Insider : Hopes for Stopping Mideast Arms Race : The very fact that 13 nations are talking is encouraging. But they face a daunting task.

For the first time in the ancient and often bloody history of the Middle East, senior officials from Israel and a dozen Arab countries are meeting here this week to talk about curbing the regional arms race that has turned a land of holy places into one of the most dangerous spots on Earth.

No one expects dramatic results any time soon. Two key countries--Iran and Syria--are not even present, and the parties that are here are inhibited by generations of hatred and mistrust.

The American sponsors, perhaps hoping to dampen unrealistic expectations, refer to the talks that began Monday as a “seminar” rather than negotiations to demonstrate that the parties will do no more than explore the subject.

But arms control is always a time-consuming process, even in the best of circumstances. For instance, it took six years to negotiate the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union even though the Cold War was clearly winding down and the chasm of distrust between the superpowers had begun to close.

The Conventional Forces in Europe treaty, which is advanced as a prototype for a Middle East pact, was the result of a complex series of talks dating back to the Richard M. Nixon Administration. But when the agreement was finally reached, it imposed limits on weaponry from the Atlantic to the Urals, relieving the pressure on military budgets all across Europe and significantly reducing the risk of war.

No one doubts that Middle East arms control efforts face even more massive obstacles than those did because the hatreds in the Middle East are far older and run much deeper.

Nevertheless, there are some positive signs. The mere fact that 13 Middle East countries have begun to talk about the subject is remarkable. Moreover, the fact that the chief seller of arms to the region--the United States--is the prime sponsor of the process suggests the potential for change.

There is little doubt that something needs to be done. After six wars and countless skirmishes since the end of World War II, the region is one of the most heavily armed in the world. The cost of the arms race has become a heavy burden on all states in the region, even the rich ones like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Although reliable figures are sometimes elusive, by some estimates Middle East countries spent more than 11% of their gross national product on arms between 1972 and 1988 compared to 2.3% in Latin America and 6.3% in Asian developing countries. By contrast, this year’s Pentagon budget for purchase and development of weapons systems is only 1.6% of the U.S. GNP.

“The Middle East has lived through an arms race for as long as the (now-ended) one between the United States and the Soviet Union, and it has been even more voracious in its appetites,” James F. Akins, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, said recently. “In its context, it (Middle East arms competition) has been even more destructive to the economies of the region. . . . Countries which could by no means afford the luxury of massing quantities of sophisticated weapons thought they had no choice” but to protect themselves from their neighbors.

Almost a year ago, President Bush vowed to do something about the flow of arms into the Middle East, a region he described as “packed with modern weapons and seething with ancient ambitions.”

Tacitly acknowledging the daunting difficulties of getting fractious Middle East governments to scale back, Bush called for restraint by the arms sellers, especially the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France, which, over the years, have accounted for 80% of all weapons sales to the region.

From one standpoint, the effort has produced a modest success. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), total arms sales to the region declined by almost one-third from 1990 to 1991. But U.S. sales rose last year, accounting for almost two-thirds of all deliveries of major conventional weapons to the region.

“The Administration has made a fairly conscious decision to downplay conventional arms control,” says William B. Quandt, a former National Security Council expert on the Middle East. “Certainly their (U.S. officials’) own behavior indicates they are as eager to sell conventional arms as anyone else.”

Last year’s overall drop in arms deliveries is primarily attributable to the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The SIPRI figures show a 90% decline in Soviet sales last year, dropping Moscow from first place among arms suppliers to the Middle East in 1989 to sixth place.

But U.S. officials and non-government experts are concerned that Russia, other former Soviet republics and the newly democratic nations of Eastern Europe may soon begin flooding the region with weapons in something of a Warsaw Pact going-out-of-business sale. The nations of the now-defunct alliance all need hard currency.

“How are we going to tell the Russians not to sell T-72 tanks?” Quandt said. “They need money, and what they have to earn hard currency with comes down to their arsenals. Some of it is obsolete, but not all of it. In the Middle East you can kill a lot of people with artillery and mines and things that may not be state-of-the-art but can be pretty lethal.”

Middle East experts say last year’s modest decline in overall sales also reflects changed economic conditions in the region. Most countries are strapped for cash. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait overspent even their lavish military budgets during the Gulf War.

However, even this minor pause in the arms race may be coming to an end. Iran has indicated that it is ready to re-enter the arms market as it slowly gets its economy back into shape. This is especially troubling because all of the other countries of the region--Israel and its Arab adversaries alike--consider Iran to be a potential threat.

Washington’s role as premier arms supplier to a troubled region is embarrassing to the Administration. Critics, including Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Middle East, assert that the Administration must set a better example if the new international push against arms proliferation is going to work.

“If I were the Chinese or if I were the Russians or if I were the French or if I were the British, I would be looking at this and saying: ‘Well, the United States is continuing to pump enormous quantities of arms into that region. And I don’t see any reasons why I should not. . . .’ ” he said recently.

BACKGROUND

Four sets of multinational Mideast talks begin this week in four cities. The topics are arms reduction, in Washington; economic cooperation, in Brussels; water management, in Vienna, and a session on refugees in Ottawa. A fifth topic, the environment, will be discussed next Monday in Tokyo. The sessions stem from U.S.- and Russian-sponsored Arab-Israeli talks that began last October.

The Weapons Bazaar

The Middle East is one of the most heavily armed regions in the world, and the United States is its biggest supplier.

ARMS EXPORTS TO MIDEAST, 1987-91: TOP 11 SUPPLIERS

Amounts in millions of U.S. dollars at constant 1990 prices.

USA: $12,563

Soviet Union*: $11,529

France: $5,554

Britain: $4,126

China: $3,850

Brazil: $1,213

Italy: $636

Egypt: $587

Yugoslavia: $573

Germany**: $506

N. Korea: $480

YEAR-BY-YEAR SALES

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 USA $4,721 $1,602 $347 $2,861 $3,033 Soviet Union* 5,348 3,259 1,602 1,213 107 France 1,539 1,069 1,422 1,097 426 Britain 695 763 1,587 907 174 China 2,023 1,521 102 127 77 Brazil 419 367 264 163 0 Italy 324 261 9 42 0 Egypt 228 264 68 27 0 Yugoslavia 0 0 0 60 512 Germany** 108 109 67 199 23 N. Korea 99 114 0 0 267

* Now Commonwealth of Independent States and other entities.

** 1987-89 figures for West Germany only.

Source: SIPRI Data Base