Pacific Islands, explained.
A homemade narco-submarine impounded in Colombia and similar to the type recently found in Solomon Islands. Designed to sit low in the water, such boats are used by drug cartels on smuggling routes to Australia (Luis Robayo/AFP via Getty Images)
Australia can counter drug traffickers without following Trump’s playbook.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
Yes, it’s legal to shoot narco-subs in the Pacific – but the law has better optionsYes, it’s legal to shoot narco-subs in the Pacific – but the law has better options
There is no shortage of examples of how the United States, under President Donald Trump, flaunts long-established rules of international law. While there are limited levers available to bring the United States back into line with those rules, there are ways to limit the damage. Australia has one such opportunity in responding to the growing drug trade that is flowing across the Pacific.
An increasing number of “narco-subs” have been discovered in the Pacific Islands – most recently at the weekend in Solomon Islands. These semi-submersibles are traversing the Pacific Ocean from South America to meet growing demand for illicit drugs in Australia.
At an inquiry considering the impact of drugs on Solomon Islands, the local opposition leader Matthew Wale praised the recent US approach of “killing them all to smithereens”. In a series of strikes in the Caribbean, Trump has sanctioned the use of lethal force against so-called narco-terrorists, resulting in 150 reported deaths.
Following the latest discovery of a narco-sub, an Australian Federal Police representative declined to comment when asked whether Australia would bomb vessels trafficking drugs.
But this is where Australia could – and should – act.
There may well be circumstances where a maritime law enforcement operation requires shooting at a vessel and those on board. It is usually a tactic of last resort.
International law requires that the use of force during maritime law enforcement “be avoided as far as possible and, where force is unavoidable, it must not go beyond what is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances”. Moreover, given that there are people on board these boats, international law requires that law enforcement officials have regard to “considerations of humanity”.
There may well be circumstances where a maritime law enforcement operation requires shooting at a vessel and those on board. It is usually a tactic of last resort rather than a first resort.
When asked if Australia would bomb drug traffickers at sea, an Australian Federal Police representative could rightly respond “yes, if it is reasonable, necessary and proportionate to do so”. That response has the benefit of affirming existing international law and recognises that limits on State power exist during maritime law enforcement. The rule itself allows for the possibility that operational demands may require the use of lethal force.
Maritime law enforcement operations against narco-subs in the Pacific clearly present resource challenges because of the vast ocean areas to police as well as in prosecuting alleged offenders. Australia again has a role it can play here.
Australia has provided additional patrol vessels to various Pacific Island nations to assist with fisheries management and maritime security. While further resources for policing would presumably be welcome, there are other ways to build the capacity of Pacific neighbours.
Both the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and a 1988 Drugs Convention provide States with authority to adopt legislation to prosecute alleged offenders and to enforce those laws against vessels and their crew. The Drugs Convention has 192 parties, not including Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.
Each of these Pacific Island countries should consider becoming a party to this treaty. Australia could then support their development of national legislation that would criminalise the full range of drug trafficking offences set out in the Drugs Convention. Measures of “catch and release” or “send[ing] them to hell” are less plausible without national legislation in place.
Now is the time to act: the drug trade is only growing and becoming more sophisticated. Concerns about harm to crew members on board drug-trafficking vessels will become obsolete when autonomous narco-subs are routinely deployed. In that setting, countries will need national legislation in place to prosecute operators who remotely control narco-subs or otherwise aid and abet the drug trade from the safety of land.
Australia need not condemn or condone US actions against drug trafficking in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. It can, though, be clear about its support for international law rules governing maritime law enforcement. Australia should be the better role model for the ongoing viability of international law.
About the author
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
