Nuclear Israel and Mideast

PV Vivekanand

THE LIBYAN decision to abandon programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction may or may not have anything to do with what the world saw happening in Iraq in the name of WMD, but it raises again one of the key concerns of the countries of the Middle East — the Israeli arsenal of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
It has for long been a demand of the countries of the Middle East that the region be free of weapons of mass destruction. It was also one of the key objectives of the Arab-Israeli peace process launched in Madrid in 1991. Several rounds of talks were held indeed after the Madrid conference, but Israel's deceptive approach to the issue torpedoed the effort.
We have heard US President George Bush welcoming the Libyan move and calling on other nations to recognize that the pursuit of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons brings not influence or prestige, but "isolation and otherwise unwelcome consequences."
But we did not hear the US president mention Israel. Would it be that Bush forgot that Israel possesses one of the largest stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Granted that it might not have tonnes and tonnes of chemical or biological weapons stored, but it is known that Israel has perfected the techniques and keeps in battle readiness the components to make such weapons at short notice. That is not to mention its nuclear arsenal of up to 200 warheads and indeed more than that of the UK.
Perhaps Washington might not want to mention Israel's stocks and continuing pursuit of WMD if only because US assistance in material and technology might have had a lot to do with what is in Israel's possession now.
Israel always got away with refusing to deny or confirm its possession of WMD but asserting only that it would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East. The US not only went along with the Israeli posture but also protected its "strategic partner" in the Middle East whenver pressure mounted on it to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The US always used its diplomatic clout at the UN to ward off the pressure on Israel to sign the NPT and allow the UN to inspect its nuclear facilities. In the latest round, four years ago, Washington got tough with Egypt and warned Cairo to stay off Israel's case.
Of course, it was part of the established pattern that international law has two faces when it comes to the US and its allies, particularly Israel.
If our memory serves us right, Israel has often cited the need to defend itself against Iraqi and Libyan weapons in order to justify, however implictly, its own weapons programmes.
Today, Iraq's weapons are no more (that, if it had any to start with at the beginning of the war that led to the ouster of the Saddam Hussein regime), and Libya has announced it is abandoning all its WMD programmes. Isn't time Washington turned its focus onto Israel?