Archive for the ‘Wassenaar’ Category


Jan

12

Hey Big Brother


Posted by Clif Burns at 10:18 pm on January 12, 2011
Category: BISChinaForeign Export ControlsWassenaar

Johan Gadolin
ABOVE: Johan Gadolin,
discoverer of yttrium


China Daily is a great source of unintentional humor, and I really wish I had more time to peruse it. I did stumble across a recent opinion piece in China Daily on the rare earth export issue and, not surprisingly, there is much to snicker about in it, unless, of course, your business depends on the availabilities of the lanthanides, known to us non-technical sorts as the rare earth elements.

China initially justified its restrictions on exports of the lanthanides as a measure to encourage companies using lanthanides to relocate to China. Article XI of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs generally prohibits export quotas unless they fall within the exceptions set forth in Section 2 of Article XI or Article XX. Not surprisingly, efforts to distort international trade by forcing companies to relocate to the country imposing the quota is not within the exceptions set forth in GATT.

Somewhat later China began to cite the environmental impact of rare earth mining as a justification for the quotas. That argument was easily dismissed as a transparent ruse because China imposed no restrictions on rare earth mining for domestic use, no matter how loudly they complained the foreign exports of rare earths were killing Chinese workers.

Now, the article referenced by this post attempts to concoct another justification for its export quotas: national security. The article starts with a slam at the Wassenaar Arrangement which it claims is some kind of anti-socialist conspiracy by capitalist Western nations and a broad-based justification for China to impose any export controls it can dream up:

Export regulation was originally introduced for security issues. After World War II, the United States and other countries established the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (COCOM) against socialist countries; its successor, in effect today, is the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies.

In recent years the restrictions have become ever tighter. On June 19, 2007, the US Ministry [sic] of Commerce listed more than 2,500 kinds of technologies, devices, and materials banned [sic] for export to China.

Those familiar with the 2007 rule cited by China Daily, may wonder where the author came up with the idea that 2,500 kinds of technologies were banned for export. The rule imposed certain new license requirements for dual use items destined for use by the Chinese military but did not ban those exports. There were bans on items controlled for nuclear proliferation, missile technology, or chemical and biological warfare that would contribute to major Chinese weapons systems, but the 2,500 number is more than a little high as an estimate of the number of technologies involved.

More importantly, China’s claim that these restrictions are premised on national security would be more convincing if it had been its initial justification. And, of course, the Wassenaar list, which represents not a capitalist conspiracy but a multilateral consensus of strategic goods that require export controls, would permit China to exert export controls on the items on that list, items that don’t include the lanthanides.

Permalink Comments Off

Bookmark and Share



Nov

29

Wikileaks: Armenia Threatened with Sanctions after Iran Arms Deal


Posted by Clif Burns at 10:22 pm on November 29, 2010
Category: ArmeniaArms ExportSanctionsWassenaar

Serzh Sarkisian
ABOVE: Armenian President Serzh
Sarkisian


According to one of the Wikileak cables published by the Guardian, Armenia, in 2003, sold machine guns and rockets to Iran which were later used in a fatal attack on U.S. forces in Iraq by Shia militants. Secretary Rice discussed this with Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian, who denied any involvement in the arms transfer.

In December 2008 the State Department sent a letter to Sarkisian threatening U.S. sanctions on Armenia unless Armenia signed a written agreement that it would undertake certain specified steps to prevent further arms transfers to Iran or other terrorist states. Those steps were to include:

  • Adopt the Wassenaar Arrangement control lists
  • Ensure that Armenian-based brokers aren’t involved in arms transfers
  • Accept periodic unannounced inspections by the United States
  • Consult with the United States on all arms transfers to countries that are not members of NATO, the E.U., or the Wassenaar Arrangement.

There is no indication that Armenia entered into such an agreement other than, of course, the absence of current U.S. sanctions against Armenia.

Permalink Comments Off

Bookmark and Share



Nov

17

Export Nickel, Pay 14 Million Nickels


Posted by Clif Burns at 10:33 pm on November 17, 2009
Category: BISNonproliferationWassenaar

K25 Building at the East Tennessee Technology ParkNovamet Specialty Products Corporation recently agreed to pay $700,000 to the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) for 15 unlicensed shipments of nickel powder worth about $80,000. According to the charging documents, the powder was classified as ECCN 1C240.a. It does not appear from the charging documents that the violation was voluntarily disclosed by Novamet to the United States.

You may wonder why such a large fine for nickel powder. Well there is a partial answer to that, and the hint to the answer is the picture of the Oak Ridge gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment facility that illustrates this post. Gaseous diffusion enrichment requires a barrier that is used to separate isotopes of uranium, the goal being an output of fissionable uranium such as U-235. Apparently sintered nickel powder serves this purpose well. Sintered powder is powder that has been formed into a mass by high temperature and pressure alone without melting the powder. After this process, nickel creates a solid porous structure that permits the right isotopes to pass through and the others to stay behind, although it requires a multi-step cascading procedure. Sintered nickel powder was used as such a barrier in the gaseous diffusion plant at Oak Ridge.

