 |
 |
|
||
|
|
|
Paper from Working Group 2 2.4 (Matousek)
Attitudes of the Near- and Middle-East Countries to the WMD Disarmament and Arms Control Jiri Matousek
Summary Analysis of membership in the main disarmament and arms-control documents dealing with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) shows that with exception of Geneva Protocol (1925), countries of the Near- and Middle-East region that are in present conflict, generally belong to non States Parties to the most important agreements dealing with WMD issues. These membership aspects are discussed with regard to security situation in this region and visions of its solution. INTRODUCTION This paper analyses membership in modern multilateral disarmament and arms-control agreements dealing with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that is generally in clear coincidence with the main conflict situation that had emerged in the second half of the 1940s on the territory of then Palestine for known reasons. This should be understood that main actors of this conflict are not States Parties to such agreements because they either signed but not yet ratified them or do not signed them at all. The paper tries to show benefits of accession of non-States Parties to the said agreements and eventually refrain from possession of the relevant WMD in good faith because they cannot use them for political reason. MEMBERSHIP IN ARMS-CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT AGREEMENTS Extent of the Near- and Middle East Region For the purposes of subsequent analysis, the region is defined by following countries: Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Quatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Geneva Protocol - GP (1925) Membership in this oldest modern arm-control document, dealing with chemical and biological weapons clearly shows that membership is in most cases much older than present conflict. Egypt, as original signatory (17.06.1925) ratified it on 06.12.1928. To older (pre-WW-II) members belong also Iran (05.12.1929) and Iraq (08.09.1931). All above mentioned countries of the region are States Parties (SPs) to the GP, (the other acceding to it between 1968 – 1988), while the total number of all SPs to the GP is (only) 133. Non-Proliferation Treaty – NPT (1968) As for the membership in the Treaty on Nuclear Non-Proliferation, it can be said that most of the countries of the region signed the treaty already in 1968, while the ratification (or accession) proceeded between 1968 and 1989. All countries of the region belong to SPs with the exception of Israel (considered to possessing NW). The NPT has now 189 SPs. Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention – BTWC (1972) Most of the states of the region signed the BTWC already in 1972, Bahrain acceded in 1988, Sudan in 2003. From the countries of the region, only Egypt, Israel and Syria are non-SPs to the BTWC (evoking thus a suspicion to be potential possessors of BTW – see note in the Discussion). The BTWC has now 155 SPs. Chemical Weapons Convention – CWC (1993) Only 7 states belong to original signatories (Sudan acceded in 1999, Yemen in 2000, Libya in 2004). From the countries of the region, altogether 5 states are non-SPs, i.e. Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon and Syria (being therefore in suspicion to be potential possessors of CW – see note in the Discussion). Israel signed but not yet ratified, other states have not yet signed. At present, the CWC has 180 SPs Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty – CTBT (1996) 10 states of the region belong to signatories, but this treaty belongs to those with the highest number of non-SPs among countries of the region. Among non-SPs, we can meet Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen. This does not mean that all of them are somehow considered to be associated with nuclear programme. The CTBT has now 134 SPs (it has not entered into force due to the lacking 10 states with nuclear programme, necessary for its ratification according to the Treaty Annex II). Another agreements Among other agreements of some relevance, it is possible to mention:
DISCUSSION It is without any doubt that activities in the system of disarmament and arms-control including membership in the agreement, treaties and conventions belong to rights of states together with other measures how to assure their security and cannot be considered as something like obligation. On the other hand, attitude to the security system shared by the global or regional community of states can be considered as something like commitment or on the other hand as reflection of some intention to use some weapons considered by other part of the world community as condemned by general opinion due to their extremely adverse effects on man and biota. If we speak on CW, all countries of the region are bound by the Geneva Protocol (1925) prohibiting their use – this is perhaps the only good news. In negotiating the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), the Arabic neighbours of Israel (and their sympathizers) expressed their legitimate intention to bind their signature on refraining Israel from its nuclear programme, wishing to have in the meantime something like counterweight in the domain of WMD, considering CW as “weapons of poor man”. Certain breakthrough against this unity was made by Libyan accession to the CWC in 2004. Maybe that this unilateral step could serve as an good example to be followed by other countries of the region. CW are incomparable with NW even if their potential limited use is perhaps politically more tolerable than nuclear attack, even if also quite undesirable and against general opinion. But the same step should be undertaken by Israel that have signed but not ratified the CWC. Very similar situation is in case of BTW, where the main countries of the region (Egypt, Syria and Israel) are also outside. Israel belongs also to those rare countries that are outside the NPT and together with several countries of the region also outside the CTBT. It clear that any solution of current complex situation cannot be solved by any side of conflict by military means the less by threat with or use of any kind of WMD. This would be equal to something like political suicide. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The conflict situation in Near- and Middle East is accompanied by frequent non-membership in basic global multilateral agreements on WMD disarmament and arms control. The absence of membership, connected with suspicion on possession of certain kinds of WMD can be considered as something like threat with potential use according to the classical posture of deterrence, practiced for decades by another including major powers. This posture can be considered as counterproductive because these weapons cannot be used for political reasons. This posture is more-or-less a hindrance to the common understanding as a base of solving the conflict by peaceful political measures. The way ahead in solving the conflict leads over refraining from all kinds of WMD by all countries of the region and their accession to the main disarmament and arms-control agreements Notes and references
|