Arab League to Convene Emergency Meeting on Mideast WMD-Free Zone

Arab League foreign ministers at a Nov. 3 meeting in Cairo to discuss Syria. The organization's member nations are to convene again on Sunday in a short-notice session to coordinate their positions on talks about a proposed ban weapons of mass destruction from the Middle East.
National Journal
Elaine M. Grossman, Global Security Newswire
See more stories about...
Elaine M. Grossman, Global Security Newswire
Nov. 8, 2013, 11:02 a.m.

WASH­ING­TON — The League of Ar­ab States is con­ven­ing an emer­gency meet­ing this Sunday to co­ordin­ate a con­sensus po­s­i­tion for up­com­ing talks about elim­in­at­ing weapons of mass de­struc­tion from the Middle East.

The ur­gent gath­er­ing comes amid re­ports that mod­est pro­gress was achieved last month dur­ing mul­ti­lat­er­al con­sulta­tions in Switzer­land that in­cluded rep­res­ent­at­ives from Is­rael, Ir­an and oth­er re­gion­al na­tions.

Go­ing in­to the week­end meet­ing, it is un­cer­tain wheth­er the Ar­ab League will harden on a po­s­i­tion — held by some in the re­gion — that would fur­ther isol­ate Is­rael for its view that talks about es­tab­lish­ing a WMD-free zone could come only in the con­text of broad­er re­gion­al en­gage­ment and peace ini­ti­at­ives. By con­trast, some is­sue ex­perts are say­ing that as Ir­an ap­pears to mod­er­ate its stance on its own nuc­le­ar-en­ergy ef­forts, Ar­ab League mem­ber na­tions may push to build on nas­cent areas of com­mon ground with Is­rael.

The re­cent mul­tina­tion­al for­um near Montr­eaux was led by Finnish dip­lo­mat Jaakko Laa­java, whose United Na­tions-sponsored man­date would fa­cil­it­ate the vol­un­tary par­ti­cip­a­tion of Mideast coun­tries in a ma­jor con­fer­ence to dis­cuss the cre­ation of a WMD-free zone in the re­gion. The Hel­sinki con­fer­ence was to be held by the end of last year, but was post­poned when Is­rael held back on agree­ing to par­ti­cip­ate.

At the same time, the Is­raeli gov­ern­ment con­tin­ues to at­tend con­fer­ence-plan­ning ses­sions with Laa­java and oth­ers, and has not ruled out its at­tend­ance if a Hel­sinki for­um is ul­ti­mately sched­uled.

Egypt, which has long spear­headed the concept of cre­at­ing the spe­cial zone, re­ques­ted that the Ar­ab League hold this Sunday’s meet­ing in ad­vance of a second round of con­sulta­tions that Laa­java is said to be schedul­ing for Nov. 25 and 26.

Dates for the forth­com­ing re­gion-wide ses­sion have not been of­fi­cially an­nounced, but a dip­lo­mat in­formed on the dis­cus­sions con­firmed an in­tent to meet again “soon,” and told Glob­al Se­cur­ity News­wire that the ven­ue might again be Gli­on, where the parties met on Oct. 21 and 22.

Be­fore then, the up­com­ing meet­ing of Ar­ab League per­man­ent rep­res­ent­at­ives will ad­dress “the Egyp­tian ini­ti­at­ive to [clear] the Middle East of all weapons of mass de­struc­tion and take a uni­fied Ar­ab stance on how to deal with it and put it in­to prac­tice,” ac­cord­ing to a Google trans­la­tion of a Thursday an­nounce­ment on the Mideast or­gan­iz­a­tion’s web­site.

The Ar­ab League del­eg­ates are to con­sider a pro­cess pro­posed by Egyp­tian For­eign Min­is­ter Nab­il Fahmy for elim­in­at­ing the most-dan­ger­ous re­gion­al ar­sen­als in which out­liers to key treat­ies would move sim­ul­tan­eously to join the agree­ments. These would in­clude the Nuc­le­ar Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion Treaty, the Chem­ic­al Weapons Con­ven­tion and the Bio­lo­gic­al Weapons Con­ven­tion.

