Mideast Envoys Weigh Two New Bids to Jolt WMD-Ban Talks

Iranian students set an Israeli flag afire during a protest to defend their country's nuclear program outside the Fordo Uranium Conversion Facility in the northern town of Qom in November. Neither Iran nor Israel has ruled out participating in a major summit to explore a ban on nuclear, chemical and biological arms from the Middle East.
National Journal
Elaine M. Grossman
Add to Briefcase
Elaine M. Grossman
June 6, 2014, 9:36 a.m.

In­ter­na­tion­al dip­lo­mats par­ti­cip­at­ing in in­form­al talks about ban­ning weapons of mass de­struc­tion from the Middle East re­turned to their cap­it­als from Geneva last month bear­ing two new doc­u­ments, ac­cord­ing to en­voys and ex­perts.

The so-called “non-pa­pers” — an Or­wellian term craf­ted to al­low au­thors and com­menters alike to re­main non­com­mit­tal — were aimed at identi­fy­ing where pro­gress might be made to­ward set­ting an agenda and ob­ject­ives for a ma­jor sum­mit in Fin­land, sources said.

The Hel­sinki con­fer­ence was to have been held by the end of 2012, but has been re­peatedly post­poned as Ar­ab states, Is­rael and Ir­an have bickered over what should be dis­cussed. Some say the event could yet oc­cur later this year.

Mideast na­tions also have not yet agreed on the type of pro­cess or frame­work that might fol­low a one- or two-day in­ter­na­tion­al sum­mit. Those of­fi­cially spon­sor­ing the dis­cus­sions in­clude the United Na­tions, a U.N.-ap­poin­ted “fa­cil­it­at­or,” and the na­tions of Rus­sia, the United States and United King­dom.

The ul­ti­mate goal would be to make the Middle East a re­gion­al zone in which all nuc­le­ar, bio­lo­gic­al and chem­ic­al weapons are pro­hib­ited.

A ma­jor point of con­ten­tion has been over how to get to that end ob­ject­ive. Ar­ab na­tions prin­cip­ally want to see pro­gress in dis­mant­ling Is­rael’s pre­sumed 80-war­head-or-so nuc­le­ar ar­sen­al and bring­ing the na­tion un­der the Nuc­le­ar Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion Treaty as a non-atom­ic-weapons coun­try.

However, Is­rael has nev­er con­firmed pub­licly that it main­tains a nuc­le­ar stock­pile, and has said that it would par­ti­cip­ate in such a con­fer­ence only if dis­cus­sions ad­dress the broad­er con­text of cre­at­ing an en­dur­ing Middle East peace.

For starters, Is­raeli lead­ers would like to see the pro­cess res­ult in con­fid­ence-build­ing meas­ures among the un­easy neigh­bors, ar­guing that to dis­arm as a first step would put the cart be­fore the horse.

Ar­ab na­tions have been reti­cent to ac­cept that idea, though. They con­tend that swap­ping in­form­a­tion and vis­its would be a dis­trac­tion from — and an un­ac­cept­able sub­sti­tute for — mak­ing sub­stan­tial head­way on nuc­le­ar and oth­er WMD dis­arm­a­ment in the re­gion.

“They just see it as buy­ing time on what they con­sider the main is­sues,” Chen Kane, a seni­or re­search as­so­ci­ate at the James Mar­tin Cen­ter for Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion Stud­ies, said in a Wed­nes­day phone in­ter­view.

If the spe­cial-zone concept were to come to fruition, Is­rael likely would have to join not only the NPT agree­ment, but also sign and rat­i­fy the Bio­lo­gic­al Weapons Con­ven­tion; Egypt must sign and rat­i­fy the 190-na­tion Chem­ic­al Weapons Con­ven­tion; and Egypt and Syr­ia must rat­i­fy the Bio­lo­gic­al Weapons Con­ven­tion, which they have already signed.

