Currently, Egypt has two nuclear research reactors, one in the vicinity of Cairo, the other close to the Libyan border. One of the two reactors is a 2 MW-light water reactor ETTR-1, which was supplied by the USSR in 1958; the other one is a 22 MW ETTR-2, supplied by Argentina in 1998.

After having signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Egypt has ceased its nuclear programme voluntarily. However, Egypt has announced its decision to restart its programme while the world agenda has recently been focused on the nuclear programmes of Iran and North Korea. Egyptian officials, who insistently stress that their aim is a peaceful programme, state that they are in search for a clean, cheap and safe energy resource. In his statement in the official Egyptian newspaper, Al-Ahram, the Egyptian Minister of Electricity, Hassan Younes, has declared that his government was planning to construct a nuclear power plant in Alexandriatta with a capacity of 1000 MW and has added that the cost of the plant would be $1,5 billion and it would require foreign capital.

At the same time, the Egyptian Foreign Minister, Ahmad Abulghays, has stated that they would start negotiations with the European Union (EU), Japan, China and Russia in order to realize their nuclear plans.

Egypt’s move arises the question whether it is intending to join the ever-growing club of countries having nuclear arms. Because the strongest argument of the experts, who were claiming that Iran’s nuclear programme was aimed to develop nuclear weapons, was that the nuclear armament race would speed up after Iran had possessed these weapons. They were counting Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey among the countries which would join this race. The declarations of Egypt and Turkey that they would soon start to build nuclear plants have consolidated the claims of the experts. However, one must remember that both countries have signed the NPT and that they have guaranteed to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

It is known that Iran doesn’t possess nuclear weapons at the moment, but there are concerns that it will be willing to have such weapons in the future. While most of the regional countries support Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme, they are also discussing within their military/political circles and among each other what they are supposed to do if such a possibility (Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons) come true.

It is clear that Saudi Arabia and Egypt, whose populations are overwhelmingly Sunni, will not be content with a Shi’ite Iran having nuclear weapons. For this reason, it will not be surprising that they will try to develop and strengthen their nuclear programmes by now for any possibility. On the other hand, Turkey, having good neighborhood relations with Iran, doesn’t have any problems with that country, and Ankara has improved its relations with Tehran as a result of the recent cooperation on many common issues. But this doesn’t mean that Turkey will not be uncomfortable if Iran possesses nuclear weapons. For Iran’s having nuclear weapons would mean that the regional balances would shift.

Being one of the closest Muslim allies of the US after the Iranian Revolution, the Egypt’s declaration of its nuclear programme in this turmoil arises another question. Could Egypt make such a statement without the consent of the US? Definitely not! Egypt’s being a party to the NPT and its declaration that it opposes nuclear armament in every occasion has eliminated the concerns of other countries. Moreover, the US Ambassador to Egypt, Francis J. Ricciardone, has stated that he did not object Egypt’s nuclear programme, that he supported it and that he could assist in raising funds for the realization of the project if such a need arose.

After Egypt had established a $151 million nuclear reactor and $14 million nuclear fuel facility in 1998, the President Husnu Mubarek declared that Egypt might seek ways to possess nuclear weapons if necessary. He further added that procurement of materials needed to make nuclear weapons was easy and these materials could be purchased if need arose. Though the Egyptian government made such clear statements, it is striking to see moderate reactions to Egypt’s nuclear programme.

Keeping in mind that the nuclear technology serves to both military and non-military purposes, it is sine qua non to choose instruments sensitively in order to keep the balance so that the security of the international community is assured. If the objective is to protect the world from nuclear arsenal, then no distinction must be made between, first, the regional countries, and second, the countries allover the world. If the objective in the Middle East is to prevent nuclear armament race, the method should not be to take this right from Iran and give it to Egypt. What is more, both of these countries have signed the same international regulations and have become parts of the same system. In such a case, depriving one of them (Iran) from its rights stemming from international law with the reason that it might cause trouble, and encouraging the other one (Egypt) is not keeping the balance, but creating problems.

The most logical method, which needs to be supported by all great powers, is to realize a “Middle East Nuclear Free Zone project” and to develop a system which will assure the civil use of nuclear energy. Of course, this process will require Israel, which is known to possess nuclear warheads and which is not a party to any of the related treaties, to be integrated into the system, and this is a thorny process by itself. In fact, Israel has the following logic: “While I am surrounded by countries planning to destroy me, how do you expect me to restrict myself with guarantees by signing the NPT and forego my sole deterrent power.”

On the other hand, other regional countries, which are aware of Israel’s nuclear weapons, will not participate in a movement for the disarmament of the Middle East region. Nuclear weapons are both an important threat and a deterrent power. The best example of this mentality is the statement of the Egyptian Foreign Minister Abulghays. He has stated that Iran’s nuclear ambitions were peaceful but it was known by everyone that Israel’s nuclear activities were for military purposes, and has added that he voiced this concern of the regional countries in international gatherings.

It is the US’ task to convince Israel. However, as the US’ perception of threat works differently, it deals with a country having the likelihood of possessing nuclear weapons rather than dealing with a country having them. The only distinction here is that Iran is the eternal enemy and Israel is the friend. But the danger of weapons of mass destruction and the issue of nuclear disarmament are global and cannot be restricted to individual countries. Therefore, rather than the monopolization of the UN system and NPT and IAEA regimes by countries, they must serve to all countries after being consolidated. Only in this way can the current and potential threats be controlled. In case the present approaches and models are employed, the international systems, which are weakening and cannot respond to today’s conditions, will turn out to be void and nonfunctional institutions. In such a case, each country will do what it wants. At this very point, the regional countries, most prominent of which is Iran, will strive to possess deterrent capabilities one by one in order to protect themselves and the armament race scenario will come true. For this reason, the Iran nuclear crisis should be solved by finding a logical and acceptable way so that the groups which want to break away from the system cannot do so in Iran and that another North Korea incident will not be experienced. The disarmament conditions in the region should be set equally for every country so that the nuclear activities of the regional countries will not cause concern. Only after the establishment of such an atmosphere can we have the chance to get rid of “what if” questions.

International Strategic Research Organization

Middle East Studies Center

celalifer@yahoo.com