.
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)
Mary Beth Nikitin
Analyst in Nonproliferation
September 10, 2009January 8, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL34327
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008
.
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)
Summary
The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) was formed to increase international cooperation in
interdicting shipments of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), their delivery systems, and
related materials. The Initiative was announced by President Bush on May 31, 2003. PSI does not
create a new legal framework but aims to use existing national authorities and international law to
achieve its goals. Initially, 11 nations signed on to the “Statement of Interdiction Principles” that
guides PSI cooperation. As of August 2009, 95 countries have committed formally to the PSI
principles, although the extent of participation may vary by country. PSI has no secretariat, but an
Operational Experts Group (OEG), made up of 20 PSI participants, coordinates activities.
Although WMD interdiction efforts took place with international cooperation before PSI was
formed, supporters argue that PSI training exercises and boarding agreements give a structure and
expectation of cooperation that will improve interdiction efforts. Many observers believe that
PSI’s “strengthened political commitment of like-minded states” to cooperate on interdiction is a
successful approach to counter-proliferation policy. But some caution that it may be difficult to
measure the initiative’s effectiveness, guarantee even participation, or sustain the effort over time
in the absence of a formal multilateral framework. Others support expanding membership and
improving inter-governmental and U.S. interagency coordination as the best way to improve the
program. President Obama in an April 2009 speech said that PSI should be turned into a “durable
international institution,” but how this would be implemented is not yet clear. This report will be
updated as events warrant.
Congressional Research Service
.
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)
Contents
Background ................................................................................................................................1
Participation..........................................................................................................................1
Organization .........................................................................................................................2
Measuring Success................................................................................................................3
PSI Objectives and Methods..................................................................................................4
PSI Legal Authorities ............................................................................................................6
Issues for Congress ...............................................................................................................7
Related Treaties and Conventions....................................................................................8
Legislation ......................................................................................................................9
Contacts
Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................9
Congressional Research Service
.
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)
Background
President George W. Bush unveiled the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) in Krakow, Poland,
on May 31, 2003.1 Deemed “foremost among President Bush’s efforts to stop WMD
proliferation,” PSI appeared to be a new channel for interdiction cooperation outside of treaties
and multilateral export control regimes. 2 It informally expanded the number of cooperating
countries without expanding membership in export control groups (Nuclear Suppliers’ Group,
Australia Group, and the Missile Technology Control Regime). 3
In the December 2002 National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
Proliferation, the Bush Administration articulated the importance of countering proliferation once
it has occurred and managing the consequences of WMD use. In particular, interdiction of WMDrelated goods gained more prominence. U.S. policy sought to “enhance the capabilities of our
military, intelligence, technical, and law enforcement communities to prevent the movement of
WMD materials, technology, and expertise to hostile states and terrorist organizations.”4
PSI was started partially in response to legal gaps revealed in an incomplete interdiction of the So
San, a North Korean-flagged ship that was carrying Scud missiles parts to Yemen in December
2002. It was interdicted on the high seas by a Spanish warship after a tip from American
intelligence. The boarding was legal because there was no ship under that name in the North
Korean registry. Inspectors found 15 complete Scud-like missiles, 15 warheads, and missile fuel
oxidizer hidden on board. However, U.S. and Spanish authorities had no legal basis to seize the
cargo, and the ship was released. Yemen claimed ownership of the missiles and reportedly
promised the United States that it would not retransfer the items or purchase additional missiles
from North Korea. While it is not clear that if this incident had occurred after PSI was formed the
outcome would have been different, it was clearly an impetus to quickly bring a multilateral
interdiction coordination mechanism to fruition. 5
Participation
Ten nations initially joined the United States to improve cooperation to interdict shipments (on
land, sea, or in the air) of WMD, their delivery systems, and related materials.6 According to State
Department officials, this core group defined the basic principles of interdiction and worked to
1
Remarks by the President to the People of Poland, May 31, 2003. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/
releases/2003/05/20030531-3.html
2
John R. Bolton, former Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, Testimony Before the House
International Relations Committee, “The Bush Administration’s Nonproliferation Policy: Successes and Future
Challenges,” March 30, 2004.
