Evaluation Of The Legacy Of The N P T With Focus On The Middle East


Published on

Paper presented during my Masters studies at Alliant International University

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Evaluation Of The Legacy Of The N P T With Focus On The Middle East

  1. 1. “ Evaluation of the legacy of the NPT with focus on the Middle East ” Prepared by Abdelhamied El-Rafie Under The Supervision of Prof. Dr. Ana Cristina Petersen For The course of Research Methods in International Relations MAIR At Alliant International UniversityAbdelhamied El-Rafie
  2. 2. Introduction:My research will try to examine the relation between the legal framework of the NPT asa treaty and its legacy in practice with concentration on the Middle East so My researchtopic will be “ Evaluation of the legacy of the NPT with focus on theMiddle East ”My research questions will be: 1. Has the international system of Non Proliferation presented in the NPT prevented the spread of nuclear weapons. 2. this leads to the second question which is with application to the Middle East we find powers who are possessing or trying to poses Nuclear weapons so will the current system prevent these powers from not entering the NPT system or it might lead to an Arms race in the region? 3. This leads to the Third question which is what is the affection of the current Hierarchy of the International system and its present balance of power on the Non Proliferation in the Middle East?So the concepts I will be defining in my research are : 1. The Middle East. 2. Non Proliferation.My Hypothesis will be that Non compliance with the measures of prevention taken in theMiddle East by the NPT by not including all the Nuclear powers in the region to the NPTwill lead to a nuclear Arms race in the regionAbdelhamied El-Rafie
  3. 3. I. DefinitionsThe Middle East:“The "Middle East" as a term can be as contentious as the region it identifies. Its not aprecise geographical area like Europe or Africa. Its not a political or economic alliancelike the European Union. Its not even an agreed-upon term by the countries thatconstitute it. So what is the Middle East?The "Middle East" is not a term Middle Easterners gave themselves, but a British termborne of a colonial, European perspective. The terms origins are seeped in controversyfor having originally been a European imposition of geographic perspective according toEuropean spheres of influence. East from where? From London. Why "Middle"? Becauseit was half-way between the United Kingdom and India, the Far East.By most accounts the earliest reference to the "Middle East" occurs in a 1902 edition ofthe British journal National Review, in an article by Alfred Thayer Mahan entitled "ThePersian Gulf and International Relations." The term gained common usage after it waspopularized by Valentine Chirol, a turn-of-the-century correspondent for the Londontimes in Tehran. Arabs themselves never referred to their region as the Middle East untilthe colonial usage of the term became current and stuck.For a time, the "Near East" was the term used for the Levant--Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine,Syria, Jordan--while "Middle East" applied to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Iran. TheAmerican perspective lumped the region into one basket, giving more credence to thegeneral term "Middle East."Abdelhamied El-Rafie
  4. 4. Today, even Arabs and other people in the Middle East accept the term as a geographicalpoint of reference. Disagreements persist, however, about the exact geographicaldefinition of the region. The most conservative definition limits the Middle East to thecountries bound by Egypt to the West, the Arab Peninsula to the South, and at most Iranto the East.A more expansive view of the Middle East, or the Greater Middle East, would stretch theregion to Mauritania in West Africa and all the countries of North Africa that aremembers of the Arab League; eastward, it would go as far as Pakistan. The Encyclopediaof the Modern Middle East includes the Mediterranean islands of Malta and Cyprus in itsdefinition of the Middle East. Politically, a country as far east as Pakistan is increasinglyincluded in the Middle East because of Pakistans close ties and involvements inAfghanistan. Similarly, the former south and southwestern republics of the Soviet Union--Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan--can also beincluded in a more expansive view of the Middle East because of the republics cultural,historical, ethnic and especially religious cross-overs with countries at the core of theMiddle east.”(1)NPT Non Proliferation Treaty“The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), formally called the Treaty on theNonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, is the cornerstone of the international effort tohalt the proliferation, or spread, of Nuclear Weapons. The NPT was first signed in 1968by three nuclear powers—the United States, the Soviet Union, and the UnitedAbdelhamied El-Rafie
