Any final agreement from the NPT revision conference, due to end on Friday, will be determined by last minute trade offs, writes Ezzat Ibrahim from New York Hectic efforts are being exerted to finalise an agreement at the NPT revision conference, which is due to issue its closing statement on Friday. Al-Ahram Weekly has learned that the Iranian delegation, which is taking part in the drafting process, has requested more time to study the document. The proposed agreement calls for holding a "preparatory" conference for the creation of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East by 2012. This regional conference would be attended by the countries that the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) classifies as part of the Middle East, including both Iran and Israel. The UN secretary- general would be asked to appoint a general coordinator for the regional conference, charged with reporting any progress to preparatory NPT revision meetings convened before the next full conference in 2015. The draft document calls on Middle East countries that have not yet signed the NPT to do so. Though it failed to mention Israel by name, Israel is the only country in the region that is not a signatory to the NPT. According to Egypt's permanent UN Envoy, Maged Abdel-Fattah, negotiations on the final draft began early Wednesday. Egypt is expected to relay the views of the non-aligned movement (NAM) and the countries of the New Agenda Coalition to the conference during the final hours of the discussions. The Middle East conference should be more than "a photo opportunity", Abdel-Fattah said. The Weekly has also learned that the Arab group may ask for a coordinating committee rather than a coordinator to take charge of the regional conference. The Arab group also objected to the wording of the part of the agreement which states that arrangements for the Middle East conference must be determined "freely" by countries in the region. In addition, Arab countries want the NPT conference to call on Israel by name to join the NPT. The clause on the Middle East is currently part of the agreement relating to NPT revision. The Arab group wants to see it incorporated in the working plan. Reservations were voiced by the Non-Aligned Movement about the absence of a timetable to dispose of all nuclear weapons worldwide. In wording that recalls the 2000 statement, the NPT revision conference requests a clear commitment on the part of all nuclear countries to full dismantling of their nuclear arsenals. But while the 2000 statement called for a reduction in tactical weapons, no such demand is made in the current draft. The draft simply asks for more efforts to reduce all types of nuclear weapons, and for clear measures of verification. A proposal that nuclear countries meet together has run into resistance. Instead, the draft agreement calls on the UN secretary-general to hold a high-level meeting to draw up a "roadmap" for the elimination of all nuclear weapons. Nuclear countries are also said to have opposed the creation of a subsidiary authority affiliated to the NPT revision conference which would be mandated to handle questions of nuclear disarmament. A proposal to enhance the inspection system through the IAEA additional protocol met with stiff opposition from the NAM, whose members voiced resentment over attempts by France, Britain and the US to press for the worldwide adoption of the additional protocol. Nuclear countries believe that the protocols are important to prevent cheating, while the NAM maintains that additional measures should remain voluntary. Disagreement also surfaced over the eighth clause of the agreement, which describes the additional protocols as an integral part of the IAEA system of guarantees. A full system of guarantees, combined with the additional protocols, are the best way to verify the goals of Article 3 of the NPT agreement, nuclear countries argued. The NAM is also opposed to Clause 17 of the working plan, which urges signatories to "consider" blocking any nuclear supplies to countries that do not join the additional protocol. The draft agreement in part echoes the language of the additional protocol. The NAM and the Western Group are also at loggerheads over what guarantees nuclear countries should offer non-nuclear states.
