Representatives of 11 Arab States, Iran, Israel, and the LAS participated in the first informal consultations convened by the facilitator and the co-conveners in Glion, Switzerland. According to the Facilitator’s invitation letter, the purpose of the consultations was to continue discussions on agenda and modalities for the ME WMDFZ Conference.

16 Arab States, Israel and the LAS participated at the second multilateral informal consultation on the ME WMDFZ conference, which was held by the facilitator and the co-conveners in Glion, Switzerland. The objective of the consultations according to the facilitator’s invitation letter was to continue discussions on the agenda and modalities for the ME WMDFZ Conference. In response to the invitation, the LAS Senior Officials Committee (SOC) emphasized that it was disappointed with the “set up and parameters” of the first consultation in Glion but had decided to continue to “engage positively”. The letter also emphasized that the SOC felt that the convening the of consultations as an “open meeting without an agenda or clear reference to and mandate stipulated in 2010 by the NPT Review Conference and 1995 Resolution, will lead to unfruitful discussions that go beyond the mandate.” The SOC emphasized the need for the facilitator to limit the agenda of the consultations to the discussion on an agenda and modalities of the conference on the establishment of a ME WMDFZ. The facilitator presented an informal paper entitled “Sandra’s list” containing a list of proposed substantive and organizational matters for the conference. The paper was rejected by some of the Arab participants as they viewed it as going beyond the facilitator’s mandate. Russia presented a non-paper on “Possible Elements of the Final Document” for the conference.

Following the consultation, the LAS SOC responded with its comments on “Sandra’s list” objecting to the inclusion of regional security issues in the agenda, which it viewed as outside the original mandate contained in the 2010 NPT RevCon final document, as well as requesting the co-convener to “fix and declare” a date for holding the postponed ME WMDFZ conference.

16 Arab States, Israel and the LAS participated in the consultations, which were convened by the facilitator, the co-conveners and the UN.

16 Arab States, Israel and the LAS participated in the consultations, were which was convened by the facilitator, the co-conveners and the UN.

16 Arab States, Israel and the LAS participated in the consultations, were which was convened by the facilitator, the co-conveners and the UN. It was the last consultation to be held by the facilitator.

In a letter to the LAS Secretary-General, the facilitator, on behalf of the co-conveners, offered to arrange further consultations in Geneva with the aim of “narrowing remaining differences regarding arrangements for a Conference.”

The meeting did not take place.

In response to the proposal, the former Director of Disarmament and Multilateral Relations at the LAS, Wael Al Assad, inquired about the reason for the new format and venue. He informed the facilitator that the Arab Senior Officials Committee (SOC) had rejected the idea of a smaller group and reiterated their position that the terms of reference of the 2010 NPT RevCon mandate and the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East should be strictly observed. Finally, the LAS SOC had also inquired why Iran was not invited to the new format. The facilitator responded that the proposed “smaller group discussions, followed by a meeting of the larger group, were not intended to limit the participation of any states, but represent a common and widely used diplomatic method to reach agreement on difficult issues”. He also agreed that Iran must remain involved.

The meeting did not take place.

The facilitator wrote to the chairman of the Arab Senior Officials Committee (SOC) inviting representatives of all states in the region to an informal meeting in Geneva, which would “focus on the preparations of the Helsinki Conference including its agenda, modalities, elements for a concluding document and timing, in order to facilitate consensus among the states of the region on arrangements for the Conference itself.” The SOC declined the invitation to attend the consultations planned on 2-3 Nov, due its inability to meet on short notice and make a decision on Arab states’ participation. In a later letter, the SOC communicated to the facilitator the committee had decided to have “further discussions.” After the committee discussed the facilitators proposals, the SOC chairman informed the facilitator that Arab states would participate in further consultations on the basis of the working paper they submitted at the 2012 and requesting him to provide the SOC with the positions of Iran and Israel on that working paper.

In the meeting, the facilitator, Jaakko Laajava, presented Nabil Alaraby with the latest iteration of the "Orientation Paper", which included a draft agenda, concluding document, rules of procedure, modalities, and programmes.

The facilitator and the co-conveners invited the regional states to a drafting session to be held in Geneva to “address outstanding issues and seek agreement on the modalities for the Conference.” In his invitation letter to the LAS, the facilitator informed the LAS of Israel’s willingness to attend the Conference as the agenda and modalities were agreed. In response to the invitation, the Arab Senior Officials Committee (SOC) informed the facilitator that the Arab states will not attend drafting session in Geneva on 25-26 Jan 2015 due to the limited time between the proposed meeting and the SOC meeting, and requested to be consulted prior to setting any further dates. The SOC also informed the facilitator that upon review of the orientations paper, it found that it did not meet the requirements the Arab states had outline in their working paper at the 2013 NPT PrepCom and reaffirming that this remains the position of the SOC.

The facilitator then wrote to the SOC inquiring about suitable dates and proposing further consultation in Cairo prior to the drafting session. However, the SOC responded that it is only willing to participate in the proposed drafting session in Geneva if it is held under UN auspices and in line with the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East and the 2010 NPT RevCon mandate.

The facilitator invited regional states to a meeting in Geneva and inquiring if a post-NPT RevCon would be suitable if this proposed April date was not. The facilitator assured the Arab Senior Officials Committee (SOC) that Israel was also willing to participate once a suitable date is agreed. The SOC informed the facilitator that given the proximity of the 2015 NPT RevCon, the Arab will be engaging on the issue of the ME WMDFZ in that forum.