![Visit MIIS [ Image: MIIS Logo ]](/_navimages/logos/miis_logo_white_260x55_80percent.png "Visit MIIS [ Image: MIIS Logo ]"){kind=logo}
James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
|
| You are here: HOME > Publications > Story Archives > Story |
Research Story of the WeekProliferation Security Initiative to Stem Flow of WMD Matérielby Rebecca Weiner
July 16, 2003
Initially comprising 11 countries--Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States--the international coalition is focused on pre-emptive interdiction, seeking to allow ships, aircraft, and vehicles suspected of carrying WMD-related matériel to and from countries of "proliferation concern" (in particular, North Korea and Iran) to be detained and searched as soon as they enter member countries' territory, territorial waters, or airspace. It will also encourage member countries to deny overflight rights to suspicious aircraft or ground them when they stop to refuel.[3] The United States has also proposed that non-complying aircraft be "escorted down" to be searched, although Australia in particular has expressed reservations about extending the effort this far.[4] The initiative originates in part from the Bush administration's frustrating experience in December 2002, when Spain, alerted by a U.S. tip, seized a shipment of 15 Scud missiles headed from North Korea to Yemen.[5] The United States allowed the ship to continue after the Bush administration determined that it lacked the authority under international law to detain the vessel and after Yemen assured the U.S. government that the missiles would be used for defensive purposes, only.[6] To avoid similar setbacks in the future, the new Proliferation Security Initiative will be based primarily on the "inventive use of national laws," rather than an attempt to re-write existing international law, which prohibits stopping vessels on the high seas or grounding aircraft in international airspace.[7] Extending the agreement into international waters or airspace would require a U.N. Security Council Resolution or an international convention, many countries say, an added complication that coalition members are attempting to avoid at this early stage. And while the coalition's first meeting in Madrid focused on assessing existing national authorities and export control regimes under which the new initiative could operate,[8] the United States is already pushing for a more comprehensive and robust strategy. The New York Times quoted a top White House national security official as claiming, "We're going to use every rule available.... No one has ever tried to marry the ability we have to track these shipments with the existing national authorities that are out there."[9] This attitude is beginning to ruffle feathers among the coalition members as well as its targets. Bolton stirred controversy when he stated after the meeting that "there is broad agreement within the group that we have [the] authority" to begin interdictions on the high seas and in international airspace. The United States feels it has such authorization in three cases, according to the newspaper The Australian: when ships do not display a nation's flag, they effectively become pirate ships that can be seized; when the ships use a "flag of convenience" and the nation chosen gives the United States or its allies permission, the ships can be stopped and searched; finally, Bolton told the paper, there is a "general right of self-defense" given a serious belief that the vessels carry WMD matériel.[10] The International Maritime Organization stated that review of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation is underway.[11] Despite these friction points, the meeting was characterized by consensus. While the group did not go so far as to set a timetable for interdiction operations, it did pledge to share intelligence on arms trafficking as well as initiate a series of air and sea training exercises in the Mediterranean Sea, the Indian ocean, and the Pacific ocean, to begin as early as September, that will utilize "both military and civilian assets."[12] That the PSI is largely directed at North Korea was made clear in a recent press release issued by Alexander Downer, Australia's Foreign Affairs Minister, who explained that although "the initiative is global in nature and while it is not directed at any one country, it is relevant to the government's concerns about North Korea, including its declared nuclear weapons programme."[13] Downer averred that while "the mainstay for stopping the spread of these weapons remains the global system of international treaties, export control regimes and other tools built up over several decades of multilateral negotiations, ...the reality is that some states cheat on their obligations or resist joining these international regimes."[14] North Korea has not taken the news lightly, describing the initiative as a "brigandish naval blockade" akin to "terrorism in the sea and a gross violation of international law."[15] The official daily Rodong Sinmun proclaimed, "nobody can vouch that this blockade operation will not lead to such a serious development as an all-out war." The daily also threatened Japan directly for its recent efforts to step up inspections of visiting North Korean ships, accusing Japan of involvement in the "U.S. policy to isolate and stifle" North Korea.[16] Bolton's response was that the interdiction strategy is "not only legitimate, it's necessary self-defense."[17] North Korea is not alone in expressing concerns over the new plan; a representative of the Australian activist group Just Peace protested just prior to the meeting that "Our government seems prepared to join the US in vigilante attacks on the high seas," continuing, "if these plans continue, we shall be seeing Australian troops committed not to the defense of Australia, but rather to international kangaroo court justice."[18] Japan and South Korea have also expressed apprehensions that the hard line being taken by the United States could provoke North Korea. In particular, Japan is concerned that the PSI has become overly preoccupied with North Korea, while it was intended to encompass all trade in WMD matériel, including countries like Iran, Syria, and Cuba.[19] A constellation of recent events demonstrates international commitment to the effort. In April 2003, just prior to the formal announcement of the PSI, French authorities, acting on a tip from the German government, ordered the captain of a French ship to unload a suspicious container when the vessel reached an Egyptian port. The cargo originated from a German company in Hamburg and included 22 metric tons of aluminum tubes (key components of high-speed centrifuges used to manufacture highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons). The German government had denied an export license for the shipment, which was purportedly directed to a Chinese aeronautics company, because German officials believed the company was a North Korean front.[20] In his June 4 testimony, Under Secretary Bolton also cited a combined French and German effort to intercept sodium cyanide "likely bound for North Korea's chemical weapons program," as an example of successful interdiction efforts. In a parallel effort intended to deprive North Korea of hard currency needed for the purchase of missile and WMD material, Australian authorities discovered 50 kilograms of heroin on a North Korean owned ship in April and have charged members of the crew with aiding and abetting the import of an illegal product. And in early June 2003, over 1,000 Japanese police officers, customs officials, and shipping regulators submitted a ferry line--suspected of trafficking hard currency to North Korea--to aggressive safety inspections and customs examinations, resulting in immediate suspension of the service.[21] The PSI has been lauded on
both sides of the Atlantic as an encouraging sign of the Bush
administration's reinvigorated commitment to multilateralism, as well as a
positive step toward preventing future instances of the type of disunity that
"plagued the international community during the run up to the war in
Iraq."[22] Yet the deeper the initiative
delves into issues of international law, the harder the coalition is likely to
press for U.N. approval and support--an eventuality the United States is
not entirely sanguine to face. More important still, the success of the PSI
depends in large part not only on whether and how the logistical, legal, and
economic issues are resolved, but on broad-based participation, including,
experts say, that of China and Russia.
|
| Return to Top |
U.S. Under Secretary of State John Bolton.
@CNS Updates