If not now, then when? – Analysis – Eurasia Review

By Shravashtha Ajaykumar

One of the most coveted goals of global diplomacy in disarmament and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is the creation of a Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone (MEWMDFZ). ). Given the region's tumultuous history of conflict and deep distrust, coupled with instances of chemical weapons deployment in the past, the potential resurgence of the use of weapons of mass destruction remains extremely plausible. and worrying.

A crucial step in this regard is the Review and Extension Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) of 1995. The signatory parties to the NPT agreed to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle -East (MENWFZ) by 2020. However, to date, no significant progress has been seen and with recent activities in the region, including Israeli attacks on the NPT, Gaza Strip and attacks on Iran against Israel and Israel's response, promoting disarmament in this region are even more urgent.

Political dynamics and security concerns in the Middle East, including the long-standing Arab-Israeli conflict, have contributed to the complexities surrounding the creation of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction. Israel, which allegedly possesses nuclear weapons but has never officially confirmed or denied it, is not a party to the NPT.

The United Nations (UN) and other international organizations have helped facilitate discussions and promote dialogue among countries in the region to advance the idea of ​​a zone free of weapons of mass destruction. However, reaching a comprehensive agreement has proven difficult due to geopolitical tensions, security considerations and the broader regional political landscape.

However, nuclear weapons are not the only consideration in regions vulnerable to political unrest. Biological weapons are also a concern. Like other regions, the Middle East is subject to the regulations and obligations set out in the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC). Israel, however, has not signed the CIAB, often citing local political instability and its effects on innovation. Although Israel has made efforts to ensure that the import and export of biological agents and dual-use technologies are controlled, instability in this area and mixed reporting from the United States does not guarantee not Israel's intentions.

Likewise, the issue of chemical weapons in the Middle East is a matter of great concern and efforts have been made to combat the proliferation and use of these weapons in the region. While no conference was held for the 2012 conference to establish a MEWMDFZ, Washington issued a statement in November 2012 indicating conditions in the Middle East and the lack of agreement between the parties on this what are acceptable conditions. This was interpreted by many as Israel's lack of interest in receiving criticism for its actions. A decade later, nothing has changed and several vital developments and events have influenced global concern.

In December 2023, Israel was accused of using white phosphorus in its attacks against Hamas. This is not the first time such an accusation has been made. In 2008, during the Israeli-sanctioned military operation in the Gaza Strip, similar accusations were made. Although Israel has also denied this use, reports from human rights organizations have claimed that white phosphorus shells were in fact used.

Attempts to establish a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East have been persistent but have yielded no results. Experts among the NPT signatories have often argued that the lack of consensus on the NPT was also due to an attempt to establish a zone free of weapons of mass destruction. Although some scholars and analysts disagree, the first view is the most popular.

Some efforts can be continued to improve the debate on the creation of zones free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. These may include diplomatic initiatives promoting dialogue and building trust between Middle Eastern countries. This could involve the UN and regional organizations like the Arab League, which is already heavily involved in the movement against nuclear weapons. In addition to diplomatic efforts, international support and technical, financial and political assistance to Middle Eastern countries seeking to conclude agreements on zones free of weapons of mass destruction could encourage regional disarmament. Finally, accountability, verification and inspection should be strengthened. That is to say, establishing a robust system to verify compliance with agreements on zones free of weapons of mass destruction. This could involve regular inspections carried out by international organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and other relevant bodies.

As in any other conflict zone, cyberattacks, as well as the simultaneous use of weapons of mass destruction, will only exacerbate the situation. Even in the attack on Hamas, the main measure was a cyberattack in October 2023. Most recently, an Israel-linked hacker group reportedly hacked and restricted 70% of gas stations in Iran.

While cyberattacks remain a tool, they can exacerbate tensions on the ground and attack critical infrastructure, including power grids, telephone systems, transportation systems and medical records. One of the biggest concerns with cyberattacks is the potential to spread misinformation and create tension. However, losing control of local WMD security measures is an extreme outcome that must be considered.

Although the focus remains on encouraging compliance, creating zones free of weapons of mass destruction will be difficult. While Israel's undeclared nuclear weapons program is seen as a threat by some countries in the region, Iran's nuclear activities are also a factor to consider in this region. To counter such outcomes, one approach would require all countries in the region to comply with nonproliferation efforts. If not all countries demand compliance, rivals may feel compelled to pursue militarization for their own security.

We have already seen regional treaties for the non-proliferation of nuclear devices. The Treaty of Rarotonga prohibits nuclear testing and the discharge of radioactive waste into the sea. Korea's denuclearization agreement includes specific bans on uranium enrichment and plutonium separation. The Treaty of Pelindaba introduces a ban on attacks on nuclear facilities, similar to the 1988 bilateral agreement between India and Pakistan. The Central Asia Treaty emphasizes the need for environmental remedial measures related to past nuclear activities on the territories of member states and requires adherence to an additional protocol.

As these documents show, in addition to creating well-established verification systems and ensuring compliance with the rules at the regional level, we can also learn from other free zones and adapt them to regional circumstances, recognizing that each region has its circumstances. and its specific concerns. Agreements on zones free of weapons of mass destruction should be tailored to meet the unique security challenges and dynamics of the Middle East. It must be ensured that, even if at the regional level everyone complies with global responsibility, if innovation, safety and medicine are cited as a counter-excuse, the competent authorities ensure that there is no no dual use, without necessarily requiring the withdrawal of any nuclear, chemical or biological agent as an undersigned country.

The establishment of Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zones (MEWMDFZs) is an urgent requirement, not only for the stability of the region but also for global security. From nuclear weapons to chemical and biological weapons, the threat of loss of life and international peace is too great to delay solutions and actions that can reduce the damage in the Middle East.

• About the author: Shravashtha Ajaykumar is a research associate at the Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology at the Observer Research Foundation.
• Source: This article was published by the Observer Research Foundation.