Barrier technologies are, naturally, classified. But the description of ECCN 1C240.a probably gives a potential nuclear proliferator a good head start in developing a sintered nickel powder barrier. To be controlled under that ECCN, the nickel powder must be 99.0% pure and must have a mean particle size of less than 10 micrometers. I didn’t check each of the Novamet nickel powder exports alleged by BIS but five of them involved Novamet’s 4SP-10 powder, which judging from this specification sheet falls well within the parameters of ECCN 1C240.a.

That being said, and with requisite acknowledgment that this product could be used in uranium enrichment, there is certainly a foreign availability issue to consider here. The U.S. doesn’t mine or produce significant quantities of nickel. Russia is the largest producer, followed by Canada, Australia, and Indonesia. And nickel powder isn’t controlled under the Wassenaar Arrangement meaning that these countries can freely export nickel powder meeting the specifications described in ECCN 1C240.a. So, a $700,000 fine against Novamet seems far in excess of any injury that the exports might have caused.

UPDATE: Ed Fox, from DOE’s NNSA, points out in the comments that nickel powder is controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Indeed, it is listed on that group’s Guidelines for Transfers of Nuclear-Related Dual-Use Equipment, Materials, Software, and Related Technology under Category 2.C.16.a. That would prevent exports by Russia, Canada and Australia of nickel powder to certain countries. Singapore, another major producer of nickel, however, is not a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, although I can’t determine whether it has manufacturers who export nickel powder.

[P.S. The brief I mentioned earlier as my excuse for not posting more has been filed, so I should be on a more regular posting schedule.]

Permalink Comments (5)

Bookmark and Share



Oct

1

Can Locke Unlock the Grip of U.S. Export Controls?


Posted by Clif Burns at 8:33 pm on October 1, 2009
Category: BISWassenaar

Commerce Secretary Gary LockeAt today’s Update Conference in Washington, D.C., Commerce Secretary Gary Locke announced a sweeping vision for reform of U.S. export laws:

First, we should consider eliminating certain dual-use export license requirements for allies and partner nations — consistent with statutory and international obligations.

Of course, the rub here is what is meant by “consistent with . . . international obligations”? Obviously, this is a reference to the Wassenaar Arrangement, under which the United States has agreed to impose export controls on items on the “Lists of Dual-Use Goods and Technologies” made a part of that arrangement. But, as made clear in the 2006 “Best Practices Guidelines for the Licensing of Items on the Basic List and Sensitive List of Dual-Use Goods and Technologies,” members of the Arrangement are free to establish general licenses or license exceptions which permit the unlimited export of specified goods on the lists to specified destinations. The Guidelines, however, state that the member state should still require companies exporting under those general licenses or license exceptions to keep sufficient records of these exports to permit verification that any terms and conditions of the general licenses or license exceptions have been complied with.

Second, I’ve asked BIS to explore implementing a fast-track process for the review of dual-use export licenses for other key countries that do not pose a significant threat and have a strong history of export control compliance.

This is a laudable goal in theory that may be difficult to achieve in practice. Often the imposition of tighter deadlines for licensing decisions results in more applications being returned without action for minor errors — errors that would previously have been ignored — just so that the licensing officer can stay within the required time frame. That certainly seems to have been the result of the shortened processing guidelines for commodity jurisdiction requests filed with the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls.

And, of course we will continue to scour the Export Administration Regulations and de-list those items and technologies that no longer pose a threat to national security.

Here the Wassenaar Arrangement may prove to be somewhat more of an obstacle. Under the Arrangement, the United States is obligated to control the export of items on the Wassenaar Lists and the overwhelming number of commodities on the Commerce Control List (“CCL”) are also on the Wassenaar Lists. The United States can only really remove those common items from the CCL if it convinces other Wassenaar members to remove the same items from the Wassenaar lists at one of the plenary sessions held under the Arrangement.

Of course, there are all those items in Category 0 of the CCL that aren’t on the Wassenaar Lists, so we can look forward, perhaps, to the immediate removal of “horses by sea” (ECCN 0A980) and “plastic handcuffs” (ECCN 0A982), otherwise known as plastic cable ties, from the CCL.

Permalink Comments (10)

Bookmark and Share



Dec

18

Radar That Wasn’t on the Radar


Posted by Clif Burns at 5:12 pm on December 18, 2006
Category: Wassenaar

Illustration of a passive radar systemThe December 2006 Wassenaar Plenary made a number of changes to the Waasenaar control lists, and as I noted on Friday, I’ve been going through the changes to find anything of interest. One change of interest (particularly to Lockheed Martin) is the addition of a new category 5.a.1.g. which controls:

Passive Coherent Location systems or equipment specially designed for detecting and tracking moving objects by measuring reflections of ambient radio frequency emissions, supplied by non-radar transmitters.

Passive coherent location systems are more commonly known as passive radar systems. Unlike conventional radar which relies on a radio signal transmitted by the radar system, a passive radar system uses radio signals by other existing transmission sources, typically television and radio stations. Lockheed Martin’s Silent Sentry is a passive radar system which Lockheed began to sell in 1999.

As receiving equipment and the necessary signal processing equipment have become smaller, cheaper and more powerful, passive radar represents a highly-mobile, extremely sensitive and almost completely covert method for tracking moving objects such as airplanes and helicopters. Moreover, passive radar systems can detect low-flying stealth aircraft.

Frankly, we are a little surprised that it took this long for such a technology to wind up on an export control list.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share