are they supposed to do about it?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, I think make sure through the governments who is involved that what is not really important is not borders, is not sovereignty, but what is really important, that the right of every human being to live in peace and dignity, to leave in freedom and dignity. I think if we understand that, I don't think we'll ever raise arms against each other, but it's wrong order and it takes us time but that's the only, to my view, it is the only way to go.
TIM SEBASTIAN
So you're saying, 'Make your voice heard'?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Absolutely.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right. There's a gentleman in the third row wants to make his voice heard.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
If the US decided to attack Iran like they attacked Iraq, what would be the position of your Agency?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, the Agency is me as a Director General but more important, it's the member states. When we talk about the IAEA, we talk about the member states of the IAEA which is an international community, and I hope I will not get into this hypothesis, I hope it will not happen. If it were to happen obviously the Security Council will have something to say. I mean, on these issues peace and security ...
TIM SEBASTIAN
It's a bit late by then, isn't it?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
It is a bit late, but I'm sure you will hear the Security Council saying something or another about it. As I said, I hope that hypothesis we will not reach and we'll not see it happen.
TIM SEBASTIAN
We seem to be getting a lot of pessimistic questions. Does anybody share this pessimistic view or do you feel more worried after what Dr. ElBaradei has been saying? Anybody feel more worried or less worried by what's happening?
AUDIENCE Q (M)
Well, in the same direction my question, you said that you are not sure about Iran's intention, whether it's for peaceful purposes or not. Do you have the same feeling toward Israel, by the way?
TIM SEBASTIAN
We've kind of covered that question. I really was asking a specific question, whether anybody felt even more ...
AUDIENCE Q (M)
Theoretically this is a very pessimistic scenario, I have to say. If Iran decides unilaterally to withdraw from the NPT, what would happen?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, if Iran were to, and I hope again that will not happen because that would lead into more confrontation, if Iran were to move out of the NPT, that again will not get Iran completely off the hook because the Security Council will read that to mean Iran is deciding to go for a nuclear weapons programme, so there is a lot of scenarios about escalation. There is a lot of alternative scenarios about accommodation, and I can assure you that I will continue, as long as I am in this position, to try my very best to move to an accommodation, not because I am a pacifist, not because I am a blue-eyed idealist. It's just because through 40 years of my life I've realised that force and escalation and confrontation does not solve problems, it accentuates problems, so the more people understand that, we need to be creative in finding the condition to resolve our differences through peaceful means, the better off all of us today and tomorrow.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right, gentleman in the second row, are you more or less pessimistic after listening to Dr. ElBaradei?
AUDIENCE Q (M)
I am more pessimistic but hopeful at the same time. I guess my question to you is, given what you said about the security situation, how do you convince any country today in 2006 that they'll be worse off by acquiring nuclear weapons and that they will be less secure in the short run?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Which country?
AUDIENCE Q (M)
Any country.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I think it's very difficult right now for any new country to develop nuclear weapons. I mean, the system right now, at least the international community right now is united that the solution for our security, if you like, is not to have more countries with nuclear weapons but to reduce those who have that nuclear weapon, so I think it's almost impossible for new countries to try to acquire nuclear weapons. There are the export controls, the verification mechanism, there are a lot of barriers for countries to have nuclear weapons. I'm not sure even if a country were to succeed that they would be better off. They'll be subject to a lot, if I tell you from practical experience, they'll be subject to a lot of sanctions, they will cornered, they will be isolated, so I'm not sure they will be better off, and at the end of the day you have to ask yourself what do you do with nuclear weapons? I think you have to be mad to think that you can use nuclear weapons. I think nuclear weapons, particularly after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, have been regarded maximum to be an ultimate deterrent when the very survival of a state is at stake, but to think of using nuclear weapons I think I think it's total madness and I hope it will never happen. I think it is becoming more and more regarded as something we do not want to live with.
AUDIENCE Q (M)
Are you personally worried that Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan, if it's shown that they do have nuclear weapons, are you worried personally that they'd try to sell them to a non-state actors?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
Well, that's another issue which we haven't discussed, that of course the more nuclear weapons exist, the more possibility that some of these weapons could be stolen or could fall into the hands of extremist groups and could be even smuggled to another country, but so far we haven't seen any of this indication. I think the country that has nuclear weapons at least understands the inherent danger of spreading these weapons, so they have been quite strict in terms of their physical security of these weapons, but of course that risk is always there.
TIM SEBASTIAN
Dr. ElBaradei, in the few moments we have left, we, sitting here in the Gulf, it's one of the few forums where we can actually express opinions freely. What would you like to see states in this region do to advance peace, to advance stability, how should they react to what is going on in Iran? Where's a lot of nervousness in this region. What would you say to the states here?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
I'd like obviously all the states, I can't preach to them but I'd like them to take charge, you know, I'd like them to find their own security perception, their own security regime. I'd like them to think through what kind of future they would like to see. I'd like to see them to be an active player in the international community, an active positive player in adding to the human civilisation. I think if you want that, you need two things. You need to have a scientific-based development and you have to have freedom and democracy. I think these are the two cornerstones of progress in this region. I have been saying that everywhere, that science is key to development. Democracy is a by-product of modernity. Sure, it will not come overnight, sure it cannot be imported, but there is no other way that at the end of the day every Arab should feel the right to speak freely, to worship freely, to be free from want, to be free from fear. I think if we do that, the Arab world, every Arab citizen will do much better than what I have achieved myself.
TIM SEBASTIAN
All right, Dr. ElBaradei. We've run out of time unfortunately. Thank you very much for sparing the time to come to talk to us. Thank you to you, our audience, as well. We'll be back with the Doha Debate next month, but till then, from all of us on the team, thank you very much indeed, goodbye, thank you.