Occasional Paper 9

Proliferation Security 

Initiative: Origins and 

Evolution 

Susan J. Koch
Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction

National Defense University

DR. JOHN F. REICHART

Director

DR. W. SETH CARUS

Deputy Director, Distinguished Research Fellow

Since its inception in 1994, the Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass 

Destruction (WMD Center) has been at the forefront of research on the 

implications of weapons of mass destruction for U.S. security. Originally focusing 

on threats to the military, the WMD Center now also applies its expertise and 

body of research to the challenges of homeland security. The center’s mandate 

includes research, education, and outreach. Research focuses on understanding 

the security challenges posed by WMD and on fashioning effective responses 

thereto. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has designated the center as 

the focal point for WMD education in the joint professional military education 

system. Education programs, including its courses on countering WMD and 

consequence management, enhance awareness in the next generation of 

military and civilian leaders of the WMD threat as it relates to defense and 

homeland security policy, programs, technology, and operations. As a part of its 

broad outreach efforts, the WMD Center hosts annual symposia on key issues 

bringing together leaders and experts from the government and private sectors. 

Visit the center online at www.ndu.edu/WMDCenter/. 


Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Occasional Paper, No. 9

National Defense University Press

Washington, D.C.

June 2012

Proliferation Security 

Initiative: Origins 

and Evolution 

Susan J. Koch
Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied 

within are solely those of the contributors and do not necessarily represent 

the views of the Defense Department or any other agency of the Federal 

Government. Cleared for public release; distribution unlimited.

Portions of this work may be quoted or reprinted without permission, provided that a standard source credit line is included. NDU Press 

would appreciate a courtesy copy of reprints or reviews.

Insofar as possible, the information in this paper is current as of 

September 2011. Much of the research and analysis on which this paper 

draws was originally done by the author for a publication by the National 

Institute for Public Policy, The Proliferation Security Initiative: A Model for 

Future International Collaboration (Fairfax, VA: National Institute Press, 

August 2009). The research for this paper included interviews and written 

communications with current or former U.S. Government officials who 

are serving or who served on the White House National Security Council 

staff, in the Department of State, Department of Defense, and Intelligence 

Community. Most of those sources are identified by name; a few, who 

spoke on a background basis, are identified only by institutional affiliation.

First printing, June 2012
Contents

Failure as a Policy Catalyst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

From Failure to Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

From Krakow to Paris: Creation of the Proliferation 

Security Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Operation of the Proliferation Security Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Appendix. States Endorsing the Proliferation Security Initiative 

Statement of Interdiction Principles as of September 10, 2010 . . . . 31

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

1

Failure as a Policy Catalyst 

On December 9, 2002, the United States and Spanish navies cooperated to 

interdict a North Korean vessel, the So San, in the Arabian Sea.1 The operation 

initially appeared to be an unqualified success, a textbook example of interdiction 

to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), related materials, or delivery systems. According to press reports, the United States began tracking the vessel when it first left North Korea, believing that it was carrying a cargo 

related to Scud ballistic missiles. The So San flew no flag, making it a stateless 

vessel under international law, subject to interception and boarding by warships 

on the high seas.2 The United States asked the Spanish navy to stop and search 

the So San when the ship reached the patrol area of Combined Task Force (CTF) 

150, then under Spanish command. The mission of CTF 150 was “to promote 

maritime security in order to counter terrorist acts and related illegal activities” in 

the Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, Red Sea, and Indian Ocean.3 Thus, the United 

States proposed—and Spain agreed—to use a tool developed to combat global 

terrorism in a counterproliferation mission.

After the Spanish naval ship Navarra intercepted the So San, the vessel’s captain refused to halt, and Spanish naval personnel forcibly boarded it by helicopter. 

U.S. naval personnel joined the Spanish on board quickly thereafter. The So San’s 

manifest claimed that it was carrying a cargo of cement. That statement, while 

true, was incomplete. Hidden in the ship’s hold under many bags of cement was a 

proliferation cargo comprised of 15 complete Scud missiles, 15 conventional warheads, 23 containers of nitric acid missile fuel, and 85 barrels of initially unidentified chemicals, later described as oxidizer for the missile fuel. At Spain’s request, 

the U.S. Navy took control of the vessel and its cargo.

Almost immediately, the So San interdiction turned from success to embarrassing failure. On December 11, the United States released the vessel just 2 days 

after its seizure, and the ship resumed passage to its destination—this time without interruption. The government of Yemen had agreed in late summer 2002 not 

to purchase any more Scud missiles from North Korea, and the Yemeni embassy in 

Washington initially denied that the So San shipment was destined for its country. 
2 

CSWMD Occasional Paper 9

However, after news of the interdiction leaked to the media, senior Yemeni officials reacted differently and vehemently. On December 10, the Yemeni president 

complained directly to Vice President Richard B. Cheney, and the foreign minister 

to Secretary of State Colin Powell, claiming that the missiles, warheads, and fuel 

were Yemen’s property and demanding that the So San be allowed to proceed. The 

United States acceded. Former senior U.S. Government officials directly involved 

in the So San events believe that the government of Yemen would have quietly 

accepted the interdiction had it remained secret but that the publicity about both 

the shipment and its destination made it politically untenable for the Yemenis to 

acquiesce to the seizure of their property..

4

In announcing the So San release, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer 

made a point of mentioning that “Yemen is a partner of the United States in the 

war on terrorism.” Fleischer also argued that there was a lack of international legal 

authority for the United States to retain the So San and its cargo, and stressed that 

the George W. Bush administration would work to redress that problem:

There is no provision under international law prohibiting Yemen 

from accepting delivery of missiles from North Korea. While there is 

authority to stop and search, in this instance there is no clear authority to seize the shipment of Scud missiles from North Korea to Yemen. 

And therefore, the merchant vessel is being released.

. . . 

There are many agreements around the world in international treaty law which have been agreed to, focused on nuclear proliferation, 

on biological proliferation, on chemical weapons proliferation. One 

thing that does come out of this that the United States thinks needs 

to be looked at by the world is that there are less stringent agreements on the international treaty level dealing with proliferation 

of missiles. . . . One thing that this does underscore is the need to 

take a look—and we will do so, with friends and others around the 
3

Proliferation Security Initiative

world—in a diplomatic sense about whether or not the international 

regimes that deal with missile proliferation need a second look.5

Legal scholars disagree about whether the United States and/or Spain 

had authority to retain the So San and its cargo. Some take a restrictive view, 

arguing that in this case, only North Korea could have taken action against the 

ship. For example, Craig H. Allen states that “any enforcement action would 

ultimately have to be based on a violation of the enforcing state’s municipal 

laws. . . . [T]he only states that will likely have applicable laws under such 

circumstances are the vessel’s flag state and the state from which the illicit 

cargo was exported. Neither Spain nor the United States fell within those categories.”6

 Neither did Yemen. Others argue that the issue was worth pursuing 

in U.S. courts, on the grounds that the Scuds may ultimately have come under 

the control of al Qaeda, and that the United States had the right to confiscate 

material destined for an adversary in the war on terror.7 Despite those different views, most legal scholars appear to agree with Fleischer’s statements: 

because Yemen was not a hostile power and credibly claimed ownership of the 

missiles, the United States had no legal basis to retain the So San and its cargo 

over Yemeni objections.

In any event, former senior U.S. Government officials involved in the So 

San events maintain that legal considerations had little impact on the release—

that it was solely a political decision. They argue that the Bush administration 

placed great priority at the time on cultivating and retaining Middle Eastern 

state support against terrorism, and would forgive much to that end. Robert 

G. Joseph, former National Security Council Senior Director for Proliferation 

Strategy, speculates that Fleischer explained the release on legal grounds to underscore that the President would follow a new path to prevent such problems 

in the future.8

 In any case, it appears that the administration was not interested 

in finding appropriate legal grounds to challenge the Yemeni government. If it 

had been, it almost certainly would not have released the vessel so quickly; any 

real examination of potential legal avenues would have taken longer than a day 

or two.9
4 

CSWMD Occasional Paper 9

From Failure to Proposal

On the day the So San was released, and after the public announcement, President Bush called into the Oval Office two key officials involved in the case: Deputy 

National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and National Security Council (NSC) Senior Director for Proliferation Strategy, Counterproliferation, and Homeland Defense 

Robert Joseph. The President wanted answers to essentially two tough questions: why 

was he put in the position that he faced with the So San, and what could be done to 

prevent such failures in the future?10 That difficult meeting in the Oval Office set in 

motion the process that led to the creation of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).

National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction

In a strange coincidence, on the same day as the So San release, the Bush administration published the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction. Elements of this strategy had been included in the September 2002 National 

Security Strategy of the United States, but the December publication was unprecedented in its detail and focus on countering WMD and missile delivery systems.

The December 2002 publication also departed from earlier declaratory policy 

by addressing policies and actions to counter proliferation before addressing ones to

prevent it. The professed aim was not to downgrade proliferation prevention efforts, 

but rather to emphasize that proliferation would occur and must not be allowed to 

succeed. Thus, the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction states:

We know from experience that we cannot always be successful in 

preventing and containing the proliferation of WMD to hostile 

states and terrorists. Therefore, U.S. military and appropriate civilian agencies must possess the full range of operational capabilities to 

counter the threat and use of WMD by states and terrorists against 

the United States, our military forces, and friends and allies.11

Not only did the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction

stress counterproliferation, it also highlighted interdiction as the first element 
5

Proliferation Security Initiative

discussed: “Effective interdiction is a critical part of the U.S. strategy to combat 

WMD and their delivery means. We must 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.”12

The simultaneous publication of the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of 

Mass Destruction heightened the sense of failure surrounding the So San incident, 

both within and outside the Bush administration. The collapse of the So San operation occurred just as the administration publicly highlighted the importance to 

national security of interdicting proliferation shipments.

