How Should One Deal with “Rogues”?
How to have an Effective Weapons of Mass Destruction Arms Control Policy?


• What’s a Rogue State?


For the United States, a rogue state is a Third World state that possesses weapons of mass destruction and sponsors terrorism. In addition, a rogue state is a government which, in the view of the United States, does not abide by international norms of civilized behavior. The term rogue state did not gain wide coinage, due to utter lack of consensus as to America’s right to judge other nations’ conduct.
Since the September 11 attack, the term rogue state has been supplemented in the United States by the term “axis of evil.”

• The Issue Surrounding Rogues


After the collapse of the Berlin Wall, rouge state and global terrorist threat emerged; the international security environment is right now undergoing through a profound transformation. After the evil empire- Soviet Union vanished, the danger of WMD proliferated. For the United States, rogue states, which pursue actively nuclear bomb and other WMD, sponsor, in addition, terrorist and other criminal activities are now new adversary of the civilized world and particularly of the United States.

• Concerned Countries


North Korea and Iraq have been suggested as “rouge states” along with Iran, Syria, and Libya.

• Objective of Rogues


In a world that is dominated by Realpolitik and balance of power, the Rogue States are determinate to pursue massive destructive weapons such as nuclear bomb. The reasons include, but not limited to, to counter a potential attack from the United States; and to justify leadership’s legitimacy among country’s populous. For the United States, such determination to pursue nuclear bomb represent a great threat given the fact that rogues are not bind by neither international law, nor rational behavior. Therefore, it has a strong likelihood that the rogues will use weapons of mass destruction against any member of the international community, and especially against the U.S. This situation render world security environment much more complex and dangerous than during the Cold War time.

• Political Nature of Rogues


Rogue states are almost always ruled by authoritarian or totalitarian regimes that severely restrict what those in the West would regard as basic human freedoms and rights. They are generally hostile to the West and its allies like Japan and South Korea in the East, and are often accused of sponsoring terrorism or of seeking to acquire or develop weapons of mass destruction.

These are countries which:

1. Brutalize their own people and squander their national resources for the personal gain of the rulers.
2. Display no regard for international law, threaten their neighbors, and callously violate international treaties to which they are party.
3. Are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, along with other advanced military technology, to be used as threats or offensively to achieve the aggressive designs of these regimes.
4. Sponsor terrorism around the globe.
5. Are irrational to the extent that conventional methods of negotiation are ineffective.
6. Reject basic human values.


• Response from Washington


1. The U.S. has used the threat posed by rogue states to justify its foreign policy and other initiatives.
2. Renewed interest in and funding of ABM programs in the U.S. are, according to the most prominent public statements of U.S. officials, grounded in the concern that a rogue state may direct WMD against the U.S. and not be deterred by the certainty of retaliation.
3. Invasion and occupation of Iraq; forcing North Korea, Iran and Libya to either give up their WMD programs or to negotiate.
4. Use the term of Axis of Evil to denigrate rouges. The axis of evil is made up of “regimes that sponsor terror,” as defined by President Bush in his State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002. The original states Bush originally named were Iraq, Iran, North Korea and then later Syria.
5. Creating new doctrinaire policies. Promoting a proactive counterproliferation policy; strengthen nonproliferation activities to prevent rogue states and terrorists from acquiring the WMD.


• Critics of U.S. Position


Some critics charge that “rogue state” merely means any state that opposes the U.S. Others accuse the U.S. of being a rogue state itself, whose foreign policy is sometimes accused of having the sort of brutality and capriciousness of those it considers rogue states. The book “Rogue Nation” is a book by Clyde Prestowitz, which criticizes George W. Bush’s foreign policy as “unilateralist.” Prestowitz claims that the U.S. is as much of a rogue state as any other, even by its own standards.


How to have an effective Weapons of Mass Destruction Arms Control Policy?


The United States government (U.S.) has a long standing commitment to limit, delay, stop, and reverse the proliferation of variety of weapon of mass destruction (WMD), including biological, chemical, radiological and nuclear weapons and its delivery system. A system that can effectively predict, control and halt transfer of all possible hazardous material and technology related to WMD is an effective arms control system. Given the situation of contemporary world, proliferation of WMD should be a paramount national security concern to the U.S. administration and it should impart for arms control activities.

What is Weapons of Mass Destruction: WMD are weapons designed to kill large numbers of people, usually civilians but also potentially military personnel. They are generally considered to be of limited military usefulness because their destructiveness is likely to trigger an extreme response. They are also known as weapons of indiscriminate destruction, weapons of mass disruption and weapons of catastrophic effect.

Main issue


1. Historically, the U.S. government lacked a true long-term oriented arms control strategy to check the threat from WMD proliferation, and often, nonproliferation commitment had been compromised by short term oriented U.S. foreign policy.


2. Globalization facilitates enormously the transfer of technology; concordant to the reality of the world, it is vital for the U.S. government to prevent and stop proliferation of WMD related material and technologies to state and non-state actors alike, and regardless their bilateral relationship with the United States. Should WMD fail in the hands of undemocratic states and terrorists, the security and stability of the world including that of the United States will be at their mercy. For them, WMD is not weapon of last resort.


