September 7 2011
Concerns Grows Over Prospects for Middle East Disarmament Meeting
Concerns Grows Over Prospects for Middle East Disarmament Meeting
This article published by IPS news net provided us a quick glance of the obstacles we have faced in organizing 2012 Middle East WMDFZ.
The biggest problem is that states cannot agree over who should host the conference or serve as facilitator. We can see that to bring states in the Middle East to the meeting is a great challenge, especially when the region is still in a turmoil. Few states view disarmament as a top issue on the diplomatic agenda.
Moreover, the article pointed out the benefits of Israeli participation to the meeting, "Attending would improve Israel’s credentials in the region" and "It would give Israel the opportunity to point out the ways in which other countries in the region need to meet their own chemical, biological, and nuclear non-proliferation obligations."
In the end, the article made the conclusion that "disarmament in the Middle East cannot be accomplished over the course of a single conference, but without such an initiative, progress is even more unlikely."
The article can be found at the following link:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=104887August 25 2011
Some Important Persons Related to the Middle East WMDFZ Conference
1. Akira Kawasaki
A Peace Boat coordinator, a Vice Chair of ICAN (the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons)
A Peace Boat coordinator, a Vice Chair of ICAN (the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons)
Our blog already introduced her and her organization, the article can be found as titled: "On NGO participation in a Middle East NWFZ".
2. David Albright
President of the Institute for Science and International Security
"In a recent panel discussion held at the Hudson Institute, David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, expressed skepticism and concern about the 2012 Conference. He fears that failure to make progress in 2012 might undermine faith in the process overall, and that postponing the Conference may be the better option."
3. William Potter
Director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
"A failure to make progress on the WMD-free area could spell trouble for international cooperation on nonproliferation and disarmament as the next NPT review conference approaches in 2015."
4. Gary Samore
National Security Council coordinator for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, President Barack Obama's WMD coordinator
"Given the disagreements in the region on these issues and given the turmoil and uncertainty in the region, this whole thing is going to be a very challenging enterprise."
"'We are absolutely committed” to the conference".
5. Anne Penketh
Director of BASIC, British American Security Information Council.
She supports for 2012 NWFZ in Middle East conference, she writes widely in related articles.
Some of her articles:
* Unrest Complicates 2012 Middle East Meeting on Arms Control Association (March, 2011)
* This Week -- Concrete steps needed towards 2012 conference on WMD-free zone in the Middle East on BASIC, British American Security Information Council. (May 23, 2011)
6. Mohamed Shaker
The president of the 1985 NPT Review Conference, the chairman of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs
"Even with Egypt in chaos, we cannot lose sight of this issue which is so important for peace in the Middle East."
7. Maged Abdelaziz
Egypt's UN ambassador, who led the diplomatic push on the WMD-free zone at the NPT review conference in May 2010.
8. David Krieger
President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and a councilor on the World Future Council
He supports Middle East NWFZ.
9. Rebecca Johnson
Director of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy
She thinks that there must be some efforts made in order to make progress toward the goal of a nuclear free zone in the Middle East and nuclear disarmament.
Her article was introduced in our blog as titled: "Assessing the 2010 NPT Review Conference: A necessary political success, this year's conference has far reaching implications".
10. Chad O'Carroll
He illustrates the importance of Israel's participation in the upcoming 2012 Conference on the Middle East.
His article was introduced in our blog as titled: "The Importance of Israel's Participation in the 2012 Conference on the Middle East".
August 07 2011
Iran, Israel to Join EU Meeting on Mideast WMD-Free Zone
This article, originally published on July 6th by Global Security Newswire, reported on the upcoming EU meeting to discuss the organizatin of the 2012 Meeting on the Middle East to establish a NWFZ and WMDFZ. The meeting included important representatives from Iran, Israel, Syria, IAEA and the UN. Here are some highlighted quotes from the article:
"Anticipated topics at the meeting included nonproliferation efforts, nonmilitary atomic power" applications, confidence-building measures, and Middle Eastern security."
"The combination of attendees could promote a confrontational atmosphere, and only an outright collapse of the discussion or a series of diatribes would cause it to be considered a failure, [according to the Guardian.]"
The article can be found at the following link:
June 27 2011
The Importance of Israel's Participation in the 2012 Conference on the Middle East
The article "Making the 2012 Middle East Conference Work", published by the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation published an article by Chad O'Carroll illustrates the importance of Israel's participation in the upcoming 2012 Conference on the Middle East.
