Today (Friday), the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will conclude in New York, amid cautious optimism regarding the possibility that the conference will issue a new charter that reflects international consensus on the need to curb nuclear proliferation, and also on the need for nuclear countries to dismantle some of their arsenals. The conference might fail, in which case the Arabs will probably be blamed for the failure because of the positions of some Arab countries on Israel, and of others on Iran. But in case the conference succeeds, it is likely that the final declaration will include a call for holding a regional conference, with the participation of the five major powers. Such a conference would be the first of its kind, as it will bring together the countries of the Middle East to discuss regional security. This will be a precedent in that it will require non-traditional efforts for its preparation, ones that involve parties beyond governments. The Arab countries were absent, or were excluded, from the talks on the Iranian nuclear program which were confined to the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France and Germany. Turkey – and Brazil – then involved themselves as de facto parties of interest in this issue, causing ire for the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and embarrassing the Arabs. The United Nations had succeeded in dismantling Iraq's WMD stockpiles though UNSCOM, which was headed by the time by the famous Swedish diplomat Rolf Ekéus. But the Arabs were absent when the United States went on to invade Iraq and do away with Saddam Hussein's regime, as the achievement of dismantling Iraq's WMDs was not satisfactory enough for the United States, which also appeared indifferent to UN Resolution 687 and its article 22, which called for lifting the oil embargo on Iraq after dismantling its prohibited weapons. While Iraq's WMDs were being dismantled in the nineties, something extraordinary happened in 1995 when the Arabs, led by Egypt at the time, accepted the indefinite extension of the NPT, and backtracked from their previous insistence on the condition that Israel must first sign the Treaty before they approve the extension. In other words, the Arabs had agreed to exempt Israel from nuclear accountability at a time when the United Nations went on to dismantle the chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities of Iraq. In return, the Arabs extracted a resolution that calls for a WMD-free zone – including nuclear weapons – in the Middle East. This resolution, which has been shelved for 15 years, has been reawakened in the conference in New York which ends today amidst Arab disagreements, divisions in the ranks of the Non-Aligned Movement nations, and surprises by the nuclear countries which are keen on preserving their privileges. But if the New York conference should end with the revival and execution of that resolution, then this is worth a closer examination. The mere consensus on the idea of holding a regional conference on security that will deal with the issue of the WMDs, with the participation of the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France and other countries concerned, is an important development by itself. Those determined to hold the conference say that the Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu recently informed Washington of his approval of holding such a conference, but that he enclosed his approval with some conditions. Those same parties say that the major nuclear countries will not accept all these conditions, but even if they are to accept some of the latter, what matters is that Israel accepts to sit at a regional discussion meeting on the basis of an international resolution that calls for a WMD- and nuclear-weapons free Middle East. This means that this conference will open the door for discussing Israel's possession of nuclear weapons at a regional-international conference on security, and this is a step forward towards eliminating the ‘deliberate ambiguity' in Israel's strategy of not declaring its possession of such weapons. In the interview that Al-Hayat conducted with him recently in New York, the Bahraini Foreign Minister Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa proposed the idea for a regional conference on security that brings together the Arabs, Israel, Iran and the major powers. What matters in holding such a conference, pursuant to a call that might possibly be made in the final declaration of the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is that it would be based on the 1995 resolution calling for a nuclear-weapons free Middle East. According to those closely involved in the negotiations over the details of the regional conference that is supposed to be held within two years – if indeed approved by the New York conference today – Iran is willing to participate and to sit at the same table with Israel, on the condition that this would not be declared. In other words, Israel's name must not be declared on the same table with that of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In truth, this is possible. There are many precedents that have dealt with such issues, including, for example, declaring the name of the negotiator but not the state to which he or she belongs. The Arabs, without exception, seem to be satisfied with the idea of a regional conference on security, which had been first called for by Egypt. They all want to be present because a conference as such will not only tackle the issue of how to dismantle this or that weapon, but will also address the existing security order and perhaps will help formulate a new one. For this reason, no one wants to be absent. There is talk, for example, revolving around the strategic long-term thinking about how to arrive at a day when the countries that refuse to join the NPT – Israel, India and Pakistan – will no longer need ‘national' nuclear weapons, by providing ‘positive assurances' or ‘protection' by one or several nuclear states. Meanwhile, the United States and Russia and also the European countries and Israel sought to link the conference for creating a nuclear-weapons free Middle East to the peace process. However, the Arabs opposed this and insisted on not linking the two issues in absolute terms. Perhaps it is meaningful to contemplate some sort of link between nuclear disarmament and peace. Israel, despite the declared ambiguity and its non-declaration of its sophisticated nuclear arsenal, has based its strategy on the view that is it in a state of war with the Arabs, and that the nuclear weapons are aimed at ‘deterrence in case of war'. Later on, they went on to try to evade that equation, and began preparing the justification of their continued possession of nuclear weapons as a ‘deterrent in times of peace' as well. If the Arabs engage in some deep, calm and strategic thinking, they may find that the correlation between the regional security conference - that will see the participation of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, in addition to the countries in the regions - and a peace conference, is an opportunity to promote Arab political and security interests. This is because the United Nations, Russia, the European Union and the United States also make up the Quartet for the Middle East Peace Process, currently sponsored by the United States. Also, the United Nations would offer the ‘umbrella' for a security conference that will be a precedent in terms of Arab participation when the major powers discuss the future of the region. In truth, the negotiations regarding the mechanism and functions of the conference, and the extent of the UN's involvement, lasted for weeks amidst disputes and even quarrels among the key players. The Egyptian ambassador Maged Abdel Aziz, who conducted the negotiations, found himself fighting on various fronts in a confrontation with Syria which insisted that Iran must not be mentioned in the final declaration, and with the head of the U.S delegation to the conference, and who was not diplomatic. The head of the Russian delegation also resorted to shouting even at senior officials in the conference, when things did not go to Russian's liking. Washington then got briskly involved, as it summoned the Arab ambassadors in Washington to a meeting with the National Security Advisor Jim Jones. Then the Vice President Joe Biden came to the meeting all of a sudden, to emphasize that the message comes from the highest levels: the U.S administration will not accept that Israel be mentioned in the context of demanding it – through the final declaration – of matters that must be left to when the conference is held or prepared for. Jones and Biden both insisted thus that Iran needs to be mentioned in the declaration in return for mentioning Israel, in the sense that Iran is the only country that has signed the NPT, and that is in violation of the treaty. This was rejected in absolute terms by Syria, while insisting that Israel should be mentioned as a state that poses a serious threat in the region. The U.S administration made it clear to the Arab ambassadors in Washington, through the Vice President and the National Security Adviser that the failure of adopting a final declaration translates into the failure of the conference. This means that the international blame will be assigned to the Arab positions in an issue as significant as the nuclear issue. The U.S administration also made it clear that if the New York conference fails, Obama's nuclear strategy will also fail. The Obama administration fancies embarking on dual tracks– as usual: The first leads to a regional security conference that in turn leads to discussing ways to implement the 1995 resolution. The other track is that of the political negotiations towards peace in the Middle East between Israel and the Arabs. In the meantime, the Obama administration hopes to succeed in persuading Iran to comply and return to negotiations for a diplomatic solution for the Iranian nuclear crisis, and perhaps to work on the regional security conference that would run parallel to the efforts of the 5+1 group of states. Today is an important day for the Treaty on the non-proliferations of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. Failure is extremely costly, but success must engender radical evolutionary thinking.
