Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration hopes to interest Middle East nations in embracing modest steps, such as preliminary talks and confidence-building measures, aimed at eventually establishing a regional zone free of all weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, May 12).

However, it is unclear whether modest steps will prove enough to seal an agreement at a key, ongoing conference at the United Nations.

The Middle East initiative is becoming a central focus of a monthlong meeting of the 189 member nations to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, focused on identifying ways of strengthening implementation of the agreement's principles. Under the pact, nuclear-armed nations have agreed to work toward disarmament, other states have promised not to acquire such weapons, and countries in good standing under the accord can engage in civil nuclear trade.

"One of the elements of having a successful NPT review conference will be to see if the parties can agree on practical steps to at least make some progress on fulfilling the 1995 Middle East resolution that calls for a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East," Gary Samore, the National Security Council coordinator for arms control and nonproliferation, told reporters last week.

U.S. officials hope their support for the initiative might lead to broader consensus on another key matter: isolating Iran for its suspected development of nuclear arms, according to an analysis by the Institute for Science and International Security. Tehran, which insists that its nuclear work is peaceful and that it does not intend to build a bomb, this week embraced an agreement with Turkey and Brazil aimed at heading off a new round of U.N. sanctions (see GSN, May 17).

"The Middle East really is the part of the world where there's the greatest danger of proliferation of all kinds -- nuclear, bio and chem -- as well as missile delivery systems. And we think it's important that we try to find some way to arrest those trends, and obviously stopping Iran's program is the key," Samore said at a May 11 lunch event. "But there are [also] other things we'd like to do in terms of regional dialogue and confidence-building."

The White House official did not elaborate.

However, others -- including 1995 review conference president Jayantha Dhanapala -- have proposed new measures such as convening a follow-on summit to focus on the issue, or naming a special coordinator or committee to begin organizing the creation of such a zone (see GSN, April 30).

Samore said that it was "just too early to anticipate whether we'll be successful or not" in coming to agreement on exactly how to proceed.

An NPT review conference committee charged with assessing nonproliferation proposals on Friday submitted to the meeting chairman a draft statement reaffirming the importance of the 1995 resolution on a WMD-free Middle East. However, the draft text included only generic "placeholder" language pending a deal on implementation details, yet to come.

Egypt, as head of the Nonaligned Movement of developing states, has repeatedly demanded that the five-year review conference make significant headway toward banning nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

Over the past 15 years, little progress has been made toward that end, with Israel refusing to confirm or deny its widely recognized nuclear arsenal, which is estimated as numbering as many as 100 weapons. At the time of the 1995 resolution, the commitment to a special Middle East zone was achieved in exchange for Arab states' support for indefinite extension of the NPT agreement, experts say.

The United States has long maintained that such a sector could be established only after a comprehensive peace settlement is achieved for the region.

Under the Obama administration, Washington has softened its stance a bit, saying that "progress" toward peace -- rather than necessarily reaching a long-elusive comprehensive settlement -- could be a precondition for banning the most dangerous weapons in the Middle East.

"Achievement of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction can't happen without progress in the peace process," one U.S. official, interviewed in New York earlier this month, said on condition of not being named.

"Progress in the peace talks and eventually achieving a comprehensive and a durable settlement," Samore said last week, is "an essential element for making progress on any of these zones."

At the same time, U.S. officials are pointedly noting that the 1995 consensus statement called for a zone banning not only nuclear arms but also weapons of mass destruction of any kind.

"The development of nuclear-weapon-free zones, especially in regions of tension, such as in the Middle East, as well as the establishment of zones free of all weapons of mass destruction, should be encouraged as a matter of priority," NPT member nations agreed 15 years ago.

Washington is "absolutely" pursuing a full WMD-free zone, not just one limited to banning nuclear arms, the U.S. official said in the May 7 interview. "That was the resolution that we sponsored [in 1995], was a zone free of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons. And that is the objective that we are working to try to achieve concrete steps towards."

