WEB SPECIAL - The Hunt for W.M.D.

NAVIES UNITE TO HUNT
FOR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

By Iain Ballantyne (UK) and Yoshiharu Fukushima (Japan)

Despite continuing divisions over how to deal with Iraq, the Coalition allies who have pursued the War on Terrorism have begun a new phase in their global campaign, with the first in a series of ten exercises designed to rehearse interception of Weapons of Mass Destruction on the high seas.

Sailors assigned to USS Monterey inspect empty cargo containers aboard a foreign vessel while conducting a Maritime Interdiction Operation (MIO) in waters off Arabia. Photo: USN.

Exercise Pacific Protector, which was held in the Coral Sea, immediately provoked condemnation from North Korea, the chief proliferator of proscribed WMD and associated equipment. One of North Korea’s state-run newspapers raged: “Such moves of the United States are blatant military provocations to North Korea.” While President Bush unveiled the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), during a speech at Cracow, Poland in the summer, it is far from just being a thin cover for America flexing its naval muscle. Pacific Protector was Australian-led and the subsequent PSI exercises, which will be staged in swift succession into next year, will see each of the nations involved taking it in turns to play the lead role.

At a press conference aboard the frigate HMAS Melbourne (05) during Pacific Protector last month (Sept), Australian defence minister Senator Robert Hill said: “...when countries that have a joint interest in addressing the issue of proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and want to take up the option of seeking to interfere with a transfer of such weapons by ship, it shows that they can actually do the job in practice. It’s very unfortunate in many ways that countries need to come together to address the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction in this way, but the issue is so serious that every effort must be made...”

When asked if Pacific Protector sent a message specifically to North Korea the Australian defence minister said that he did not want to name any one country as being the target of the PSI.

“It sends a message to all of those who may for one reason or another contemplate the transfer of Weapons of Mass Destruction or their precursors, but there is a committed global movement across the world that is going to make every effort to stop them,” said Senator Hill.

Pacific Protector was staged over three days and involved naval and law enforcement vessels from Australia, Japan, France and the USA. The remaining PSI partners sent observers: Germany; Italy; the Netherlands, Poland; Portugal; Spain; United Kingdom. America contributed the destroyer USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG 54), from Yokosuka in Japan, and a US Coast Guard boarding detachment. The Australian supply ship HMAS Success was used as a helicopter platform while the JCG’s Shikishima (PLH 31) had a Special Security Team (SST) embarked to carry out boardings. The Japanese also hope to take part in similar exercises in the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean.

HMAS Success's SK50 Sea King flying behind the Japanese Coast Guard Patrol Vessel Shikashima as she stands off from the target vessel during a search for WMD as part of Exercise Pacific Protector. Photo: RAN.

HMAS Success's SK50 Sea King flies above USS Curtis Wilbur during Exercise Pacific Protector. Photo: RAN.

During Pacific Protector the target ship was the Motor Vessel Pvt. Franklin J. Phillips, a US Military Sealift Command ship. She played a Japanese-flagged commercial merchant vessel - the ‘MV Tokyo Summer’ - that was suspected of carrying WMD-related items. After being detected and shadowed by combined naval and law enforcement vessels, the Japan Coast Guard, working with French, US and Australian counterparts, requested and executed a boarding and search.

The scenario concluded with the seizure of a simulated WMD-related cargo. In addition to a frigate, Australia contributed the customs vessel Botany Bay and surveillance aircraft. The USA also sent a US Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachment Boarding Team, while the French contributed a Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA). The participation by Japanese units was achieved despite domestic legislation that prevents anything but limited interventions by military forces. However, recent amendments to laws have enabled Japanese naval and coast guard forces to be more pro-active and aggressive in their pursuit of terrorists on the high seas.

In a broader context some have questioned the legality of the PSI concept, and Senator Hill discussed that challenge during his briefing on board HMAS Melbourne.

“There are a lot of complex legal issues and there is now a team from across the 11 countries working on them,” he said. “We’ve always said that what we are seeking to do is defeat an illegal transfer, so the operation has got to be within the law and reaching a consensus between the 11 countries on the principals of law is not an easy task. But it will be achieved because the countries involved are so determined to effectively defeat this threat.”

