During the Cold War, we deterred with our nukes, massive nuke attacks by enemy nation-states against our allies.
But the Cold War ended more than a decade ago. Our principal concern is no longer massive nuke attacks by nation-states. Now we worry more about a one-nuke terrorist.
Immediately after Sept. 11, NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson announced that “if it is determined that this attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty,” which states:
- The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Meanwhile, the U.N. Security Council – after noting with concern “the close connection between international terrorism and transnational organized crime, illicit drugs, money laundering and illegal movement of nuclear, chemical, biological and other deadly materials” – passed UNSCR 1373, which reaffirms that international terrorism constitutes a threat to international peace and security, and should be combated “by all means,” including the use of armed force.
Once it was determined that Osama bin Laden had “directed” the Sept. 11 attack, the UNSC and NATO authorized the use of force in Afghanistan – and elsewhere.
Which brings us to the briefings this past week to Congress by Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet that have gotten everyone’s attention.
“In my view, we have entered a new world of proliferation,” he said. “In the vanguard of this new world are knowledgeable non-state purveyors of WMD materials and technology. Such non-state outlets are increasingly capable of providing technology and equipment that previously could only be supplied by countries with established capabilities.”
The International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Suppliers Group have been working the “non-state outlet” problem for a decade. Iraq had got most items for its illicit nuke program from individuals and private-sector firms, located in non-nuke nation-states.
To prevent nuke proliferation, the 40-members of the NSG closely scrutinize their exports. However, prior to the Gulf War, if non-state exporters said the importer’s intentions were peaceful, NSG members usually took them at their word.
No longer. Since 1992 NSG members have criminally prosecuted and imprisoned deceitful exporters and now require the importing nation-state to subject most items to a full-scope IAEA Safeguards Agreement. In 1995, the IAEA began “enforcing” these NSG export guidelines, which apply to all importing nation-states, whether or not they are Non-Proliferation-Treaty signatories.
But then, in 1998, Pakistan – neither a NPT signatory nor a NSG member – surprised the world by testing a half-dozen sophisticated nukes. Would Pakistan share these “gifts from Allah” with Iraq and other Islamic nation-states?
Well, apparently, not with Iraq. The IAEA reports that Iraq has been unable to reconstitute its illicit program to develop nukes.
But what about North Korea? The IAEA reports the North Koreans may soon have nukes. Did Pakistan aid them? Yes – reportedly supplying the Koreans with technical assistance, equipment and a list of non-state outlets to contact.
Bummer. North Korea is probably the only nation-state in the world that would make nukes a “cash crop,” for sale to the highest bidder, including terrorists. That means that North Korea is probably the only nation-state the UNSC and NATO would and should authorize a pre-emptive strike against for developing a nuke capability.
The warhawks haven’t been able to pin Sept. 11 – or any other terrorist act – on Saddam Hussein. Until they do, neither NATO nor the UNSC is going to authorize the use of force, under Article 5 or UNSCR-1331.
So, why haven’t the warhawks shifted their focus to North Korea? In particular, when North Korean Pooh-bahs visit Pakistan and other Islamic states to market their most recent “cash crop,” do they meet with al-Qaida? Stay tuned.
