Libya's decision to abandon WMDs should focus attention on the Israeli nuclear arsenal, writes Ibrahim Nafie In a surprise announcement on Saturday Libya declared that it had decided to abandon its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and rid itself of all substances, equipment and programmes that might be used in producing internationally banned weapons. The statement, delivered by Libyan Foreign Minister Abdel-Rahman Shalqam, expressed Libya's readiness to accept immediate international inspections and declared that Libya would abide by the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, the IAEA Safeguards Agreement and the Biological Weapons Convention. It further pledged to sign the Additional Protocol of the IAEA Safeguards Agreement and the Biological and Chemical Weapons Treaty. Explaining this decision, Shalqam said "the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriyah [GSPLAJ] believes that the arms race will serve neither its own nor the region's security and contradicts its eagerness for a world that enjoys peace and security." This courageous decision was met with international acclaim. Some international officials, moreover, cited it as evidence of a more productive way of handling international and regional crises. Of particular note was the statement issued by the EU higher representative for joint foreign and security policy, who said: "The position of the Libyan Jamahiriyah demonstrates that diplomatic action can win the battle to halt the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and that winning confidence through transparency is the best means to reintegrate with the international community." The Libyan announcement comes after nine months of secret negotiations between Libyan, British and US experts. Although the beginning of these negotiations coincided with the buildup to the invasion of Iraq, all the parties involved stressed that the Libyan decision was based on a variety of considerations. In their statements, moreover, US officials pointed out that Colonel Gaddafi was "the primary instigator" of these negotiations, having asked to meet with US and British officials for this purpose in March, following his agreement to settle the Lockerbie case. The officials were further keen to express their appreciation of how generous the Libyan leader was with his time and unstinting cooperation. In spite of such attestations to Libyan motives and behaviour some Western officials attributed them to the fear of being targetted for a repetition of the Iraq scenario. British Defence Minister Geof Hoon, for example, said "Tripoli's admission to its nuclear activities is directly related to the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein." Not surprisingly, the Israeli media seized upon this notion to praise the success of US policy in the region, insisting Libya's decision was clearly prompted by its leader's fear of "meeting the same end as Saddam Hussein". Naturally Israel would want to misconstrue Libya's motives. As President Mubarak pointed out in his speech in Sadat City on Sunday, "Libya has announced that it has halted all WMD programmes. This is an excellent step... which will have an important impact throughout the world, including in Israel, which must eliminate its WMDs by any means." As Mubarak, as well as the Libyan statement, made clear, the Libyan decision must be seen within the context of rendering this region free of all WMDs. The US led the invasion and occupation of Iraq on the pretext of eliminating that country's WMDs and occupation forces have since been combing that country for its elusive weaponry. More importantly, in this context, whatever new regime is established in Iraq can be expected to abide by all international conventions and inspections procedures regarding banned weaponry. We note, too, that the Libyan announcement came soon after Iran had signed the NPT additional protocol. This landmark move, midwifed by a visit by an EU Troika delegation to Tehran, ensures that Iran's nuclear programme will be subject to IAEA supervision and inspection and, thereby, restricted to purely peaceful purposes. Following events in Iraq, Iran and Libya, the stage is set to free the Middle East of all WMDs. This has been a dream long cherished by Egypt. On 8 April, 1990 President Mubarak launched his initiative to "ban all weapons of mass destruction without exception, whether nuclear, biological or chemical, from the Middle East". Since then, Egypt has been working ceaselessly to put this initiative into effect, and with every appeal for a radical and comprehensive solution to this problem Egyptian diplomacy has won new supporters. A recent victory is embodied in the statement in April by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin who, expressing the opinion of the EU, stated, "President Mubarak's project to transform the Middle East into a region free of weapons of mass destruction, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 687, forms a solid foundation for realising this aspiration." Unfortunately, there remains but one obstacle: Israel. Israel is now the only nuclear power in the region, and it possesses as well a full compliment of other WMDs. As long as this situation persists the dream of freeing the region of WMDs will remain out of reach because the threat posed by Israel will inspire other countries to seek a nuclear capacity. That this threat is real is evident in such statements as that issued by Israeli Minister of Defence Shaul Mofaz following Tehran's signing of the NPT additional protocol in which he reiterated Israel's threat to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. It is thus imperative that Israel should no longer remain the sole exception in this region to the provisions of international law. Indeed, it is because of Israel's persistent flouting of international law, with the full support of the US, that European opinion polls have rated Israel as the leading threat to world peace. Israel must be made to realise that ridding the Middle East of WMDs is in the interests of all peoples in the region, especially as it will allow us then to focus on the urgent need for regional development and cooperative arrangements. The peril of WMDs is such that we cannot brook selectivity on the basis of some arbitrary division between "rogue" and "non-rogue" states. Or, if we are to apply the criterion, then in its continued determination to snub regional and international efforts to make the world a safer and more secure place, Israel must be designated as the region's only remaining rogue state.