3
See CRS Report RL31559, Proliferation Control Regimes: Background and Status, coordinated by Mary Beth
Nikitin.
4
White House, National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), December 2002, p. 2.
5
Jofi Joseph, “The Proliferation Security Initiative: Can Interdiction Stop Proliferation?” Arms Control Today, June
2004, at http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_06/Joseph.asp; Andrew C. Winner, “The Proliferation Security Initative:
The New Face of Interdiction,” The Washington Quarterly, Spring 2005, at http://www.twq.com/05spring/docs/
05spring_winner.pdf.
6
Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
Congressional Research Service
1
.
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)
expand support in the early years, but was later expanded to the 20 members of the Operational
Experts Group (see below).
The State Department website shows that currently 95 countries (including the United States)
participate in the initiative. 7 Requirements for participation appear to be fairly weak. This
language may have been in part a result of early resistance to the idea of PSI in the international
community, in particular hesitancy over sovereignty and free passage issues, as well as U.S.
policymakers’ intention to keep the arrangement informal and non-binding. For example,
participating states are encouraged to [emphasis added in italics]
•
formally commit to and publicly endorse, if possible, the Statement of Principles;
•
review and provide information on current national legal authorities and indicate
willingness to strengthen authorities as appropriate;
•
identify specific national assets that might contribute to PSI efforts;
•
provide points of contact for interdiction requests;
•
be willing to actively participate in PSI interdiction training exercises and actual
operations as they arise; and
•
be willing to consider signing relevant agreements or to otherwise establish a
concrete basis for cooperation with PSI efforts.8
Organization
PSI has no international secretariat and no distinct program funding. Many consider the lack of
formal mechanisms an advantage and point instead to high-level meetings; the agreement on a set
of principles; and cooperative exercises to test interdiction procedures as evidence of PSI’s
usefulness.9 Others, however, question the seriousness of the effort as well as its sustainability, as
long as no formal mechanisms are created. 10 The current configuration does not legally bind PSI
adherents to this cooperative endeavor.
An informal coordinating structure has developed through an Operational Experts Group (OEG),
which discuss proliferation concerns and plans future exercises. The OEG consists of military,
law enforcement, intelligence, legal, and diplomatic experts from 20 PSI states.11 The Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction leads the U.S.
delegation to PSI OEG meetings.
7
For a current list, see http://www.state.gov/t/isn/c27732.htm
U.S. Department of State, Fact Sheet, “Proliferation Security Initiative Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ),” May 26,
2005, available at http://www.state.gov/t/np/rls/fs/46839.htm.
8
9
9
See http://www.state.gov/t/np/rls/fs/23764.htm for Statement of Interdiction Principles and http://www.state.gov/t/isn/
c12684.htm for a calendar of all PSI activities.
10
See transcript from Senate Government Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Budget and International Security,
hearing on WMD and counterproliferation, June 23, 2004.
11
The 20 members of the OEG are: Argentina, Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, the
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Singapore, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and the
United States. http://www.state.gov/t/isn/115491.htm
8
Congressional Research Service
2
.
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)
Measuring Success
Since its inception, there has been little publicly available information by which to measure PSI’s
success. One measurement might be the number of interdictions successfully carried out as a
result of PSI countries cooperating. Little public information is available, however. Secretary of
State Rice, on the second anniversary of PSI, announced that PSI was responsible for 11
interdictions in the previous nine months.12 On June 23, 2006, Under Secretary for Arms Control
and International Security Robert Joseph reported that between April 2005 and April 2006, PSI
partners worked together “on roughly two dozen separate occasions to prevent transfers of
equipment and materials to WMD and missile programs in countries of concern.”13 As ofIn July
2006,
Under Secretary Joseph said that PSI had “played a key role in helping to interdict more
than 30
shipments.”14 He also said that PSI cooperation stopped exports to Iran’s missile program
and the
export of heavy water-related equipment to Iran’s nuclear program. However, whether
and to
what extent PSI has contributed to these interdictions is unclear; they may have happened
even even
without PSI.15 Moreover, even if PSI has resulted in more interdictions than before, the
increase increase
may be the product of an upsurge in proliferation activity or improved intelligence.
