DOCSLIB.ORG

Enforcement of Proliferation Security Initiative (Psi) and Challenges

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Enforcement of Proliferation Security Initiative (Psi) and Challenges chapter 7 Enforcement of Proliferation Security Initiative (psi) and Challenges I Evolution of the Proliferation Security Initiative Emergence of New Security Threats and Counter- Proliferation During the post- Cold War period of the 20th century, the threat of massive de- struction from conflict between nuclear-armed superpowers has significantly diminished. But in its place, the contemporary world has witnessed the rise of non- conventional threats posed by terrorist groups or rouge states which seek to have weapons of mass destruction (wmd) for use as a tool of terrorism. Rogue states and transnational terrorist groups now threaten the security of the world. Challenged by these evolving threats, the international community has come up with new security strategies to strengthen the traditional regime of non- proliferation of wmd. Over the past three decades, the international community has established a number of legally binding agreements against nuclear proliferation as well as biological, chemical and radiological. Those non- proliferation treaties, which focus on preventing the spread of wmd, weapons technology, and re- lated materials, include: (i) the 1968 Non- Proliferation Treaty (npt)1; (ii) the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention2; and (iii) the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention.3 Despite its contribution to the prevention of proliferation of 1 The Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, referred to as the ‘Non- Proliferation Treaty’ (npt) is an international treaty established to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to further the goal of achieving disarmament. The npt entered into effect in March 1970. The parties in May 1995 agreed to extend the treaty indefinitely. North Korea, which acceded in 1985, announced its withdrawal from the npt and never came into compliance. As of 2017, the members of npt are up to 191. 2 The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bac- teriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction is commonly referred to as the ‘Biological Weapons Convention’ (bwc). Effective in March 1975, the btc is the first multilateral disarmament treaty which aims to ban the development, production and stock- piling of an entire category of weapons. As of 2017, the number of btc parties is 179. 3 The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and the Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, referred as the ‘Chemical Weapons Con- vention’ (cwc), comprehensively prohibits the use, development stockpiling and transfer of © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2019 | DOI:10.1163/ 9789004389908_ 008 Enforcement of Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) 229 wmd over the past decades, the traditional non- proliferation regime has ex- posed its limitations and shortcomings in addressing the new contemporary security environment. Of those, importantly, the non- proliferation regime is applicable only to the state parties to the conventions and sovereign states, but limited to non- state parties and non- state actors. More specifically, the three categories of actors that lie outside the international community constitute a proliferation threat more dangerous and difficult to control than at any time in the past.4 First, North Korea and Iran both defied international norms of nuclear non- proliferation and respect for treaties and the United Nations Security Council Resolutions by conducting a series of missile launches and pursuing nuclear development. Second, terrorist groups are actively pursuing wmd, and are not likely to be deterred or dissuaded from using them. Third, despite successes in dismantling the Al Qaeda network, facilitators of proliferation still exist, moti- vated by financial gains. The problem is compounded by states such as North Korea, which views proliferation as an important revenue source — including as a way to finance their own wmd programs.5 Fourth, adding to the complex- ity and the danger is the widespread availability of the materials, technology, equipment and basic knowledge required to develop and produce wmd and delivery systems.6 Against this backdrop, the international community has engaged in de- veloping new strategies to address the shortcomings of the existing non- proliferation regime. As such, the strategy of counter-proliferation, which builds on non-proliferation, has been developed. The Proliferation Security Initiative (psi) has constituted a key policy instrument to implement the strat- egy of counter- proliferation. The counter- proliferation strategy focuses on intelligence, law enforce- ment and sometimes military action to prevent and deter the spread of wmd — as opposed to non- proliferation, which relies primarily on tradi- tional measures such as diplomacy, arms control, and multilateral agree- ments that seek to dissuade or impede proliferation states and terrorist net- works. The counter- proliferation strategy involves more aggressive actions chemical weapons. Any chemical used for warfare is considered a chemical weapon by the convention. The cwc was effective in April 1997. The number of parties to the convention is 192 as of 2017. 4 U.S. Department of Defense, National Institute, ‘The Proliferation Security Initiative: A Model for Future International Collaboration,’ released in August 2009. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Threat of Nuclear Proliferation: Perception and Reality Jacques E
    ROUNDTABLE: NONPROLIFERATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY The Threat of Nuclear Proliferation: Perception and Reality Jacques E. C. Hymans* uclear weapons proliferation is at the top of the news these days. Most recent reports have focused on the nuclear efforts of Iran and North N Korea, but they also typically warn that those two acute diplomatic headaches may merely be the harbingers of a much darker future. Indeed, foreign policy sages often claim that what worries them most is not the small arsenals that Tehran and Pyongyang could build for themselves, but rather the potential that their reckless behavior could catalyze a process of runaway nuclear proliferation, international disorder, and, ultimately, nuclear war. The United States is right to be vigilant against the threat of nuclear prolifer- ation. But such vigilance can all too easily lend itself to exaggeration and overreac- tion, as the invasion of Iraq painfully demonstrates. In this essay, I critique two intellectual assumptions that have contributed mightily to Washington’s puffed-up perceptions of the proliferation threat. I then spell out the policy impli- cations of a more appropriate analysis of that threat. The first standard assumption undergirding the anticipation of rampant pro- liferation is that states that abstain from nuclear weapons are resisting the dictates of their narrow self-interest—and that while this may be a laudable policy, it is also an unsustainable one. According to this line of thinking, sooner or later some external shock, such as an Iranian dash for the bomb, can be expected to jolt many states out of their nuclear self-restraint.