Still, the negative political fallout from the So San events was rather limited 

and short-lived. Two factors probably helped to contain it. First, domestic and international attention at the time was focused overwhelmingly on the likelihood of 

conflict in Iraq; under the circumstances, the So San quickly disappeared from the 

front pages.13 Second, and perhaps more important in the long run, elements of 

the So San operation were quite successful. The political and military cooperation 

between the United States and Spain worked well. In addition, the intelligence 

about the So San was accurate; the ship was in fact carrying a clandestine proliferation cargo that was intended to be hidden and disguised. In that respect, the So 

San case differed markedly from the only previous U.S. proliferation interdiction 

attempt that was widely publicized. In August 1993, the Clinton administration 

believed that a Chinese container ship, the Yinhe, was carrying chemical weapons 

precursors to Iran. The U.S. Navy forced the Yinhe to stop in the Indian Ocean 

for about 3 weeks while China and the United States argued over the shipment. 

Finally, China agreed to have a Saudi-U.S. team inspect the vessel in a Saudi Arabian port; the suspect chemicals were not on board.14

Analysis of Lessons Learned

The first action taken by President Bush’s advisors to address his questions 

about the So San was to undertake an interagency analysis of the legal, political, 

diplomatic, operational, and intelligence-related lessons to be learned from the 

incident. With international attention focused on Iraq, the administration was 
6 

CSWMD Occasional Paper 9

able to conduct that analysis without public scrutiny. Indeed, none of the steps 

immediately after the release of the So San became publicly known before the 

President’s PSI announcement 6 months later. One reason for the subsequent 

success of the PSI proposal almost certainly has been the lack of any premature 

disclosure that could have constrained policymakers’ choices.

The task to analyze the So San lessons learned was given to an Interdiction 

Sub-Policy Coordinating Committee (Sub-PCC), chaired by Brendan Melley, 

Director for Proliferation Strategy on the NSC staff, who reported to Robert 

Joseph. Key agencies involved were the Department of State, the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense (OSD), Joint Staff, and Central Intelligence Agency. Over 

the course of the review, the Departments of Treasury, Justice, and Commerce 

and components of the nascent Department of Homeland Security (DHS) were 

also included. Further, a member of the NSC Legal Advisor’s Office convened a 

group of interagency lawyers to identify existing authorities for interdiction; this 

group included representatives from the above agencies, as well as additional players such as the Federal Aviation Administration and additional DHS elements 

(the U.S. Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement). Rather than working entirely in parallel, the legal and 

policy groups closely interacted. For example, Brendan Melley participated in all 

meetings of the legal group and was often joined by key policy officials from the 

Departments of State and Defense.15

According to Melley, the interagency lessons learned analysis focused on 

identifying the circumstances under which the United States and like-minded nations could interdict WMD and missile proliferation shipments, whether by sea, 

air, or ground. Instead of considering possible new international legal authorities, 

the Sub-PCC concentrated on what could be done with existing ones. That meant 

an emphasis on national authorities and, later on, offers to help other governments 

if they needed to strengthen their national laws against proliferation. Melley has 

described the approach, espoused by Robert Joseph and Under Secretary of State 

for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, as intended in essence 

to change international law through actions by sovereign nations to change their 

national legal authorities.16
7

Proliferation Security Initiative

Another lesson derived by the Sub-PCC was a requirement to reduce to a 

minimum the number of individuals aware of pending, possible, and, in many 

cases, completed interdiction actions. The Sub-PCC concluded that the public 

disclosure of the So San interdiction contributed directly to the failure of the operation and was almost inevitable, given the large numbers of U.S. Government 

officials who were informed of the intelligence and operational elements of the So 

San case as they unfolded in real time.17

After completing the analysis of lessons learned from the So San, the SubPCC turned to drafting proposed “rules of the road” for interdiction, which concentrated on the policy and legal aspects of how governments could work together 

to counter WMD and missile proliferation. The Proliferation Strategy PCC—the 

Assistant Secretary–level interagency group to which the Sub-PCC reported—

approved the draft rules with some amendments. Joseph and Melley then prepared a package for Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley to send 

to the next interagency level, the Deputy Secretary/Under Secretary–level Deputies Committee. However, the package never went to the Deputies Committee. 

Instead, Hadley and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice took it directly 

to the President for his approval. Melley believes that they felt comfortable doing so because they were confident that the draft rules of the road constituted a 

good plan and outline of existing authorities, which had already been vetted by 

concerned agencies.18

Under those circumstances, there appeared little to be gained, and potentially 

much to be lost, from continuing to work the text through the bureaucracy. The 

draft rules of the road provided a solid foundation for the President to propose an 

international interdiction initiative in a major speech he was scheduled to give in 

Krakow, Poland, a few weeks later. Formal Deputies’ consideration of the document would delay the process, perhaps making it difficult to meet the Krakow 

timeline. Even more to the point, any broadening of the interagency community 

and lengthening of the time involved in considering the draft rules could increase 

the chances of media leaks. The White House staff wanted to avoid any such development that would blunt the political impact of the proposal—basically stealing the President’s thunder. More important, advance public knowledge of the 
8 

CSWMD Occasional Paper 9

proposal could jeopardize its prospects. In this view, it would not be helpful if 

potential initiative partners learned of the proposal through the press rather than 

from confidential U.S. Government communications.19

The Krakow Proposal

The President promptly accepted the recommendation that he propose the 

PSI in his Krakow speech on May 31, 2003, based on the draft rules of the road. 

The NSC staff worked quietly to implement that decision. It is unclear whether—

and, if so, how far—representatives from other agencies were involved in preparing the Krakow speech. At most, only one or two people below the cabinet level 

from the Departments of State and Defense were aware of the proposal.20

The most important step between the President’s approval and the Krakow 

speech was to identify the governments to be invited to implement the PSI proposal. The NSC staff wanted to keep that group small, but with fairly wide geographic distribution. Further, they looked for close partners, most with important 

maritime roles. The NSC staff initially proposed to invite eight governments: Australia, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. All of those were members of the “coalition of the willing”—governments 

that supported the war in Iraq (at least initially) and provided some troops to the 

effort.21 In joining the coalition of the willing, those governments emphasized the 

requirement to end what was then almost universally believed to be an extensive 

Iraqi WMD program. In the NSC staff ’s view, they all had demonstrated their 

commitment to counter WMD and missile proliferation and their close partnership with the United States—while Iraq War opponents had failed to do so.

The President approved the eight governments on his staff ’s list but added 

two more: France and Germany.22 Those two important U.S. Allies were decidedly 

not members of the coalition of the willing; rather, they were the most vocal opponents of the war in Iraq. The President’s motives for adding France and Germany 

to the invitation list are not known, but the following explanations appear plausible. First, the United States had a generally positive working relationship with 

France and Germany on WMD proliferation issues, especially the Iranian nuclear 

threat, and wanted to maintain and strengthen that cooperation. Second, Presi-
9

Proliferation Security Initiative

dent Bush may have hoped to move beyond the controversy and ill will among 

Allies that surrounded the Iraq War. Finally, he may have recognized that the 

exclusion of two such important Allies would have inevitably, and severely, limited 

the impact and international appeal of the new initiative.23

Two members of the P–5 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council also recognized in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as 

nuclear weapon states) were not on the initial invitation list. The decision to exclude 

Russia was a conscious one. The NSC staff believed that Russia would make it difficult to reach agreement on the basic PSI parameters. They looked for eventual 

Russian participation in the initiative, but with founding principles that it would 

accept rather than shape.24 Russia eventually joined PSI in spring 2004, about a year 

after the Krakow speech. In contrast, an invitation to China was never considered, 

probably because it was viewed as more of a proliferation problem than a partner.25

In the years since the creation of PSI, the United States and other participants have 

repeatedly urged China to join the initiative, but without success.

A few days before the Krakow speech, Joseph and Melley met individually 

with either ambassadors to Washington or other senior representatives from each 

of the 10 initial PSI invitees, informing them of the coming proposal and providing a nonpaper based on the draft rules of the road. A more standard communications channel would have been a State Department cable to each of the concerned 

capitals, with a message to be delivered by the U.S. Embassy. The use instead of 

direct and separate meetings between the NSC staff and the partner ambassadors 

in Washington provides further evidence of the White House determination to 

keep the proposal confidential, limiting to the extent possible the number of U.S. 

Government officials who were aware of it. Moreover, it underscored the importance and high level of the U.S. proposal. PSI was presented as a Presidential

initiative, not a routine product of the bureaucracy.

On May 31, 2003, President Bush officially proposed the PSI in his speech 

in Krakow:

When weapons of mass destruction or their components are in transit, we must have the means and authority to seize them. So today I 
10 

CSWMD Occasional Paper 9

announce a new effort to fight proliferation called the Proliferation 

Security Initiative. The United States and a number of our close allies, 

including Poland, have begun working on new agreements to search 

planes and ships carrying suspect cargo and to seize illegal weapons 

or missile technologies. Over time, we will extend this partnership as 

broadly as possible to keep the world’s most destructive weapons away 

from our shores and out of the hands of our common enemies.26

The proposal was made very quickly by government standards—less than 6 

months after the So San events. All 10 of the governments invited to participate 

in transforming the proposal into reality accepted, forming with the United States 

what became known as the initial PSI “Core Group.”

