NUCLEAR FREE ZONE IN THE MIDDLE
EAST
Middle East Nuclear-weapon Free Zone: A Serious Start?
by Rene Wadlow
Mohamed ElBaradei, Director of the U.N.’s
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) called on Iran and
Israel to enter into serious negotiations to create a nuclear-weapon-free
zone in the Middle East — a zone in which both Israel and
Iran would be members. He was speaking on April 15, 2007 following
talks in Jordan with King Abdullah II. Jordan, caught between
Iraq and growing tensions between Israel and Palestine, has been
trying to play a more active role of regional peacemaker.
ElBaradei said "This is the last chance
to build security in the Middle East based on trust and cooperation
and not the possession of nuclear weapons." He stressed
that a peace agreement between Israel and its Arab neighbors
"must be reached in parallel with a security agreement in
the region based on ridding the area of all weapons of mass destruction."
It is hard to know if there is a concerted purpose behind an
increasing number of news reports and analysis of a potential
US or Israeli strike against the nuclear installations of Iran.
It is very likely that both US and Israeli strategic planners
have envisaged the possibility of such strikes. This is, after
all, the job of strategic planners. To what extent such a dangerous
and basically unrealistic strategy is taken as an option "on
the table" is impossible to know. What is sure is that the
degree of tension in the Middle East over Iran, Iraq and Israel-Palestine
has been growing. Thus, responsible leaders are trying to reduce
tensions with proposals for new negotiations — regional
talks on the Israel-Palestine conflict, regional talks on the
future of Iraq, negotiations on a nuclear-weapon-free zone in
the Middle East or a broader Organization for Security and Cooperation
in the Middle East.
The hazards of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East has existed
since Israel developed its "bomb in the basement" and
was widely discussed in the early 1980s after Israeli forces
destroyed the French-built nuclear reactor near Baghdad in June
1981. (1) Among the community of international relations scholars
and strategic theorists, nuclear proliferation has always had
its ardent supporters who believe that security is increased
by enlarging the number of states with credible deterrence. This
view of nuclear proliferation is often referred to as the "porcupine
theory" because it suggests that a nuclear weapon state
can walk like a porcupine through the forests of international
affairs: no threat to its neighbors, too prickly for predators
to swallow.
It was the French Air Force General Pierre Gallois who was the
most eloquent champion of the porcupine approach writing "If
every nuclear power held weapons truly invulnerable to the blows
of the other, the resort to force by one to the detriment of
the other would be impossible." However, the Middle East
is filled not with porcupines but with men who may not be immune
to irrationality. Irrationality at national leadership levels
are known in world politics, and risk-taking even by rational
leaders can get out of control. Thus, with the current impossibility
of having a nuclear-weapon-free world, the concept of regional
nuclear-weapon-free zones has spread.
The concept of nuclear-weapon-free zones has been an important
concept in disarmament and regional conflict reduction efforts.
A nuclear-weapon-free zone was first suggested by the Polish
Foreign Minister Adam Rapacki at the United Nations General Assembly
in October 1957 — just a year after the crushing of the
uprising in Hungary. The crushing of the Hungarian revolt by
Soviet troops and the unrest among Polish workers at the same
time showed that the East-West equilibrium in Central Europe
was unstable with both the Soviet Union and the USA in possession
of nuclear weapons, and perhaps a willingness to use them if
the political situation became radically unstable. The Rapacki
Plan, as it became known, called for the denuclearization of
East and West Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland.
The Plan went through several variants which included its extension
to cover the reduction of armed forces and armaments, and as
a preliminary step, a freeze on nuclear weapons in the area.
The Rapacki Plan was opposed by the NATO powers, in part because
it recognized the legitimacy of the East German state. It was
not until 1970 and the start of what became the 1975 Helsinki
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe that serious
negotiations on troop levels and weapons in Europe began. While
the Rapacki Plan never led to negotiations on nuclear-weapon
policies in Europe, it had the merit of re-starting East-West
discussions which were then at a dead point.
The first nuclear-weapon-free zone to be negotiated — the
Treaty of Tlatelolco — was a direct aftermath of the Cuban
missile crisis of October 1962. It is hard to know how close
to a nuclear exchange between the USA and the USSR was the Cuban
missile crisis. It was close enough so that Latin American leaders
were moved to action. While Latin America was not an area in
which military confrontation was as stark as in Europe, the Cuban
missile crisis was a warning that you did not need to have standing
armies facing each other for there to be danger.
Mexico under the leadership of Ambassador Alfonso Garcia-Robles
at the UN began immediately to call for a denuclearization of
Latin America. There were a series of conferences, and in February
1967 the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin
America was signed at Tlatelolco, Mexico. For a major arms control
treaty, the Tlateloco was negotiated in a short time, due partly
to the fear inspired by the Cuban missile crisis but especially
to the energy and persistence of Garcia-Robles and the expert
advice of William Epstein, then the U.N.’s Director of Disarmament
Affairs. The Treaty established a permanent and effective system
of control which contains a number of novel and pioneering elements
as well as a body to supervise the Treaty.
On 8 September 2006, the five states of Central Asia — Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan signed the
treaty establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone. The treaty aims
at reducing the risk of nuclear proliferation and nuclear-armed
terrorism. The treaty bans the production, acquisition, deployment
of nuclear weapons and their components as well as nuclear explosives.
Importantly, the treaty bans the hosting or transport of nuclear
weapons as both Russia and the USA have established military
airbases in Central Asia where nuclear weapons could have been
placed in times of crisis in Asia.
The treaty was signed at Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan which was
the main testing site for Soviet nuclear tests. Between 1949
and 1989, some 500 nuclear tests took place at Semipalatinsk
leaving a heritage of radioactivity and health problems. A non-governmental
organization "Nevada-Semipalatinsk" was formed in the
1980s of persons in the USA and the USSR who had lived in the
nuclear-weapon test areas. Its aim was to work to abolish nuclear
weapons and to push compensation for the persons suffering from
the medical consequences of the tests. Thus, Rusten Tursunbaev,
the vice President of "Nevada-Semipalatinsk" could
say "The signing of the agreement on a nuclear-weapon-free
zone in Central Asia is a remarkable, unbelievable moment and
event — not just for Central Asia, but for the whole world."
It is an unfortunate aspect of world politics that constructive,
institution-building action is usually undertaken only because
of a crisis. The growing pressure building in the Middle East
could lead to concerted leadership for a Middle East nuclear-weapon-free
zone. The IAEA has the technical knowledge for putting such a
zone in place. (2). Now there needs to be leadership from within
the Middle East states as well as broader international encouragement.
ElBaradei’s appeal may be the sign of a serious start.
Notes:
(1) See Shai Feldman.Israeli Nuclear Deterrence: A Strategy for
the 1980s (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982)
Louis Rene Beres(ed.). Security or Armageddon (Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books, 1985)
Roger Pajak. Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East (Washington,
DC: The National Defense University, 1982)
(2) See Michael Hamel-Green.Regional Initiatives on Nuclear-and
WMD-Free Zones (Geneva: United Nations Institute for Disarmament
Research, 2005)
Rene Wadlow is the editor of www.transnational-perspectives.org and an
NGO representative to the United Nations, Geneva.
|