If there is not participation from all regional states the NPT will continue to be a stagnant effort and will continue to face problems in development of a nuclear free zone. The article talks about the US's efforts to create an environment in which Israel will participate in the 2012 conference. The US is concerned that Israel is being singled out in relation to nuclear non-proliferation in the Middle East and insists,“that Israel has unique security requirements” with the White House adding that “the United States will…ensure that arms control initiatives and policies do not detract from Israel’s security."
The US also holds Iran as one of the main treats to upcoming discussions on nuclear non-proliferation and has released a statement describing Iran as "the greatest threat to proliferation in the Middle East, and to the NPT, [to be] Iran’s failure to live up to its NPT obligations." The article points out that "regardless of the fact that Tehrans’s nuclear program is a real concern for the international community, it was always clear that Iran was never going to be called out in the same way as Israel – because Iran is a member of the NPT and therefore able to veto language in the final outcome document that it finds objectionable". This truth sheds light on the fact that Israel has not participated in any nuclear disarmament discussion or security measures and because of the continued controversy with Iran and the need for Israel to participate in the 2012 Middle East Conference, there is a great need for the establishment of some form of agreement between all Arab states.
The article describe the challenge of cooperation of Arab states and the approach to the upcoming 2012 Conference, "In short, the prospects for the 2012 Conference could be seriously jeopardized if States within the region do not make it clear that it will operate in an unbiased and constructive way. While the dynamics of the NPT final document and IAEA Board meetings might facilitate communiqués that criticize Israel as an outlier of the NPT and prevent language highlighting other regional WMD programs, it seems that Middle Eastern States genuinely interested in realizing the goals of the proposed 2012 Conference should refrain from using language that appears discriminatory."
These challenges along with others are part of the failure of past NPT conferences and will continue to decelerate the goals of nuclear non-proliferation, WMD free zone and ultimately nuclear disarmament.
The full article can be found at:
"Making the 2012 Conference Work"
The article "Making the 2012 Middle East Conference Work", published by the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation published an article by Chad O'Carroll illustrates the importance of Israel's participation in the upcoming 2012 Conference on the Middle East.
If there is not participation from all regional states the NPT will continue to be a stagnant effort and will continue to face problems in development of a nuclear free zone. The article talks about the US's efforts to create an environment in which Israel will participate in the 2012 conference. The US is concerned that Israel is being singled out in relation to nuclear non-proliferation in the Middle East and insists,“that Israel has unique security requirements” with the White House adding that “the United States will…ensure that arms control initiatives and policies do not detract from Israel’s security."
The US also holds Iran as one of the main treats to upcoming discussions on nuclear non-proliferation and has released a statement describing Iran as "the greatest threat to proliferation in the Middle East, and to the NPT, [to be] Iran’s failure to live up to its NPT obligations." The article points out that "regardless of the fact that Tehrans’s nuclear program is a real concern for the international community, it was always clear that Iran was never going to be called out in the same way as Israel – because Iran is a member of the NPT and therefore able to veto language in the final outcome document that it finds objectionable". This truth sheds light on the fact that Israel has not participated in any nuclear disarmament discussion or security measures and because of the continued controversy with Iran and the need for Israel to participate in the 2012 Middle East Conference, there is a great need for the establishment of some form of agreement between all Arab states.
The article describe the challenge of cooperation of Arab states and the approach to the upcoming 2012 Conference, "In short, the prospects for the 2012 Conference could be seriously jeopardized if States within the region do not make it clear that it will operate in an unbiased and constructive way. While the dynamics of the NPT final document and IAEA Board meetings might facilitate communiqués that criticize Israel as an outlier of the NPT and prevent language highlighting other regional WMD programs, it seems that Middle Eastern States genuinely interested in realizing the goals of the proposed 2012 Conference should refrain from using language that appears discriminatory."
These challenges along with others are part of the failure of past NPT conferences and will continue to decelerate the goals of nuclear non-proliferation, WMD free zone and ultimately nuclear disarmament.
