Ringing in Proliferation Ringing in Proliferation Alexander H. Montgomery How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb Network Ringing in Proliferation The nuclear nonpro- liferation regime has come under attack from a group of academics and policy- makers who argue that traditional tools such as export controls, diplomatic pressure, arms control agreements, and threats of economic sanctions are no longer sufªcient to battle proliferation. They point to North Korea’s reinvigo- ration of its plutonium program, Iran’s apparent progress in developing a nu- clear capability, and the breadth of the Abdul Qadeer (A.Q.) Khan network as evidence that the regime is failing.1 In addition, they claim that proliferation is driven by the inevitable spread of technology from a dense network of suppli- ers and that certain “rogue” states possess an unºagging determination to ac- quire nuclear weapons. Consequently, they argue that only extreme measures such as aggressively enforced containment or regime change can slow the ad- dition of several more countries to the nuclear club. This “proliferation deter- minism,” at least in rhetoric, is shared by many prominent members of President George W. Bush’s administration and has become the main thrust of U.S. counterproliferation policy.2 Yet current proliferators are neither as “dead Alexander H. Montgomery is a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University. Please send comments to [email protected]. The author is grateful for critiques of multiple versions of this article from Paul MacDonald and Todd Sechser; comments from an anonymous reviewer for International Security; suggestions from Chaim Braun, Christopher Chyba, Lynn Eden, Scott Sagan, and Dean Wilkening; and feedback from the partici- pants in the Research Seminar at the Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford Institute for International Studies, Stanford University. 1. On proliferation networks in general, see Chaim Braun and Christopher Chyba, “Proliferation Rings: New Challenges to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime,” International Security, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Fall 2004), pp. 5–49. On North Korea, see Jonathan D. Pollack, “The United States, North Korea, and the End of the Agreed Framework,” Naval War Review, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Summer 2003), pp. 11–49. On Iran, see IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) Board of Governors, “Imple- mentation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran,” IAEA report GOV/ 2004/83 (Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency, November 15, 2004), http://www .iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2004/gov2004-83_derestrict.pdf. On the A.Q. Khan network, see Gaurav Kampani, “Proliferation Unbound: Nuclear Tales from Pakistan” (Monterey, Calif.: Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies, February 23, 2004), http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040223.htm. 2. See, for example, Paul Wolfowitz, “Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Q&A,” International Institute for Strategic Studies, Asia Security Conference, Singapore, May 31, 2003, http://www .defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030531-depsecdef0246.html; George W. Bush, “President Announces New Measure to Counter the Threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD): Re- marks by the President on Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation,” February 11, 2004, http:// www.state.gov/t/ac/rls/rm/2004/29291.htm; Condoleezza Rice, “Remarks by National Security International Security, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Fall 2005), pp. 153–187 © 2005 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 153 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/016228805775124543 by guest on 29 September 2021 International Security 30:2 154 set” on proliferating nor as advanced in their nuclear capabilities as determinists claim.3 To dismantle the network of existing proliferation pro- grams, the administration should instead move toward a policy of “prolifera- tion pragmatism.” This would entail abandoning extreme rhetoric, using a full range of incentives and disincentives aimed at states seeking to acquire a nu- clear capability, targeting the hubs of proliferation networks, and engaging in direct talks with the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea (DPRK). In practice, the Bush administration’s nonproliferation policies have been more varied and less aggressive than its rhetoric would suggest. For example, it has been willing to enter talks with North Korea and Libya despite describ- ing both as “rogues.” Strong words can be used strategically to convince proliferators that accepting a settlement offer would be better than continuing to hold out. Yet the administration’s unyielding rhetoric has placed the United States in a position from which it is difªcult to back down;4 combined with a lack of positive incentives, this stance has convinced proliferators that the United States will not agree to or uphold any settlement short of regime change. Moreover, the administration has not formulated any coherent counterproliferation policies other than regime change and an aggressive form of export control enforcement known as the Proliferation Security Initiative. With respect to two of the key proliferators today—Iran and North Korea—the Bush administration has shown little interest in offering any signiªcant incen- tives or establishing any clear red lines. Instead, it has relied almost exclu- sively on China to convince the DPRK to give up its nuclear program and has declined to join the United Kingdom, France, and Germany in talks with Iran. Proliferation determinists present two arguments. First, dense networks among second-tier proliferators such as Iran, North Korea, and Libya and pri- Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice to the Reagan Lecture,” February 26, 2004, http://www .whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040228-1.html; John R. Bolton, “The Bush Adminis- tration and Nonproliferation: A New Strategy Emerges,” panel 1 of a hearing of the House Com- mittee on International Relations, 108th Cong., 2d sess., March 30, 2004, http://www.state.gov/t/ us/rm/31010.htm; and Richard Cheney, “Remarks by the Vice President at Westminster College,” April 26, 2004, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/print/20040426-8.html. 3. John R. Bolton, “Preventing Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons,” remarks to the Hudson In- stitute, August 17, 2004, http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/35281.htm. 4. As Vice President Dick Cheney has argued, “I have been charged by the president with making sure that none of the tyrannies in the world are negotiated with. We don’t negotiate with evil; we defeat it.” Quoted in Warren P. Strobel, “Administration Struggles to Find Right Approach to N. Korea Talks,” Knight Ridder, December 20, 2003. Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/016228805775124543 by guest on 29 September 2021 Ringing in Proliferation 155 Figure 1. Network Structures and State Intentions Mapped to Nonproliferation Strategies vate agents—including A.Q. Khan and two of his middlemen, Buhary Seyed Abu (B.S.A.) Tahir and Urs Tinner—have rapidly accelerated proliferation and lowered technological barriers.5 Because these networks are widespread and decentralized, global measures rather than strategies targeted at individual states are necessary to slow these processes. Second, certain rogue states are dead set on proliferating and thus have no interest in bargaining. These two arguments deªne two variables—network structure and state intentions— encompassing four kinds of states that can be mapped to four different nonproliferation strategies (see Figure 1). Proliferation determinists argue that a number of states (e.g., Iran, North Korea, and formerly Libya) belong in the upper-right quadrant of Figure 1 (regime change); because these regimes are determined to seek nuclear weapons and are connected by effective, decentral- ized networks, they must be changed. Both parts of the determinist argument are based on an interpretation of the progress of new proliferators that is at odds with publicly available docu- 5. Libya reinvigorated its nuclear program in 1995, then announced its termination in December 2003. On the roles of Tahir and Tinner, see Polis Diraja Malaysia, “Press Release by Inspector Gen- eral of Police in Relation to Investigation on the Alleged Production of Components for Libya’s Uranium Enrichment Programme,” Royal Malaysia Police ofªcial website, February 20, 2004, http://www.rmp.gov.my/rmp03/040220scomi_eng.htm. Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/016228805775124543 by guest on 29 September 2021 International Security 30:2 156 ments. The evidence that decentralized proliferation networks have allowed these proliferators to make great strides is contestable; the evidence that cer- tain types of regimes are dead set on nuclear proliferation and cannot be per- suaded to abandon their nuclear programs is even less compelling. Although the source of nuclear knowledge may have shifted from ªrst-tier (advanced in- dustrialized) to second-tier (developing industrial) states, there is no cause for proliferation panic. In this article I propose an alternative approach—proliferation pragma- tism—that rests on two premises. First, nuclear proliferation networks are highly centralized and are much less effective than determinists claim. Second, given sufªcient incentives, proliferators can be persuaded to halt or roll back their programs. Consequently,