A few weeks back, Rumsfeld gave an interview where he discussed proliferation and international institutions.
He said:
Q: What you said just a minute ago about, you know, this isn’t something that one country can solve, it sounded awfully close to kind of stepping back from what we’ve been saying all along, which is everything’s on the table.
RUMSFELD: Oh, I’m not stepping back from anything like that or anything the president said. No, I was just characterizing proliferation—as something that no one nation can deal with. I mean, it just takes a lot of countries to prevent the proliferation of these dangerous technologies to other people.
And it takes 21st century rules. I mean, we were working to stop a bunch of missiles going into a Middle Eastern country. And if you’ll recall, the ship was stopped, they found the missiles, and they ended up having to let the ship go, and the missiles go because there was no law or rule that would permit them from being—to be stopped. And we had a maritime interdiction system that was available at that time to do that.
But the world has not adjusted to the 21st century, and we’re still functioning with institutions that were fashioned at the juncture of the end of World War II and the beginning of the Cold War, that have stood us in good stead a long time. But this new century is going to require institutions to be either significantly adjusted or new ones to be fashioned, new arrangements to be fashioned. And we think of cyber warfare, the damage that could be done to countries. The rules—the guidelines and the procedures and the legitimacy of certain types of behavior in that area haven’t been thought through well.
Right. I can’t think of anything that the IAEA has accomplished since the end of the Cold War except verifying that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program, sussing out the details of Iran’s nuclear program, helping to investigate the Khan network, and helping to uncover North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.
Obviously, we need to tweak existing export controls and do something to deal with the spread of enrichment and reprocessing facilities.
RE: the So San incident, I would add the following, which I wrote about here
Fleischer said that the United States had the authority to stop the ship because it was unflagged but that Washington decided to release the ship because it lacked “clear authority to seize the shipment.” Fleischer also suggested that Yemen’s status as an ally in anti-terrorism efforts was an important factor in the decision, saying that Yemen “does not provide a threat to the United States.”
I’ll go back to expressing my inner anguish through the majesty of song…
The State Department just provided a report on the IAEA’s Technical Assistance Program to Iran – does anyone know where to get a copy?
Things are always interesting with Yemen.
…to Congress. (forgot to add that the report on Iran was provided by the State Dept TO CONGRESS)
Apparently this report is filed by State to Congress regularly. Wonder what’s in it.
To be fair, I fail to see where Rumsfeld comments on the IAEA in this report/transcript. I could not find any comment relating to the Agency.
I am aware of that. It changes nothing about the post. I guess I could have pointed out that the Bush administration can and should do a hell of a lot more to increase the effectiveness of international action/institutions against proliferation. But I didn’t feel like flogging that dead horse just now.
But hasn’t the Bush administration instituted the “Proliferation Security Initiative” outside of the UN Law of the Sea system to (illegally) interdict missiles and other “wmd-related” material from going to countries we don’t like on an ad hoc basis?
With all due respect Paul, I disagree with your statement “It changes nothing about the post.” The title reads “Rumsfeld Reports on IAEA.” He didn’t. I support your contention but the post’s title is misleading.
RE: HAsson PSI:
No. The PSI does not empower countries to do anything they couldn’t already do within existing international law.
RE: Canary on the title.
I think it’s more than fair to include the IAEA in the list of “institutions” that Rumsfeld was talking about.
Sorry but there is a great deal of debate over the legality of PSI – even in its present form. THe PSI docs claim that it is consistent with international law howeverunder Article 110 of theLaw of the Sea Convention the interdiction of vessels is legally only permitted if they’re engaged in five possibleactivities, all of which are themselves illegal such as carrying contraband (drug traffickingon the high seas is prohibited by the 1988 Vienna Convention.) Otherwise interdiction requires the consent of the flag State in international waters.
The US has tried to fit the PSI into international law by dressing it up in the language of international law and later by claiming it constitutes “self-defense” but few are buying that. Even some in the US worry that it could just as easily be applied to the US.
Since the PSI is selectively applied to states which are designated (by whom?) of “proliferation concern” this raises even more doubts that the PSI constitutes a general norm or standard of international law. It is at best a multilateral agreement which is enforceable only among its participants but which is otherwise contrary to international law.