Here is a proposal from an article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists published last year. I would like to know people's thoughts on it:
Only one foolproof solution resolves the challenge, namely denuclearization. As historically crafted, existing nuclear-weapon-free zones (NWZ) lack the necessary safeguards that would satisfy the volatile Middle East. Unprecedented multi-tiered measures could be the answer.
Mideast denuclearization is not a new concept. Ironically, Iran initiated the idea in the 1970s. On December 9, 1974, Egypt and Iran co-sponsored a resolution in the U.N. General Assembly that called upon all nations in the region to reciprocally agree not to produce or acquire nuclear weapons. [7] It also called for adherence to the NPT as a prerequisite for a Mideast NWZ.
In the period that followed, Cairo annually led the drumbeat for the zone in the General Assembly. Early on, Israel attempted to use the initiative for another purpose, recognition. It called upon its neighbors to sit down and negotiate. Arab states declined, arguing that the political relationship with Israel had to be resolved first. In subsequent years, Jerusalem turned the tables. It proclaimed that denuclearization could not advance apart from the peace process and the end of the "active state of war." [8] Israel reiterated these sentiments, as Egypt led the Arab world in calling on the Jewish state to abandon its nuclear program and join a NWZ in the aftermath of Libya's announcement. [9]
A Mideast NWZ would require the resolution of at least seven issues: geography, prohibitions, verification, the role of outside powers, duration and withdrawal, relationship to other agreements, and requirements for entry into force. Envisioned here, the zone would include the 22 members of the Arab League plus Iran and Israel. [See map on page 47.]
All nuclear weapons, weapons technology, weapons-usable material, and machinery that could produce such material would be prohibited. Outside powers would be prohibited from introducing weapons into the zone, and dual-use technology would be subject to IAEA safeguards. Nuclear power would not be excluded from the region, but each plant would have a resident international inspector who also could assume responsibility for monitoring the safe operation of the plant. Custodial responsibility for fresh fuel would rest with the provider country, which would repatriate the spent nuclear fuel.
The IAEA would furnish first-tier enforcement through a new nuclear contraband elimination authority. In order to build confidence in the zone, inspectors' responsibilities would be broadened. Each country or cluster of countries would be assigned resident inspectors, who would be free to visit declared, undeclared, or suspected nuclear sites and also sites containing dual-use technology. They would be granted the right to interview a country's nuclear scientists as well. The authority would command its own fleet of surveillance aircraft modeled after the planes dedicated to the Open Skies regime, which the former Soviet Union and NATO negotiated, or the aerial surveillance that flew over Iraq. This surveillance would supplement intelligence provided by IAEA member states. These aircraft would have sensors capable of ferreting out suspect activity, which ground inspectors could then verify. Inspectors would have the authority to destroy or export contraband to disposal sites in the United States, Europe, or Russia.
The NWZ's duration would be indefinite and there would be no withdrawal right. Although freestanding, all parties in the zone would be subject to the NPT. Before the NWZ would enter into force, all parties in the zone would be required to adopt and ratify the agreement. To add to the zone's luster, the United States or Europe could include economic and diplomatic incentives that would normalize Iran's position in the international community.
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj04ramberg
Should the Western governments be supporting this proposal a version of which has been supported by the Arab League for well over a decade?
Originally posted by sasquatch672The proposal above was written in 2004 by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, not 1974. Since one of the justifications for Muslim states to acquire nuclear weapons would be to "balance" Israel's if you have no Israeli nuclear weapons they have no need to "balance" them. Your last statement is bunk, baloney and BS: Israel has never been close to defeat in any of its wars using non-nuclear means, holds a strategic military advantage over pretty much all the Arab countries combined in conventional forces and has the backing of the world's strongest military power: the US. The country would exist without any nuclear weapons (as it did for at least a quarter century) and to say otherwise is hysterical rot.
I don't know when the US gave Israel nuclear weapons. My guess is before 1974.