Another way to gauge success might be to examine the completeness of membership in PSI,
particularly of countries of highest proliferation of transhipment concern. For example, some
states, such as China, Malaysia, Pakistan, and South Africa, remain outside the initiative.16 It
should be noted, however, that some countries that are not ready to sign up as full participants do
attend PSI exercises as observers.17 Other countries may participate indirectly in interdictions or
information exchange related to WMD proliferation without becoming a full participant in PSI.
The United States is strongly encouraging India to join PSI, but with little success so far.18
An additional issue affecting successful implementation is conclusion of ship-boarding
agreements, particularly with “flags of convenience” countries. So far, the United States has
signed nine ship-boarding agreements: in 2004 with Panama, the Marshall Islands, and Liberia; in
2005 with Croatia, Cyprus, and Belize,; in 2007 with Malta and Mongolia; and in 2008 with the
Bahamas. Such arrangements typically allow two hours to deny U.S. personnel the right to board
a ship.
When a merchant ship registers under a foreign flag to avoid taxes, save on wages or avoid
government restrictions, it is called a flag of convenience (FOC). FOCs are of particular concern
12
See http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/46951.htm for the text of Secretary Rice’s speech.
13
Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph, Warsaw, Poland, June 23, 2006.
Available at http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/68269.htm.
14
Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph, Remarks to the Capitol Hill Club, July
18, 2006, at http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/69124.htm.
15
Before PSI was announced, the US was already cooperating with other countries to interdict WMD shipments.
16
U.S. General Accounting Office, “U.S. Efforts to Combat Nuclear Networks Need Better Data on Proliferation Risks
and Program Results,” GAO-08-21, October 2007, at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0821.pdf.
17
For example, India and Malaysia were observers at the October 13-15, 2007, “Pacific Shield 07” exercise off the
coast of Japan. Stephanie Lieggi, “Proliferation Security Initiative Exercise Hosted by Japan Shows Growing Interest in
Asia But No Sea Change in Key Outsider States,” WMD Insights, December 2007-January 2008 Issue.
18
Stephanie Lieggi, “Proliferation Security Initiative Exercise Hosted by Japan Shows Growing Interest in Asia But No
Sea Change in Key Outsider States,” WMD Insights, December 2007-January 2008 Issue; Valencia, Mark J., “The
Proliferation Security Initiative: Making Waves in Asia,” The International Institute for Security Studies, October
2005, p. 66.
Congressional Research Service
3
.
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)
for proliferation reasons because of looser government regulations over their shipments and the
ease with which ships can switch from one registry to another to avoid tracking. Thirty-two
countries have flags of convenience registries.19 Of these, the Bahamas, Belize, Cambodia,
Cyprus, Georgia, Honduras, Liberia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Panama, and Sri Lanka
are already PSI participants. Panama and Liberia are said to have the highest volume of FOC
global trade.
PSI Objectives and Methods
PSI’s stated long-term objective is to “create a web of counter-proliferation partnerships through
which proliferators will have difficulty carrying out their trade in WMD and missile-related
technology.”20 It functions as an “activity, not an organization” and envisions countries working
in concert to bolster their national capacities to interdict WMD shipment using a “broad range of
legal, diplomatic, economic, military and other tools.”21
Several approaches may help improve interdiction efforts. First, participating states have agreed
to review their own relevant national legal authorities to ensure that they can take action. Second,
participating states resolve to take action, and to “seriously consider providing consent ... to
boarding and searching of its own flag vessels by other states.”22 Third, participating states seek
to put in place agreements, such as ship-boarding agreements, with other states in advance, so that
no time is lost should interdiction be required. A fourth approach is to conduct interdiction
exercises.
