Bush’s Plan Seems Little More Than a Wishful Appeal : Diplomacy: There are few specifics. Success would require sellers and buyers to curb appetites for profits and arms.

Although key Administration strategists have been struggling for months to get it just right, the Middle East arms-control initiative unveiled Wednesday by President Bush appears to be little more than a wishful appeal to reason in a region where Western reasoning doesn’t often apply.

The arms-control plan is the President’s second attempt to capitalize on the prestige and influence that the United States amassed by engineering the defeat of Iraq in the Persian Gulf War. But the initiative contains few specifics beyond its suggestion that the sellers and buyers of weapons agree to curb already well-developed appetites--for profits, in the case of the suppliers, and for sophisticated new weapons, in the case of the purchasers.

For the plan to have any chance of success, it will require an uncommon amount of cooperation among commercial competitors and longtime antagonists. In that regard, it is similar to the continuing U.S. effort to bring Israel and its Arab neighbors to a peace conference--the Administration’s first, and so far unsuccessful, attempt to take advantage of the postwar window of opportunity.

Nevertheless, several nations in the volatile region have spoken approvingly of the idea of arms control--albeit in the abstract. And if the United States can bring such regional rivals as Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran and, perhaps, Iraq, to a negotiating table, it would rank as a major success, regardless of the outcome of the meeting. But there is no indication yet that such a conference will take place.

As a first step, Bush called for a meeting in Paris of the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, France and China to discuss guidelines to restrict conventional arms sales to those weapons needed by Middle East governments for “legitimate self-defense.” The five nations were invited because they account for about 85% of the weapons business in the region. They are also the permanent members of the U.N Security Council although Administration officials said that is only a coincidence.

In addition, the President called for new restrictions on proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and of the missile technology that could deliver them. But most of the possible restrictions on weapons of mass destruction, as outlined by the White House, are well-worn measures that have been proposed repeatedly in recent years without winning general acceptance.

Significantly, Bush did not suggest a moratorium on all arms sales to Middle East countries, declaring that he does not want to interfere with “the legitimate need of every state to defend itself.” This creates a severe--and perhaps insurmountable--problem of determining how much is enough.

Further, even if the five major suppliers agree to make and enforce limits on their own activities, their collective action would not necessarily shut down the flow of weapons to the region. Such second-tier arms sellers as Brazil, Argentina, India and others could fill much of the void in what is undoubtedly one of the world’s most lucrative markets.

The Bush plan seems to be carefully balanced between Israel and its Arab adversaries. For instance, restrictions on the sale of conventional weapons can be expected to appeal to the Jewish state because Israel makes its own tanks, artillery pieces, assault rifles, ammunition and other weaponry while the Arabs are primarily dependent on imports.

Before Bush’s speech, the Israeli Defense Ministry said conventional weapons pose “the primary problem in the region.” It said any new arms-control plan must restrict conventional arms as well as weapons of mass destruction.

However, the proposed restraints on regional nuclear programs will fall hardest on Israel, which is believed to be the only Middle East nation with its own nuclear arsenal. The White House reiterated earlier calls for “all states in the region that have not already done so” to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to place all nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. Although the White House statement did not single out Israel, it is the only state in the region that has not taken both steps.

In the final analysis, Bush is asking the countries of the region and the major international arms suppliers to change their longstanding assessments of their own self-interest. In effect, countries that are engaged in the arms race because they believe it advances their own cause are being asked to reverse course and conclude that restraint will do them more good.

“On the supplier side, we’re asking countries to exercise a degree of restraint, a degree of discretion that’s in the collective interest,” said one Administration official. “Historically, that is something countries have been at times willing to do. In the region . . . what they are going to have to do is their own analysis to persuade themselves . . . that in some cases it is better for them to do without than it is for everybody to do with.”