    [Show full text]
  • Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons
    Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons Paul K. Kerr Analyst in Nonproliferation Mary Beth Nikitin Specialist in Nonproliferation August 1, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL34248 Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons Summary Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal probably consists of approximately 110-130 nuclear warheads, although it could have more. Islamabad is producing fissile material, adding to related production facilities, and deploying additional nuclear weapons and new types of delivery vehicles. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is widely regarded as designed to dissuade India from taking military action against Pakistan, but Islamabad’s expansion of its nuclear arsenal, development of new types of nuclear weapons, and adoption of a doctrine called “full spectrum deterrence” have led some observers to express concern about an increased risk of nuclear conflict between Pakistan and India, which also continues to expand its nuclear arsenal. Pakistan has in recent years taken a number of steps to increase international confidence in the security of its nuclear arsenal. Moreover, Pakistani and U.S. officials argue that, since the 2004 revelations about a procurement network run by former Pakistani nuclear official A.Q. Khan, Islamabad has taken a number of steps to improve its nuclear security and to prevent further proliferation of nuclear-related technologies and materials. A number of important initiatives, such as strengthened export control laws, improved personnel security, and international nuclear security cooperation programs, have improved Pakistan’s nuclear security. However, instability in Pakistan has called the extent and durability of these reforms into question. Some observers fear radical takeover of the Pakistani government or diversion of material or technology by personnel within Pakistan’s nuclear complex.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Proliferation in Plain Sight: Japan’S Plutonium Fuel Cycle–A Technical and Economic Failure but a Strategic Success
    Volume 14 | Issue 5 | Number 2 | Article ID 4860 | Mar 01, 2016 The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Nuclear Proliferation in Plain Sight: Japan’s Plutonium Fuel Cycle–A Technical and Economic Failure But a Strategic Success Shaun Burnie, Frank Barnaby, with Tom Clements, Aileen Mioko Smith and Kendra Ulrich Précis escalate in East Asia, Japan's stockpiling of thousands of kilograms of weapons usable th Five years after the March 11 2011 plutonium with no credible peaceful use is earthquake and tsunami destroyed fourdriving further proliferation in the region. Two reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi site, Japan's years before the extension of the U.S. Japan nuclear industry remains in crisis. Three nuclear cooperation agreement, the legal basis st reactors are operating as of February 1 2016, for the nations plutonium program, the time for a reduction of 94% of reactors since 2011. a rethink, long past, is more urgent than ever. Prospects for a restart of even half of the 54 reactors formerly operating are almost zero. Introduction For decades the center of the nations nuclear and energy policy was based on the utilization In the twilight world of Japan's nuclear of plutonium to fuel fast breeder reactors, program, where nothing is what it seems, the together with the use of plutonium MOX fuel in MONJU fast breeder reactor symbolizes a commercial power reactors. The program has nuclear policy that is based on a dangerous absorbed trillions of yen yet has utterly failed fantasy, but remains entrenched within the to deliver the energy security used to justify it.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project (NPPP) Working Paper # 3 Phasing out Highly Enriched Uranium Fuel in Naval Propulsion
    Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project (NPPP) Working Paper # 3 Phasing Out Highly Enriched Uranium Fuel in Naval Propulsion: Why It’s Necessary, and How to Achieve It by Alan J. Kuperman, Ph.D. Coordinator, Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project Associate Professor, LBJ School of Public Affairs University of Texas at Austin www.NPPP.org March 19, 2015 __________________________ For research assistance, I thank Matthew Deal, who was supported by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), under a grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, which also supported my travel to meet with fellow members of the FAS Task Force on Naval Reactors and HEU. I am also grateful for comments from Frank von Hippel, Charles Ferguson, Emma Belcher, and members of the task force. International efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to additional states or terrorists are complicated by the routine use of nuclear weapons-usable, highly enriched uranium (HEU) as fuel for naval propulsion. Naval HEU fuel raises two major security risks: theft, by terrorists or criminals; and diversion, by states that would employ a naval program as deceptive cover to acquire fissile material. Accordingly, this paper explores the prospects and challenges of a global phase-out of naval HEU fuel, starting with a bilateral phase-out by the United States and Russia, the two countries that use the vast majority of naval HEU fuel. The following analysis proceeds through six steps. First, it elaborates the rationale behind such a phase-out. Second, it examines the potential timeline for a bilateral phase-out, based on a new analysis of the United States’ and Russia’s existing naval nuclear fleets and schedules for modernization (see Table 2).
