‘Hold Everything’: Barshefsky’s New Info Tech Trade Deal Promotes Trade at Expense of U.S. Security Interests

(Washington, D.C.): Last December, the
Acting U.S. Trade Representative,
Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky, presided
over the completion of a
“Ministerial Declaration on Trade in
Information Technology Products” by
members of the World Trade Organization.
This agreement was drafted with a view to
reducing tariffs and thereby promoting
trade in computers, telecommunications
equipment, copiers, radio and video
technology and related components. The
result is widely expected to be that
American businesses will benefit from
increased access to foreign markets, and
consumers will enjoy reduced costs for
foreign-produced goods in these areas.

Unfortunately, as negotiated,
Ambassador Barshefsky’s info tech trade
deal may have significant — and highly
deleterious — implications for U.S.
national security. This agreement
clears the way for foreign manufacturers
of capacitors and resistors to have
completely duty-free access to the U.S.
market. This may translate into distinct
competitive advantages for foreign firms
anxious to wipe out the last
remaining U.S.-owned and -based
manufacturers of these products, items
critical to virtually every modern weapon
system in the American arsenal.

An illustrative sample of the military
programs that rely upon these components
includes: the AEGIS air defense system,
AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, Patriot
anti-aircraft and anti-missile missiles,
TOW anti-tank weapons, key communications
systems such as MILSTAR and SINCGARS, the
HARM anti-radar weapons and the
Peacekeeper and Trident strategic
missiles. Should the United
States lose the one or two American
companies still available to supply the
capacitors and resistors required for
such systems, military readiness could be
materially degraded.

This is no abstract proposition. In
Operation Desert Shield/Storm, U.S.
officials were alarmed to discover that
dependency on foreign suppliers for spare
parts or replacement components of vital
weapon systems could translate into
unacceptable shortfalls in defense
capabilities and/or serious strains in
relations with allied nations. For
example, Washington had to ask the
Japanese government for its help in
assuring supplies of display screens for
U.S. weapon systems that were not
available from U.S. manufacturers.

‘What, Me Worry?‘

It appears, however, that no
thought was given by Ambassador
Barshefsky or her team to the national
security implications of the information
technology agreement. Indeed,
the decision to include capacitors seems
to have been almost an afterthought as
earlier drafts and USTR consultations
with affected industries gave no
indication that such components would be
affected. Even after the agreement was
initialed in Singapore on 13 December
1996 and a number of legislators —
including, notably, the Chairman of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen.
Strom Thurmond — began raising questions
about the potential adverse repercussions
of this agreement for U.S. security
interests, Mrs. Barshefsky has
evinced little willingness to consider
these repercussions or changes to the
agreement that might be made to mitigate
them.

The Bottom Line

The good news for those concerned
about the Clinton Administration’s
tendency to subordinate national security
interests to the monomaniacal pursuit of
trade opportunities is that Ambassador
Barshefsky currently awaits Senate
confirmation of her nomination to fill
the post of U.S. Trade Representative on
a permanent basis. What is more, because
of her past lobbying activities on behalf
of foreign entities, a waiver requiring
the approval of both houses of
Congress must precede Mrs. Barshefsky’s
confirmation by the Senate.

There is, accordingly, ample
opportunity for legislators determined to
ensure that vital U.S. defense
capabilities do not become unduly
dependent upon potentially unreliable
foreign suppliers to reason with Mrs.
Barshefsky about the need to
“perfect” her information
technology agreement with regard to
militarily-relevant capacitors and
resistors. As it happens, Ambassador
Barshefsky informed the Senate Finance
Committee on the occasion of her
nomination hearing on 29 January that the
info tech agreement would be
“finalized within the next few
weeks.” Accordingly, there
should also be an opportunity to effect
the sorts of changes required before
that diplomatic process is completed and
work on her nomination is concluded.

During that period, the Senate
may also wish to take up with the
Administration its determination to
exercise its right to advise and consent
to the finished agreement — a
constitutional role the Clinton team
would like to prevent Senators from
playing in this area (as in several
others of import for the national
security — notably, changes to the
Conventional Forces in Europe and
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaties). Such
a review could be an important starting
point for a more fulsome examination of
the larger question of the military
implications of foreign dependency in
what President Clinton likes to call the
“global economy.” wp=”br1″>