Should Israel Surrender Its Chemical Weapons?

Sara Sorcher, National Journal
See more stories about...
Sara Sorcher, National Journal
Sept. 20, 2013, 5:02 a.m.

WASH­ING­TON — Syr­i­an Pres­id­ent Bashar al-As­sad has agreed to trans­fer his massive stock­pile of chem­ic­al weapons to in­ter­na­tion­al con­trol where they can be des­troyed, and now he is rais­ing the stakes: He says Is­rael should also rat­i­fy the glob­al treaty ban­ning the stock­pil­ing and use of weapons of mass de­struc­tion, for the sake of “sta­bil­ity in the Middle East.” His ally, Rus­si­an Pres­id­ent Vladi­mir Putin, is sup­port­ive, in­sist­ing that Syr­ia’s chem­ic­al weapons ex­ist as a de­terrent to Is­rael’s mil­it­ary cap­ab­il­it­ies.

Al­though U.S. of­fi­cials have de­nounced any com­par­is­ons between Syr­ia and Is­rael, a demo­cracy that does not slaughter or gas its own people, Syr­ia’s planned dis­arm­a­ment could build mo­mentum for Is­rael to rat­i­fy the Chem­ic­al Weapons Con­ven­tion—and per­haps oth­er agree­ments on nuc­le­ar and bio­lo­gic­al weapons. “There will be pres­sure on Is­rael,” pre­dicts Ely Kar­mon, seni­or re­search schol­ar at the In­sti­tute for Counter-Ter­ror­ism in Is­rael, who says the na­tion should rat­i­fy the agree­ment now, if only to elim­in­ate po­ten­tial ex­cuses for Syr­ia. “Syr­ia can use the fact that Is­rael has not rat­i­fied to post­pone the de­struc­tion of [its stock­piles] or part of the ar­sen­al.”

Is­rael signed the Chem­ic­al Weapons Con­ven­tion in 1993 but re­mains one of the sev­en coun­tries in the world that are not state parties to the pact (oth­er out­liers, in ad­di­tion to neigh­bors Egypt and Syr­ia, are An­gola, My­an­mar, North Korea, and South Su­dan). The half-meas­ure sig­nals that Is­rael agrees with the treaty’s spir­it but is not bound by in­ter­na­tion­al in­spec­tions or a com­mit­ment to des­troy its own stock­piles, which the Jew­ish state will not con­firm or deny it has.

Is­rael may view its policy of am­bi­gu­ity on chem­ic­al, bio­lo­gic­al, and nuc­le­ar weapons as pro­tect­ing its self-in­terest, if only to avoid pres­sure to give them up, says Henry Sokol­ski, former deputy for non­pro­lif­er­a­tion policy at the De­fense De­part­ment and now ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of the Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion Policy Edu­ca­tion Cen­ter in Wash­ing­ton. But Is­rael’s stance has blocked ser­i­ous arms-con­trol ne­go­ti­ations in the re­gion, as oth­er coun­tries try to build their cap­ab­il­it­ies to chal­lenge what they per­ceive as Is­rael’s ad­vant­age. And Is­rael’s pos­ture has even con­strained dis­cus­sion between Jer­u­s­alem and Wash­ing­ton about these weapons and how they might be used.

If As­sad ac­tu­ally gives up his chem­ic­al weapons, Wash­ing­ton may seize the op­por­tun­ity “to jump-start the lar­ger WMD-free zone ef­forts,” says Jon Wolf­sth­al, a former ad­viser to Vice Pres­id­ent Joe Biden for nuc­le­ar se­cur­ity and a former Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Coun­cil dir­ect­or for non­pro­lif­er­a­tion. Re­mov­ing Syr­ia’s chem­ic­al weapons, the ma­jor stra­tegic threat to Is­rael on that front, “cre­ates a little breath­ing room to open up a con­ver­sa­tion,” says Wolf­sth­al, now deputy dir­ect­or of the James Mar­tin Cen­ter for Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion Stud­ies at the Monterey In­sti­tute for In­ter­na­tion­al Stud­ies. Even without chem­ic­al weapons, Is­rael main­tains a mil­it­ary ad­vant­age in con­ven­tion­al strength (and nuc­le­ar cap­ab­il­it­ies).