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Reactors Fuelled with Uranium Inevitably Produce Plutonium As a By-Product
    The Secretary Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Inquiry into Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament Dear Sir/Madam, I would like to submit the following submission to the Parliamentary Committee Inquiry into Nuclear Non- proliferation and Disarmament. Yours sincerely, Frank Barnaby. A submission to the Parliamentary Committee Inquiry into Nuclear Non- proliferation and Disarmament. Frank Barnaby Nuclear reactors fuelled with uranium inevitably produce plutonium as a by-product. This plutonium can be used by countries and by nuclear terrorists to fabricate nuclear weapons. The operation of nuclear-power reactors, therefore, has consequences for national, regional and global security. The more nuclear reactors there are the greater the security risks. Australia should recognise that these security risks outweigh the befits of producing electricity by nuclear power especially because the use of renewable sources of energy, combined with improvements in energy efficiency and the conservation of energy make the use of nuclear power unnecessary. As the world’s second largest exporter of uranium, Australia has a major responsibility to adopt policies to minimise the risks to security from nuclear proliferation and terrorism. To this end, Australia should use its influence to bring the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) into effect. It should not supply uranium to countries, like the USA and China, which have not yet ratified the CTBT. Moreover, Australia should promote the negotiation of a Comprehensive Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty to prohibit the further production of fissile material usable for the production of nuclear weapons, prohibit the reprocessing of spent nuclear-power reactor fuel that has been produced by Australian uranium and should not support or encourage the use of Mixed Oxide (MOX) nuclear fuel or the use of Generation IV reactors, particularly fast breeder reactors.
    [Show full text]
  • OSP11: Nuclear Weapons Policy 1967-1998
    OPERATIONAL SELECTION POLICY OSP11 NUCLEAR WEAPONS POLICY 1967-1998 Revised November 2005 1 Authority 1.1 The National Archives' Acquisition Policy announced the Archive's intention of developing Operational Selection Policies across government. These would apply the collection themes described in the overall policy to the records of individual departments and agencies. 1.2 Operational Selection Policies are intended to be working tools for those involved in the selection of public records. This policy may therefore be reviewed and revised in the light of comments from users of the records or from archive professionals, the experience of departments in using the policy, or as a result of newly discovered information. There is no formal cycle of review, but comments would be welcomed at any time. The extent of any review or revision exercise will be determined according to the nature of the comments received. If you have any comments upon this policy, please e-mail records- [email protected] or write to: Acquisition and Disposition Policy Manager Records Management Department The National Archives Kew Richmond Surrey TW9 4DU 1.3 Operational Selection Policies do not provide guidance on access to selected records. 2 Scope 2.1 This policy relates to all public records on British nuclear weapons policy and development. The departments and agencies concerned are the Prime Minister’s Office, the Cabinet Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Security Policy Department, Defence Department, Atomic Energy and Disarmament Department, and Arms Control and Disarmament Department), HM Treasury (Defence and Material Department), the Department of Trade and Industry (Atomic Energy, and Export Control and Non-Proliferation Directorate), the Ministry of Defence (MOD), the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA).
