Comprehensive coverage featuring articles and documents related to the NPT Review Process.

Updated: May 9, 2011

Middle East and Other Regional Issues: Day Six of the NPT PrepCom 2012

The discussions on Day 6 focused on regional issues, particularly the Middle East. The Chairman told the plenary that he intended to have the morning be a time for more formal statements that would focus on the Middle East, while the afternoon session would offer an opportunity for interactive debate and a chance for states to comment on issues in other regions. However, most delegations chose to read pre-prepared statements in the afternoon session as well as the morning.

The Middle East and the Conference Facilitator

The morning session opened with a summary report by Mr. Jaakko Laajava, the Facilitator for the 2012 Conference on a Zone Free of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East. Mr. Laajava informed the PrepCom that since beginning work on the conference seven months ago, his team has had over 100 meetings with states of the region, the convener states, international organizations, civil society groups, and other interested parties. He said that the awareness of the importance of the issue for the continuation of the NPT and for international security overall had increased, but that more work is needed to enable all parties' participation. He also said that the month of December was frequently mentioned as the most likely timeframe for the conference, and that Finlandia Hall, in Helsinki, was prepared to host it. However, he noted that discussions now need to focus on the agenda for the conference, the expected outcomes, and follow-on steps. He concluded his remarks by acknowledging the complicated and difficult nature of the task, but pledging to go the extra mile to make the conference a success.

Twenty-four States spoke in the morning after Laajava's report, and an additional 10 offered comments in the afternoon. All delegations expressed support for the holding of the conference, with many arguing that it was very important for the success of the conference that the meeting take place sometime during 2012. They emphasized that establishing a WMD-free zone in the Middle East, or at least achieving a Middle East free of nuclear weapons, is vital to the success of the 2015 review cycle and to the Treaty as a whole, with some expressing "warnings" about the future credibility of the regime and the international community if the conference is not held. It was noted that political will is vital to the success of the conference; many states who are already members of nuclear-weapon-free zones emphasized the importance of such political will in the establishment of these zones.

One major point of disagreement was on where the responsibility for the conference lies. The United States and other Western countries called on the states of the region to convene the conference and negotiate with each other, while Egypt on behalf of NAM, Iran, and other NAM members argued that the depository states have a responsibility to ensure that the conference takes place. Another major point of disagreement was over Israel. Many states, including both members of NAM as well as some Western delegations, argued that Israel needs to sign on to the NPT and put its facilities under IAEA safeguards as a part of the zone process; several countries stated that Israel's nuclear capabilities and the consequential imbalance in the region pose a major threat to international security and stability. In its statement, however, the United States argued that the conference can only take place if all countries in the region feel that they can attend. They urged other states to stop singling out Israel, because such finger-pointing makes it less likely that Israel would attend the conference, and argued that it would be a waste of a unique opportunity if states place a higher priority on confrontation than on cooperation. They went on to express concerns about the compliance of other states in the region, specifically Iran and Syria.

Other Regional Issues

The afternoon session was devoted to nonproliferation and disarmament issues in other regions. Five countries made statements on this matter: the Republic of Korea, Japan, the United States, China, and Cuba. The ROK, Japanese, and U.S. statements condemned the recent rocket launch by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and referred to the need to denuclearize the Korean peninsula; several of these statements also addressed the situation in South Asia, including the need for India and Pakistan to accede to the NPT and for Pakistan to work toward a resolution on the FMCT issue. China and Cuba both addressed the matter of nuclear-weapon-free zones.

The afternoon concluded with a statement by Syria, during which it exercised its right of reply to the United States' morning statement, claiming that the United States was trying to restrict the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy by some countries while remaining silent on Israel. Syria criticized the United States for bringing up the Assad regime's human rights issue, arguing that the U.S. administration shouldn't be talking about human rights when they have a long history of destruction in the Middle East and that the United States statement brought up questions that were divergent from the goals of the PrepCom and the Middle East conference in terms that were "far away from diplomatic usage."

Side Event: Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament: Ideas from Russia, Ideas for Russia

Centre Russe, PIR Center, and VCDNP organized a side event on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament ideas pertaining to Russia. Some of the most important issues addressed by the panelists included non-strategic nuclear weapons, overall disarmament, development of a nonproliferation and disarmament culture in civil society as well as government circles, the role of nuclear weapons in doctrines now and in the future, and how non-nuclear-weapon states view the state of disarmament compared to the view held by nuclear-weapon states. Many critiques were made of Russia, but there was a sense that Russia is beginning to move in the right direction in terms of disarmament and other NPT-related issues.