  5. 5. Kingdom—and by nearly 100 states without nuclear weapons. Itcame into force in 1970, and by the mid 1990s it had been signed by 168 countries.The NPT distinguishes between nuclear-weapon states and non-nuclear-weapon states. Itidentifies five nuclear-weapon states: China, France, the Soviet Union, the UnitedKingdom, and the United States.Article II forbids non-nuclear-weapon states that areparties to the treaty to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or nuclearexplosive devices. Article III concerns controls and inspections that are intended toprevent the diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons orexplosive devices. These safeguards are applied only to non-nuclear- weapon states andonly to peaceful nuclear activities. The treaty contains no provisions for verification ofthe efforts by nuclear-weapon states to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.Under the provisions of Article IV, all parties to the treaty, including non-nuclear-weaponstates, may conduct nuclear research and development for peaceful purposes. In returnfor agreeing not to develop nuclear weapons, non-nuclear-weapon states receive twopromises from nuclear- weapon states: the latter will help them to develop nucleartechnology for peaceful purposes (Art. IV), and the latter will "pursue negotiations inGood Faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at anearly date and to nuclear disarmament" (Art. VI). Since 1975, NPT signatory countrieshave held a review conference every five years to discuss treaty compliance andenforcement.”(2)Abdelhamied El-Rafie
  6. 6. Questions 1. Has the international system of Non Proliferation presented in the NPT prevented the spread of nuclear weapons?. The answer to this is simple which is NO because depending on the historical background there are nuclear powers other than the five mentioned powers in the treaty like India and Pakistan(1998). (3) But the answer is not that simple because there is a gap which lead to the spread of the know how of the technology of possessing nuclear arms now there are more restrictions like the pressure is currently on countries like Iran and North Korea. But this leads to a sub question which is analyzing the relation with the powers which are trying to acquire nuclear weapons and the Super powers specially the US? In cases like India and Pakistan we find that both countries are allies to the US to a certain extend but cases like Iran and North Korea we find that these countries were mentioned by different US administrations as Rogue states or part of Axis of evil. Let me explain more In my assumption that the International environment during the Indian and Pakistani nuclear explosions was facilitating to these two powers in srecial to acquire the nuclear weapons plus the fact that these two powers were in good relations with the US. (4) But on the contrary The North Korean and the Iranian examples show different facts that they were trying to challenge the US will that’s why there is a huge debate and argument about them possessing Nuclear weapons. 2. If we apply the above answers or if I may say discussions on the Middle East Will the Current system of the NPT prevent the occurrence of an Nuclear Arms race in the Region?Abdelhamied El-Rafie
  7. 7. This leads to some sub questions: 1. Who are the key Powers in the Middle east? 2. Who are the current Nuclear powers or who are trying to possess Nuclear military powers? 3. Will other UN -Nuclear powers in the region stay without a reaction in case of the possibility of occurrence of NUCLEAR Military powers in the region? 1. Who are the key Powers in the Middle east? • Egypt • Israel • Turkey • Iran • Saudi Arabia • Syria These are more or less are the major military powers in the region 2. Who are the current Nuclear powers or who are trying to possess Nuclear military powers?  Israel (never admitted that it acquires these weapons) but there is an agreement among many military official and semi official sources that it possess high tech nuclear military weapons and also what is called Tactical Nuclear weapons .  Iran there is a denial from the Iranian side that it develops Nuclear weapons although there is assurance from the west and Israel that Iran is trying to become a nuclear military power.(5)Abdelhamied El-Rafie
  8. 8. Analysis:“ President Obama is doing precisely what he campaigned on, namely, to open adialoguewith Iran. It’s an effort that began with his comments on Iran during his inauguraladdress, his videotaped Nowruz message to Iran last winter, a pair of quiet messages toAyatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Leader, and Obama’s careful and balanced response tothe post-election crisis over the summer. Once started, the talks aren’t likely to have aswift conclusion, but the very fact that they’re taking place will make it impossible forhawks to argue successfully either for harsh, “crippling” sanctions on Iran or for amilitary attack.Just look at the steps leading up to the October talks, to see why the Israelis find them soprecipitous.At July’s G-8 summit in Italy, Iran was given a September deadline to start negotiationsover