IAEA chief fears nuclear non-proliferation treaty won't survive

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency has told CGTN that he's concerned about the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and whether it can survive in its current form.

Speaking to CGTN correspondent Johannes Pleschberger, Rafael Grossi said it was debatable whether or not nuclear weapons were the "ultimate guarantor of peace" that people think they are.

He was responding to a speech on Friday by Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who said his country "must reach for the most modern capabilities also related to nuclear weapons and modern unconventional weapons."

Tusk told the Polish parliament that Ukraine had given up nuclear weapons and was now being attacked by Russia. Germany's next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has also talked about Germany coming under the French-UK "nuclear umbrella."

Like most countries, Germany and Poland do not possess nuclear weapons. Both are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – which prohibits nations that were not among five declared nuclear powers in 1970 from acquiring atomic weapons. 

In the five-and-a-half decades since that treaty came into force, only four other nations have declared themselves to possess nuclear weapons. But now, things have changed dramatically.

Europe's ability to defend itself has been thrust into the spotlight since Donald Trump's return to the White House. The U.S. President has long called on America's NATO partners to pay more into the alliance, to cover the cost of collective defense. It was a key message of Trump's first term – a policy that achieved some limited results. 

But the conflict in Ukraine has brought a hyper-accelerated agenda from Trump 2.0 – with many seeing his administration’s aggressive moves on Ukraine as a geopolitical shift, a sign that America is turning its back on its traditional allies. Several commentators have warned of the ultimate breakup of NATO itself.

Grossi told CGTN that it was important “not to lose the objective of limiting the number of countries with nuclear weapons."

However, in an apparent contradiction of that statement, Grossi also highlighted that Poland and Germany have had American nuclear missiles stationed on their territory for decades, and appeared to suggest that it wouldn’t matter if they were replaced by European weapons.

"One has to make a distinction between developing domestic nuclear weapons and or having the benefit of other countries' nuclear weapons for protection," he told CGTN.

"This I would say, is not new. Remember that in Europe there are American nuclear weapons that have been stationed for many, many years. Here the debate is more of whose nuclear weapons should be providing this protection. Should they be from America or from other countries?"