As many describe it, PSI relies on the “broken tail-light scenario”: officials look for all available
options to stop suspected transport of WMD or WMD-related items. In practice, cargos can be
seized in ports if they violate the host state’s laws, hence the focus on strengthening domestic
laws. On the high seas, ships have the rights of freedom of the seas and innocent passage under
the Law of the Sea Convention and customary international law. The boarding agreements may
allow for boarding, but not necessarily cargo seizure. 23 In addition, a key gap in the PSI
framework is that it applies only to commercial, not government, transportation. Government
vehicles (ships, planes, trucks, etc.) cannot legally be interdicted. Thus, the missile shipments
picked up by a Pakistani C-130 in the summer of 2002 in North Korea, reported by the New York
Times in November 2002, could not have been intercepted under PSI.
The October 2003 interdiction of a shipment of uranium centrifuge enrichment parts from
Malaysia to Libya illustrates the need for multilateral cooperation. The Malaysian-produced
19
As designated by the International Transportation Workers’ Federation, the following are flag of convenience states:
Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda (UK), Bolivia, Burma, Cambodia, Cayman Islands,
Comoros, Cyprus, Equatorial Guinea, French International Ship Register (FIS), German International Ship Register
(GIS), Georgia, Gibraltar (UK), Honduras, Jamaica, Lebanon, Liberia, Malta, Marshall Islands (USA), Mauritius,
Mongolia, Netherlands Antilles, North Korea, Panama, Sao Tome and Príncipe, St. Vincent, Sri Lanka, Tonga, and
Vanuatu. See http://www.itfglobal.org/flags-convenience/flags-convenien-183.cfm.
20
Bolton, March 30, 2004 HIRC testimony.
21
“Proliferation Security Initiative Frequently Asked Questions,” U.S. State Department Bureau of Nonproliferation
Fact Sheet, January 11, 2005, at http://www.state.gov/t/isn/rls/fs/32725.htm.
22
See September 2003 Statement of Interdiction Principles.
23
See CRS Report RL32097, Weapons of Mass Destruction Counterproliferation: Legal Issues for Ships and Aircraft,
by Jennifer K. Elsea.
Congressional Research Service
4
.
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)
equipment was transported on a German-owned ship, the BBC China, leaving Dubai, passing
through the Suez Canal. The United StateStates reportedly asked the German shipping company to
divert the ship into the Italian port of Taranto, where it was searched. Passage through the highly
regulated Suez Canal may give authorities an opportunity to delay ships and find a reason to
board them. While some Bush Administration officials have cited this as an example of a
successful PSI interdiction, others have argued it was part of a separate operation, and thus should
not be used as evidence of PSI’s success.24
In an interview in November 2003, then-Secretary Bolton suggested that WMD interdiction
would target shipments to rogue states and terrorists that pose the most immediate threat.25 In the
case of rogue states, it may be relatively easy to target shipments to Iran and North Korea and
their transhipment points, but targeting terrorist acquisitions would be a greater challenge for
intelligence agencies.
Officials have emphasized that under PSI, states will develop “new means to disrupt WMD
trafficking at sea, in the air, and on land.”26 PSI exercises have been held to practice interdictions
in all of these environments. 27 In his 2004 speech introducing the initiative, President Bush
proposed expanding PSI to address more than shipments and transfers, including “shutting down
facilities, seizing materials, and freezing assets.”28 To some observers, it is difficult to imagine
how national authorities could shut down facilities, seize materials, and freeze assets, particularly
if the material and equipment in question is dual-use (which would normally place the burden on
the export destination).
Another approach has been to target financial assets. In June 2005, President Bush issued
Executive Order 13382, which prohibits U.S. persons from doing business with entities
designated because of their proliferation activities.29 On June 23, 2006, 66 PSI states participated
in a High Level Political Meeting in Poland, which focused on developing closer ties with the
business community to further prevent any financial support to the proliferation of WMD. 30 PSI
states have also hosted at least four workshops to introduce industry representatives to PSI goals
and principles. 31
24
Assistant Secretary of State John Wolf told Arms Control Today that the BBC China was a “separate” operation from
PSI. The interdiction was reportedly part of an intelligence operation against the A.Q. Khan network and was timed to
spur Libyan disarmament. See Wade Boese, “Key U.S. Interdiction Initiative Claim Misrepresented,”
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_07-08/Interdiction_Misrepresented.asp; Ron Suskind, The One Percent Doctrine,
2006, pp. 268-269.
