A nuclear arms race in the Middle East would leave us all living in fear, writes Ahmed Abdel-Halim* Peace and security in the Middle East cannot be achieved without a political settlement, a suitable level of economic cooperation, and even-handed security measures. For that to happen, we need to address current nuclear programmes in the region and build momentum towards the Middle East being declared an area free of all weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. Egypt, a signatory of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT), wants to avert a new arms race in the region, one that could prove detrimental to all countries involved. Egypt wants to create a situation in which all regional powers enjoy security and are protected. Such a mechanism should be based on international legitimacy, regional cooperation, and goodwill, rather than nuclear deterrence. The Middle East has only one confirmed nuclear power: Israel. Another appears on the way: Iran. But Iran -- with Egypt's encouragement -- favours removing all nuclear weapons from the Middle East. Admittedly, the discarding of nuclear weapons is not an easy matter, nor can it be done overnight. But a declaration of intent from all concerned parties would be a good starting point. Such a declaration should coincide with several goodwill measures, including a moratorium on the production and testing of nuclear weapons and the disclosure of weapons already stockpiled in the region. Concerned parties and international agencies need to get involved in the verification process. Egypt's position emanates from the initiative President Hosni Mubarak launched 8 April 1990. This initiative includes three components: banning all weapons of mass destruction -- nuclear, chemical and biological -- from the region; pledges by all countries -- without exception -- to maintain that ban; verification and inspection measures to guarantee that countries abide by their commitments. The initiative is crucial on more than one level. It applies to all countries, takes into account the complexities of the current situation, and has solid international support. But Israel and the US have opposed it. The ultimate aim of international non- proliferation efforts is to create a world that is free of nuclear weapons, a world in which all nations can live in peace and security. The use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes is quite legitimate. Egypt believes that all signatories of the NPT are entitled to have their own peaceful nuclear programmes. In particular, Egypt supports the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the ban on fissile material for armament purposes, and the disposal of current stockpiles, access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and effective measures to avert an arms race, remove nuclear weapons, and create a region free of nuclear weapons. Israel is using security as a pretext to justify all or at least some of its policies and strategies. But what exactly does it want? Israel's current strategy involves several objectives. Israel wants to pursue regional expansion, attain military superiority over all Arab countries combined, maintain the Jewish nature of the state, block the creation of a Palestinian state, and maintain special ties with the US. Israel believes that military power is the main instrument of foreign policy. It believes in a monopoly of nuclear capabilities, in using space for military purposes, and in preventing other regional powers from reaching parity. Israel has kept the balance of military power tilted in its favour, while the Arabs tried to catch up. And having exhausted the "quantitative" possibilities of superiority, Israel started focussing on "qualitative" aspects. Israel's nuclear arsenal was at the heart of that qualitative quest, and Israel has benefited from the scientific and technological assistance provided by the US. Israel has been changing the structure of its conventional capabilities, modernising its nuclear programme, and pressing ahead with the military use of space for political purposes, especially as part of its missile defence programme. As a result, Israel's defence now combines conventional weapons, nuclear aspects, and space-age technology. Israel is thinking in terms of security and military means. It has a political and strategic equation in mind, one that defines who is entitled to security and who isn't. And the region has suffered as a result. Israel's nuclear capabilities have placed before Arab countries three options. The first is to push Israel to sign the NPT and then declare the region free of nuclear weapons. The second is to strengthen conventional capacities with sophisticated armament systems while using unconventional means to achieve parity with Israel's nuclear capabilities. The third option is to acquire nuclear weapons, a matter that involves risk and cost. Is Iran's nuclear programme geared towards peaceful purposes or weapons production? So far, there is no evidence that the Iranians want to make a nuclear bomb, but nothing would prevent them from doing so in the future. This uncertainty is what fuels the current international crisis. The Middle East has two options. One is for all countries to foreswear nuclear weapons and establish a balance of power based on conventional weapons. This balance of power should be even-handed. In other words, it should provide security for all through a process of regional cooperation. The other option is for Israel to remain a nuclear power, for Iran to follow suit, and for a nuclear arms race to emerge, leading everyone in the region to live in fear. What this region needs is to resolve current conflicts, not add new ones. * The writer is an expert in military strategy and member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs.