The full article can be found at:
"Making the 2012 Conference Work"
June 13 2011
Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East: The Israeli perspective Israeli drive for nuclear capacity is due to existential anxieties. The Israeli situation has been very unique from other nuclear states in the sense that it adopted nuclear discretion (opacity). USA helped Israel in shaping its policy on the condition that it stays as a basement “non-testing and non-declared.” New treaties were created to verifiably end production of fissile material for nuclear weaponry, would therefore limit Israeli nuclear program, such plan was decided upon by President Obama but does not please Israel.Israel’s official policy supports creation of Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone (WMDFZ) but under conditions of regional comprehensive peace and then denuclearization. Israel does not contribute to regional arms control talks. Israel faces another fear, emerging from another context, which is Iran as it emerged and practically crossed the technological threshold.Israel believes that its opacity is the cause of prevention of Arab states to pursue a nuclear path.Implications of Iran declaring itself as a nuclear state would mean that the NPT failed. This would lead to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey forced to counter Shiite ‘nuclear empire’. Israel views the current wave of global disarmament agenda as less ‘disarmament’ and more ‘arms control’Israel’s nuclear opacity is successful but it did not work as a deterrent against conventional attacks or as warning to rivals against developing nuclear weapons. It views the creation of security and cooperation framework in the Middle East is key to enforcing NPT.
http://www.icnnd.org/Documents/Ben_Ami_Paper.pdf
June 12 2011
Rebecca Johnson- Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists http://www.thebulletin.org/
This article written by Rebecca Johnson, director of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, discusses the important issues faced in the 2010 NPT Review Conference, the role of the major participant states, significant agreements, and discussion on nuclear non-proliferation in the Middle East and future challenges and interests of the NPT.
This article written by Rebecca Johnson, director of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, discusses the important issues faced in the 2010 NPT Review Conference, the role of the major participant states, significant agreements, and discussion on nuclear non-proliferation in the Middle East and future challenges and interests of the NPT.
The author first touches upon the outcome of the conference and how it, “reflects agreements on 64 recommended actions covering nuclear disarmament, nonproliferation, nuclear energy for nonmilitary purposes, and a conference to facilitate progress on eliminating nuclear, chemical and biological weapons from the Middle East”. The conference also agreed on a “final document that contained a 13-paragraph program of action on nuclear disarmament-the result of tough negotiations between the permanent five nuclear weapons states and the New Agenda Coalition (NAC), which included Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, and Sweden. Among these important accomplishments of the 2010 NPT Review Conference, the article also discusses the major players in 2010.
The major players indicated by director Johnson are the United States, Egypt and Iran. According to the article, “[They] had been instrumental in the failure of the 2005 NPT Review Conference, the United States and Egypt, transformed their political approaches in the run-up to the 2010 conference. Iran, facing renewed criticisms over its nuclear program, which many fear may be converted to produce nuclear weapons in the future, found it far more difficult to hide behind its traditional allies within the 116-member Non Aligned Movement (NAM).” Each of these states’ roles in the 2010 NPT Review Conference is described in the article of which I wish to summarize
-The United States: The US has been reshaping its stance through the Obama Administration strengthening international law and the established security regimes that exist to prevent the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Obama pledged “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” After the failures of the 2005 NPT Review Conference the US has taken steps to set up its positive initiatives and commitments through leaders like Secretary of State Hilary Clinton; the overall goal being strengthening international nonproliferation objectives.
- Egypt: Egypt was considered the most influential player among the non-nuclear weapon states in constructing the 2010 outcome. Egypt was a member of the NAC that led negotiations on the 13 practical disarmament steps in 2000 and holds considerable influence politically in the Arab states. Along with Arab connections, “as current coordinator of the NAM and also chair of the NAC in 2010, Egypt played its hand superbly, gaining support for its objectives from a number of influential Western governments and neutralizing challenges from Iran.” Important successes in the 2010 NPT Review Conferences can be attributed to Egypt.
-Iran: Described as the third critical player, Iran “faced criticisms for breaching its safeguards agreement under NPT, particularly with regard to its uranium enrichment activities.” Despite President Ahmadinejad’s efforts in an opening speech, there were still harsh criticisms from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regarding his nuclear enrichment program that is five times the required amount for civilian use. Besides the criticisms, during the conference, “Iran concluded a nuclear fuel exchange with Brazil and Turkey on May 17 that was intended to establish “a positive, constructive, non-confrontational atmosphere leading to an era of interaction and cooperation.” This was opposed by the US and was met with hostility from NPT parties like Brazil and Turkey who were involved with the exchange. It was concluded that the US did this in order to prevent Iran from causing difficulties in the NPT Review Conference. But, throughout the rest of the conference Iran used skilled delegation, “seeking to block without being blamed.”In the final week Iran had succeeded in avoiding further criticism but held distaste for the outcome of the NPT Review Conference and hoped other participating states shared the same opinion.
