A Continuing Challenge: A Middle East Without Weapons of Mass Destruction
A dream or a nightmare? How the proposal for a Middle East weapons-of-mass-destruction-free-zone (WMDFZ) is regarded depends on the logic that each country in the region uses in evaluating its security.
And it’s precisely this one-dimensional “logic” that stops any real progress toward achieving a WMDFZ in the region, in the opinion of the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei.The decade-old dream of a Middle East free of WMD was formally endorsed in the summary documents of the 1995 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) Review conference. Agreement “in principle,” however, always hits the same stumbling block: the Middle East peace process impasse. Israel has not been inclined to start discussions on a WMDFZ until a comprehensive peace deal is completed with the surrounding 22 Arab countries.
In September 2003, the IAEA General Conference (GC) passed a resolution that called for parallel rather than sequential actions. Hoping to use that summer’s improved Israeli-Palestinian relations (even as these worsened in September) as an entré into the larger peace process, ElBaradei pressed all countries in the region to accept the full range of IAEA inspections and other safeguards. He felt that the intra-regional confidence that would be created if every country accepted IAEA safeguards, combined with confidence-building measures growing out of the peace talks, could provide the impetus for talks on a nuclear weapon free zone (NWFZ) followed by the broader WMDFZ.
In a July 2004 meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, ElBaradei offered two scenarios: a Middle East in a full-scale nuclear arms race that reduced Israel’s security, or a NWFZ in which the fact of peace-on-the-ground (secure borders, decent living conditions, resolution of refugee status) served as the deterrent to war.
During a subsequent press interview, ElBaradei reported that Sharon did not summarily dismiss the concept of a Middle East NWFZ. As reported by ElBaradei, Sharon expressed a willingness to discuss creating a regional NWFZ in the context of the U.S. “roadmap” for a comprehensive Middle East peace. Sharon also agreed that discussions should include limitations on conventional weapons and methods to enhance trust between nations – e.g., early warning centers and information exchanges.
Sharon Agrees, Backs Off
Sharon went so far as agreeing to attend a forum in February 2005 that was to examine existing NWFZ and extract lessons that could apply to a Middle East NWFZ. But by January 2005, with guidelines for the forum still contentious, the meeting was postponed. By then, the extent of Iran’s secret program of uranium enrichment, which the U.S. alleges is part of a bomb project, had been uncovered.
Iran’s actions, plus Egypt’s disclosure of previously unreported “experiments,” were serious blows to that indispensable sense of trust that underlies all international security agreements, whether NWFZ, WMDFZ, or conventional arms. And although Sharon has not reneged (yet) on his promise to send a delegation to a “lessons learned” forum, he has reverted to the earlier position that Israel must have peace pacts with all its neighbors before he will talk about a Middle East NWFZ.
Concern About Iran
Furthermore, Sharon is urging the U.S. to make sure the European Union Three (the UK, France, and Germany) do not “go soft” on details or allow Iran to drag out the discussions about freezing and then dismantling Iran’s uranium enrichment program. In a mid-April meeting with President Bush, Sharon reportedly proffered his belief that Iran is at the “point of no return” in combining the knowledge, equipment, and materials that would make possible the production of a nuclear weapon.
Conceding that Iran conceivably could develop a nuclear weapon in three years should it pursue such development, ElBaradei notes that the IAEA has found no evidence of bomb-making. He foresees a wide-ranging discussion on a Middle East NWFZ at this month’s NPT Review Conference, one that, should it move beyond one-dimensional, unilateral concerns to embrace security as a regional need, just might keep viable the dream of a WMDFZ in the Middle East.
