Jul

1

Export Reform: A Return to Original Intent?


Posted by at 9:50 pm on July 1, 2010
Category: Arms ExportExport Reform

Richard Bistrong
ABOVE: Gen. James Jones

Yesterday’s post mentioned a speech given by National Security Advisor General James Jones to the Senate Aerospace Caucus. I’ve now had a chance to look at a text of his speech as prepared and noticed at least one part that may be of considerable interest to exporters.

General Jones begins his speech with, and mentions throughout, some significant changes that have occurred since our current export control regime was initially instituted. Most striking was his observation that when we first started controlling exports troops were moved around on trains and that, notwithstanding that military trains have gone the way of camels, horses and elephants as a mode of troop transport, “military railway trains” are still mentioned in USML Category VII.

More significantly, General Jones mentions this difference:

“Specifically designed for military use” – a term still used in our munitions controls today – meant what it says: items were intended only for military use having little or no civilian use.

My frisson of delight at that phrase — “‘specifically designed for military use’ meant what it says” — was probably counterbalanced by the grinch-like scowls it would have provoked at the Defense Technology Security Administration (“DTSA”).

The folks at DTSA have been the chief proponents at the Department of Defense for the notion that the phrase doesn’t mean what it says, that it instead means that an item, regardless of why it was designed, could be used for military purposes. DTSA has continued to champion that interpretation of “specifically designed” during the classification process even though it is so broad that virtually everything — from the flat panel TV in your living room to the toilet plunger in your bathroom — could be used for military purposes and therefore are properly classified as USML items.

Supplications to the deity of your choice that “specifically designed” is returned to its original meaning as part of the current export reform efforts would not be out of place.

Permalink

Bookmark and Share

Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


3 Comments:


I think it would be foolhardy to take Jones’ observations at face value; in today’s technological setting, there are few products that began life in the military that haven’t migrated to the civilian sector. While I would love to see a world in which “specifically designed” has the narrow meaning Jones would ascribe to the phrase, I think we are better served by assessing products and technology in terms of their general availability before deciding whether they merit the time and effort to control them as USML items.

Comment by John Liebman on July 2nd, 2010 @ 11:47 am

Has anyone a reference that compares the uses of “specifically designed” with the much more frequently used (and defined) “specially designed?”

Comment by Garrick Cole on July 12th, 2010 @ 11:35 pm

I had my own little “frisson” of delight at your choice of language – thanks for setting the bar so high for meaningful dialogue on export controls!

Comment by Jeroop on July 15th, 2010 @ 3:29 pm