Regarding the Middle East and Nuclear Disarmament, the article insists, “the hottest issue at the conference was undoubtedly the agreement to hold a Middle East conference in 2012, with the aim of making political progress toward establishing a zone free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction from the region.” This goal is very important and holds hopes for further discussion in 2012. The article discusses the role of Israel in this goal, and the active participation of Israel in the NPT and placing its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. Nuclear disarmament discussion was described as disappointing; without any concrete commitments beyond what had already been agreed to in 2000. In the future there will be further discussion of specific nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction in the region and key issues in strengthening safeguards and export controls. The author concludes that while there were much needed successes in the 2010 NPT Review Conference, there are also threats to future discussions that need to be addressed in order to make progress toward the goal of a nuclear free zone in the Middle East and nuclear disarmament. Threats take the form of implementation of the adopted agreements. There are also the challenges of issues not agreed upon at the conference. According to the article, the conference did not make much progress beyond the already standing agreements made in the 1995 and 2000 conferences on universality, safeguards, the additional protocol, export controls, nuclear safety and security. Some limitations of the conference are attributed to the “nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea, the nuclear arsenals of India, Pakistan, and Israel (which remain outside of the NPT).” Overall the article remains hopeful of future NPT efforts but also addresses future issues in these areas. The author describes the non-nuclear parties as:“Growing impatient with trying to repair a fractured regime by reiterating commitments that have not be fulfilled in good faith. If they give up on the current non-proliferation regime, they will either seek to build a more sustainable security architecture or they may pursue nuclear weapons or options of their own.”
-The United States: The US has been reshaping its stance through the Obama Administration strengthening international law and the established security regimes that exist to prevent the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Obama pledged “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” After the failures of the 2005 NPT Review Conference the US has taken steps to set up its positive initiatives and commitments through leaders like Secretary of State Hilary Clinton; the overall goal being strengthening international nonproliferation objectives.
- Egypt: Egypt was considered the most influential player among the non-nuclear weapon states in constructing the 2010 outcome. Egypt was a member of the NAC that led negotiations on the 13 practical disarmament steps in 2000 and holds considerable influence politically in the Arab states. Along with Arab connections, “as current coordinator of the NAM and also chair of the NAC in 2010, Egypt played its hand superbly, gaining support for its objectives from a number of influential Western governments and neutralizing challenges from Iran.” Important successes in the 2010 NPT Review Conferences can be attributed to Egypt.
-Iran: Described as the third critical player, Iran “faced criticisms for breaching its safeguards agreement under NPT, particularly with regard to its uranium enrichment activities.” Despite President Ahmadinejad’s efforts in an opening speech, there were still harsh criticisms from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regarding his nuclear enrichment program that is five times the required amount for civilian use. Besides the criticisms, during the conference, “Iran concluded a nuclear fuel exchange with Brazil and Turkey on May 17 that was intended to establish “a positive, constructive, non-confrontational atmosphere leading to an era of interaction and cooperation.” This was opposed by the US and was met with hostility from NPT parties like Brazil and Turkey who were involved with the exchange. It was concluded that the US did this in order to prevent Iran from causing difficulties in the NPT Review Conference. But, throughout the rest of the conference Iran used skilled delegation, “seeking to block without being blamed.”In the final week Iran had succeeded in avoiding further criticism but held distaste for the outcome of the NPT Review Conference and hoped other participating states shared the same opinion.
Regarding the Middle East and Nuclear Disarmament, the article insists, “the hottest issue at the conference was undoubtedly the agreement to hold a Middle East conference in 2012, with the aim of making political progress toward establishing a zone free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction from the region.” This goal is very important and holds hopes for further discussion in 2012. The article discusses the role of Israel in this goal, and the active participation of Israel in the NPT and placing its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. Nuclear disarmament discussion was described as disappointing; without any concrete commitments beyond what had already been agreed to in 2000. In the future there will be further discussion of specific nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction in the region and key issues in strengthening safeguards and export controls. The author concludes that while there were much needed successes in the 2010 NPT Review Conference, there are also threats to future discussions that need to be addressed in order to make progress toward the goal of a nuclear free zone in the Middle East and nuclear disarmament. Threats take the form of implementation of the adopted agreements. There are also the challenges of issues not agreed upon at the conference. According to the article, the conference did not make much progress beyond the already standing agreements made in the 1995 and 2000 conferences on universality, safeguards, the additional protocol, export controls, nuclear safety and security. Some limitations of the conference are attributed to the “nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea, the nuclear arsenals of India, Pakistan, and Israel (which remain outside of the NPT).” Overall the article remains hopeful of future NPT efforts but also addresses future issues in these areas. The author describes the non-nuclear parties as:“Growing impatient with trying to repair a fractured regime by reiterating commitments that have not be fulfilled in good faith. If they give up on the current non-proliferation regime, they will either seek to build a more sustainable security architecture or they may pursue nuclear weapons or options of their own.”