25
“The Proliferation Security Initiative: An Interview with John Bolton,” Arms Control Today, December 2003.
26
Ibid.
27
See list of all activities at http://www.state.gov/t/isn/c27700.htm
28
See http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/index.html for text of President’s speech.
29
See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050629.html for text of Executive Order 13382, June 29,
2005.
30
See “Cracow Proliferation Security Initiative High Level Political Meeting,” Summary from the Polish government,
at http://www.psi.msz.gov.pl/index.php?&PHPSESSID=50078a65ad2acf1dd3d7f518b7148e58.
31
31
U.S. General Accounting Office, “U.S. Efforts to Combat Nuclear Networks Need Better Data on Proliferation Risks
and Program Results,” GAO-08-21, October 2007, at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0821.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
5
.
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)
PSI Legal Authorities
U.S. officials have been careful to emphasize that PSI actions, including ship boardings and
seizures, would be carried out in accordance with national legal authorities and international law
and frameworks. The Statement of Interdiction Principles commits participants to “review and
work to strengthen their relevant national legal authorities where necessary to accomplish these
objectives, and work to strengthen when necessary relevant international law and frameworks in
appropriate ways to support these commitments.” There are differing opinions on whether the
United States should work more aggressively to expand international legal authority for
interdictions on the high seas and in international airspace. The 2005 Protocol to the Convention
for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA) would
require states to criminalize transportation of WMD materials and their delivery vehicles. This
protocol also “creates a shipboarding regime based on flag state consent similar to agreements
that the United States has concluded bilaterally as part of the Proliferation Security Initiative.”32
The United States Senate gave its advice and consent for ratification of the 2005 SUA Protocol on
September 25, 2008. The Senate will next need to adopt the appropriate implementing legislation.
A further step could be adoption of a U.N. resolution that would provide for interdiction activities
under Section VII of the U.N. Charter, which allows the Security Council to authorize sanctions
or the use of force to compel states to comply with its resolutions.
The Bush Administration has in the past attempted to expand international legal authority for PSI
and related activities. The State Department has said that participating in PSI is a way for states to
comply with their obligations under UN Security Council resolutions 1718, 1737, 1747, 1803,
and 1540.33 U.N. Security Council Resolution 1540, passed in April 2004, requires all states to
establish and enforce effective domestic controls over WMD and WMD-related materials in
production, use, storage, and transport; to maintain effective border controls; and to develop
national export and trans-shipment controls over such items, all of which should help interdiction
efforts.34 While UNSCR 1540 was adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the resolution
did not provide any enforcement authority, nor did it specifically mention interdiction or PSI.
Early drafts of the resolution put forward by the United States had included explicit language
calling on states to interdict if necessary shipments related to WMD. However, over China’s
objections, the word “interdict” was removed and was changed to “take cooperative action to
prevent illicit trafficking” in WMD.35
UN Security Council 1874 does establish procedures for the
required interdiction of WMD and
other weapons going to or from North Korea. The PSI
mechanism may assist countries in coordinating these actions.36
The Law of the Sea Convention may affect PSI implementation and is now under consideration in
the Senate. The treaty is supported by the President and the Pentagon as a way to enhance PSI
coordinating these actions.36
32
Treaty Document 110-8. See http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_documents&
docid=f:td008.110.pdf.
33
“Proliferation Security Initiative Frequently Asked Questions,” State Department Fact Sheet, May 22, 2008.
34
The U.N. Security Council extended the mandate of the committee in 2006 with Resolution 1673, and in 2008 with
Resolution 1810. See UN 1540 Committee website, http://www.un.org/sc/1540/index.shtml.
35
For a history of the 1540 Resolution’s evolution, see Merav Datan, “Security Council Resolution 1540: WMD and
Non-State Trafficking,” Disarmament Diplomacy, Issue No. 79, April/May 2005, at http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/
dd79/79md.htm.
