26Dec03-Aluf Benn-Israel seeks to avoid Middle East disarmament fest
By Aluf Benn
The American effort to neutralize security threats gradually in the Mideast has recently produced some marked improvements in Israel's strategic environment. Iraq has been conquered, Iran was forced to expand international supervision of its nuclear facilities, Libya promised to dismantle its nonconventional weapons, and Jerusalem believes that Syria will be next in line. The Arab world, led by Egypt, has responded with the expected demand that Israel also join the regional disarmament fest.
The equally predictable response from Israel stressed its lack of faith in its enemies' promises, and insisted that the danger has not yet passed. But if the Iranians and Libyans keep their word, Israel is likely to encounter growing skepticism about its need for wide security margins, and be asked to do its bit toward changes in the region.
The United States has made it clear that it does not intend to deal with Israel's nuclear capabilities now. "I don't think there will be a change in policy toward Israel in the nuclear field," a senior American official said this week. "The Arabs will raise the issue, and Israel will need to find a way to explain its policy. But we understand that as long as Israel is facing Arab rejectionism from so many directions, the way to deal with this is via quiet discussions."
According to this official, the U.S. will adhere to its long-standing policy of urging all countries to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), but will in practice recognize Israel as a special case. Washington and Jerusalem have an understanding dating back to 1969 that as long as Israel maintains "ambiguity" and does not openly declare itself a nuclear power, the U.S. will not force it to join the NPT (which would mean destroying its nuclear capabilities). Though the UN General Assembly demands every year by a large majority that Israel must sign the treaty and dismantle its capabilities - the latest such decision passed this month by a vote of 162-4, with 10 abstentions - these resolutions have merely declarative value.
Former U.S. president Bill Clinton promised two former prime ministers, Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, that the U.S. would ensure that Middle East arms control initiatives did not impair Israel's strategic deterrence capabilities. Netanyahu's letter arrived in 1998 and Barak's in 1999; the latter included a slight improvement in the form of an explicit commitment to the maintenance of an independent Israeli deterrence capability. Government sources said that Israel has neither requested nor received a similar promise from current President George Bush.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said in an interview with the daily Ma'ariv three months ago that Israel cannot cut back on the development of "special measures," an Israeli euphemism for strategic deterrence.
"Looking ahead, these things are very important ... It is impossible to expect that the U.S. will remain here [in the region] forever," he said. In other words, while Sharon appreciates America's activity in the region, he does not see this as a substitute for independent deterrence capabilities.
Though the U.S. appears unlikely to pressure Israel to join the NPT, it could revive a different initiative that was frozen some years back: an effort to develop a new international treaty halting the production of fissionables - plutonium and highly enriched uranium - which are the key components of nuclear weapons. The initiative, which Israel terms the "cutoff treaty," is meant to restrain the nuclear programs of Israel, India and Pakistan, none of which are NPT signatories. When Clinton first raised this idea, Netanyahu objected vehemently, saying that Israel would not agree to such an impairment of its national security, and eventually the issue was dropped.
Now, Washington is reexamining the cutoff treaty, and is apparently considering a less strict version that would be largely declarative in nature. Signatories would be required to promise not to produce fissionable materials in the future, but they would not have to declare existing stockpiles, and there would be no supervisory regime. However, it is not clear whether the U.S. will decide to go ahead with this softer version - or whether it will be able to muster support for it if it does.
The official Israeli position is that the cutoff treaty should be subsumed under the establishment of a nuclear-free Middle East at some point in the future when this becomes possible - meaning after Israel has achieved a comprehensive peace with all countries in the region. The question is whether, in light of the new strategic environment created by the American occupation of Iraq and Libya's declaration, Israel will continue to be able to postpone all discussions of its nuclear capabilities until this end-of-days scenario materializes.
haaretz.com |
