When I first posted diaries about the Central Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (CANWFZ) here and here they were duds, as most everyone hopes the weapons in various arsenals turn out to be.
Nevertheless, there was a glimmer of sanity in the fact that Egypt, down on the African continent, was signaling an interest in seeing the CANWFZ extended down the peninsula to include it and Israel and Iran along the way.
Bush/Cheney were not enthusiastic.
Now there is some movement. The BBC reports:
Could the Middle East become a nuclear-free zone?
By Barbara Plett
BBC News, New York
Western concerns about Iran's nuclear programme have so far dominated the latest UN conference on the treaty aimed at stopping the spread and stockpiling of nuclear weapons.
But another state is sharing centre stage at the month-long negotiations in New York to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), despite its complete absence from the hall.
"Israel's nuclear arsenal stands like the radioactive elephant in the room," says blogger and journalist Khaled Diab.
Israel is widely believed to have between 100 and 200 nuclear warheads. Yet it has never declared them, signed on to the NPT, or opened its nuclear facilities to inspection.
Perhaps that would be a preferable alternative--a nuclear weapons free zone for the Middle East all on its own.
Egypt, which is taking the lead on the Middle East zone, makes the link explicit.
"If major countries wish to address Iran's nuclear dossier, they can do that by bringing Israel and Iran to the negotiating table," Egypt's UN ambassador Maged Abdel Aziz recently told the Al-Ahram newspaper.
Iran has defied UN resolutions demanding that it halt uranium enrichment, a programme it says is designed to produce nuclear energy, but which the West believes has military aims. At the same time, however, Tehran supports the "immediate and unconditional" implementation of the 1995 resolution, declares the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Israel needs to be co-operative, but wants everyone to declare their friendship first, holding out their co-operation as a reward. That's perhaps not the best way to go. Giving a gift to create an obligation, rather than relying on rewards after the fact, might work better. Certainly, it can't work worse than issuing threats, or even singing about dropping bombs.