MIDDLE EAST NONPROLIFERATION

Abstract

The Middle East is a crucial region for the global nonproliferation regime. In 2010, the state parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons proposed a conference on a Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction-Free Zone. The nuclear weapon-free zone model, on which this idea builds, has achieved important results in other regions, but faces especially stark challenges in the Middle East. However, the attempt to apply the boldly imaginative zone approach to the Middle East holds promise for building a more inclusive dialogue on nonproliferation and regional security.

Keywords:

• Middle East
• Israel
• weapons of mass destruction
• nonproliferation
• weapon-free zone

Notes

1. Ambassador Thomas Graham, Jr., “Moving Towards a Region Free of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East: Challenges for 2012,” remarks delivered at the Elliott School of International Affairs, Washington, DC, June 14, 2011.

2. Ambassador Thomas Graham, Jr., “Moving Towards a Region Free of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East: Challenges for 2012,” remarks delivered at the Elliott School of International Affairs, Washington, DC, June 14, 2011.

3. The analysis leading to this special section builds on three sets of insights and corresponding meetings. First, in 1995, former Secretary-General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean Enrique Román-Morey suggested convening parties to the various nuclear weapon-free zones to strengthen their common effort to contribute to nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. Second, in 2009, the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States recommended that the United States should “renew multifaceted diplomatic activity and engagement” to reenergize nuclear nonproliferation and provided the impetus for the US Institute of Peace to support the convening of a conference on “The Contribution of Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones to the Global Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Regime” in partnership with The George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs in March 2010. Two months later, the 2010 NPT Review Conference adopted a final document including a commitment to convene a conference in 2012 of all the states in the Middle East on the establishment of a Middle East WMDFZ. Third, in the context of the high profile of this prospective 2012 conference relative to other nuclear weapon-free zone activities, Rockefeller Brothers Fund President Stephen Heintz emphasized the importance for a nuclear weapon-free zone research program to include a strong Israeli partner visibly in a discussion in Washington on the topic of the 2012 conference. On this basis, the George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs partnered with the INSS to convene a conference in June 2011 on “Moving Toward a Region Free of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East: Challenges for 2012.” Each of the authors in this special session chaired a panel discussion at that conference on the topic of her or his article. I am especially indebted to my co-organizer, Emily B. Landau, for embracing the work of finding a mutually agreeable conceptual framework and a list of invitees for this conference, and for traveling thousands of miles to participate. I am also grateful to her participating colleagues from the INSS: Ephraim Asculai; Yair Evron; David Friedman; and Shimon Stein. The conference included seven panels focused on promoting a successful outcome of the prospective 2012 Conference on a Zone Free of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East. In all, twenty-four experts made prepared presentations and more than two dozen other experts from several countries attended. Grant Schneider and Christina Walrond deserve recognition for their substantial effort to make these conferences and resulting articles successful. I am also particularly indebted to Dean Michael E. Brown of the Elliott School for his considerable support of this work and the broader Nuclear Policy Talks event series.

4. This effort responds to only part of the challenges inherent in Middle East WMDFZ discussions. It does not address the reasons for Israel's self-exclusion from the NPT. It also does not arbitrate or resolve competing perspectives on viable terms and conditions of a Middle East WMDFZ. It does not assign responsibility to any entity for the prospective success or failure of a Middle East WMDFZ or a conference directed toward this purpose. It does not assess the probability of creating a Middle East WMDFZ or the wisdom of calling for one.

5. In addition to treaties prohibiting nuclear weapons in Antarctica and outer space, the five primary existing NWFZ treaties include: the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, entered into force October 23, 2002; the South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone Treaty, entered into force December 11, 1986; the Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone Treaty, entered into force March 27, 1997; the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty, entered into force July 15, 2009; and the Central Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty, entered into force March 21, 2009.

6. Sergio Duarte, UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, “Luncheon Address,” in Douglas B. Shaw, ed., “The Contribution of Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones to the Global Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Regime,” (Washington, DC: The George Washington University Elliott School of International Affairs and the US Institute of Peace, October 2011) pp. 20-22, <http://elliott.gwu.edu/assets/docs/events/nwfz-report-1019-final.pdf>.

7. Jim McClay, former Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, remarks in Shaw ed., “The Contribution of Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones to the Global Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Regime” p. 25.

8. Jayantha Dhanapala, “Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones: Affirmative Action by Non-Nuclear Weapon States in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,” in Shaw, ed., “The Contribution of Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones to the Global Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Regime,” pp. 6-11.

9. Shaw ed., “The Contribution of Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones to the Global Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Regime” p. 23.

10. However, many Latin American and Caribbean states waived the obligations of the Tlatelolco zone while Argentina and Brazil remained outside the Treaty, blocking its entry-into-force.

11. See David Friedman, “Biological and Chemical Weapons Arms Control in the Middle East: Challenges and Opportunities for a WMD-Free Zone,” Nonproliferation Review 19 (November 2012), pp. 401–11.

12. Barack Obama, “Remarks by President Barack Obama,” Prague, April 5, 2009, <www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-By-President-Barack-Obama-In-Prague-As-Delivered>.

13. Paul C. Warnke, “Arms Control is an Unnatural Act,” transcript of interview with John M. Whiteley, “Quest for Peace Interview Series: Arms Control, Peace, and Reducing the Risks of Nuclear War,” 1984, <www.lib.uci.edu/quest/index.php?page=warnke>.

14. “The key factors likely to affect Israeli participation include whether the host country (Finland) establishes a broad agenda extending beyond the nuclear issue and includes assurances that this will not be a negotiation on creating a WMDFZ.” Dalia Dassa Kaye, “The Middle East WMDFZ Conference: A Reset for Regional Arms Control?,” Nonproliferation Review 19 (November 2012), pp. 413–28.

15. Sam Nunn, “The Mountaintop: A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,” speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, Washington, DC, June 14, 2007, <www.nti.org/analysis/speeches/nunn-mountaintop-free-weapons/>.