Is­rael is be­lieved to have the lone nuc­le­ar ar­sen­al in the Middle East and is not an NPT mem­ber na­tion. It neither ac­know­ledges nor denies its es­tim­ated stock­pile of 80 or more nuc­le­ar arms. Ir­an is a sig­nat­ory of the Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion Treaty, but is widely per­ceived to be in­ter­ested in de­vel­op­ing an atom­ic-arms cap­ab­il­ity — the fo­cus of on­go­ing talks with Wash­ing­ton and its part­ners.

Syr­ia re­cently joined the Chem­ic­al Weapons Con­ven­tion amid al­leg­a­tions that its gov­ern­ment used sar­in nerve gas in an Aug. 21 at­tack near Dam­as­cus that Wash­ing­ton al­leges killed more than 1,400 ci­vil­ians. Sev­er­al oth­er coun­tries in the re­gion also are known or be­lieved to have pro­duced chem­ic­al weapons, in­clud­ing Egypt, Ir­an, Ir­aq, Is­rael and Libya.

In a Septem­ber speech be­fore the U.N. Gen­er­al As­sembly, Fahmy said the ma­jor Hel­sinki con­fer­ence should be held by the end of this year, or cer­tainly by next spring “at the latest.”

At the Ar­ab League de­lib­er­a­tions, “the Ar­abs need to take a stern po­s­i­tion and soon be­fore Nov. 25,” said Mah­moud Kar­em, a former Egyp­tian am­bas­sad­or and dis­arm­a­ment ex­pert.

He char­ac­ter­ized Is­rael as en­ga­ging in “clas­sic fili­bus­ter­ing” in an at­tempt to hold off the Hel­sinki con­fer­ence, con­sti­tut­ing a “waste of time to give the im­pres­sion that there is an on­go­ing ‘pro­cess’ and con­tinu­ity.” To counter Is­rael’s stance, “a meet­ing of the high of­fi­cials is ne­ces­sary in Cairo” and at the Ar­ab League, Kar­em said.

By con­trast, Chen Kane, a seni­or re­search as­so­ci­ate at the James Mar­tin Cen­ter for Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion Stud­ies, said it is not en­tirely clear that the Ar­ab League meet­ing will scuttle ef­forts to­ward in­clud­ing Is­rael in a Hel­sinki con­fer­ence. She has char­ac­ter­ized the Is­raeli po­s­i­tion as largely reas­on­able in a re­gion where its right to ex­ist as a na­tion is not uni­formly re­cog­nized.

The Ar­ab League “needs to meet to get a uni­fied po­s­i­tion be­fore the [second mul­ti­lat­er­al] con­sulta­tion in Novem­ber, so I would not ne­ces­sar­ily take it as [a] neg­at­ive [de­vel­op­ment],” she told GSN on Fri­day.

The or­gan­iz­a­tion’s “seni­or of­fi­cials would like to line up their ducks be­hind a com­mon po­s­i­tion to press for the [Hel­sinki] con­fer­ence to be held this year and on the terms” of 1995 and 2010 res­ol­u­tions em­braced by Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion Treaty mem­ber states in fa­vor of cre­at­ing the spe­cial zone, said Tariq Rauf, a former Ca­na­dian dip­lo­mat who has pre­vi­ously held posts at the In­ter­na­tion­al Atom­ic En­ergy Agency.

Ar­ab na­tions also may be in­clined to “over­rule the Is­raeli pref­er­ence for dis­cus­sion on re­gion­al se­cur­ity and CBMs,” Rauf told GSN, re­fer­ring to con­fid­ence-build­ing meas­ures aimed at in­creas­ing Middle East trans­par­ency and un­der­stand­ing.

What We're Following See More »
1.5 MILLION MORE TUNED IN FOR TRUMP
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.

Source:
×