From Krakow to Paris: Creation of the Proliferation 

Security Initiative

The Players

The first international meeting on implementing President Bush’s PSI proposal occurred with even greater speed, especially for the inaugural session of a 

multilateral group. The meeting took place in Madrid on June 12, 2003, less than 

2 weeks after the Krakow speech.

Several mutually reinforcing factors appear to have facilitated that speed and 

the subsequent rapidity of the actual establishment of PSI. First was the identity of the 11 participating governments in the initial PSI Core Group. Most 

were longstanding allies: 9 were North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 

members, 6 were in the G–8, and 8 were in the European Union (EU). Of the 

non-NATO members, Australia had long and close alliance ties with the United 

Kingdom and the United States, and Japan with the United States.

Second was the timing of the PSI proposal. The nine Core Group members 

who were part of the coalition of the willing had firmly and publicly established 

their commitment to act against WMD and missile proliferation. France and 

Germany may have been eager to prove that they could work productively on is-
11

Proliferation Security Initiative

sues of common interest with the United States and other allies with whom they 

disagreed on Iraq. In turn, the United States and the other initial Core Group 

states may have welcomed the opportunity to demonstrate that they could cooperate with France and Germany. Moreover, all may have put a high priority 

on strengthening international counterproliferation capabilities that could in the 

future reduce the need to make the difficult choice of whether to combat proliferation through armed conflict.

Another important element was the decision not to include institutional representatives of the EU or NATO in the Core Group. John Bolton has argued that 

their inclusion would have slowed and even impeded progress, given the cumbersome decision processes and wide membership in each organization, as well as (in 

the EU case) the lack of relevant operational capabilities.27 Ultimately, the EU 

was closely, if informally, involved in Core Group deliberations. Melley and Susan 

Burk, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation Policy, traveled to 

Brussels after the first Core Group meeting in June 2003 to brief Robert Cooper (Director-General for External and Politico-Military Affairs at the General 

Secretariat of the EU Council) on the results. Thereafter, the EU was informally 

included at Core Group meetings as part of the delegation of the country then 

holding the EU presidency.28

A further major factor facilitating the rapid establishment of PSI was the 

professional standing of the individuals involved in the Core Group. The heads 

of delegation to the first PSI meetings were all foreign ministry political directors 

or the equivalent who were well positioned to act quickly. All were senior officials 

with wide negotiating latitude and influence in their capitals, and most had a long 

history of working closely together in other bilateral and multilateral fora.

Three individuals stand out. First was William Ehrman, Director General for 

Defence and Intelligence in the United Kingdom Foreign Office. An exceptionally skilled diplomat, Ehrman had long been closely engaged in countering WMD 

and missile proliferation. Especially relevant for PSI was his simultaneous leading role in the small group of U.S. and UK officials working to counter the A.Q. 

Khan nuclear proliferation network and the Libyan WMD program. That work 

led to the October 2003 interdiction of a shipment on board the BBC China of 
12 

CSWMD Occasional Paper 9

nuclear enrichment centrifuge equipment from the A.Q. Khan network to Libya, 

the unraveling of the network, and Libya’s December 2003 decision to abandon 

its WMD and longer range missile programs.29

Second was Stanislas de Laboulaye, Deputy Secretary General, Director 

General of Political Affairs and Security in the French Foreign Ministry. De 

Laboulaye also was closely involved in counterproliferation efforts, particularly regarding Iran. Unlike Ehrman, he was not engaged in a pending major interdiction 

case, and he may not have had the same driving commitment to the PSI concept. 

However, de Laboulaye was a first-rate diplomat who used those skills to good 

effect in the process leading to the creation of PSI.

Finally—and of greatest importance in the view of at least some former U.S. 

Government officials—the U.S. delegation was headed by Under Secretary of 

State John Bolton, whose hard-charging personal style and commitment to the 

PSI concept were essential in bringing about the rapid sequencing, action orientation, and speedy conclusion of the founding meetings.30 Bolton’s appointment was 

something of an accidental byproduct of an unrelated international development. 

The U.S. Government initially planned for Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation John Wolf to lead the effort.31 However, on June 4, 2003, President 

Bush announced that Wolf would undertake a new role in the Middle East process.32 Secretary of State Colin Powell told the press that Wolf had known of the 

appointment for about 2 weeks33—which would have been approximately a week 

or 10 days before the Krakow announcement of the PSI proposal.

With Wolf no longer available, Bolton took over as head of the U.S. delegation 

to the initial PSI meetings. For several reasons, the outcome of those meetings would 

have been different if Bolton had not been in charge. First, as an Under Secretary, 

Bolton was of equivalent rank to, and had long direct experience with, other leading 

players like Ehrman and de Laboulaye. Moreover, it is probable that other governments would have named assistant secretary–level officials to lead their PSI delegations if the United States did so. In that case, the heads of delegation would not have 

had the same standing and influence within their governments, and many would have 

lacked long experience in working with each other. Finally, there was Bolton’s strong 

negotiating skill and style—often characterized as abrasive, but strikingly effective.
13

Proliferation Security Initiative

While Bolton headed the U.S. delegation, the NSC staff and the Department of 

Defense remained closely engaged in the process. Joseph was in continual communication with Bolton and with Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security 

Policy J.D. Crouch, who had the lead for OSD on the issue. Melley attended all Core 

Group meetings and kept the pen on the draft rules of the road and reporting cables. 

Other senior officials from the Department of State, OSD, and the Joint Staff also had 

important roles in the meetings and Washington decisionmaking.34

Initial Core Group Meetings

The first meeting of the PSI Core Group was appropriately hosted by the 

government of Spain, thus emphasizing the direct link between the initiative and 

the So San experience. To facilitate deliberations, Washington provided to the 

Core Group capitals, right after the Krakow announcement, a draft rules of the 

road document that was fuller than the nonpaper given to the 10 ambassadors before the Krakow speech and close to the internal U.S. Government document. In 

providing the draft to the Core Group governments, Washington described it not 

as a proposed final document, but as an initial basis from which to work.35 According to Bolton, discussion at the Madrid meeting focused on the U.S. draft, which 

he characterized as “intended to describe the rights and obligations of sovereign 

nations concerning WMD interdictions, which we hoped the Core Group would 

adopt. If they did, we intended to distribute the text more generally, encouraging 

others to adhere to it for cooperation in future interdictions.”36 Again, the focus 

of the effort was on national authorities rather than on a search for new international legal bases for interdiction. Bolton also makes clear that the United States 

intended the rules of the road to become the basic document of PSI.

Bolton has reported that “[w]e were surprised and encouraged at how constructive was the discussion [at the Madrid meeting] of the ‘rules of the road,’ 

which showed interdiction was widely, indeed enthusiastically supported within 

the Core Group.” Furthermore, to keep the process moving, the United States 

retained the pen on the document and encouraged participants’ input: “I said that, 

before the next meeting, we encouraged further comments on the ‘rules,’ which we 

would revise and distribute in advance.”37
14 

CSWMD Occasional Paper 9

The Chairman’s Statement issued at the close of the Madrid Core Group 

meeting was very general, but it established a foundation for subsequent discussion and decisions. In particular, it stated: “building on the Proliferation Security Initiative announced by U.S. President Bush May 31 in Krakow, participants 

agreed on the need to take more active measures to stop the flow of WMD and 

missiles to and from states and non-state actors of proliferation concern.” The Madrid Statement also echoed President Bush’s call in Krakow for broad PSI membership, stating that the initiative should group “all countries that are prepared 

to play a role in preventing this dangerous commerce, and that can contribute to 

proactive measures to interdict shipments.”38

The second PSI Core Group meeting took place in Brisbane, Australia, on 

July 9–10, 2003—just 1 month after the first meeting, and half a world away. 

The location was chosen in part to emphasize that “the PSI is a global Initiative 

with global reach.”39 As agreed at Madrid, the session began with meetings of 

three expert groups: diplomatic, military, and intelligence. The military group was 

immediately regularized, first as the Operational Experts Working Group under 

the Core Group, and then, beginning in December 2003, as the Operational Experts Group (OEG).40 The OEG continues as the focal point of multilateral PSI 

activity. Moreover, at Brisbane, the military group decided on almost immediate action; they “agreed on PSI’s first operational exercise, piggy-backing on an 

already-planned September naval exercise in the Coral Sea, marking an important 

milestone to prove that PSI would be the real thing, not just chitchat.”41 The intelligence group was less successful. Participants reportedly were reluctant even to 

share information among the 11 initial Core Group members, preferring existing 

bilateral channels.42 As a result, no PSI intelligence experts group was created; 

instead, information would be shared only through regular channels: “If you need 

to know, you’ll know.”43

The concluding statement from the Brisbane meeting demonstrated major 

progress toward actually implementing PSI. Offering far more details than the 

Madrid Statement, it addressed a range of practical issues, including interdiction 

modalities, training exercises, and the need for broad membership, especially by 

flag, coastal, and transit states. The Brisbane Statement also noted that PSI would 
15

Proliferation Security Initiative

involve land and air, as well as maritime, interdiction. Finally, the Brisbane Statement emphasized that PSI would not detract from or replace existing nonproliferation agreements, but rather would strengthen the basis for their enforcement:

The Brisbane meeting . . . emphasized that the increasingly aggressive and sophisticated efforts by proliferators to circumvent or thwart 

existing non-proliferation norms, and to profit from the trade of 

WMD and missiles or related items, requires new and stronger 

enforcement action by law-abiding nations. The PSI was therefore 

welcome as a necessary and innovative approach to the problem of 

countries which cheat on their international obligations, refuse to 

join existing regimes or do not follow international norms, and for 

non-state actors seeking to acquire WMD.44

The third Core Group meeting, in Paris on September 3–4, 2003, agreed 

on, and published, the Statement of Interdiction Principles—essentially the 

“constitution” for PSI. That outcome was exceptionally fast, just slightly over 

3 months after the Krakow speech—a period that included the normally sacrosanct European summer vacation period. Knowledgeable former senior U.S. 