In a vacuum, it sounds great. But it also sounds a little like agreeing to terms before a prize fight.
Of course, this was proposed before real hostilities between the US and the Middle East were underway. Strategically, it sounds like a mask to get American nuc ...[text shortened]... his, but Israeli nuclear weapons are probably one of the only reasons Israel still exists today.
A "Nuclear Free Middle East Zone" is a good idea. It has to be realised within the context of an all embracing peace treaty signed by ALL the Middle Eastern countries, including of course Palestine and Iran, and ALL the factions involved. With the latter I mean Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups waging war on Israel.
Furthermore such an all embracing peace treaty entailing a "Nuclear Free Middle East Zone" should be backed up by security garantees for ALL the countries involved from the major world and regional powers, including the USA, UK, Germany, France, the EU, Russia, China, India and Pakistan.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIt's unreasonable to say that "terrorist" groups have to be included in treaties; I've never heard of any "terrorist group" being included in a treaty. Internal political organizations can, and often do, take positions contrary to their governments; it was not made a prerequiste to the Panama Canal treaty, for example, that the Republican Party support it. If an independent Palestine would agree to follow international law and make every effort to prevent its territory from being used as a base for attacks against Israel and agree to cooperate in the apprehension of those who did or planned such acts, that would be all that would be required of any other country. Why would Muslim countries be held to a different standard?
A "Nuclear Free Middle East Zone" is a good idea. It has to be realised within the context of an all embracing peace treaty signed by ALL the Middle Eastern countries, including of course Palestine and Iran, and ALL the factions involved. With the latter I mean Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups waging war on Israel.
Furthermore such an ...[text shortened]... ional powers, including the USA, UK, Germany, France, the EU, Russia, China, India and Pakistan.
Originally posted by ivanhoeSo... basically.... you want peace on earth.
A "Nuclear Free Middle East Zone" is a good idea. It has to be realised within the context of an all embracing peace treaty signed by ALL the Middle Eastern countries, including of course Palestine and Iran, and ALL the factions involved. With the latter I mean Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups waging war on Israel.
Furthermore such an ...[text shortened]... ional powers, including the USA, UK, Germany, France, the EU, Russia, China, India and Pakistan.
Can't argue with that. But, in a world driven by fear, pride, and prejudice, good luck.
Originally posted by no1marauderThese terrorist groups Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. are being supported and financed by the participating countries in this All Embracing Treaty. In fact these terrorist groups are controlled by these countries, they are military instruments, armies, in their hands.
It's unreasonable to say that "terrorist" groups have to be included in treaties; I've never heard of any "terrorist group" being included in a treaty. Internal political organizations can, and often do, take positions contrary to their governments; it was not made a prerequiste to the Panama Canal treaty, for example, that the Republican Party sup ...[text shortened]... ld be required of any other country. Why would Muslim countries be held to a different standard?
Adressing the dismantling and disarming of these armed forces should be an integral part of the All Embracing Peace Treaty.
How can there be peace if these armed forces are able to continue their violent activities against Israel ?
Simply stating that the participating countries would agree to follow international law and make every effort to prevent its territory from being used as a base for attacks against Israel and agree to cooperate in the apprehension of those who did or planned such acts, isn't enough to stop their attacks.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe: In fact these terrorist groups are controlled by these countries, they are military instruments, armies, in their hands
These terrorist groups Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. are being supported and financed by the participating countries in this All Embracing Treaty. In fact these terrorist groups are controlled by these countries, they are military instruments, armies, in their hands.
Adressing the dismantling and disarming of these armed forces should be an integ ...[text shortened]... in the apprehension of those who did or planned such acts, isn't enough to stop their attacks.
BS.
The purpose of this thread was to address a Nuclear Free Zone as proposed by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, not an "all-embracing, comprehensive Middle East Peace Treaty". Your wild claims aside, you haven't given a reason why a nuclear free zone wouldn't be a good idea even without an AECMEPT. Got one?
