Center Critiques House Proposal For Export Control Law Rewrite

Today, the International Economic Policy and Trade Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee is scheduled to begin its consideration of draft legislation reauthorizing the Export Administration Act, the law which governs the control and safeguarding of militarily sensitive goods and technology. The preliminary "mark-up" of this bill has been prepared at the direction of the subcommittee chairman, Rep. Sam Gejdenson, (D-CT).

As part of its continuing effort to monitor the quality of important initiatives bearing on U.S. security policy as they proceed through the legislative process, the Center has developed a brief assessment of the Gejdenson draft bill. The Center’s analysis reveals that, in important respects, this legislation is seriously deficient on national security and commercial grounds.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., the Center’s director, noted, "If enacted in its present form, Rep. Gejdenson’s mark-up would eviscerate the Export Administration Act, setting the stage for a uncontrollable hemorrhage of militarily relevant high technology to the Soviet Union. As submitted, it would be more appropriately titled The Soviet Military Relief Act of 1990."

Jennifer J. White, a Senior Associate at the Center and former staff member with the Foreign Affairs Committee, added, "The German foreign minister, Hans Dietrich Genscher, who has long championed the sale of ‘dual-use’ technology to Moscow — irrespective of the dangerous consequences of doing so for the common defense — announced this week that it was time to dismantle the COCOM ‘wall.’ Rep. Gejdenson’s bill would effectively do just that."

The Center’s analysis identified the following as among the serious shortcomings of the Gejdenson draft:

• It removes present national security export controls on all goods and technology to all but a few countries. Only the Secretary of Commerce can add back any technologies to the list of controlled items — and then only if he determines that the item would make a significant contribution to the military potential of a country which would prove detrimental to the United States.

 

• It fails to take into account the evidence that the Soviet Union has redoubled its efforts to secure Western high technology either directly or through tech-theft intelligence apparatuses still in place in Eastern Europe. The latter in particular make a mockery of earnest pledges to "safeguard" Western technology by the well-meaning reformist governments emerging in Eastern Europe.

 

• It ignores the reality that — given the Soviet Union’s dire economic condition and the even worse straits in which most of the East European regimes find themselves — the principal beneficiary of relaxed technology controls will not be American commercial interests but those of nations like Germany and Japan prepared to do business on highly generous credit terms, most likely with government backing.

 

• Finally, it further diminishes the role of the Defense Department in determining which technologies can safely be transferred to the USSR. The effect of such a step would be to ensure that the defense burden the U.S. military must bear will actually grow, even as the resources available to contend with that burden continue to decline.

The Center’s assessment of the Gejdenson bill is outlined in a paper entitled House Proposal to Rewrite Export Control Laws: "The Soviet Military Relief Act of 1990" which may be obtained by contacting the Center.