Government officials reported that the Statement of Interdiction Principles did 

not differ fundamentally from the initial U.S. draft; the text was fine-tuned by 

the Core Group rather than significantly altered.45 Moreover, the U.S. delegation appeared to have driven the Paris meeting to issue the Statement of Principles. Joseph reportedly told Bolton that the United States needed concrete 

results from the Paris meeting.46 One reason for the urgency cited by observers 

was the pending departure of the vessel BBC China for Libya (a fact known 

only to a restricted group of officials)—carrying a shipment that the United 

States and United Kingdom were determined would be interdicted. Another 

possible reason was the coming September 23 speech by President Bush to the 

United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). The NSC staff had already recommended that the President propose in his speech that the United Nations 

Security Council (UNSC) for the first time issue a resolution against WMD 
16 

CSWMD Occasional Paper 9

proliferation. Agreement on PSI would facilitate passage of such a resolution, 

and perhaps even inclusion of provisions on interdiction.47

During the first day of the Paris meeting, Core Group political experts considered the specifics of the draft Statement of Principles. Bolton then drove the 

text through the plenary meeting the next day. In order to help force a decision, 

on the night before the plenary, Bolton arranged with the U.S. Embassy in Paris 

to hold a press conference the next day. He told other Core Group members about 

the planned press conference, and also said that Washington would send a cable 

that night to all diplomatic posts announcing the PSI Statement of Principles. 

If governments were not yet ready to endorse the statement, the United States 

would take their names off the list. Some Core Group members strongly supported Bolton; others were very uncertain, wanting to fine-tune the document 

and/or to consult Russia and China first.48 Ultimately, despite some grumbling, 

all Core Group members endorsed the Statement of Principles, and it was issued 

unanimously on September 4, 2003. Bolton’s approach that day constituted “a 

blustery, high-handed move that worked.”49

Bolton and de Laboulaye contacted the Russian and Chinese governments 

immediately to inform them of the new Statement of Interdiction Principles. In 

response to a query from Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak, Bolton 

said that the text “was not carved in stone, but neither should he treat it as still 

being in the word processor.”50 Bolton reportedly also told other Core Group 

members that the statement could evolve over time as nations gained experience 

with PSI implementation. Actually, however, the United States would have opposed any changes to the statement. In any case, there appear to have been no 

proposals to amend the PSI Statement of Interdiction Principles after its issuance 

in September 2003.51

The Statement was purely political and created no new legal obligations. Indeed, it stressed that implementation must be “consistent with national legal authorities and relevant international law and frameworks.”52 Although that might 

be viewed as a shortcoming, officials involved in the development and early activities of PSI maintain that the statement created an essential political basis for 

effective interdiction. In that regard, rather than expressing general support for 
17

Proliferation Security Initiative

counterproliferation, the document outlines political commitments by each nation 

to take a series of actions against WMD and missile proliferation. Those include:

◆ “[u]ndertake effective measures, either alone or in concert with other states, 

for interdicting” proliferation transfers

◆ streamline procedures for sharing information on suspected proliferation

◆ take specific action to avoid proliferation from its own territory, interdict 

suspected proliferation shipments under its jurisdiction, “seriously consider” 

allowing others to board and search its flag vessels suspected of proliferation, 

interdict or deny overflight to suspected proliferant aircraft, and inspect and 

seize any proliferation transshipment cargoes.

In keeping with Joseph’s initial concepts for PSI, the “specific actions” to 

which the PSI participants committed are all ones for which sovereign states have 

clear authority under international law, involving their national territory, territorial waters, or vessels flying their national flag. The Statement also notes a requirement for cooperation among PSI states to deal with the more complex issue of 

interdiction outside of clear national jurisdiction. Thus, the Statement provides 

that interdictions may occur “at the request and good cause shown” by another 

state. That is, one PSI supporting state might acquire intelligence on a proliferation shipment, share that information with another PSI participant with legal 

authority for interdiction, and urge the latter to thwart the shipment. More generally, the first principle of the Statement calls quite simply for “effective measures” 

of interdiction—an umbrella statement urging action wherever possible, against 

all possible proliferation contingencies.

The targets of PSI interdictions were to be as broad as possible, addressing 

shipments of WMD, delivery systems, and related materials “to and from states and 

non-state actors of proliferation concern.” The Statement defines those broadly:

“States or non-state actors of proliferation concern” generally refers 

to those countries or entities that the PSI participants involved establish should be subject to interdiction activities because they are 
18 

CSWMD Occasional Paper 9

engaged in proliferation through: (1) efforts to develop or acquire 

chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and associated delivery 

systems; or (2) transfers (either selling, receiving, or facilitating) of 

WMD, their delivery systems, or related materials.

The Chairman’s Conclusions issued by the fourth PSI meeting in October 

2003 were even clearer about the broad targets of the initiative: “Participants 

agreed that the Initiative aimed to impede and stop trafficking of WMD, their 

delivery systems and related materials by any state or non-state actor engaged in 

or supporting WMD proliferation programmes, at any time and in any place.”53

The broad definition of PSI targets as any state or nonstate proliferators differed from initial U.S. Government aims for the Statement of Principles. U.S. 

officials wanted to “name names” of specific states of proliferation concern; other Core Group members disagreed.54 In the end, the only instance of “naming 

names” was a brief mention in the chairman’s statement from the July 2003 PSI 

meeting in Brisbane:

PSI participants considered the question of states and non-state actors of proliferation concern. They referred to the relevant statements 

of the G–8 Evian summit on 1–3 June [2003] and the EU–U.S. 

Joint Statement on the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction of 25 June [2003] which addressed countries of proliferation 

concern and non-state actors with particular reference to North Korea and Iran.55

Furthermore, the PSI Statement of Interdiction Principles is notable for what 

it does not include. There is no mention of any organizational structure. No groups 

of member state representatives are created or explicitly envisaged, at senior or 

expert level, or in any area—diplomatic, military, law enforcement, or intelligence. 

There is no provision for a central secretariat or staff. No schedule or other system is set up for PSI meetings or training exercises. Indeed, those concepts are 

addressed in only the most indirect and general terms through calls to exchange 
19

Proliferation Security Initiative

information about proliferation shipments, to build counterproliferation capacity 

and to coordinate interdiction efforts:

PSI participants . . . call on all states concerned with this [WMD 

and delivery system] threat to international peace and security to 

join in similarly committing to . . . [a]dopt streamlined procedures 

for rapid exchange of relevant information concerning suspected proliferation activity . . . dedicate appropriate resources and efforts to 

interdiction operations and capabilities and maximize coordination 

among participants in interdiction efforts.

Operation of the Proliferation Security Initiative

Adherence

The criteria—or perhaps more accurately, criterion—for participation in 

PSI were clarified over the next few months. The fourth Core Group meeting on October 10, 2003, decided that “participation in the PSI, which is an 

activity not an organization, should be open to any state or international body 

that accepts the Paris Statement of Principles and makes an effective contribution.”56 In practice, there has been no requirement or standard for “effective 

contribution,” and no international body has yet participated.57 Instead, leading 

PSI states have strived for the broadest possible support and have established 

acceptance of the Statement of Interdiction Principles as the only criterion for 

adherence. The ranks of supporters grew very quickly. By the fourth meeting of 

the Core Group, only a month after the Paris session, more than 50 states had 

endorsed the statement. That number grew to over 60 by March 2004, over 75 by 

June 2006, 91 by May 2008, and 98 by September 2010 (see appendix for a list 

of PSI participants). Participation carries no obligations, legal or otherwise, but 

it does represent at least rhetorical acceptance at the highest government levels 

of the need to counter the proliferation threat, both domestically and through 

international cooperation.
20 

CSWMD Occasional Paper 9

While PSI support is widespread, it is also uneven. All European states except 

Monaco participate, but only 3 sub-Saharan African and 13 Western Hemisphere 

countries have joined. Key states that have not subscribed to PSI include Brazil, 

China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, and South Africa. 