June 07 2011
WILPF: Non-Proliferation Treaty Documents, Histories, and Improvements
The Women's International League for Peace and Freedom has a website in which they provide information on the NPT and the history behind it. The website focuses on nuclear disarmament and demilitarization. Some information includes the treaty document, history of the process ranging from 1970-1995, taking points and the outcome and action plan for the 2010 NPT Review Conference. Also included is a fact sheet on the Who, What, When, and How of the NPT.
An important article found on the website addresses the outstanding issues under the NPT. The WILPF along with other global NGO's and governments involved concluded that areas of the NPT that need improvement are:
1. Reporting
2. Negative Security Assurances
3. Verification
4. Nuclear Energy
5. Non-strategic Nuclear Weapons
6. A Nuclear Weapons Convention
7. An NPT Secretariat
8. Nuclear Weapons Free Zones
9. NGO Participation
It is important to address these issues and look for ways in which to strengthen the NPT in these topics. Through our research at ACSIS we will research these issues and find ways to include information helpful to the improvement of the NPT.
For more information from the WILPF and the NPT in general you will find a link to their website below:
Reaching Critical Will: Reaching for a Critical Mass of Political Will for Nuclear Disarmament
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/
The Women's International League for Peace and Freedom has a website in which they provide information on the NPT and the history behind it. The website focuses on nuclear disarmament and demilitarization. Some information includes the treaty document, history of the process ranging from 1970-1995, taking points and the outcome and action plan for the 2010 NPT Review Conference. Also included is a fact sheet on the Who, What, When, and How of the NPT.
An important article found on the website addresses the outstanding issues under the NPT. The WILPF along with other global NGO's and governments involved concluded that areas of the NPT that need improvement are:
1. Reporting
2. Negative Security Assurances
3. Verification
4. Nuclear Energy
5. Non-strategic Nuclear Weapons
6. A Nuclear Weapons Convention
7. An NPT Secretariat
8. Nuclear Weapons Free Zones
9. NGO Participation
It is important to address these issues and look for ways in which to strengthen the NPT in these topics. Through our research at ACSIS we will research these issues and find ways to include information helpful to the improvement of the NPT.
For more information from the WILPF and the NPT in general you will find a link to their website below:
Reaching Critical Will: Reaching for a Critical Mass of Political Will for Nuclear Disarmament
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/
June 01 2011
On NGO participation in a Middle East NWFZ
Non-government Organizations (NGOs) have been key to keeping the discussions about a NWFZ in the Middle East alive. According to Akira Kawaski of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, "the NGO plans to organize a series of civil society roundtables that can engage professionals, academics, journalists, and others in efforts to build public support for the conference and to facilitate confidence building among different constituencies in the region."
For Sources and more information visit
Peace Boat promotes Middle East NWFZ
Non-government Organizations (NGOs) have been key to keeping the discussions about a NWFZ in the Middle East alive. According to Akira Kawaski of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, "the NGO plans to organize a series of civil society roundtables that can engage professionals, academics, journalists, and others in efforts to build public support for the conference and to facilitate confidence building among different constituencies in the region."
For Sources and more information visit
Peace Boat promotes Middle East NWFZ
May 31 2011
Our Hope for 2012
At a 2010 review conference of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) a proposal was made for a meeting of all Middle Eastern States in 2012 to discuss the possible establishment of a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (NWFZ) in the region. This would mean the complete disarmament of any existing nuclear weapons and full transparency of nuclear programs used for civilian purposes.
NWFZs have been established in other parts of the world, including South America, Africa, and Central and Southeast Asia, and our hope is that one day the Middle East will be added to this list.
For Sources and More information Visit
Global Security Newswire
NWFZs have been established in other parts of the world, including South America, Africa, and Central and Southeast Asia, and our hope is that one day the Middle East will be added to this list.
For Sources and More information Visit
Global Security Newswire
No comments:
Post a Comment