During the exercise Captain Peter Jones, who commanded the RAN’s units in the recent war in the Gulf, brought his considerable experience in maritime interdiction to bear. His verdict on the exercise was that it was a good start. “We had never operated with the Japan Coast Guard before and we were very impressed with how they do business,” observed Captain Jones. “Very professional and very confident, they integrated quite well, certainly in the procedures that ourselves, the French and the US have developed over many years. That was very good. I think the thing we’ve learned is the way people deploy their forces. There are some subtle differences in how they do that: Communications between the different forces; different procedures; different force procedures. And that is something that we will bring together and put in a report that all the PSI countries can draw on and then hopefully the next exercise will go that much better.”

During the briefing onboard the Melbourne, Senator Hill was challenged by one reporter to explain why he believes it is worth risking the lives of Australian sailors in potentially dangerous operations in search of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Senator Hill responded: “Well I can’t think of any greater threat to Australian or other interests than threats that are associated with Weapons of Mass Destruction. We’ve tried for years to deter the proliferation of WMDs through the international conventions and in other ways.”

He went on: “The issue is we’ve got to confront potential threats in these areas effectively in the future and that’ s worth training for.” In Washington D.C., as the exercise unfolded, a defence official gave the American perspective on why PSI was an urgent priority. He said: “Part of this is to send a message out to countries that proliferate to say, ‘Hey, we are out there now. And we’re taking more proactive measures to try to stop this trade.” In European waters the Royal Navy is expected to take a leading role in PSI exercises.

In December of 2001, with anxiety running high in the wake of 9-11, a Special Boat Service team was launched from the frigate HMS Sutherland to intercept a merchant ship in the English Channel.

The MV Nisha was suspected of carrying WMD but turned out to be innocent. In December 2002, the Spanish Navy led an interception of a North Korean merchant ship, the So San, in the Indian Ocean.

A consignment of Scud missiles was discovered hidden in her holds under bags of cement. However, the missiles were legitimately purchased by the government of Yemen and so the ship was allowed to go on her way.

REPORT WARNS TERRORIST MAY USE CONTAINERS AS WMD

A report from the RAND Europe POLICY think-tank has warned the international community that commercial containers on ships are vulnerable to being used as Weapons of Mass Destruction, or to transport terrorist material.

Kevin O’Brien, a UK-based senior policy analyst at RAND Europe, and one of the authors of the report, told this magazine: “It is generally acknowledged that the terrorists will choose the way of least resistance as well as targets that result in widespread media coverage. This coverage is most likely to be provided through attacks resulting in many casualties. Although sea-containers have not been a target in the past compared with air travel, there is no reason why they shouldn’t be targets in the future.”

The report, which is titled ‘Seacurity: A Stakeholder Consultation On Improving The Security Of The Global Sea-Container Shipping System’ makes for chilling reading.

It states: “The potential threat of terrorists using containers poses a large risk to our economies and to our societies. Since 11 September 2001, the awareness of terrorists’ actions has clearly risen. This increase, however, has not been as substantial in all fields as it has been in the air transport sector. Ultimately, this means that the marine sector - and specifically the container transport sector - remains wide-open to the terrorist threat.”

RAND believes the fact that containers change hands MANY TIMES in their journey, that they often pass through insecure areas of the world and THAT no one body oversees their security, is what makes them ideal terror vehicles. Searches of containers and other counter-measures, such as X-ray machines, would not only slow up the flow of trade, but will also cost money. Most ports are privately owned so the burden of cost will also deter the implementation of security measures. RAND Europe has estimated the contents of less than two percent of all containers are checked. Counter-terrorist analysts have long acknowledged that containers are an ideal way for terrorists to penetrate to the heart of major cities around the world. If a nuclear device, chemical or biological weapons were hidden inside containers, then the potential for mass casualties and vast economic damage could be huge. In the waters of the Middle East, Coalition warships on counter-terrorist patrols do send boarding teams onto merchant ships to check containers to ensure they have not been tampered with. However, the searches carried out can only check a fraction of world container traffic.

For more on the War on Terrorism see WARSHIPS IFR editions.