South Korea was a notable late addition to the PSI ranks. Seoul had long refused 

to join PSI, reportedly out of a desire to avoid antagonizing North Korea, but 

changed course immediately after the second North Korean nuclear test in May 

2009. Three states have joined PSI since South Korea did so: Colombia, Antigua 

and Barbuda, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Some U.S. officials expect few 

other new adherents in the foreseeable future, with the possible (and important) 

exceptions of Mexico, and perhaps even Indonesia and Malaysia.58

Structure

Although the Core Group was never officially established, it continued to 

lead PSI until spring 2004. By that time, the Core Group had expanded to 15 

states from the original 11, with the addition of Canada, Norway, Singapore, and 

Russia. As PSI participation continued to grow, the Core Group concept became 

increasingly difficult to sustain. Because the Core Group was not officially constituted, it had neither fixed membership nor arrangements for future membership changes. Moreover, it had welcomed the addition of four new members. As 

a result, several new PSI participants believed that they too should be added to 

the Core Group rather than be consigned to what they perceived as second-class 

citizenship. Yet significant growth in the Core Group would make it too unwieldy 

for the rapid, consensus decisionmaking that leading PSI participants hoped to 

retain as a hallmark of the initiative.

The upshot was the disappearance of the Core Group. Knowledgeable U.S. 

Government officials maintain that there was never an explicit collective decision to terminate the Core Group; it simply did not meet again.59 In the absence 

of the Core Group, PSI political meetings became largely ceremonial affairs, 

marking anniversaries of the Krakow proposal, to which all initiative participants were invited. Three such sessions have been held thus far: in Krakow on 

June 1, 2004; Warsaw on June 23, 2006; and Washington on May 28, 2008. 
21

Proliferation Security Initiative

While those meetings may have had political value—keeping public focus on 

PSI and reinforcing the commitment of participating states—they were too 

large for effective decisionmaking.

The only regular, action-oriented PSI meetings since the end of the Core 

Group have been those of the OEG, whose origins lay in the military breakout 

session at the Brisbane meeting in July 2003. The OEG grew slightly more than 

the Core Group but remained for some years at 20 participants: the final 15 Core 

Group states plus Argentina, Denmark, Greece, New Zealand, and Turkey. In 

2010, South Korea was added for a total of 21. The members were chosen for 

their political importance, involvement in international shipping, strength of their 

commitment to PSI, and/or regional distribution. All have been active OEG and 

PSI participants except for Russia and Argentina, which were included in the 

OEG mainly because of the political and regional factors, respectively.

The OEG aims to translate the PSI principles into action, through such activities as planning and conducting exercises, identifying available and required 

interdiction capabilities, and sharing lessons learned from exercises and actual interdictions. In early 2004, the OEG expanded to include breakout groups of law 

enforcement and intelligence officials. It did so in response to a February 2004 

proposal by President Bush for PSI expansion to law enforcement60 that was endorsed at the fifth PSI Core Group meeting the following month.61

In its first years, the OEG met three to five times a year in plenary, with a 

few additional regional meetings and sectoral workshops.62 In order to encourage 

more active PSI involvement by non-OEG participants, the OEG planned in late 

2008–early 2009 to meet less often in full session and more frequently in broad 

regional meetings. However, only two regional sessions and one full OEG were 

held in 2009. In 2010, there was just one regional and one full OEG meeting. The 

same is planned for 2011; one regional OEG was held in Hawaii in June, and a 

full OEG is scheduled for Berlin in November. Thus, there has been a noticeable drop-off in the frequency of OEG meetings; the full OEG now meets less 

often, as planned, but the promised regional sessions have been less frequent than 

originally envisaged. The U.S. Government still hopes for a sustained increase in 

regional OEG meetings.63
22 

CSWMD Occasional Paper 9

President Barack Obama endorsed PSI and called for its enhanced institutionalization in his first major speech on proliferation and arms reduction on 

April 5, 2009, in Prague: “We must also build on our efforts to break up black 

markets, detect and intercept materials in transit, and use financial tools to disrupt 

this dangerous trade. Because this threat will be lasting, we should come together 

to turn efforts such as the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism into durable international institutions.”64 The 

next day, Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg expanded on the President’s 

speech, noting, “Both PSI and the Global Initiative have been run so far on a 

highly informal and decentralized basis and could benefit from having small central mechanisms to help coordinate their activities.”65

The steps taken by the Obama administration to “institutionalize” PSI 

would not change the basic character of the initiative as “an activity, not an organization.” During the May 2009 Global and Western Hemisphere OEG and 

Outreach Meeting, the United States proposed the designation of a PSI focal 

point. At the time, administration officials indicated that establishment of a focal point would support the goal set in the President’s Prague speech to make 

PSI a “durable international institution.” The proposal was formally adopted by 

the OEG in Tokyo in November 2010. Under the system, one OEG member 

government acts as a central point of contact for distributing documents, setting 

schedules, and so forth.66

The United States is the first focal point. U.S. officials report that the system 

would be more effective if PSI had a participants-only information portal similar 

to the one developed and operated for the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear 

Terrorism by the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Germany volunteered 

several years ago to create such a Web site but has had difficulty developing a useful system that meets participants’ requirements.67

Exercises

Until recently, the decline in PSI activity was particularly noticeable in the 

exercise area. Since 2003, there have been about 50 PSI exercises, including dedicated live exercises, command post (or tabletop) exercises, and inclusion of PSI 
23

Proliferation Security Initiative

scenarios in regular regional exercises. Most have focused on maritime capabilities, 

but several have concerned ground, air, and/or port interdictions.

Through 2010, the number of PSI exercises declined significantly. Four were 

held from September through November 2003, nine in 2004, six each in 2005, 

2006, and 2007, five in 2008, and four each in 2009 and 2010. A significantly 

larger number—eight—was planned for 2011, and six for 2012.68 One cause 

for the substantial decrease through 2010 may have been “initiative fatigue” as 

initial enthusiasm faded. Another may have been budget stringencies, especially 

given global economic difficulties and the fact that few if any participants have 

dedicated PSI budgets. A third may have been the absence of incentives to action that resulted from frequent PSI group consultations. Finally, some officials 

believe that PSI adherents perceive little value—at least relative to the cost—in 

live maritime interdiction exercises when the number of actual interdictions at 

sea is quite small.69

U.S. officials do not believe that the planned increases in 2011 and 2012 represent the start of a new upward trend. Instead, they forecast that the number of 

exercises will continue to fluctuate.70 In any case, the exercises planned for 2011 

and 2012 reflect at least one adjustment to continuing budget constraints: plans 

call for fewer dedicated live PSI exercises and more (comparatively affordable) 

tabletop exercises, as well as injection of PSI scenarios into more general, regularly 

scheduled exercises.

In another, perhaps less costly, means to help build PSI interdiction capabilities, OEG partners in June 2011 approved a U.S. proposal to undertake a 

Critical Capabilities and Practices (CCP) initiative. The U.S. Department of 

State describes the initiative as a:

cooperative and voluntary effort to offer support to all PSI-endorsing states in strengthening their critical interdiction capabilities and 

practices. OEG countries who volunteer to participate in the CCP 

effort will do so by identifying and sharing tools and resources that 

support interdiction related activities and by conducting events in 

a coordinated manner to develop, implement, and exercise CCPs.71
24 

CSWMD Occasional Paper 9

If the CCP promise is realized, it could both enhance PSI adherents’ interdiction capabilities and revive their interest in, and focus on, the initiative’s practical 

purposes. The four areas reportedly planned for the CCP span the full range of 

interdiction-related requirements: legal frameworks, identification and inspection, 

seizure and disposal, and rapid decisionmaking. The German hosts of the November 2011 OEG meeting plan to focus on CCP implementation.72

Interdictions

Perhaps the most important measure of PSI’s impact, at least politically, is 

provided by actual interdictions. The issue is controversial and uncertain, for at 

least two reasons. First, PSI participants provide little public information about 

interdiction successes and none about failures. Many—perhaps most—member 

states are reluctant to publicize their military and intelligence capabilities and 

shortcomings. At least some are loath to incur political controversy in their 

home countries or regions through known participation in PSI interdictions. 

What public information has been released on interdictions has been incomplete and episodic. In a May 2008 press briefing, Acting Under Secretary of 

State for Arms Control and International Security John Rood offered a typically vague description of PSI interdictions, as well as an explanation for the 

lack of more detailed public information: “We literally had dozens of successful interdictions of items and technologies bound for countries of concern. We 

necessarily keep most of these successes confidential. We’re sharing intelligence 

information among parties. In some cases, it’s easier for countries to take action 

if the results will not be publicized.”73

Second, there is a question as to what exactly constitutes an interdiction. 

For example, in May 2011, the U.S. Navy began shadowing the M/V Light, a 

vessel carrying a suspect North Korean proliferation cargo bound for Burma. 

Somewhat inexplicably, the North Koreans used a Belize-flagged vessel for the 

purpose; Belize not only adheres to the PSI, but also has concluded a shipboarding agreement with the United States. Eventually, rather than risk being 

boarded, the ship turned around and returned to North Korea, never reaching its 

intended destination.74 Because no boarding or military confrontation occurred, 
25

Proliferation Security Initiative

some observers conclude that the M/V Light case was not an interdiction. Yet it 

fit a common dictionary definition of interdiction as prohibition;

75 the proliferation cargo was effectively prohibited from reaching its intended customer.