3. In order to prevent any foes of America to proceed WMD and its know how, it is preeminently urgent for the U.S. government to reorganize its arms control strategy. Recent discovery of Dr. Khan’s secret nuclear proliferation network from Pakistan proved our control system and our nonproliferation and counterproliferation policies have many flaws.


I. Key objective

The objective of WMD arms control policy is to make the United States, its friends and ultimately the world free from WMD destruction. In order to achieve our objective of combating WMD proliferation, we must first of all have an effective and flexible policy doctrine.

a. A paradigm shift from Nonproliferation to Counterproliferation

• Nonproliferation policy

This policy embraces primarily a diplomatic approach. Attempts to prevent states from acquiring strategic weapons technology by promising them rewards and threatening them with sanctions. One of the essential objectives in nonproliferation arms control is to create an international consensus against the possession of WMD. Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) is the product. Additional international agreements including the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention.

• Why it is a failing strategy?


1. It is difficult to combat WMD proliferation against non-democratic states via diplomatic means. Most often, officials from nations that proliferate publicly claim they support international arms control efforts.
2. In the past, the U.S. and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) react only based on indisputable evidence of proliferation activities, and push proliferators to pledge better future behavior in exchange for increase money load, technology transfer and political favors. IE. North Korea, China, Pakistan, Russia.
3. In addition, the free world is reluctant to impose sanctions against proliferators such as China or Russia due to interests in trade. The reality on the ground proves this is a losing strategy.


• Wining strategy: a competitive counterproliferation policy


A forward arms control policy on proliferation of biological, chemical, radiological and nuclear weapons deals accurately with the fast changing world and its presented challenges. It is more than just preventive, it is also aiming at to eliminate and roll back of WMD from rogue states and terrorist groups that process them or are close to doing so.

1. Counterproliferation policy views the spread of WMD as inevitable, and our objective being stopping WMD proliferation. Hence, a wining counterproliferation arms control strategy should aim only a complete elimination of proliferation activity or dismantlement of proliferated system by all means, including the use of force.
2. In order to do so, the free world must plan ahead: anticipate proliferation threats as early as possible, with or without compelling proofs. We must no longer assume that nonproliferation initiative currently available is adequate enough or that good intention, such as civilian oriented nuclear activity is tolerable.
3. The United States must use its political, economic and military strengths against proliferators’ comparative weaknesses. We must consider economic interests as second, counterproliferation of WMD as first priority.
4. Short term U.S. foreign policy should not undermine long term counterproliferation objective.
5. The disadvantage being that it seeks further preventive effort including the use of force. However, the use of force can be extremely counterproductive. IE. Clumsy operation planning of occupation of Iraq in lieu of only destroy any potential Iraqi WMD program.


• Major aspects in an effective counterproliferation arms control policy


1. To maintain U.S. paramount position in any long-term competition.
2. Absolute interdiction on the development and use of any WMD worldwide.
3. To develop a long-term oriented competitive strategy aiming to stop research and development of WMD around the world.
4. The goal must set at a higher level, for implementing a failing strategy against non-democratic proliferators only produces more disappointment or defeat.
5. Explore various methods of applying a competitive strategies approach to the pursuit of nonproliferation objective.
6. Enduring our strengths and exploit our foes’ weakness. Only in such way we can dissuading hostile nations from developing and proliferating, forcing hostile regimes to give way their WMD and nuclear programs.
7. Strengthening international cooperation on counterproliferation effort.
8. Crackdown all sale and transport of nuclear technologies and equipment.
9. Proliferators and buyers must be severely punished by the international community in accordance to international agreements.
10. Close all loopholes in the nuclear nonproliferation treaties that allow states to pursue WMD under the false cloak of legitimacy. Improve and modernize international agreements such as NPT to address new and changing threats.


b. Making the use of WMD against civilian as means to threaten and intimidate the civilized world obsolete
We must improve and maintain a strong internal security and defense system against potential WMD attack.

c. Eliminate any one who is going to use WMD, states or non-states actors alike
d. Destruction of all existing WMD world wide, including American arsenals
As long as WMD exist, it is a threat to the humanity. In addition, the system of realpolitik and balance of power force states to pursue strategic WMD program to counter balance external threat.

II. Requirements
Under Secretary Bolton, during his testimony before the House International Relations Committee on June 4, 2003, laid out four techniques includes:

1. Diplomacy
2. Economic sanctions
3. Interdiction, credible export control and seizure
4. Preemptive military engagement


The purpose is to slow down and even stop our foe’s weapon development plans through disruption on their procurement attempts. To make the competitor to spend far more time and money or other key resources to respond to our move than we need to respond to theirs.

