Paul Pillar : Zoning Out in the Middle East

My Catbird Seat December 8, 2012 3
Paul Pillar : Zoning Out in the Middle East

Editor' s Note : This week a United Nations resolution, approved by a vote of 174 to six with six abstentions, called on Israel to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) "without further delay" and open its nuclear facilities to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Those voting against were Israel, the U.S., Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau.

A conference sponsored by the United Nations and backed by Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom, on building a nuclear-free Middle East that was set to take place this month in Finland, has been postponed. Postponing the talks was a missed opportunity writes ex-CIA analyst Paul R Pillar

by Paul Pillar

This was supposed to be the month for an international conference to discuss a possible weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the Middle East.

The concept of such a zone has been addressed in past review conferences of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty (NPT), sessions of the United Nations General Assembly, and meetings at the International Atomic Energy Agency. The official convenors of the conference would be the United States, United Kingdom and Russia, the depository states for the NPT. The gathering was to have been hosted by Finland, with preparatory work having already been done by Finnish diplomat Jaakko Laajava. But a couple of weeks ago the State Department announced that “the conference cannot be convened because of present conditions in the Middle East and the fact that states in the region have not reached agreement on acceptable conditions for a conference.” 

The principal objector was Israel, which—notwithstanding its vociferous agitation about what it contends is a drive by Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon—has always said that weapons-free zones in its region need to await a regional peace.

Postponing the conference was a missed opportunity. And this matter was not like, say, trying to get the Israelis to stop building settlements in occupied territory, which requires a positive Israeli action to accomplish anything. As one of the convening powers, the United States, along with its British and Russian partners, could have simply gone ahead and convened the conference as scheduled. Israel could decide whether or not it would attend. The conference would be better with Israeli attendance, but could still do some good even without it.

No one believes creation of a nuclear- or WMD-free zone in the region is feasible any time soon. No signs suggest Israel is about to part with its arsenal of nuclear weapons. But the postponed conference was only going to discuss such a zone, not create one. Such discussion can be part of a long-term process beneficial to security in the region.

Nuclear weapons-free zones are a proven and well-established concept. They exist, among other places, in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia. The State Department announcement and the usual Israeli objections suggest that other types of conflict resolution must precede international agreements restricting categories of weapons. But beneficial spillover effects can work in the other direction as well—just as during the Cold War strategic arms limitation agreements between the United States and the Soviet Union not only achieved reductions in nuclear arsenals but also became a tool of, and an impetus for, a larger process of detente. Among the existing nuclear weapons-free zones, the one in Latin America is especially instructive in this regard. The treaty establishing it was negotiated before Argentina and Brazil had fully given up their nuclear weapons ambitions. The treaty established a framework for hastening that process and achieving broader reconciliation in South America.

Discussion of such a zone in the Middle East would help to move away from double standards and the hypocrisy that goes with it. The Iranians have a legitimate gripe in being subject to enormous pressures over the mere suspicion that they might someday use their current nuclear program to make a nuclear weapon, while their principal accuser and antagonist in the region has had a sizable nuclear weapons arsenal for decades. Any Israelis legitimately concerned about the direction Iran might take on nuclear matters ought to realize that ending the double standard would be the best possible way to take away whatever wind is in Iranian sails. In any event, it is in the interests of the United States not to be involved in such hypocrisy.

Discussion of such a zone would be a step toward a long-term security regime that would be in every regional state's interests, including Israel's. With its overwhelming conventional superiority over its neighbors, Israel would be no less secure in a region in which no one, including itself, has nuclear or other unconventional weapons. A thoughtful case can be made that Israel's nuclear arsenal has not bought it any additional security in the past either.

A related matter concerns Israel's refusal to acknowledge that arsenal, a refusal that precludes useful examination of Israel's security needs even in private conversations with its benefactor, the United States. Israel maintains the public position that it will “not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East”—an outright lie, unless “introduce” refers to some strange and meaningless formality. (“Region, I'd like you to meet my nuclear weapons.”) At least the Syrians, in responding to the recent outside concern about possible use of their chemical weapons, avoid a direct lie by using conditional phrasing and saying “if such weapons exist in Syria, we will not…” The leading historian of Israel's nuclear weapons program, Avner Cohen, argues it would be in Israel's interest to stop the silly opacity and acknowledge the existence of its arsenal.

Meanwhile, refusal to talk about any of these matters does not make the issue go away. A reminder of this came earlier this week when the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution calling on Israel to join the NPT without delay and to open its nuclear facilities to inspection by the IAEA. The vote—174 to 6, with 6 abstentions—was even more overwhelming than the vote on Palestinian statehood. This time the only "no" votes that Israel got besides itself and the United States were Canada and those Pacific powerhouses, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau.

Source : The National Interest


Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, rose to be one of the agency’s top analysts. He is now a visiting professor at Georgetown University for security studies. (This article first appeared as a blog post  at The National Interest’s Web site. )

3 Comments »

  1. rosemerry December 9, 2012 at 3:49 am - Reply

    Again the hypocrisy of the USA, which approved separately the NPT membership of all, and who was a sponsor of the planned conference. Ehud Olmert did admit the nukes four years ago when he was ordering W about before "Cast Lead", and it is known to all that this dangerous belligerent entity has a hundred or more nukes.

  2. Solon December 11, 2012 at 9:44 am - Reply

    Indeed, rosemerry, you raise an important fact: Israel DOES have nuclear weapons.
    The man implicated in smuggling uranium to Israel from his company, NUMEC, in Apollo, Pennsylvania, that did business with a nearby Westinghouse plant, TODAY lives in a very expensive condo in the Jewish section of Pittsburgh, PA.  That man, Zalman Shapira, is on the board of directors of the local Hillel.  One Arlen Specter's last acts before he left office was to ensure that Shapira would not be prosecuted for his crimes and treason. Specter switched parties to remain in the US Senate.

  3. Solon December 11, 2012 at 9:49 am - Reply

    PS Today, Westinghouse is assisting Persian Gulf states to build nuclear facilities http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-choice-on-nuclear-power-20120202
    Notice how zio-hasbarist Yochi Dreazen frames his argument to cast Iran as the bad example.

Leave A Response »

Copy this code

and paste it here *