its nuclear programs On September , Iran gave its answer: No.Instead, what Tehran offered was a five-page document that was the diplomaticequivalent of a giant kiss-off. It begins by lamenting the “ungodly ways of thinkingprevailing in global relations” and proceeds to offer comprehensive talks on a variety ofsubjects: democracy, human rights, disarmament, terrorism, “respect for the rights ofnations,” and other areas where Iran is a paragon. Conspicuously absent from thedocument is any mention of Iran’s nuclear program, now at the so-called breakout point,which both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his boss Ali Khamenei insist is not up fordiscussion.What’s an American president to do in the face of this nonstarter of a document? Whatelse, but pretend it isn’t a nonstarter. Talks begun Oct. 1.Abdelhamied El-Rafie
  9. 9. “The conclusion among Israelis is that the Obama administration won’t lift a finger tostop Iran,” hence Israel will be forced to act. That’s wrong for severals reasons, writesStephens, among them:For starters, its ability to do so is iffy: Israeli strategists are quietly putting it about thateven a successful attack may have to be repeated a few years down the road as Iranreconstitutes its capacity. . . .Most importantly, it is an abdication of a superpower’s responsibility to outsourcematters of war and peace to another state, however closely allied. President Obama hasnow ceded the driver’s seat on Iran policy to Prime Minister Netanyahu.Here are arguments. It may be in the long-term interests of the US not to confront Tehranover the one policy the Iranian people strongly support it on right now: the nuclearquestion. Given the strength of the internal resistance to the regime, it might be better toaccept some nuclear development while trying to exploit internal divisions witheconomic carrots. Containment, in other words: a policy that was once quite acceptableon the mainstream right.And what’s so awful about a nuclear stand-off between Iran and Israel in the MiddleEast?It is not necessarily a stable situation in a region when one country - and one countryalone - has nuclear weapons in a region like the Middle East. In fact, it might encouragethat country to act militarily with impunity, to over-reach and generate excessivehostility. Nuclear deterrence worked very well for much of the world for a long time inpreventing conflict rather than exacerbating it. It may be the one thing preventing anIndia-Pakistan war. Why is it unthinkable in the Middle East? . . .But what I really worry about in Stephens’ op-ed is the attempt to blame the US forAbdelhamied El-Rafie
  10. 10. Israel’s predicament. The truth is the opposite of Stephens’ claim: the US is not secretlypushing Israel to strike Iran; Israel is openly pushing the US to strike on its behalf. Whyon earth would any US president take that bait on Israel’s terms and on Israel’s time-table?But any such perspective just gets tossed here. Iran cannot have nukes like Israel has, andAmerica MUST wage pre-emptive war to stop that natural balancing.As I have said for a very long time now: #2 reaching for the nuke when #1 has one is notcrazy. That’s why Kim Jong Il and the DPRK needs to be our focus now, not Iran. Kimruns a totalitarian state, immune to pressure from below. Iran does not, as it’s clearlyevident today. The DPRK is a fake state with no claim to history. Iran is not, and it’sbeen around for centuries (unlike Israel). The DPRK is highly incentivized to use nukesas a result, but Iran is not. The DPRK is a terminal cult-of-personality criminal regime,while Iran is a late-stage revolutionary state whose ruling mafia is beset by infighting.I don’t see connectivity working with North Korea, I do see it working with Iran. That’swhy I don’t believe in talks with Kim, but I do believe in talks with Tehran.We have been down this path several times with countries like Iran, and know how tobalance the containment and rollback and efforts at detente designed for the soft-kill.There is no solid logic for going all wobbly on Iran’s nukes. We simply know how tomanage that package. . . .Eventually, Israel has to adjust itself to the reality of a nuclear stand-off. It cannot hold amonopoly forever. It is that simple.Why give any deference to proponents of so-called “pre-emptive” war that isn’t pre-empting anything? Why should we permit them to set the terms and define the limits ofAbdelhamied El-Rafie