Is­rael sup­ports the idea of a WMD-free zone in the­ory but is un­der­stand­ably wary of any agree­ment aimed at get­ting the Jew­ish state—which has not ac­ceded to the chem­ic­al, bio­lo­gic­al, or nuc­le­ar non­pro­lif­er­a­tion agree­ments and is the only coun­try in the Middle East thought to pos­sess nuc­le­ar weapons — to dis­arm. It usu­ally comes down to the nuc­le­ar is­sue. “Ar­ab coun­tries typ­ic­ally gang up and say, “˜[After] Is­rael comes clean and gets rid of its nuc­le­ar weapons, then we can talk,’ “ says Thomas Moore, deputy dir­ect­or of the Cen­ter for Stra­tegic and In­ter­na­tion­al Stud­ies’ Pro­lif­er­a­tion Pre­ven­tion Pro­gram. Is­rael be­lieves re­gion­al stra­tegic is­sues must be ad­dressed first. The cur­rent polit­ic­al tur­bu­lence, es­pe­cially in the wake of the Ar­ab Spring, may con­vince Is­rael this is not the time to join these treat­ies.

Aside from wor­ries about Syr­ia, Is­rael also has con­cerns about the Ir­a­ni­an and Egyp­tian ar­sen­als, al­though it’s pos­sible that if As­sad fol­lows through on the dis­arm­a­ment plan and re­mains in power, Ir­an could draw the les­son that it can trade away its WM­Ds and nuc­le­ar de­terrents in ex­change for in­ter­na­tion­al le­git­im­acy.

The more im­me­di­ate ques­tion, however, is what Syr­ia does next. As­sad’s agree­ment is “only words and pa­pers,” and his stated com­pli­ance is no guar­an­tee, says Dav­id Fried­man of Is­rael’s In­sti­tute for Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Stud­ies and the former head of the Is­raeli mil­it­ary’s Chem­ic­al/Bio­lo­gic­al Pro­tec­tion Di­vi­sion. As­sad still claims he did not use chem­ic­al weapons in the Au­gust at­tack that killed hun­dreds of people, and, un­til re­cently, he for dec­ades denied hav­ing chem­ic­al weapons. “It’s not a simple situ­ation when you deal with someone whose nature is not to tell the truth,” Fried­man says. Emily Land­au, his INSS col­league and the dir­ect­or of the Arms Con­trol and Re­gion­al Se­cur­ity Pro­gram, adds that Ir­an, Ir­aq, Libya, and Syr­ia have been found “cheat­ing” on agree­ments or at least have been “de­cept­ive” about their non­con­ven­tion­al ar­sen­als. “Is­rael is wary of trust­ing these is­sues to an in­ter­na­tion­al agree­ment, be­cause when Is­rael [rat­i­fies] an agree­ment, it means it — and it will fol­low it to the let­ter.”

If Is­rael rat­i­fies, fel­low treaty mem­bers could de­mand “chal­lenge in­spec­tions” of its fa­cil­it­ies — and even try to tar­get Is­rael with a false al­leg­a­tion of pos­sible mis­use of chem­ic­al weapons or oth­er vi­ol­a­tions, CSIS’s Moore says. While two-thirds of the 41-na­tion ex­ec­ut­ive coun­cil could over­turn such de­mands, Ir­an or oth­er mem­bers might “point fin­gers and say, “˜See? They won’t in­spect people when there are doubts, be­cause they are U.S. al­lies; the CWC is a big U.S. plot,’ “ Moore says. Then some coun­tries may draw at­ten­tion to the fact that even the United States has not met its com­mit­ment to des­troy all its chem­ic­al stocks in 10 years.

The dur­ab­il­ity of the en­tire Chem­ic­al Weapons Con­ven­tion is in danger if it be­comes politi­cized, Moore says. “That’s the big fear: That folks would say, “˜To heck with it.’ “

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
19 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
20 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.

Source:
×