Third, there is the classic problem that it is virtually impossible to prove 

what might have been in the absence of a new element like PSI. As the So San

events demonstrate, many PSI partners cooperated long before the initiative 

in efforts to prevent and counter WMD and missile proliferation, including 

through interdiction. The question is whether PSI facilitated such actions after 

its creation, or allowed some that would not have been possible without it. The 

interdiction of the BBC China, probably the best known case since the creation 

of PSI, clearly demonstrates that difficulty. In October 2003, the United States 

and United Kingdom alerted Germany and Italy to a clandestine cargo of nuclear enrichment centrifuge components on the German-registered vessel. The 

equipment had been shipped by the A.Q. Khan proliferation network and was 

destined for Libya. The United States and United Kingdom asked that the ship 

be diverted to an Italian port and searched and seized there. The German and 

Italian governments agreed without delay; Germany had sovereign authority 

over a vessel flying its flag, and Italy over ships in its port. The interdiction was 

successful not just in the important, immediate sense of preventing proliferation 

of nuclear weapons-related equipment, but it also led directly to the unraveling 

of the A.Q. Khan network and to Libya’s December 2003 decision to abandon 

its WMD and longer range missile programs.

PSI supporters credit the BBC China interdiction as a major success for the 

initiative. Critics are more skeptical, arguing that the four states involved would 

have acted against the shipment without PSI; they note that each of those states 

had taken counterproliferation actions before PSI, and that the initiative did not 

create any new legal authorities or obligations for the participants.76 However, 

one former senior U.S. official who was closely involved in the BBC China events 

has indicated that, at a minimum, PSI adherence facilitated the decision to interdict: “When first approached, Berlin and Rome immediately agreed to assist 

in the operation—both citing their status as core members of the recently established PSI.”77 Even more difficult to prove is whether and to what extent PSI 
26 

CSWMD Occasional Paper 9

has thwarted proliferation at the source, by deterring potential shippers and/or 

removing available transport means (for example, by denying overflight rights).

Finally, proliferation interdictions or successful action to prevent shipments in the first place may be difficult to replicate. Proliferators learn to 

change practices in order to enhance their chances of success. In general, PSI 

must continually adapt to close off new proliferation avenues. One means to 

do so may be through the CCP initiative, if it succeeds in its goal of widespread counterproliferation capacity-building.

Legal Frameworks

Another potential means to increase PSI capabilities, which has thus far 

proved largely elusive, is to expand national and international authorities against 

proliferation. Some PSI partners, such as Singapore, have bolstered their national 

laws against proliferation since joining the initiative. Further, OEG members 

share information about participants’ national authorities to help identify a state 

or states that would have interdiction authority in a specific proliferation case.78

An important milestone in expanding (if only slightly) the legal bases for 

proliferation interdiction was the July 2010 entry into force of the amended 

Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA Convention) and its 2005 protocol. The protocol prohibits deliberate maritime shipment of WMD or related materials, equipment, 

and technology (with the exception of nuclear material and equipment allowed 

under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and International Atomic Energy 

Agency safeguards). Further, the protocol provides for boarding a ship reasonably suspected of proliferation, but only with flag state consent.79 The amended 

SUA Convention entered into force after the twelfth state ratified; the protocol 

automatically followed suit, because three parties to the amended SUA Convention also adhered to the protocol. Although the entry-into-force requirements were met, relatively few states have adhered to the amended convention 

(20) and the protocol (16). The United States is not yet among them, although 

the Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification in September 2008.80

In March 2010, the Obama administration submitted draft implementing 
27

Proliferation Security Initiative

legislation to Congress, whose enactment would permit ratification. Because 

the 111th Congress failed to act, the administration resubmitted the draft to the 

new Congress in April 2011.81

In September 2010, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 

adopted a comparable treaty, a few years after Australia proposed a WMD 

amendment to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against 

the Safety of Civil Aviation (Montreal Convention 1971).82 ICAO chose to 

adopt a stand-alone agreement—the Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Relating to International Civil Aviation (known as the Beijing Convention)—rather than to amend the Montreal Convention 1971. The agreement 

focuses on criminalization and does not mention specific (or new) measures that 

states may take to prevent illegal WMD transport. Instead, it simply states that 

“States Parties shall, in accordance with international and national law, endeavour to take all practicable measures for the purpose of preventing the offences 

set forth in Article I.”83 The convention is to enter into force 1 month after 22 

states have ratified. As of August 2011, only 21 states had signed, and none had 

ratified.84 The U.S. administration reportedly is preparing a package to submit 

the Beijing Convention to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification. 

However, early Senate action is not expected, if only because of the press of 

other business.85

United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1874, adopted on 

June 12, 2009, after the May 2009 North Korean nuclear test, includes an important interdiction component, one that closely resembles the provisions of the 2005 

SUA Protocol. Each member state is encouraged to inspect cargo in its territory 

coming from or going to North Korea if there is reason to suspect the cargo includes WMD, missiles, or related material or equipment. The resolution also calls 

on member states to inspect vessels on the high seas if they are reasonably suspected of carrying prohibited cargo to or from North Korea, but that can be done 

only with the consent of the flag state. Further, the resolution authorizes member 

states to seize and dispose of any prohibited cargo they discover. Moreover, bunkering services are to be denied to questionable North Korean vessels, except for 

humanitarian reasons or after the cargo has been inspected.86 In June 2010, the 
28 

CSWMD Occasional Paper 9

Security Council included a similar provision in UNSCR 1929, the most recent 

resolution on the Iranian nuclear program.

Even before the Statement of Interdiction Principles was issued, the original PSI partners discussed among themselves the usefulness of ship-boarding 

agreements with flag registry states, inspired at least in part by the experience 

of the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard in counterdrug operations.87 On February 11, 2004, the United States signed the first such agreement with Liberia, which has the world’s second largest ship registry. On May 12, 2004, the 

United States signed a similar agreement with Panama, which has the world’s 

largest ship registry. Comparable agreements were signed subsequently with 

several other flag states: Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Belize, Croatia, 

Cyprus, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Although all the signatories are PSI participants, none is in the OEG. 

The agreements seek to facilitate rapid interdiction action by detailing procedures to board and search ships flying their flags that are suspected of carrying 

proliferation cargo.88

The ship-boarding agreements and UNSCRs 1874 and 1929, like the PSI 

itself, may facilitate and accelerate interdictions of proliferation shipments. The 

2005 SUA Protocol and the 2010 Beijing Convention reinforce the illegitimacy 

of WMD proliferation. However, none of these—and no likely near-term future 

agreements—would significantly expand clear legal authorities for interdicting 

WMD and missile proliferation shipments.

Conclusion

President Obama’s strong public support for PSI in his April 2009 speech removed one major uncertainty regarding the future of the initiative: whether the new 

U.S. administration would remain committed to a policy and process closely associated with its predecessor. In doing so, the President probably reduced, if not eliminated, any remaining concern that PSI would circumvent or undermine existing 

nonproliferation regimes. President Bush and leading officials in his administration 

involved in PSI—most prominently Bolton—often strongly criticized multilateral 

institutions. The same cannot be said for President Obama and his administration.
29

Proliferation Security Initiative

However, more than rhetorical support will be needed to maintain and advance the PSI as an effective counterproliferation mechanism. Following is a partial list of steps required:

◆ The United States and other leading PSI states should lead an effort to 

increase the number of regional OEG meetings and to sustain over time the 

increase in exercises planned for 2011–2012. 

◆ A concerted campaign should be undertaken to implement the CCP initiative fully. As recommended by the National Academy of Sciences, the revised 

and expanded Cooperative Threat Reduction program of the Department 

of Defense could be used to help build counterproliferation capabilities in 

PSI partner states,89 including through the CCP effort. The same is true 

of other U.S. Government programs, like the State Department’s Export 

Control and Border Security program, and of the G–8 Global Partnership 

against the Spread of Weapons and Material of Mass Destruction. The U.S. 

presidency of the G–8 in 2012, followed by the United Kingdom in 2013, 

provides an important opportunity to seek to channel Global Partnership 

assistance to this new area. UNSCR 1540 imparts valuable legitimacy to 

use of global partnership assistance for PSI purposes. The G–8 Summit 

in 2010 and 2011 identified UNSCR 1540 implementation as one of four 

focus areas for the expanded and extended global partnership; as discussed 

above, UNSCR 1540 encourages multilateral interdiction cooperation, even 

if not in strong terms. 

◆ A greater effort is also required to strengthen the international legal bases 

for interdiction. Once the United States has deposited its own instrument 

of ratification, it should lead in seeking broader adherence to the 2005 

Protocol to the Amended Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful 

Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA Protocol). The 

United States and other leading PSI partners should also work actively 

for entry into force of the Beijing Convention; an essential start would be 

its submission to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification. To the 
30 

CSWMD Occasional Paper 9

extent possible and required, the United Nations Security Council should 

be encouraged to endorse and advance interdiction against proliferators, 

as it did for the first time in Resolution 1540 and much more directly in 

Resolutions 1874 and 1929. 

◆ Outreach to encourage new PSI members should also be continued. 

The addition of coastal states worldwide and of states with significant 

WMD- and missile-related industries would expand the collective PSI legal authority for interdiction and progressively restrict the PSI-free routes 

open to proliferators.

The period in which the PSI was developed and began operating was 

marked by unusual speed and effectiveness. The challenge will be to restore and 

maintain that commitment and momentum over the long term. Some U.S. Government officials report that interdiction activities are robust, while PSI events 

are increasingly rare and declining steadily in importance. Others disagree with 

that assessment.90 In some respects, the regularization of counterproliferation 

interdictions outside any framework would be a welcome development. On the 

other hand, it is doubtful that such interdictions have gained enough international acceptance and standing that they no longer require a PSI catalyst. Testing either proposition through increasing atrophy of PSI activities would be a 

risky undertaking.