  11. 11. the debate? Obama isn’t “making” Israel go to war against Iran, not least because the“threat” from Iran is vastly exaggerated and Israel’s security would not be significantlyundermined if Iran did acquire a nuclear weapons capacity. When Iran is far away fromacquiring such weapons, how much smaller is the Iranian “threat”?He also takes on Sullivan for not challenging Stephens’ assertions over the imminence ofthe a nuclear threat from Iran:The most significant assumption Stephens makes in his op-ed is that Israel has a perfectright to do whatever it thinks necessary to guard against any possible threat, no matterhow chimerical or far-fetched, and that it is the task of the United States government tochange Iranian behavior to prevent an unprovoked Israeli attack. No other state is grantedthis sort of exceptional treatment in its dealings with regional rivals as Israel is, andWashington exempts no other state so completely from the requirements of internationallaw as it does for Israel. At no point does Andrew challenge Stephens’ baseless claim thatIran is just a year or two away from possessing a nuclear weapon. ElBaradei has made itclear that this is fiction. Why does Andrew take seriously that Stephens is interested inthe “disarmament” of Iran when Iran has no nuclear weapons of which it can bedisarmed”(6)Facts:It is agreed upon the constants of the US strategic plans in the Middle East since the 50sis the security of Israel .This leads to another fact which is very clear specially since 1967 is giving Israel theedge on Military power by both quantity and quality so Israel is the strongest party in theequation of military power in the Middle East .Another fact :Israel is out of the NPT systemAbdelhamied El-Rafie
  12. 12. 3. Will other UN -Nuclear powers in the region stay without a reactionin case of the possibility of occurrence of NUCLEAR Military powersin the region? This depends on : Their relation with the US Their regional Importance Their relations with sources of Nuclear powers. Conclusions: For example the powers who have good relations with the US will be hesitated to start Military Nuclear Programs but on the Contrary Due to their regional Importance they will try to maneuver and try to take piece of the Nuclear cake in case there is a new Military Nuclear power in the region . Also there is a possibility that The parties who don’t have good relations with the US to contact the Black market of Nuclear Technology to obtain this kind of weapon . This will lead to the logic question which is what will happen if we assume the Iran,s Program is for military purpose ?????!!!!! This will mean that Iran is trying to change the equation of the region which was settled which is Threatening the Security of Israel which is a pillar of US strategy in the regionAbdelhamied El-Rafie
  13. 13. This will lead to that countries of the region will try to have peaceful Nuclear energy programs which is legal under the NPT But what if these parties contacted The parties which are ready to sell Nuclear Military technology Then this might mean that and this needs to technical proof that peaceful programs can change with some nasty work to military ones adding to this the instability and the uncertainty of the Middle East and its future without solving the core problem of the region which is establishing the Palestinian state and the return of the occupied territories of 1967 and declaring the region as free of Nuclear weapons . So the logic result will be there is a huge possibility of a nuclear arms race in the region.Abdelhamied El-Rafie
  14. 14. Resources: 1. http://middleeast.about.com/od/middleeast101/f/me080208.htm 2. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Nuclear+Non- Proliferation+Treaty 3. Article in Arabic retrieved September 27,2009 from the world wide web: http://mfa.gov.eg/MFA_Portal/ar- EG/Foreign_Policy/International_Relations/disarm/752009Nuclearweapon s.htm 4. Article in Arabic retrieved September 27,2009 from the world wide web: http://mfa.gov.eg/MFA_Portal/ar- EG/Foreign_Policy/International_Relations/disarm/16_8_2007_nuclear_st atement_Naela_gabr.htm 5. Article in Arabic retrieved September 27,2009 from the world wide web Article in Arabic retrieved September 27,2009 from the world wide web: http://mfa.gov.eg/MFA_Portal/ar- EG/Foreign_Policy/International_Relations/disarm/16_8_2007_statement 2_.htm 6. The Latest on Bombing or Talking to Iran By Eric Etheridge September 16, 2009, 6:29 pm retrieved September 28,2009 from the world wide web: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/the-latest-on- bombing-or-talking-to-iran/?scp=3&sq=npt&st=cseAbdelhamied El-Rafie
  15. 15. Readings: 1. TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS retrieved September 22,2009 from the world wide web , http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Other s/infcirc140.pdf 2. APPLICATION OF IAEA SAFEGUARDS IN THE MIDDLE EAST Report by the Director General to the Board of Governors and to the General Conference retrieved September 27,2009 from the world wide web: http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC43/Documents /gc43-17a2.html 3. Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), and 1835 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran Report by the Director General. Retrieved October 2 ,2009 the world wide web: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2009/g ov2009-55.pdf 4. IAEA Chief Addresses Historic UN Security Council Meeting UN resolution calling for nuclear disarmament approved at meeting Staff Report 24 September 2009 retrieved September 27,2009 from the world wide web: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2009/unscmeeting. htmlAbdelhamied El-Rafie