36
See CRS Report R40684, North Korea’s Second Nuclear Test: Implications of U.N. Security Council Resolution
1874, coordinated by Mary Beth Nikitin and Mark E. Manyin.
Congressional Research Service
6
.
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)
The Law of the Sea Convention may affect PSI implementation and is under consideration in the
Senate. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said in her confirmation hearing that ratification of the
Convention is an Administration priority. The Convention has also been supported by the
Pentagon as a way to enhance PSI efforts. In a letter from the Joint Chiefs of Staff sent to the
Senate in June 2007, the Joint Chiefs
argued for ratification, explaining that the convention “codifies
navigation and overflight rights
and high seas freedoms that are essential for the global mobility
of our armed forces.”37 The letter
said that the Convention supports the efforts of the Proliferation
Security Initiative. Senior
military officials have also publicly said that not being a party hinders
efforts to recruit new PSI
participants.38 In his testimony before a Senate Armed Services
Committee in April 2008, Vice
Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Patrick Walsh said, “Our
current non-party status constrains
our efforts to develop enduring maritime partnerships. It
inhibits us in our efforts to expand the
Proliferation Security Initiative.”39
Issues for Congress
It may remain difficult for Congress to track PSI’s success. However, reporting and coordination
requirements now in public law may result in more information than was available in the past.
The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53) requires
the President to include PSI activities for each involved Agency in his budget request, and
requires submission to Congress of joint DOD-DOS reports to include detailed three-year plans
for PSI activities no later than the first Monday in February each year.40 The Act also
recommends that PSI be expanded, that the United States should use the intelligence and planning
resources of the NATO alliance, make participation open to non-NATO countries, and encourage
Russia and China to participate.41 It gives the sense of Congress that PSI should be strengthened
and expanded by establishing a clear authority for PSI coordination and increasing PSI
cooperation with all countries.
While PSI generally receives bipartisan support in principle, critics urge changes, such as
increased transparency, expansion of participants, and improved coordination, rather than an end
to the program. For example, the 9/11 Commission recommended that the United States seek to
strengthen and expand PSI’s membership.42 Others emphasize coordination. Senator Richard
Lugar has said, “PSI is an excellent step forward, but what is lacking is a coordinated effort to
improve the capabilities of our foreign partners so that they can play a larger detection and
interdiction role.”43
U.S. government organization and management issues have also been highlighted as areas for
improvement. The General Accounting Office published a report in September 2006, “Better
Controls Needed to Plan and Manage Proliferation Security Initiative Activities,” that
recommended the following: (1) the Departments of Defense and State establish clear roles and
responsibilities, interagency communication mechanisms, documentation requirements, and
37
“Military Officials Urge Accession to Law of the Sea Treaty,” Armed Forces Press Service, December 10, 2007.
Capt. Patrick J. Neher, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, Letter to the Editor, The Washington Times, November 14,
2007, at http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/EDITORIAL/111140015&template=
nextpage; “Military, Civilian Officials Urge Accession to Law of Sea Treaty,”American Forces Press Service,
September 28, 2007, at http://www.militaryconnection.com/news/september-2007/law-sea-treaty.html.
39
http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2008/April/Walsh%2004-01-08.pdf
40
Sections 1821 and 1822, The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, P.L. 110-53.
41
Note that Russia joined PSI as a full participant in May 2004.
42
Report of the 9/11 Commission, p. 381.
43
Richard Lugar, “Revving Up the Cooperative Nonproliferation Regime,” The Nonproliferation Review, July 2008
http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/152_viewpoint_lugar.pdf
38
Congressional Research Service
7
.
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)
Controls Needed to Plan and Manage Proliferation Security Initiative Activities,” that
recommended the following: (1) the Departments of Defense and State establish clear roles and
responsibilities, interagency communication mechanisms, documentation requirements, and
indicators to measure program results; (2) the Departments of Defense and State develop a
strategy to work with PSI-participating countries to resolve issues that are impediments to
interdictions; and (3) a multilateral mechanism be established to increase coordination,
cooperation, and compliance among PSI participants.44 These recommendations were also
endorsed by Congress in P.L. 110-53, the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007. The President was required to submit a report to Congress on
implementation of these recommendations, which was done past the mandated deadline, in July
2008. A follow-up GAO report issued in November 2008 details U.S. agencies’ efforts to increase
PSI cooperation and coordination.45 It reported that the Bush administration had not issued a
directive to U.S. agencies to coordinate PSI functions, as required by law. A joint report by the
Department of Defense and the State Department was submitted to Congress in January 2009.