PSI’s character as “an activity not an organization” is fundamental and necessary, but absent sustained leadership, it can be at least as much of a weakness 

as a strength. The benefits are clear in terms of flexible, rapid, nonbureaucratic 

response to proliferation threats. Yet there is an equally clear danger that PSI will 

become increasingly irrelevant if it does not serve as a central focus for—and impetus to—vigorous, sustained action. In the absence of an established institutional 

framework, PSI’s future depends on the commitment, leadership, and activism of 

its key members. One U.S. official involved in the founding and early years of PSI 

summed up the problem very well: “PSI is like a shark. It must keep moving or it 

will die.”91
31

Appendix. States Endorsing the Proliferation Security 

Initiative Statement of Interdiction Principles as of 

September 10, 2010

Afghanistan Georgia Panama

Albania Germany Papua New Guinea

Andorra Greece Paraguay

Angola Holy See Philippines

Antigua and Barbuda Honduras Poland

Argentina Hungary Portugal

Armenia Iceland Qatar

Australia Iraq Romania

Austria Ireland Russia

Azerbaijan Israel Samoa

Bahamas Italy Saudi Arabia

Bahrain Japan San Marino

Belarus Jordan Serbia

Belgium Kazakhstan Singapore

Belize Kuwait Slovakia

Bosnia Kyrgyzstan Slovenia

Brunei Darussalam Latvia South Korea

Bulgaria Liberia Spain

Cambodia Libya Sri Lanka

Canada Liechtenstein St. Vincent and Grenadines

Chile Lithuania Sweden

Colombia Luxembourg Switzerland

Croatia Macedonia Tajikistan

Cyprus Malta Tunisia

Czech Republic Marshall Islands Turkey

Denmark Moldova Turkmenistan

Djibouti Mongolia Ukraine

El Salvador Montenegro United Arab Emirates

Estonia Morocco United Kingdom

Fiji Netherlands United States

Finland New Zealand Uzbekistan

France Norway Vanuatu

Oman Yemen

Source: U.S. Department of State, available at <www.state.gov/t/isn/c27732.htm>.
32 

CSWMD Occasional Paper 9

Notes

1 For discussion of the interdiction of the So San, the events leading up to it, and its 

immediate aftermath, see: Ari Fleischer, Press Briefing, White House Office of the Press 

Secretary, December 11, 2002; “Dangerous Cargo,” Online News Hour with Jim Lehrer 

Transcript, December 11, 2002; Brian Knowlton, “Ship Allowed to Take North Korea 

Scuds on to Yemeni Port: U.S. Frees Freighter Carrying Missiles,” International Herald 

Tribune, December 12, 2002; Robert Marquand and Peter Force, “The Unprecedented 

Seizure Monday of a Ship Carrying North Korean Missiles Highlights U.S. Preemption 

Doctrine,” Christian Science Monitor Online, December 12, 2002; and William Safire, 

“Bush’s Stumble: The So San Affair,” The New York Times, December 19, 2002.

2 See, for example, Craig H. Allen, Maritime Counterproliferation Operations and the 

Rule of Law, Praeger Security International Reports (Westport, CT: Praeger), 152.

3 See <http://combinedmaritimeforces.com/ctf-150-maritime-security/>. Originally a 

formation of the U.S. Navy, Combined Task Force 150 became multinational after September 

11, 2001. Participants have included Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the 

Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, the United 

Kingdom, and the United States. Task Force command rotates among the participants on a 4- to 

6-month basis. 

4 Interview, Robert G. Joseph, former White House National Security Council 

(NSC) staff official, December 2009.

5Fleischer.

6 Allen, 151.

7 David B. Rivkin, Jr., and Lee A. Casey, “From the Bermuda to the So San,” National 

Review Online, January 2, 2003.

8 Interview, Joseph, December 2009. 

9 John Bolton offers a different view, arguing that legal concerns were central to the 

decision to release the So San: “Many pointed to weakness from the NSC’s lawyer, John 

Bellinger, his typical reaction to difficult circumstances, but the larger issue was the general chaos and confusion within the administration, in which fear from the lawyers had 

caused panic.” John Bolton, Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United 

Nations and Abroad (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2007), 121.

10 Interview, Joseph, December 2009.

11 National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction (Washington, DC: The 

White House, December 2002), 2.

12 Ibid.

13 In a somewhat exaggerated expression of the tendency at the time to see a range 

of national security issues through an Iraq lens, the New York Post headline on December 

11, 2002, reporting on the publication of the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass 

Destruction, read: “Bush Warns Iraq: We’ll Nuke You.”
33

Proliferation Security Initiative

14 See, for example, “No Chemical Arms Aboard China Ship,” The New York Times, 

September 6, 1993, and “China Says U.S. Is Harassing Ship Suspected of Taking Arms to 

Iran,” The New York Times, August 9, 1993.

15 Interview, Brendan Melley, former NSC staff official, December 2009.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid.

21 The Iraq War began on March 19, 2003, just 2 months before President Bush’s 

Krakow speech. 

22 Interviews, Joseph, December 2009 and Melley, December 2009.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid.

26 George W. Bush, Remarks by the President to the People of Poland, Wawel Royal 

Castle, Krakow, Poland, May 31, 2003, available at <http://georgewbush-whitehouse.

archives.gov/news/release/2003/05/20030531-3.html>. 

27 Bolton, 122–123.

28 Interview, Melley, January 2010.

29 Interview, Joseph, December 2009, and Robert G. Joseph, Countering WMD: The 

Libyan Experience (Fairfax, VA: National Institute Press), 2009. See below for further 

discussion of the BBC China interdiction.

30 Interview, Melley, December 2009.

31 Interview, Joseph, December 2009.

32 “President Meets with Leaders of Jordan, Israel, and Palestinian Authority,” Office 

of the Press Secretary, June 4, 2003, available at <http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.

gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030604-1.html>. Wolf ’s official title in the Middle East role 

was Chief, U.S. Coordination and Monitoring Missions for the Roadmap for Peace in the 

Middle East.

33 “Powell, Rice Discuss Road Map for Peace in the Middle East,” Office of the Press 

Secretary, June 4, 2003, available at <http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/

releases/2003/06/20030604.html>. 

34 Interview, Melley, December 2009.

35 Ibid.

36 Bolton, 123. Bolton attributes the draft rules of the road to DOD; other former 

officials say that is inaccurate, that both the internal document and the one provided to 

Core Group members were drafted by the NSC staff. 

37 Ibid.
34 

CSWMD Occasional Paper 9

38 “Proliferation Security Initiative: Chairman’s Statement at the First Meeting of the 

PSI, June 12, 2003,” Foreign Ministry of Spain, Madrid, Spain, available at <www.state.

gov/t/isn/115302.htm>. 

39 “Proliferation Security Initiative: Chairman’s Statement at the Second Meeting of 

the PSI, July 9–10, 2003,” Foreign Ministry of Australia, Brisbane, Australia, available at 

<www.state.gov/t/isn/115303.htm>. 

40 Interview, David A. Cooper, former OSD official, December 2008.

41 Bolton, 124.

42 Interview, Melley, December 2009.

43 Ibid.

44 “Chairman’s Statement at the Second Meeting of the PSI.”

45 Interview, Melley, December 2009.

46 Ibid.

47 Interviews, Joseph and Melley, December 2009. President Bush’s proposal in his 

United Nations General Assembly speech for a new Security Council resolution against 

proliferation was presented as follows, linked directly to PSI:

We’re also improving our capability to interdict lethal materials in transit. 

Through our Proliferation Security Initiative, 11 nations are preparing to search 

planes and ships, trains and trucks carrying suspect cargo, and to seize weapons or 

missile shipments that raise proliferation concerns. These nations have agreed on a set 

of interdiction principles, consistent with legal—current legal authorities. And we’re 

working to expand the Proliferation Security Initiative to other countries. We’re determined to keep the world’s most destructive weapons away from all our shores, and out 

of the hands of our common enemies.

Because proliferators will use any route or channel that is open to them, we need 

the broadest possible cooperation to stop them. Today, I ask the UN Security Council to 

adopt a new anti-proliferation resolution. This resolution should call on all members of 

the UN to criminalize the proliferation of weapons—weapons of mass destruction, to 

enact strict export controls consistent with international standards, and to secure any 

and all sensitive materials within their own borders. The United States stands ready to 

help any nation draft these new laws, and to assist in their enforcement.

The President’s proposal was largely implemented in UNSCR 1540, passed on April 

28, 2004. UNSCR includes the three elements of criminalization of WMD proliferation, 

but only by nonstate actors; enactment and enforcement of strict export controls; and 

security of WMD and related materials. UNSCR 1540 also endorses PSI-type multilateral cooperation against proliferation, but only as voluntary action. Operative Paragraph 

10 provides: “Further to counter that threat, calls upon all States, in accordance with their 
35

Proliferation Security Initiative

national legal authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, to take 

cooperative action to prevent illicit trafficking in nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, 

their means of delivery, and related materials.” United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004), April 28, 2004, S/RES/1540 (2004).

48 Interview, Melley, December 2009, and Bolton, 126.

49 Interview, Melley, December 2009.

50 Bolton, 126.

51 Interview, Melley, December 2009.

52 Fact Sheet, “Proliferation Security Initiative: Statement of Interdiction Principles,” 

The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Washington, DC, September 4, 2003, as 

reported at <www.state.gov/t/isn/c27726.htm>. All following quotations from the Statement of Interdiction Principles and descriptions of the text are from the same source. 

