Middle East as a Weapon of
Mass Destruction Free Zone
(MEWMDFZ)
Presentation made
by
Jayantha Dhanapala
President, Pugwash Conferences on
Science and World Affairs
Middle East

The BICC’s Global Militarization Index (GMI) 2012
states that the Middle East is the region with the
highest level of militarization in the world. Five of the
top ten countries in the GMI are situated in the Middle
East: Israel (position 1), Syria (position 3), Jordan
(position 5), Kuwait (position 8), and Saudi Arabia
(position 10). Followed by others such as Oman (position
12), Bahrain (position 14), and the United Arab Emirates
(position 17) and Iran (position 32)

The SIPRI Year book 2011 states that the estimated
military expenditure in the M.E. in 2010 was $ 111billion
Non members of key
conventions

Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty – Israel

Biological weapons convention-Israel (Egypt
and Syria are signatories but have not ratified
yet)

Chemical weapons convention –Egypt, Syria,
(Israel a signatory but not yet ratified)
Brief History

17th session of the UNGA 1963- Egypt suggests nine
conditions for establishing a NWFZ in the Middle East.

29th session of the UNGA 1974 - Egypt and Iran introduce
a resolution calling for the establishment of a NWFZ in the
ME. The resolution was adopted at the UNGA by a majority
of 138 members (Israel and Burma abstain)

1980 onwards no opposition to the annual resolution
including Israel.
1986, Mordecai Vanunu’s disclosure of Israeli nuclear
weapon capability.


1990 UN Report -study on effective and verifiable
measures which would pave the way for a NWFZ in the ME
-Recommends CBMs & gives elements of an agreement
1990 UN Study - elements of a
possible agreement of a MENWFZ
Geographic extent –obtain the necessary broad political and legal
endorsement of the zone and overcome issues of ratification
through the use of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
in which parties are committed not to act in a manner that would
undermine the basic objectives of the agreement.
Basic prohibitions –the ban on any form of possession of a nuclear
weapon by some States. Decisions will be needed on whether
this ban will or will not extend to particular installations or
equipment aimed at either the development or the delivery of a
weapon.
Verification -Procedures expanding and reinforcing present IAEA
safeguards may be needed and it may be necessary to have staff
dedicated to compliance problems that could arise regarding the
1990 UN Study cont…
Technical clauses -a "core group" to participate in the
agreement as it is brought into force. arrangements for later
accessions and for possible amendments to be made.
Role of outside Powers- a commitment to respect the zone
and especially to remedy any breach or threat of breach of
its terms
Duration and withdrawal -an unlimited duration suggested.
The delay between notification of intent and the effective
date of withdrawal should be as extended as can be
justified.
Relationship to other international agreements –Zone to be
not dependent on the continued viability of any other
agreement but "preambular" endorsements of NPT etc and
some defined relationship to IAEA and its safeguards
system.
Developments in the 90’s

1990 President Mubarak of Egypt proposes the
establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass
destruction in the Middle East. (expanding on
longstanding calls to establish a NWFZ in the
Middle East but to be pursued in parallel to the
same).

1991-1995 The Middle East Arms Control and
Regional Stability (ACRS) talks of the Madrid peace
process was the first multilateral talks to address
regional security.
1995 NPTREC Resolution on
the Middle East:

The Resolution was a part of the package of
decisions adopted at the NPT Review and
Extension Conference in 1995.

NPT May 1995 resolution calls upon all states in
the Middle East to take practical steps towards
“the establishment of an effectively verifiable
Middle East zone free of weapons of mass
destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological,
and their delivery systems”
Recent Developments

2000 - The NPT RevCon reaffirms the goal of 1995
ME Resolution and states that the resolution is
“valid until its goals and objectives are achieved.”

2006 – The WMD Commission Final Report calls for
an intensification of international efforts to
establish a WMDFZ in the ME.

2010 - The NPT RevCon endorses 5 practical steps
to make progress towards the goal of establishing a
WMDFZ in the ME which include convening a
regional conference to discuss the issue in 2012 and
appointing a WMDFZ Facilitator.

2011 – IAEA Forum on NWFZ in ME concludes to
establish a NWFZ in ME, CBMS, break current
stalemate, etc
2010 NPT- Practical steps
The UNSG and the co-sponsors of the 1995 Resolution, in
consultation with the States of the region, will:
a)
convene a conference in 2012, on the establishment
of a ME ZFNW and all other weapons of mass
destruction. The 2012 Conference shall take as its
terms of reference the 1995 Resolution;
a)
Appointment a facilitator, with a mandate to support
implementation of the 1995 Resolution by conducting
consultations with the States of the region in that
regard and undertaking preparations for the
convening of the 2012 Conference. The facilitator will
also assist in implementation of follow-on steps
agreed by the participating regional States at the 2012
Conference. The facilitator will report to the 2015
Review Conference and its Preparatory Committee
meetings;
2010 NPT- practical steps cont.
(c) Designate a host Government for the 2012 Conference;
(d) Take additional steps aimed at supporting the
implementation of the 1995 Resolution, including that
IAEA, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons and other relevant international organizations
be requested to prepare background documentation for
the 2012 Conference regarding modalities for a zone
free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass
destruction and their delivery systems, taking into
account work previously undertaken and experience
gained;
(e) Take consideration of all offers aimed at supporting
the implementation of the1995 Resolution, including
the offer of the European Union to host a follow-on
seminar to that organized in June 2008.
Preparations for 2012
Conference on a ME WMDFZ



Conference Facilitator: Jaakko Laajava,
Under-secretary of state, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Finland.
Host country :Finland
Challenges: agenda, timing, participation,
conference outcome, possible postponement
of the conference due to Arab spring, Iran
nuclear programme, Israeli saber rattling and
US Presidential election
Issues to be addressed

What immediate arms control steps are
acceptable to all regional
actors? Realistically, these are the only ones
that might emerge from the conference.

What expert and working groups should be
formed as a concrete result of the
conference?

What wider processes might be launched at
the proposed 2012/2013 conference?

What can be done to prevent 2012/2013 from
being a damaging experience?

What WMD-related confidence-building
measures might be considered?

Source:http://www.pugwash.org/reports/nw/MEWMDFZ_26Sept_FIN.htm
2011 Public Opinion Poll of Jewish and
Arab Citizens of Israel Conducted by
Brookings & Zogby International


By a ratio of two to one, Israelis support
an agreement that would make the Middle
East a nuclear weapon free zone,
including Iran and Israel, with a system of
full inspections of all facilities where
nuclear components are built or stored.
Given a choice of two options, one where
both Israel and Iran have nuclear weapons
and one where neither has them, 65% of
Israeli Jews support the latter while only
19% support the former.
Territory

The 1989 IAEA Technical Study, which first took up the
geographic delimitation of a future Middle East NWFZ,
applied the concept to a region extending from Libya in
the west, to Iran in the east, and from Syria in the north
to Yemen in the south.

A subsequent UN Study expanded the concept further
by including all League of Arab states, plus Iran and
Israel in the zone. The Arab League has officially
endorsed the UN Study delimitation and Israel has
raised no objection other than note that any country in
the region should be publicly recognized and accepted
as an integral part thereof. Suggestions of including
Afghanistan, Pakistan as well as Turkey in the eventual
zone have not gained any significant traction.

Source :Arms Control Association, WMD-Free Middle East Proposal at a Glance
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/mewmdfz
Thank you