To be more specific on the ground:

1. Secretary of State must work with his/her foreign counterparts to identify all possible potential buyers and sellers.
2. Secretaries of the Treasury and State must work with their foreign counterparts to intercept all transactions, size and freeze assets and holding of buyers and sellers.
3. The Central Intelligent Agency’s director must provide an aggressive program. Members of CIA must collect actively intelligence and disrupt all transaction of WMD accordingly.
4. Sufficient funds must be available in the budgets to meet the expected objectives.
5. The United States reserve the right of deterrence with overwhelming force to eliminate any state or non-states actors who represent a serious threat to U.S. national security and world peace.
6. Secretary of Defense must ensure the readiness of U.S. military force to be deployed, and to be prepared to respond to terrorists and WMD destruction occurrence worldwide.
7. The U.S. government must have contingency plans.
8. Address the source of problem: if it is a necessity, the U.S. government will work with our allies to eliminate proliferators, rogue states and terrorist organizations.


III. Instruments

In order make our long-term oriented WMD counterproliferation arms control policy effective, beside of searching for new approaches, we must wisely use an already a robust list of options. Sometime it might only use existing ways with smarter ways assets already in hand.

• Diplomacy

Diplomacy is the carrots. Encourage the potential WMD developer to abandon their development. Formulate flawless multilateral agreements and creating a strong international consensus. Attempts to prevent states from acquiring strategic weapons technology by promising them rewards and threatening them with sanctions and military attack.

a. There are several problems with diplomatic means.

Diplomacy produces poor results with non democratic totalitarian regimes. Many of those regimes distrust the United States, have a strong nuclear ambition and unlikely to obey or even less likely to sign to any treaties that intend to limit their strategic weapon capacity.

b. Non democratic state will cheat on agreements.

• Sanction

If diplomacy fails, we can use sanction. The tactical aspect of economic or technological sanction is to force proliferators and buyer to spend more time and sources, to cut off their resources, and to divert their resources away from WMD and missiles development.

For example, the current Bush administration is imposing sanctions on 13 foreign companies and individuals in seven countries that it says have sold equipment or expertise that Iran could use in nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. Before the House International Relations Committee in Washington, Undersecretary of State Bolton said that the administration had imposed sanctions to punish suspected efforts to acquire illicit weapons 22 times in 2002 and 32 times in 2003, compared with the Clinton administration’s average of eight times a year.

• Interdiction, credible export control and seizure

A universal interdiction of WMD development accredited by international agreements is not enough. States and non-state actors with WMD ambition will pursue their strategic goal. Passed experience proves that a tough credible export control worldwide backs by armed forces will de facto slowdown and prevent one’s WMD development.

• Military force

The military option is only the last resort. The United States and its allies’ military forces must be ready in extreme case, such as facing an imminent attack, to detect and destroy an adversary’s WMD facility and materials before they can be used against us. Some advance the notion that the U.S. could engage preemptively to eliminate proliferation threats, however, this is controversial in terms of morale and politics. Nonetheless, the U.S. military has an advantage of planning ahead based on threat estimation case by case. For instance, Iraq, North Korea or Iran are different cases; yet, if an imminent threat emerge, the U.S. and allies should launch surgical attacks.

• International Treaties

a. Existing nonproliferation treaties embraces a diplomatic approach based on signatories’ consensus and have many loopholes. The reality on the terrain proves that existing treaties are ineffective.

b. For instance, in the past, the United States and its friend have pleaded with each proliferators to join or adherer to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, or the Military Fissile Production Cut Off, only to discover that the value of such pledges is, at best, nominal.

c. International treaties are important for an effective WMD arms control, because they create an international consensus and legitimacy. However, treaties are made with vague diplomatic language and aged, they remain imprecise. For instance the NPT was created 30 years ago and never was respected. Due to its flaw in language, treaties have often been used by potential WMD developers as hinders to stop democracies’ counterproliferation efforts. In addition, treaties such as NPT concerns only signatory states, they do not apply to non-signatory states nor stateless terror organizations such as Al Qaeda. As a result, international treaties should be considered in terms of arms control policy with a secondary position.

• Human aspect

Without a group of devoted and more than well trained professionals, our arms control policy is only a mirage.

1. Training individual, unit, and force.
2. Improve intelligence collection, surveillance and analysis.
3. Specialized investigation groups, which are flexible and capable of dealing from one case to another case.
4. Members are capable of combating the denial and deception strategy.
5. Investigating specific case of procurement process, source of finance, involvement of all international firms, and the specific types of technology that are involved.


• Technology aspect

The full use of modern as well as traditional technological application is indispensable.

1. Improve hardware systems. Including platforms, munitions, and supporting systems.
2. Technology research and development programs.
3. Making the existing WMD capacities obsolescent.
4. Develop unanticipated military capacities with potentially significant impacts on our foes.
5. Make our potential enemies uncertain about the effectiveness of their WMD. To render their investment in WMD and missiles obsolete, forcing them to increase their financial investment, on the other words, imposing high cost on them.


• International alliance

The resources of the United States are limited. Therefore, the U.S. government must emphasis as well as strengthening alliance relationships.

• Consequence management to respond to WMD use

Making the use of WMD against civilian as means to threaten and intimidate the civilized world obsolete.