    [Show full text]
  • India's Nuclear Odyssey
    India’s Nuclear Odyssey India’s Nuclear Andrew B. Kennedy Odyssey Implicit Umbrellas, Diplomatic Disappointments, and the Bomb India’s search for secu- rity in the nuclear age is a complex story, rivaling Odysseus’s fabled journey in its myriad misadventures and breakthroughs. Little wonder, then, that it has received so much scholarly attention. In the 1970s and 1980s, scholars focused on the development of India’s nuclear “option” and asked whether New Delhi would ever seek to exercise it.1 After 1990, attention turned to India’s emerg- ing, but still hidden, nuclear arsenal.2 Since 1998, India’s decision to become an overt nuclear power has ushered in a new wave of scholarship on India’s nu- clear history and its dramatic breakthrough.3 In addition, scholars now ask whether India’s and Pakistan’s acquisition of nuclear weapons has stabilized or destabilized South Asia.4 Despite all the attention, it remains difªcult to explain why India merely Andrew B. Kennedy is Lecturer in Policy and Governance at the Crawford School of Economics and Gov- ernment at the Australian National University. He is the author of The International Ambitions of Mao and Nehru: National Efªcacy Beliefs and the Making of Foreign Policy, which is forthcoming from Cambridge University Press. The author gratefully acknowledges comments and criticism on earlier versions of this article from Sumit Ganguly, Alexander Liebman, Tanvi Madan, Vipin Narang, Srinath Raghavan, and the anonymous reviewers for International Security. He also wishes to thank all of the Indian ofªcials who agreed to be interviewed for this article.
    [Show full text]
  • PHYSICS SOCIETY a Publication of the Forum on Physics And& Society a Forum of the American Physical Society from the Editor
    Vol. 50, No. 3 July 2021 PHYSICS SOCIETY A Publication of The Forum on Physics and& Society A Forum of The American Physical Society From the Editor t is really nice that things are getting back to normal in economics of fusion power Imany countries. This is undoubtedly thanks to the unex- and our usual complement pectedly fast discovery and implementation of effective vac- of book reviews. cines. Unfortunately, some irrational fears of ‘side effects’ But the newsletter is remain. It is puzzling to me that some people worry more nearly entirely dependent about the “side effects” of the vaccine than about the “front on readers’ contributions. and center” effects of not taking it. Articles and suggestions for Elements of the bureacracy remain of course in the “I am articles should be sent to me, scared”, “abundance of caution” mode. This is unavoidable, and also letters to the editor. given the low level of principles and of personal courage Book reviews should be sent of the people that staff the bloated bureaucracies at govern- to the reviews editor directly ments and universities. ([email protected]). All Oriol T. Valls, the current P&S newsletter editor, is a Condensed In this issue I continue implementing the policy of topics related to Physics and Matter theorist. publishing articles written by recent winners of Forum Society, broadly understood, awards and by other invited speakers at APS meeting forum- are welcome. Controversy is sponsored sessions. Micah Lowentahl’s article on ethics fine:content is not peer reviewed and opinions given are and science policy and Steve Fetter’s (2021 Szilard award the author’s only, not necessarily mine, nor the Forum’s wnner) delayed article on the technological challenges for or, a fortiori, not the APS’s either.
    [Show full text]
  • WHY DO STATES BUILD NUCLEAR WEAPONS? Proliferation Models As Concurrent Pressures on a State
    WHY DO STATES BUILD NUCLEAR WEAPONS? Proliferation Models as Concurrent Pressures on a State Scott Curtice, Major, USA Air Command and Staff College Evan L. Pettus, Brigadier General, Commandant James Forsyth, PhD, Dean of Resident Programs Bart R. Kessler, PhD, Dean of Distance Learning Paul Springer, PhD, Director of Research Please send inquiries or comments to Editor The Wright Flyer Papers Department of Research and Publications (ACSC/DER) Air Command and Staff College 225 Chennault Circle, Bldg. 1402 Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6426 Tel: (334) 953-3558 Fax: (334) 953-2269 E-mail: [email protected] AIR UNIVERSITY AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Proliferation Models as Concurrent Pressures on a State Scott Curtice, Major, USA Wright Flyer Paper No. 82 Air University Press Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama Commandant, Air Command and Staff Accepted by Air University Press February 2021 and published March 2021. College Brig Gen Evan L. Pettus Director, Air University Press Maj Richard T. Harrison Project Editor Kimberly Leifer Illustrator Daniel Armstrong Print Specialist Megan N. Hoehn Disclaimer Air University Press Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied 600 Chennault Circle, Building 1405 within are solely those of the author and do not necessarily repre- Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6010 sent the views of the Department of Defense, the Department of https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/AUPress/ the Air Force, the Air Education and Training Command, the Air University, or any other US government agency. Cleared for public Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AirUnivPress release: distribution unlimited.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Weapons in a Changing World: Consequences for Development*
