NPT Review, a non-nuclear future for the Middle East?
by, Dr. Cyril Widdershoven

A draft statement on the UN review of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which concludes this week, singles out Israel as the only Middle Eastern state that has not signed the pact. The last months, Egypt has focused attention on Israel, arguing that the treaty cannot have any credibility with the states of the region as long as one state is exempt from its provisions. The Israeli government had hoped the NPT review would conclude without issuing a final declaration, several Israeli government sources stated. The 30-year old pact, which is subject to five-year reviews, twice concluded a review conference without a declaration in the past. The consequences for the Jewish state are however until now negligible. Israel is not formally participating in the month-long review at the UN headquarters in New York. As a non-signatory, Israel does not have the obligation to open its nuclear facilities for international inspections under IAEA regulations. This prohibits international experts to clarify the extent and impact of Israels nuclear research and defense capabilities. Indirectly, there is a more profound reason for the Israeli obstruction. No open nuclear strategy and capabilities only enhance the potential of the threat; rumors about Israels capabilities have stated 100-400 missiles in the past decades. This would mean an immense military force. Military strategies are however not playing an important part in the ongoing discussion. It is politics, the Israeli potential can be used to obstruct discussion on different other issues, such as chemical and biological capabilities or the proliferation of missile technology in the region.

Egypts position in this framework is however remarkable, at the least. Since February 1, 2000, Egypt has become the focal point of the so-called Arab resentment of the (still un-proclaimed) Israeli capabilities. Like Israels Prime Minister stated Israel will continue its dual approach regarding its nuclear capabilities and strategies.  During the meeting of the Steering Committee for the Madrid Framework of multilateral negotiations on the Middle East in Moscow, president Hosni Mubarak said Egypt would attend and lobby for a nuclear-free Middle East. Egypt argued that nuclear armament in the Middle East would be an essential component of the Working Group on arms control and regional security (ACRS). Foreign Minister Amr Moussa even stated there is now an initiative on the table on ridding the whole area of the Middle East of weapons of mass destruction that is the establishment of a zone free from nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction. During his visit in March to the USA, President Mubarak again raised the issue. The American response was liberal, with a renewed emphasis on the combination of NPT and CWC, in which almost all Arab states are even not yet a party of. CWC is focusing on the destruction and prohibition of the use, and production of chemical weapons. The latter are still a major problem for the regional constellation. Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and Sudan are all chemical weapon-producers and have used them in the domestic and regional conflicts in the last years. Several other Arab states are definite capable of producing workable stocks in a short period. Also, the use of biological weapons and the production of landmines should be included, according to the majority of regional and military experts. Even with an increased emphasis of the former in relation to the problems of the region with adherence to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). Nuclear weapons are an integral part of the security situation in the Middle East and North Africa. Control via the international organizations however has not at all resulted in a reduction of the threat. Iraqs nuclear capabilities, its well-developed program was not stopped by IAEA control-regimes. Irans search for the ultimate weapon is still not under control. Last month, several cases of nuclear technology transfers via former Soviet-Union states, Taiwan and North Korea surfaced again. The Israeli threat is relevant but it does not come from a rogue state as such. Indias and Pakistans confrontation is much more volatile and instable. Even this threat could not be prevented, the Internet age, globalization and international cooperation have become the instruments to divulge information much easier and safer. An Israeli outcast position will not be acceptable, not for the Israeli domestic scene as well for the European American scene. Even if Israel has more than 150-200 nuclear warheads (according to Vanunu, Hersch a/o.), even in their direst hours of need (1973 or during the Scud attacks by Iraq) the Israelis did not use them offensively. A Nuclear Free Zone should be combined with a Biological and Chemical Weapons Free Zone, with no missile capabilities over 50-100 km in the region. This would make it more feasible for the Israelis to consider the Arab proposals. It would mean a definite show of good will of the Arab side, plus a sign of commitment, when all parties would sign all weapons-of-mass destruction treaties. 

Egypts international stance could improve immensely, in the eyes of Europeans, Americans and the Israelis, if it would propone the thesis that NBC-weapons should be combined in one treaty, making one of the most volatile regions in the world the first NBC-weapons free zone. Also, international treaties are only as strong as its signatories. NPT did not prevent Iraq or North Korea, it did even enhance the possibilities of proliferation of nuclear technology by allowing Pakistanis to study in Holland and Germany (Urenco) where they received their basic nuclear technology background. It did not prevent an almost nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan when both parties escalated the ongoing arms race the last year. The knowledge of the side effects of Biological and Chemical Weapons, since World War I, the Yemen War, Halabsha in Iraq, Homs and Hama in Syria and the civil war in Sudan did not stop the production and development of these weapons of mass destruction. Treaties will be only complied by when all parties are interested in peace. The latter however is still far sought of. The Arab/Egyptian standpoint is obvious, the Israeli standpoint however also. BC-weapons are in the same range as the A-bomb. All three should be countered in a regional platform, with all eyes open and no-hidden agendas. Another forgotten aspect of nuclear (and BC-) proliferation is the intricate relation with conventional weapons. A regional arms-race, undoubtedly going on when you take a look at the budgets spend on high-tech weapons, anti-missile systems, fighter jets and navy, only increases the feelings of vulnerability of certain states in the region. A full-fledge conventional arms race under the Arab states will promote a more rigid stance of the Israelis. Military constellations should not be changed, to get rid of NBC-proliferation is worth while. Increased defense spending, mostly on weapon systems without dire need are only functioning as catalysts, not as deterrence instruments. Non-conventional (NBC) and conventional weapons arsenals should be countered combined, not separately. The real strength of an NPT treaty will lye in the combination with a total regional arms reduction scheme, Arabs and Israelis alike.

The NPT which is designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and technology, divided the world into the nuclear haves, which are USA, Russia, China, France and Britain, and the have-nots. The five haves were to pursue good-faith negotiations on nuclear disarmament. The non-nuclear-weapon states, in turn agreed not to acquire the weapons, and to submit to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Austria. In addition to Israel, India, Pakistan and Cuba have not signed the NPT. At the 1995 NPT conference, Israel, India and Pakistan were considered to be the nuclear threshold states. Both India and Pakistan in 1998 conducted tests that exposed their nuclear capabilities. The draft statement also calls on these two states to sign the treaty. But because there are no provisions in the NPT to admit additional states to the so-called nuclear club, there was no expectation that India and Pakistan would agree to disarm. The US, on which Israel relies to protect its interests, would accept a fair and balanced NPT resolution. In addition to naming the countries that have not joined the NPT, which would also, name member-states that have failed to abide by its provisions, such as Iraq, North Korea, South Africa and possibly Iran, Libya and several former Soviet-states.

Reprinted with permission of the author. mideastinfo.com makes no claim to copyrights.
Reprinted as submitted.