At the May 14-15 con­sulta­tion ses­sion in Geneva, Finnish fa­cil­it­at­or Jaakko Laa­java is said to have cir­cu­lated among 18 par­ti­cip­at­ing na­tions the two non-pa­pers in hopes of spur­ring fur­ther use­ful dis­cus­sion about the con­fer­ence agenda and out­comes, an ar­ray of mul­tina­tion­al sources tell Glob­al Se­cur­ity News­wire. Some spoke for this art­icle on con­di­tion of not be­ing named, cit­ing dip­lo­mat­ic sens­it­iv­it­ies.

One of the doc­u­ments rounds up ideas put forth by the vari­ous par­ti­cipants, these sources said. The oth­er — re­portedly draf­ted by a spon­sor­ing del­eg­a­tion — of­fers some spe­cif­ic ele­ments for pro­cess out­comes.

The good news emer­ging from Geneva last month, says one dip­lo­mat track­ing the pro­cess: “Nobody re­jec­ted the non-pa­pers. On the con­trary, they were found to be use­ful.”

Sev­er­al oth­ers shared that view, but many re­main pess­im­ist­ic for the long-term out­look.

“My sense is that the pro­spects for a break­through with re­spect to agree­ment on a date for the con­fer­ence in Hel­sinki has di­min­ished in the past three months,” Wil­li­am Pot­ter, who dir­ects the James Mar­tin Cen­ter, said in an email late last month.

He noted that Wash­ing­ton did not dis­patch its top dip­lo­mat re­spons­ible for the is­sue, Thomas Coun­try­man, to the latest con­sulta­tions, and that a seni­or en­voy rep­res­en­ted Egypt there but was re­l­at­ively new to the Mideast WMD-free zone mat­ter.

The May con­sulta­tion was the fourth such in­ter­na­tion­al dis­cus­sion event over­all, but the first held in Geneva.

Laa­java has led three pri­or ses­sions at a hotel in the Swiss re­sort town of Gli­on since last Oc­to­ber. However, Ar­ab states and Ir­an have pro­tested that Nuc­le­ar Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion Treaty na­tions had called for talks to take place un­der U.N. aus­pices.

For its part, Ir­an at­ten­ded the first Gli­on ses­sion but is not ex­pec­ted to re­join the con­sulta­tions while high-pro­file ne­go­ti­ations with world powers over its nuc­le­ar pro­gram re­main un­der way.

Is­rael — not a party to the NPT ac­cord and not dir­ectly in­volved in the ori­gin­al ef­fort to cre­ate a Mideast WMD-free zone — has bristled at meet­ing on the top­ic in U.N. ven­ues, par­tic­u­larly giv­en its com­plex his­tory with the in­ter­na­tion­al or­gan­iz­a­tion, ac­cord­ing to en­voys and ex­perts.

Is­rael­is “are not too keen on high vis­ib­il­ity or [a] role for the U.N., giv­en the U.N.’s stance on [the] state of Palestine, and oth­er is­sues of se­cur­ity [and] polit­ic­al im­port­ance for Is­rael,” said Tariq Rauf, who dir­ects the Stock­holm In­ter­na­tion­al Peace Re­search In­sti­tute’s Arms Con­trol and Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion Pro­gram.

Laa­java ended up con­ven­ing the mid-May meet­ing at a U.N. build­ing in Geneva but apart from the headquar­ters. U.N. flags pos­ted in the meet­ing room ap­par­ently caused an ini­tial stir, one ex­pert source said, but the ven­ue com­prom­ise ul­ti­mately ap­peared to be ac­cept­able to all par­ti­cipants.

The next such con­sulta­tion — tent­at­ively slated for June 24-25 — is also to be held in Geneva.

A bit of ad­di­tion­al drama is said to have marred the latest con­sulta­tions.

Ar­ab dip­lo­mats grumbled that the Is­raeli del­eg­a­tion ab­ruptly backed out of the planned second day of the May con­sulta­tions. Is­raeli en­voys re­portedly said that the change in plans was un­re­lated to the in­form­al talks and purely lo­gist­ic­al in nature, and that they in­tend to con­tin­ue par­ti­cip­at­ing in the pro­cess.