53 “Proliferation Security Initiative: Chairman’s Conclusions at the Fourth Meeting.” 

54 Interview, Melley, January 2010.

55 “Proliferation Security Initiative: Chairman’s Statement at the Second Meeting.”

56 “Chairman’s Conclusions at the Fourth Meeting.” 

57 That may change. Some U.S. officials expect that the European Union will soon 

adhere to PSI in its own stead, rather than through the rotating EU presidency state. 

Interview, Department of State officials, September 2011.

58 Interview, Department of State officials, September 2011.

59 Interview, Melley, December 2009.

60 I propose that the work of the Proliferation Security Initiative be expanded to address 

more than shipments and transfers. Building on the tools we’ve developed to fight terrorists, we 

can take direct action against proliferation networks. We need greater cooperation not just among 

intelligence and military services, but in law enforcement, as well. PSI participants and other 

willing nations should use the Interpol and all other means to bring to justice those who traffic in 

deadly weapons, to shut down their laws, to seize their materials, to freeze their assets. 

White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “President Announces New Measures to 

Counter the Threat of WMD: Remarks by the President on Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation,” February 11, 2004, available at <http://georgewbush-whitehouse.

archives.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040211-4.html>.

61 “Chairman’s Statement at the Fifth Meeting, Palacio Foz, Lisbon, Portugal, March 

5, 2004,” available at <www.state.gov/t/isn/115306.htm>:

Participants supported the call by U.S. President Bush to expand the role of the 

PSI to not only interdict shipments of WMD, their delivery systems and related materials, but to cooperate in preventing WMD proliferation facilitators (i.e., individuals, companies, and other entities) from engaging in this deadly trade. . . . Participants 

agreed to pursue greater cooperation through military and intelligence services and law 
36 

CSWMD Occasional Paper 9

enforcement to shut down proliferation facilitators and bring them to justice. PSI participants agree to begin examining the key steps necessary for this expanded role, including: identifying national points of contact and internal processes developed for this goal; 

developing and sharing national analyses of key proliferation actors and networks, their 

financing sources, and other support structures; undertaking national action to identify 

law enforcement authorities and other tools or assets that could be brought to bear against 

efforts to stop proliferation facilitators.

62 For a list of OEG meetings, see <www.state.gov/t/isn/c27700.htm>. 

63 Interviews, Department of State officials, April 2010 and September 2011.

64 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Remarks by President Barack Obama, 

Hradcany Square, Prague, Czech Republic, April 5, 2009,” available at <www.whitehouse.gov/

the_press_office/Remarks-By-President-Barack-Obama-In-Prague-As-Delivered.html>. 

65 James B. Steinberg, Carnegie International Nonproliferation Conference, Washington, DC, April 6, 2009, available at <www.carnegieendowment.org/events/nppcon2009>. 

66 Interviews, Steven Schleien, OSD official, June 2009, and Department of State 

officials, September 2011.

67 Interviews, Department of State officials, September 2011.

68 A list of PSI exercises through 2010 is available at <www.state.gov/t/isn/c27700.

htm>. Information on exercises in 2011 and 2012 has not been published, but was shared 

with the author by the Department of Defense in June 2011.

69 Interview, Department of State officials, September 2011.

70 Ibid.

71 U.S. Department of State, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, 

“PSI-Endorsing States Undertake Effort to Build Critical Capabilities and Practices for Interdicting WMD,” Fact Sheet, June 10, 2011, available at <www.state.gov/t/isn/166732.htm>. 

72 Interviews, Benjamin Schwartz, OSD official, September 2011, and Department of 

State officials, September 2011.

73 “Proliferation Security Initiative: John Rood, Acting Under Secretary of State for 

Arms Control and International Security,” Foreign Press Center Roundtable Briefing, 

Washington, DC, May 27, 2008, available at <http://2002-2009-fpc.state.gov/105206.

htm>. 

74 See, for example, David E. Sanger, “U.S. Said to Turn Back North Korea Missile Shipment,” The New York Times, June 12, 2011, available at <www.nytimes.

com/2011/06/13/world/asia/13missile.html>. 

75 See, for example, “Interdiction,” Webster’s Online Dictionary, available at <www.

websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/interdiction>. The point is reinforced by the 

extended definition given by the same source: “The purpose of interdiction is to delay, 

disrupt, or destroy enemy forces or supplies en route to the battle area.”
37

Proliferation Security Initiative

76 See, for example, Wade Boese, “Key U.S. Interdiction Initiative Claim Misrepresented,” Arms Control Today 35 ( July–August 2005).

77 Joseph, 41.

78 Interviews, Cooper, December 2008, and Joseph Benkert, former OSD official, 

December 2008.

79 International Maritime Organization, International Conference on the Revision 

of the SUA Treaties, “Adoption of the Final Act and any Instruments, Recommendations 

and Resolutions Resulting from the Work of the Conference: Protocol of 2005 to the 

Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation,” LEG/CONF.15/21, November 1, 2005.

80 The 16 states that have ratified both the amended SUA and the protocol are 

Algeria, Austria, Bulgaria, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Fiji, Latvia, Liechtenstein, 

Marshall Islands, Nauru, the Netherlands, Panama, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, 

Spain, Switzerland, and Vanuatu. All except Algeria, Dominican Republic, and Nauru are 

PSI partners, but only two (the Netherlands and Spain) are OEG members. International 

Maritime Organization, “Summary of Status of Conventions as at 31 August 2011,” 

available at <www.imo.org>.

81 See Ronald Welch, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Legislative Affairs, letters to The Honorable John A. Boehner, Speaker of the 

House, and to The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr., President, United States Senate, 

April 13, 2011.

82 Michael Kourteff, “Status of the Proliferation Security Initiative,” United States–

Morocco International Transshipment Conference, Tangiers, Morocco, May 20–22, 2008, 3.

83 See “Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Relating to International 

Civil Aviation,” Beijing, September 10, 2010, available at <www.icao.int/DCAS2010/

restr/docs/beijing_convention_multi.pdf>.

84 Ibid.; ICAO, “Composite Table (Status of Treaties and Status of States vis-à-vis 

Treaties,” Fact Sheet, June 28, 2011, as reported at <www2.icao.int>. The following states 

have signed the convention: Brazil, Chad, China, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, France, Gambia, Indonesia, Mali, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Panama, Paraguay, Senegal, 

South Korea, Spain, Uganda, the United Kingdom, and the United States. 

85 Interview, Department of State officials, September 2011.

86 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1874 (2009), S/RES/1874(2009), 

June 12, 2009.

87 Interview, April 2010.

88 Most other jurisdictions with flags of convenience are PSI adherents; the exceptions are Burma, Lebanon, Mauritius, and Tuvalu. U.S. officials do not expect any 

additional shipboarding agreements in the near future. Interview, Department of State 

officials, September 2011.
38 

CSWMD Occasional Paper 9

89 Committee on Strengthening and Expanding the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, Committee on International Security and Arms 

Control, Policy and Global Affairs, National Academy of Sciences, Global Security Engagement: A New Model of Cooperative Threat Reduction (Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press, 2009), 79–83.

90 Interviews, Melley, July 2011, and Schwartz, September 2011.

91 Interview, Cooper, December 2008.
39

Proliferation Security Initiative

About the Author

Dr. Susan J. Koch is an independent consultant specializing in policy issues 

regarding arms reduction and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. 

She is a Distinguished Research Fellow in the Center for the Study of Weapons 

of Mass Destruction at the National Defense University, and an associate faculty 

member in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State 

University. She also serves on the Department of Defense (DOD) Threat Reduction Advisory Committee and the Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction 

Task Force of the U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group. From 1982 

until 2007, Dr. Koch held a series of senior positions on the White House National Security Council, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of State, 

and U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency focused on nonproliferation 

and arms reduction policy. Dr. Koch began her government career in the Directorate of Intelligence at the Central Intelligence Agency, studying West European 

political issues. Dr. Koch has received the Presidential Distinguished Executive 

Award, Presidential Meritorious Executive Award, DOD Distinguished Civilian 

Service Medal five times, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Distinguished 

Honor Award, and Department of State Meritorious Honor Award. Before her 

government service, she taught international and comparative politics at Mount 

Holyoke College and the University of Connecticut. Dr. Koch received a B.A. 

from Mount Holyoke College and an M.A. and Ph.D. in political science from 

Harvard University.



Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Occasional Paper Series

Occasional Paper 8

Defining “Weapons of Mass Destruction”

(Revised and Updated)

W. Seth Carus

January 2012

Occasional Paper 7

Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction: 

Looking Back, Looking Ahead 

Paul I. Bernstein, John P. Caves, Jr., and W. Seth Carus

October 2009

Occasional Paper 6

International Partnerships to Combat Weapons 

of Mass Destruction 

Paul I. Bernstein

May 2008

Occasional Paper 5

The Future Nuclear Landscape

Paul I. Bernstein, John P. Caves, Jr., and John F. Reichart

April 2007

For additional information, including requests for publications and instructor’s notes, 

please contact the Center directly at WMDWebmaster@ndu.edu or (202) 685-4234 or visit 

the Center’s Web site at www.ndu.edu/wmdcenter/index.cfm.