The United States and 10 of its allies wil press on with plans to intercept vessels suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction despite a warning from China that the move could be illegal.
The 11 countries have agreed to board ships, force planes to land and inspect cargoes if they suspect that chemical, nuclear or biological weapons are being transported.
China has criticised the initiative, arguing that it could contravene international law.
That seems rather obvious to me. However, the US has a long and successful history of naval blockades and boarding foreign vessels on the high seas. It seems equally obvious that this policy announcement is aimed mainly at North Korea. A North Koorean freighter carrying SCUD missles was detained by a Spanish naval vessel in December last year and turned over to the US (I’m sure the Spaniards were relieved to relinquish custody). After it turned out the missles were “legal” exports to Yemen we let the sale and the ship go through.
Who appointed us the ultimate arbitrators of all arms sales? If we don’t prevent the proliferation of WMDs to nations or groups prepared to use them, who will? On what criteria should we base our decisions as to which deals to allow to go through? How will we proceed if we actually find some WMD’s on a foreign-nation vessel in international waters? How can we rationalize that many of the weapons being used against us today were manufactured by us and our allies? Good questions, all. With tense confrontations on the bounty main all but inevitable, shouldn’t we be looking for answers?
from the BBC