The Obama administration has said that it would like to “institutionalize PSI” as part of its
agenda.46 This could include following the mandates in the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007,
although details have not yet been announced.
Geographic expansion of PSI participants remains a key issue—particularly how to engage China
and India, as well as states in important regions like the Arabian Peninsula.47 Congress may also
consider how intelligence resources are handled. Is intelligence sufficient and are there
intelligence-sharing requirements with non-NATO allies? Also, how is PSI coordinated with other
federal interdiction-related programs (e.g., export control assistance, WMD detection
technologies, etc.)? One potential complication for congressional oversight of PSI is the absence
of a way to measure PSI’s success, relative to past efforts. Congress may choose to consider,
again, how successfully the recommendations of P.L. 110-53 have been followed, and whether
more non-proliferation policy coordination within the U.S. government may be required.
Related Treaties and Conventions
On October 1, 2007, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations received the Protocol of 2005 to
the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation
(the “2005 SUA Protocol”) for consideration.48 The protocol was signed by the United States on
February 17, 2006. In President Bush’s submission note to the Senate, he summarizes the
importance of this protocol to PSI activities: “The 2005 SUA Protocol also provides for a shipboarding regime based on flag state consent that will provide an international legal basis for
interdiction at sea of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems and related materials.”
On July 29, 2008, the committee unanimously ordered the resolutions to advise and consent to the
2005 SUA Protocol. The full Senate approved the Protocol on September 25, 2008, and
implementing legislation has been submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
44
GAO-06-937C, as summarized in P.L. 110-53.
GAO-09-43, “U.S. Agencies Have Taken Some Steps, but More Effort Is Needed to Strengthen and Expand the
Proliferation Security Initiative,” November 2008.
46
http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/homeland_security/
47
“The Proliferation Security Initiative: Three Years On,” British American Security Information Council, August 2,
2006. See http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Notes/BN060802.pdf#search
==
%222%20august%20psi%20basic%20notes%22.
48
Treaty Document 110-8. See http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_documents&
docid=f:td008.110.pdf.
45
Congressional Research Service
8
.
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)
2005 SUA Protocol. The full Senate approved the Protocol on September 25, 2008. The Senate
must next approve implementing legislation for ratification to be finalized.
As mentioned above, the Senate is considering consent to ratification of the Law of the Sea
Convention which military and other government officials argue will positively impact PSI
implementation. Critics of the Treaty cite concerns about limiting U.S. sovereignty. The Senate
Foreign Relations Committee approved the treaty recommended advice and consent for U.S. adherence to the treaty
on October 31, 2007.
Legislation
In the 111th Congress, legislation has been introduced in support of PSI. H.Res. 604, introduced
by House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, recognizes “the vital
role of the Proliferation Security Initiative in preventing the spread of weapons of mass
destruction.” Representative Ros-Lehtinen’s proposed bill, the Western Hemisphere
Counterterrorism and Nonproliferation Act of 2009 (H.R. 375) includes a sense of Congress that
PSI has “repeatedly demonstrated its effectiveness in preventing the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction,” and that the Secretary of State should seek to secure the “formal or informal
cooperation by Western Hemisphere countries” for PSI.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee Report 111-136, in its section on minority views also
praises PSI: “The Proliferation Security Initiative is an outstanding example of U.S. leadership in
the area of nonproliferation. The PSI has demonstrated that success can be achieved through a
flexible consensus of like-minded countries without the need for an international bureaucracy,
constraining treaties, or formal permission that often never comes.”
Author Contact Information
Mary Beth Nikitin
Analyst in Nonproliferation
mnikitin@crs.loc.gov, 7-7745
Congressional Research Service
9