The inclusion of a ban on any type of unconventional weapon in the Middle East could complicate the demands made by Cairo or others in the region.

Neither Egypt nor Syria has signed the treaty calling for the elimination of all chemical weapons, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and both are widely suspected of having retained for decades arms banned by the pact.

Israel, which has signed but not ratified the chemical arms accord, is also one of 23 nations not party to the Biological Weapons Convention. Egypt, Syria and the United Arab Emirates have signed the bioweapons treaty, which bans the production or retention of disease-based arms, but they have not ratified the agreement.

"The [1995] resolution calls for a zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction," an Egyptian government official acknowledged today in response to questions from Global Security Newswire.

However, "the emphasis in our view should be on nuclear weapons since this is the NPT context," said the official, commenting on condition of anonymity. "The U.S. is emphasizing ... a WMD zone, hence focusing on all issues and somewhat misinterpreting the resolution and treaty's emphasis on the nuclear aspect."

"The Arab [NPT] states parties want more than nice words this time round," said Rebecca Johnson, director of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, recalling the 1995 resolution. "Attention is on what more can be done to engage Israel, the only state in the Middle East with un-safeguarded nuclear facilities."

In an online commentary Monday about the status of the NPT review talks, Johnson said one proposal on the table could launch initial talks in the region.

"The Arab states want the 2010 NPT conference to agree on a practical process to move towards negotiations on a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, and have therefore proposed (among other things) a regional conference that would include Israel," she wrote.

"In the past, Egypt could be placated with a declaration that all the NPT states supported the zone -- with no actual action," proliferation expert Leonard Spector told GSN yesterday. "This time it wants more."

Like Johnson, he said it appears that Cairo is seeking a conference in the region that could, in turn, "launch negotiations" toward establishing a nuclear weapon-free zone.

However, Washington is embracing only part of Egypt's proposal, he said.

"I believe the U.S. is OK with a conference, but only to review the bidding, not to launch negotiations," said Spector, who directs the Washington office of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies.

The "bidding" at such a conference, he explained by e-mail, would involve airing "the thinking of individual regional states on what would be needed to bring a zone into force, what states a zone would include, what verification measures would be required, what practical steps could be taken now to facilitate implementation of the zone."

At the ongoing New York conference, "negotiations on the Middle East are continuing in private, primarily between the nuclear weapon and Arab states, with the United States and Egypt as the main interlocutors," according to Johnson.

Until all Middle East nations are prepared to embrace the three WMD-related treaties, it is difficult to imagine the realization of a special zone in the near future, Samore maintained.

"We recognize -- and I frankly think everybody recognizes -- that in the absence of a comprehensive and a durable peace settlement, achieving a zone -- which would require all the countries to join the NPT and the BWC and the CWC -- that's just not likely to be a realistic outcome anytime soon," the White House official said.

Samore said he "personally" would not support a move by Jerusalem to publicly declare its nuclear weapon holdings, despite some rising voices within Israel to do so (see GSN, May 11).

"You're not going to make very much progress on any arms control regime in the Middle East until you establish conditions of regional peace and security," he told reporters. "And there's a lot of conflict in the Middle East, not just Israel and some of its neighbors."

To Spector, Egypt's calls for progress on a Middle East nuclear weapon-free zone seem to mask some unstated motives.

"What remains a question ... is why Egypt devotes so much attention to this. Most observers see the Middle East nuclear weapon-free zone as directed at Israel, but today, Iran is the real nuclear threat to the Arab states," he said. "Egypt, after all, has a peace treaty with Israel, both states are close U.S. allies, and, unlike Iran, Israel is not trying to undermine the Mubarak government."

Beyond the basic national security objectives associated with creating such a sector, Egypt has a "desire to demonstrate leadership to other members of the Nonaligned Movement, the Arab world, and to the Egyptian public," Spector said.