 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 25 - 31 May 2000 Issue No. 483 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 25 - 31 May 2000 Issue No. 483
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Focus Features Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters A diplomatic coup of sorts
By Dina EzzatIt was a major achievement for Egyptian foreign policy to get the review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to make a specific reference to Israel as the one country in the Middle East that has failed to join the NPT.
"... All states of the Middle East, with the exception of Israel, are parties to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons," read a resolution adopted by the conference that closed on 19 May in New York.
Foreign Minister Amr Moussa reacted by noting that "this [language] that makes a textual reference to Israel has ended a [policy] of dealing with Israel as an exception." Moussa, speaking to reporters on Sunday, added: "This is a big step... This is a great success for the hard and persistent efforts of Egyptian diplomacy... President Hosni Mubarak is pleased with this outcome."
Specifying Israel is a step forward since a Middle East-related resolution was adopted by a 1995 NPT conference in which the treaty was indefinitely extended. At the time, Egypt and the United States became embroiled in a political dispute triggered by Washington's unease with Egyptian attempts to lobby for international opposition to the indefinite extension to demonstrate frustration with the exemption of Israel. A compromise was then reached under which Egypt agreed to stop its diplomatic campaign in return for the adoption of a resolution on the Middle East by the conference.
This resolution called "upon all states in the Middle East that have not yet done so, without exception, to accede to the treaty as soon as possible and to place nuclear facilities under full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards."
Moussa said that "the success we have today is the outcome of non-stop political and diplomatic efforts that have been made since 1995."
But what does this all mean if Israeli officials are saying that their government is not prepared to abandon its ambiguous policy on nuclear armament?
"We should not deceive ourselves because that is exactly what we would be doing if we thought that we had reached the final stage of our effort to get the Middle East to move in the direction of becoming a zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction," Moussa said.
He added that he expects Israel to take a negative position, "but I call upon it to do otherwise and to start reconsidering its nuclear policy because stability cannot be realised in the Middle East if the issue of nuclear armament remains unresolved."
According to sources close to the New York conference, Israel was disappointed that the United States allowed this language to be be used in the Middle East resolution. The sources suggest that the US position was prompted by Washington's disappointment with Israel's military and technological cooperation with China. Moreover, it seems that it would have been unpalatable for the United States, the principal sponsor of the Middle East peace process, to clearly demonstrate bias in Israel's favour.
According to Moussa, Egypt "appreciates the position of the five nuclear powers -- the United States, Russia, France, Britain and China -- who supported this strong reference to the issue [of Israel's non-accession to the treaty]."
However, in return for tolerating this language on Israel, the United States and Britain insisted on making a reference to Iraq. "Since the cessation of the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspections in Iraq on 16 December 1998, the agency has not been in a position to provide any assurance of Iraq's compliance with its obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 687," the Regional Issues resolution said.
And yet the allusion to Iraq did not shift attention away from Israel. In an attempt to ease some of the international pressure to which it is exposed, Tel Aviv sent an envoy to Cairo a few days before the NPT conference ended to suggest an Israeli interest in bilateral talks on issues related to arms control in the Middle East within the framework of the currently suspended multilateral talks. This could prove, however, to be another Israeli ploy since Israel has been refusing to discuss its nuclear status in the multilateral talks on arms control. For its part, Egypt has insisted that any discussion of the issue of arms control in the region should cover Israel's nuclear status. According to Moussa, Egypt, so far, has not received any clear indication that Israel is serious about having bilateral talks on the issue.
Egypt began promoting its agenda for banishing nuclear weapons from the Middle East in 1974 when, together with Iran, it submitted a relevant resolution for adoption by the UN General Assembly.
And what is Egypt's next move? Answers Moussa, "Israel has been requested to open all its nuclear facilities to international inspection... This may constitute the basis for greater cooperation between [Egypt] and the nuclear states and other NPT parties... The objective is to make the Middle East a zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction."