For example, you specifically mentioned Hamas. Here's what the US State Department says about Hamas:
Other Names
Islamic Resistance Movement
Description
HAMAS was formed in late 1987 as an outgrowth of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Various HAMAS elements have used both violent and political means, including terrorism, to pursue the goal of establishing an Islamic Palestinian state in Israel. It is loosely structured, with some elements working clandestinely and others operating openly through mosques and social service institutions to recruit members, raise money, organize activities, and distribute propaganda. HAMAS’ strength is concentrated in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
Activities
HAMAS terrorists, especially those in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, have conducted many attacks, including large-scale suicide bombings, against Israeli civilian and military targets. HAMAS maintained the pace of its operational activity in 2004, claiming numerous attacks against Israeli interests. HAMAS has not yet directly targeted US interests, although the group makes little or no effort to avoid targets frequented by foreigners. HAMAS continues to confine its attacks to Israelis inside Israel and the occupied territories.
Strength
Unknown number of official members; tens of thousands of supporters and sympathizers.
Location/Area of Operation
HAMAS currently limits its terrorist operations to Israeli military and civilian targets in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Israel. Two of the group’s most senior leaders in the Gaza Strip, Shaykh Ahmad Yasin and Abd al Aziz al Rantisi, were killed in Israeli air strikes in 2004. The group retains a cadre of senior leaders spread throughout the Gaza Strip, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and the Gulf States.
External Aid
Receives some funding from Iran but primarily relies on donations from Palestinian expatriates around the world and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. Some fundraising and propaganda activity take place in Western Europe and North America.
http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/hamas.htm
That doesn't sound like an "army" from another country, does it Ivanhoe?
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, depending upon your point of view you could say that the IRA was / is either a terrorist organisation or a group of freedom fighters. I believe the former, but that's my point of view. IRA decommisioning was part of the Good Friday agreement, so you could say they were 'brought in' to the agreement.
It's unreasonable to say that "terrorist" groups have to be included in treaties; I've never heard of any "terrorist group" being included in a treaty. Internal political organizations can, and often do, take positions contrary to their governments; it was not made a prerequiste to the Panama Canal treaty, for example, that the Republican Party sup ...[text shortened]... ld be required of any other country. Why would Muslim countries be held to a different standard?
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo, they weren't; that is bad history. The IRA was not a party to the Good Friday agreements.
Well, depending upon your point of view you could say that the IRA was / is either a terrorist organisation or a group of freedom fighters. I believe the former, but that's my point of view. IRA decommisioning was part of the Good Friday agreement, so you could say they were 'brought in' to the agreement.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI wonder if Israel would be willing to sign a peace treaty if Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other "terrorist" groups were signatories as Ivanhoe proposes. Any guesses? That would mean negotiating with "terrorists".
Well, true, they weren't made a signatory or anything, but their actions (i.e. decommissioning) would dictate the way the peace treaty would play out.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're cherry picking.
For example, you specifically mentioned Hamas. Here's what the US State Department says about Hamas:
Other Names
Islamic Resistance Movement
Description
HAMAS was formed in late 1987 as an outgrowth of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Various HAMAS elements have used both violent and political means, including terrorism, to pur ...[text shortened]... /hamas.htm
That doesn't sound like an "army" from another country, does it Ivanhoe?
If people want an overview of all the terrorist organisations and by whom they are supported financially and by whom they are "used", meaning they can act as "mercenaries" or "armies" or "militia's' of another country, please check out the following link.
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rpt/fto/2801.htm
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou specifically mentioned Hamas and Islamic Jihad which are the two largest Palestinian "terrorist" organizations. You picked the "cherry" not me.
You're cherry picking.
If people want an overview of all the terrorist organisations and by whom they are supported financially and by whom they are "used", meaning they can act as "mercenaries" or "armies" or "militia's' of another country, please check out the following link.
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rpt/fto/2801.htm