Some sources noted, though, that it was un­clear wheth­er there would have been suf­fi­cient reas­on for meet­ing on a second day any­way.

Many of the en­voys at­tend­ing last month’s con­fab lacked de­cision au­thor­ity, so a num­ber of del­eg­a­tions in Geneva were un­able to com­ment on the non-pa­pers without check­ing back with their home cap­it­als, of­fi­cials and ex­perts said.

The in­clu­sion of lower-rank­ing dip­lo­mats, com­pared to earli­er ses­sions, meant some were “in­de­cis­ive and not fully em­powered to de­cide on the fa­cil­it­at­or’s pro­pos­als,” Rauf said.

Laa­java has voiced “a long­stand­ing com­plaint” that na­tions should send “fully em­powered del­eg­ates, at the right seni­or­ity level, to at­tend his con­sulta­tions with the au­thor­ity to take de­cisions on the [con­fer­ence] agenda, tim­ing [and] mod­al­it­ies,” Rauf said in a Tues­day email, re­spond­ing to ques­tions.

Mean­while, the na­tions have set aside for now an idea floated earli­er this year to peri­od­ic­ally break in­to smal­ler work­ing groups that could tee up agenda and out­come pro­pos­als for all par­ti­cipants to con­sider in full plen­ary con­sulta­tion ses­sions, ac­cord­ing to sources.

Is­rael’s neigh­bors — which have strived to speak with one voice on the mat­ter via the Ar­ab League — to date have not sor­ted out how work­ing-group mem­bers could make head­way on their own, sources ex­plained. For now, the con­sulta­tions will con­tin­ue to be held with all parties around a big table, ac­cord­ing to those closely fol­low­ing the is­sue.

Sep­ar­ately, form­al work­ing groups on polit­ic­al mat­ters, tech­nic­al is­sues and con­fid­ence-build­ing steps might be cre­ated fol­low­ing a Hel­sinki con­fer­ence as part of any con­tinu­ing pro­cess aimed at even­tu­ally es­tab­lish­ing the zone, Kane and oth­er is­sue ex­perts said.

What We're Following See More »
Morning Consult Poll: Clinton Decisively Won Debate
1 days ago

"According to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, the first national post-debate survey, 43 percent of registered voters said the Democratic candidate won, compared with 26 percent who opted for the Republican Party’s standard bearer. Her 6-point lead over Trump among likely voters is unchanged from our previous survey: Clinton still leads Trump 42 percent to 36 percent in the race for the White House, with Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson taking 9 percent of the vote."

Trump Draws Laughs, Boos at Al Smith Dinner
1 days ago

After a lighthearted beginning, Donald Trump's appearance at the Al Smith charity dinner in New York "took a tough turn as the crowd repeatedly booed the GOP nominee for his sharp-edged jokes about his rival Hillary Clinton."

McMullin Leads in New Utah Poll
2 days ago

Evan McMul­lin came out on top in a Emer­son Col­lege poll of Utah with 31% of the vote. Donald Trump came in second with 27%, while Hillary Clin­ton took third with 24%. Gary John­son re­ceived 5% of the vote in the sur­vey.

Quinnipiac Has Clinton Up by 7
2 days ago

A new Quin­nipi­ac Uni­versity poll finds Hillary Clin­ton lead­ing Donald Trump by seven percentage points, 47%-40%. Trump’s “lead among men and white voters all but” van­ished from the uni­versity’s early Oc­to­ber poll. A new PPRI/Brook­ings sur­vey shows a much bigger lead, with Clinton up 51%-36%. And an IBD/TIPP poll leans the other way, showing a vir­tu­al dead heat, with Trump tak­ing 41% of the vote to Clin­ton’s 40% in a four-way match­up.

Trump: I’ll Accept the Results “If I Win”
2 days ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.