    Joseph DiChiaro III and Edward J. Laurance NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN A CHANGING WORLD: CONSEQUENCES FOR DEVELOPMENT* by Joseph DiChiaro III and Dr. Edward J. Laurance Joseph DiChiaro III is Senior Research Associate of the Program for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies (MIIS). Dr. Edward J. Laurance is Professor of International Policy Studies and Associate Director of the Program for Nonproliferation Studies at MIIS and author of The International Arms Trade (1992). he end of the Cold War and the norms can prove a boon, rather than a tual conclusion of a Comprehensive Test conduct and termination of the burden, to national economies. Ban (CTB) treaty. TGulf conflict ushered in the - Extensive linkages between nuclear - Despite the steep costs associated promise of a substantially changed and and non-nuclear proliferation and dis- with dismantling and safe storage of more stable international environment. armament point to the need for a more nuclear weapons retired as a result of With such a promise also came the hope comprehensive approach in order to ef- either unilateral initiatives or bilateral of a substantial diversion of resources fect mutually beneficial and lasting or multilateral disarmament agreements, away from military expenditure and into change. the long-term savings accrued could be human development. Unfortunately, the - While unilateral initiatives, and substantial if the materials released by hope for a peace dividend to be used provisions of the INF, START I, and this process are adequately controlled. for the reinvigoration of the world's START II treaties call for the reduction - The precarious state of civilian economy, by fostering unprecedented of over 20,000 warheads from the arse- nuclear power worldwide may compli- growth and development, has given way nals of nuclear weapons states, they cate efforts at controlling the spread of to a more sober view reflecting the high make no provision for the ultimate dis- fissile materials.
    [Show full text]
  • Sample Chapter
    CHAPTER 1 Global Trends The proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons is widely recog- nized as the most serious threat to the national security of the United States and other nations. Official and public attention to proliferation issues, however, has varied over the years from near hysteria to apathy. During this first decade of the twenty-first century, concern is very high, with passionate international debates over which strategies can best prevent the spread and use of these weapons. To inform these debates, this second edition of Deadly Arsenals revises and updates all the chapters, figures, and tables from the first edition published in 2002. This edition includes new chapters on Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, and new information and analysis on other countries, which are needed to capture the dramatic developments of the past three years. All the parts of the book emphasize factual and historical analysis of weapons programs. The book is in- tended to serve as a proliferation atlas and ready reference for students, experts, and concerned citizens alike.1 One significant change in the new edition is that it no longer employs the term “weapons of mass destruction.” Though used widely by officials and the media, this phrase conflates very different threats from weapons that differ greatly in lethality, consequence of use, and the availability of measures that can protect against them. Chemical weapons are easy to manufacture, but they inflict rela- tively limited damage over small areas and dissipate fairly quickly. Biological weapon agents can be made in most medical laboratories, but it is very difficult to turn these agents into effective weapons, and prompt inoculation and quar- antine could limit the number of victims and the areas affected.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Weapon Prohibition Treaty: a Safeguards Debacle
    Trust Trust Nuclear Weapon Prohibition 2018 Autumn • Treaty: A Safeguards Debacle 158 Number Issue Successive NPT review conferences have recognised nuclear disarmament will require safe- guards that are both rigorous and universal. In concluding the nuclear weapon prohibition • treaty, however, the negotiating states have failed to require a universal high safeguards ISSN 0966–9221 standard. Rather, the treaty sets different standards depending on a party’s circumstances. This approach not only damages the treaty itself, but also the prospects for disarmament and potentially the NPT. If the text cannot be corrected, what should have been an inspi- & rational treaty will instead remain divisive and counterproductive. Verify Safeguards that are both rigorous and universal are absolutely essential for achieving and sustaining nuclear disarmament. This has been recognised by successive Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conferences. In particular, Action 30, agreed in the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference and reaffirmed at the 2010 Review Conference, stresses that when nuclear weapons have been eliminated the highest standard of safeguards applied by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—currently comprehensive safeguards and additional protocols—should be applied universally to all states. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW; ‘prohibition treaty’) was adopted on 7 July 2017. A key issue in the negotiations was to determine what the treaty should require on safeguards. Considering that all the states participating in these negotia- tions were also party to the NPT review conference decisions, the prohibition treaty should have reflected these decisions and required the universal application of the highest safeguards standard.
    [Show full text]