| |
(updated August 15, 2003)
Interdiction and the Proliferation Security Initiative
One way to limit the use of WMD is to
attempt to disrupt a state's WMD programs before the state can implement them. This can be done by using naval, ground, or sea forces to "interdict," or stop
and seize ships, planes, or trucks suspected of carrying WMD or related
technology in or out of a target country. A country following a strategy
of interdiction would stop any shipment traveling to a country of proliferation
risk if it determined that a shipment was carrying WMD or related technology.
Also, the interdicting country could stop any shipments believed to be
containing WMD from a target country for sale abroad. An interdicting
country could also stop shipments of internationally banned substances, such as
narcotics or counterfeit money, which the target country could use to fund its WMD programs. For interdiction to be possible, accurate intelligence on
shipments of WMD and related technologies is required.
A recent example of this strategy
occurred in December 2002. The United States had acquired information that
a North Korean ship was transporting ballistic missiles to a state in the Middle
East. The United States notified Spain, whose ships were operating in the Indian Ocean as
part of the global war on terror. A Spanish warship stopped the North Korean
freighter in the Indian Ocean, and U.S. and Spanish forces searched the
vessel, discovering it was indeed carrying 15 North Korean ballistic missiles
to Yemen. After the search, the United States and Spain allowed the ship to
continue to its destination. There are two main reasons why the ship was allowed
to continue. First, the United States and Spain determined that Yemen, which is a
key ally in the war on terror, did not pose a serious threat to the United
States nor its allies. Second, under current international law, no state
has the right to stop a ship in international waters and confiscate its cargo
unless that ship is engaged in illegal activities. (Examples of illegal
activities are drug trafficking and piracy.) Although North Korea's sale of ballistic
missiles may be potentially dangerous to the United States and its allies,
it is a legal transaction under international law.
This incident was part of the
intensification of U.S. efforts at interdiction, which later became a formal
arrangement called the
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). The PSI
is an international effort to interrupt transfers of WMD or missiles on the
seas, in the air, and on land. The United States, Spain, Poland, Great
Britain, Portugal, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, the Netherlands, and Australia
are cooperating in the effort. These 11 countries are trying to find ways
to apply, or in some cases to change, international law. This would allow
members to intercept WMD or missile transfers in international waters or
international airspace. Members might even take action in the territorial
waters or airspace of a target country. They will also share intelligence
on suspected transfers of WMD or related technologies. With this
intelligence, member states might act together or individually to interdict
shipments.
Although this strategy does not pose
as direct a military threat as bombing or commando raids in efforts to disrupt WMD
programs in a target country, the PSI
does present certain risks. Target countries might determine that
interception of their shipments in international or territorial waters or
airspace is a blockade, which is an act of war. This could lead to
retaliation by the target state.
Limited Military Attack
Another way to prevent the use of WMD
is to use direct military force to disrupt a state's WMD programs before it can
produce the weapons. Bombing or commando raids can be used to destroy WMD facilities while they are under construction.
For example, Israel attempted to block Iraq's nuclear weapons program in 1981 by
bombing a reactor in Iraq. It believed that Iraq was going to use the reactor to
produce plutonium for nuclear arms.
Preventive actions such as these are dangerous because they are acts of war. Today, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea all possess WMD that they could use to retaliate if one of their WMD facilities were attacked.
These states could direct their retaliation against the United States or a U.S. ally.
(Although Libya does not possess long-range missiles, it could perhaps retaliate
through an act of terrorism involving WMD.) When Israel attacked Iraq in 1981, Iraq did not have missiles
nor warplanes that could reach Israel, reducing the danger of retaliation.
Preventive actions are also becoming more difficult to execute because countries developing WMD are hiding their activities more effectively than ever before. They are also protecting their WMD facilities against attack by building them
deep underground, making them harder to destroy.
Preventive War
In peacetime, one strategy now
receiving increased attention in the United States is to engage in a preventive
war with a state believed to possess or to be developing WMD. The goal is
to not only eliminate any WMD within the country, but to remove the hostile
regime and replace it with a more moderate government that will be less likely
to pursue WMD.
The March 2003 U.S.-led invasion of
Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein is a clear example of preventive war aimed at
removing the regime from a country and dismantling its WMD programs. The
United States had tried to compel Saddam Hussein for over a decade to eliminate
the Iraqi WMD programs, but Western intelligence suggested that he had
consistently refused to do so. In March 2003, after months of
debate
both domestically and in the UN Security Council, President George W. Bush
concluded that renewed arms inspections in Iraq would not be effective in disarming
Saddam Hussein. The Bush administration decided that only "regime change"
could effectively eliminate the Iraqi WMD programs.
As a result, the United States led an
international coalition to invade Iraq and overthrow the government of Saddam
Hussein. The Bush administration cited the action as enforcement of UN Security Council Resolution
1441, which threatened Iraq with "serious consequences" if it failed to
verifiably dismantle its WMD programs. The UN had not, however, adopted a
new resolution that would have specifically authorized such use of military
force. The United States hopes that it will have enough direct influence
over the post-war government that eventually takes power in Iraq to ensure that
it does not develop WMD.
Proponents of the concept of
preventive war claim that the strategy brings two benefits. First, it
eliminates the WMD program in the target country. Second, it will lead
other states to realize that developing WMD programs might invite a similar
attack form the United States upon themselves. This will, therefore,
dissuade them from developing such weapons.
Opponents note that preventive war
may produce the exact opposite result, and that the states might decide that
WMD, particularly nuclear weapons, are necessary to deter the United States from
attacking. It is unclear what effect the war against Iraq has had on WMD
programs in North Korea or Iran, but some argue that both countries have
accelerated their nuclear weapons programs as a result of the U.S.-led
invasion of Iraq.
The use of military force to deal
with WMD threats has so far not been widely employed. U.S. government
officials, however, insist that all options, including military action, are "on
the table." Nonetheless, important differences exist between the Iraq
example and that of North Korea or Iran. The United States had claimed its actions
in Iraq were an enforcement of Resolution 1441. No comparable resolutions
require Iran or North Korea to disarm or to submit to weapons inspections. The United States would, therefore, find it difficult to cite international law to justify
military actions against those countries.
|
 |
Further Reading:
|
