Rogue Planet

ITAR Updated

The ITAR was updated last month to revise the list of 'prohibited exports and sales to certain countries', which now includes all countries under UN arms embargo. The shocking, you-would-have-never-thought, nominees include:

(1) Cote d'Ivoire

(2) Democratic Republic of Congo

(3) Iraq

(4) Iran

(5) Lebanon

(6) Liberia

(7) North Korea

(8) Rwanda

(9) Sierra Leone

(10) Somalia

(11) Sudan

Full Federal Register mumbo jumbo after the jump.

U.S. Small Arms Policy: Having it Both Ways

This relatively quick read provided by the World Policy Institute contrasts the U.S.'s export and arms trade policies with its 'shadow' polices, discussing supply to the Mujahadeen in Pakistan as well as the covert small arms trail (and the subsequent losses) to Iraq. 

In conclusion the author claims, "If the United States is not prepared to amend its own policy, it can hardly claim the high ground over those leaders who clandestinely supply lethal weapons in pursuit of their own ideological or mercantile interests."  But isn't that what the U.S. was founded on?  The idea of saying one thing and doing another?  I'm pretty sure I heard that on South Park, or something.

The full read can be found here.

Exports Controls: Are we protecting security and facilitating exports?

HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE
OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION

JULY 26, 2007 Serial No. 110-92

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Bush, Howard Ink Defense Trade Cooperation Export Control Treaty

Inside U.S. Trade
September 7, 2007

Vol. 25 No. 35

President Bush and Australian Prime Minister John Howard this week signed a defense trade cooperation treaty similar to the one signed earlier this year between the U.S. and United Kingdom, easing export controls on certain munitions items. A State Department official said the Bush Administration hopes to agree to implementing arrangements within six months, which will enable the Administration to seek Senate ratification.

The U.S.-Australia Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty is similar to the U.S.-UK Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty, which Bush and then-UK Prime Minister Tony Blair signed in June. Howard on Sept. 4 told reporters the treaty would allow Australians to enter the U.S. defense technology market "on the same basis" as UK companies.

Specifically, the treaty with Australia will lift International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) license requirements for U.S. Munitions List items to a trusted set of Australian companies and the Australian government, for trade related to certain government projects, Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs Dan Price said in a Sept. 5 press briefing in Sydney.

However, many of the details are left to the implementing arrangements, which are still to be negotiated. Congressional aides this week said they had not yet received a copy of the treaty, but in the case of the U.S.-UK treaty, the implementing arrangements are expected to define the scope of exceptions to the U.S.' right of refusal for re-exports (Inside U.S. Trade, July 20).

Congressional aides said the Administration did not notify Congress of the treaty until shortly before the signing, and that the treaty would avoid House consideration because only the Senate must ratify a treaty, as the UK treaty did. One of these aides said Congress first learned of the treaty from the press before the Administration informed Congress of its plans, which was also the case for the UK treaty.

Separately, a UK private-sector source said the UK treaty's implementing arrangements may be concluded in October.

U.K. Legislative Committee Tackles Brokering Issues

Earlier this month, the the House of Commons' Quadripartite Committee released a report entitled Strategic Export Controls: 2007 Review. In the report, the Committee recommends that the U.K. adopt a broker registration system that is interesting both in itself and in comparison to the current treatment of brokers in the United States under the provisions of Part 129:

We accept that the EU Council Common Position on the control of arms brokering, adopted on 23 June 2003, does not call for the registration of arms brokers. Article 4 suggests that Member States "may" establish a register of arms brokers, and that "registration or authorisation to act as a broker would [.] not replace the requirement to obtain the necessary licence or written authorisation for each transaction". We conclude that the EU Common Position on the control of arms brokering sets the best practice and we recommend that the Government follow best practice to establish a register of arms brokers. We conclude that a register will help to ensure that brokers meet defined standards, requirements and checks as well as deterring those-for example, with a relevant criminal conviction-for applying for registration. We also recommend that any brokering or trafficking in arms by a person in the UK or a British citizen abroad who is not registered be made a criminal offence.

The report doesn't address, or even seem aware of, the difficulty of defining what activities in connection with the sale of a defense article constitute brokering. But leaving aside that question, it approaches the
registration issue in ways that are significantly different from Part 129.