Oct
27
The CBP Is Mightier Than The Sword
Posted by Clif Burns at 9:28 pm on October 27, 2008
Category: Customs • USML
ABOVE: USML Category II(a)
I always tell clients that even an obsolete military item can be on the United States Munitions List (“USML”) and require an export license. Still, not all obsolete military items are on the USML. Maces, catapults, jousting poles, caltrops, scythed chariots, spears, arrows, and siege hooks immediately come to mind. Swords too. Unless, it seems, you are a special agent for U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
According to this op-ed column in The Capital Times by Howard Waddell of Albion Swords Ltd. in New Glarus. Wisconsin, U.S. Customs recently seized an export by him of replica swords modeled after the ones used by Arnold Schwarzenegger in Conan the Barbarian:
I received a telephone call on Friday morning indicating that a shipment we had made to our European distributor was being held by U.S. Customs because of a possible ITAR violation — shipping “weapons of war” without prior authorization from the State Department.
…
When I pointed out that the shipment in question consisted primarily of reproductions of swords from the 1982 film “Conan the Barbarian” starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and were not, in fact, “weapons of war” per se, the dutiful customs officer pointed out that the U.S. Marine Corps still uses swords, therefore swords are still considered to be “weapons of war.”
Oh. Good. Grief. Don’t go searching your copy of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) for “weapons of war,” because you won’t find that phrase anywhere. Nor, frankly, will you find a category on the USML which encompasses sword replicas. The closest I could find was “close assault weapons systems” in Category I(c), but, although that term isn’t defined in the USML, it is a clear reference to a now-discontinued type of highly accurate short-range rifle for urban warfare, not to swords, which haven’t been used on the battlefield for, oh, four or five centuries.
Permalink
Copyright © 2008 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)
11 Comments:
I found your post quite interesting; however, you have erred regarding your statement of sword use on the battlefield. The Imperial Japanese Army and Navy issued swords to both noncommissioned and commissioned officers up to and during World War II. Many U.S. servicemen as well as civilians lost their lives as they were beheaded by swords. To discount this dishonors their service. One needs only review the record of the Tokyo War Crimes Trials (International Military Tribunal for the Far East) to re-discover these facts. I should think that as a people we should be happy that someone is reviewing what leaves this country. For instance, I believe that the Rwandan genocide was precipitated by a massive stockpiling of machetes prior to the terrible bloodletting that occurred.
I would distinguish an executioner’s tool — which a sword was and is — from a battlefield weapon, so I don’t think my statement is inaccurate or dishonors American troops. A rope noose is also an executioner’s tool, but we don’t regulate the export of rope for that reason.
I am, of course, happy that someone is reviewing what leaves the country, but they still need to abide by the law and detain only things that are export-controlled, and, at least as far as I can discern, swords aren’t on the USML or the CCL.
As to the machetes in Rwanda, over three-quarters were imported from China, so U.S. controls on machetes wouldn’t have had any effect. And many also used hoes to kill their fellow Rwandans, another item that I would be loathe to subject to export control.
Not to be argumentative, but…
The Marine ceremonial sabers could be considered “modified in form, fit, or function” for USMC use and thus fall under the ITAR in the same way that the 1/4 inch shortened coaxial cable of CNN fame does.
I doubt any modern military would choose to specifically design a “Conan-like” sword, however, so the Albion sword would still fall out of ITAR regs.
The Customs agent may have just enough information to be dangerous. I rather hope that this publicized incident promotes a little additional training.
Agreed, J, that if there is specific modification for military use one might shove a sword, albeit uncomfortably, into category XIII(f) which refers to forgings and castings. Or, if you think, incorrectly, that swords have “substantial military applicability,’ then perhaps the infamous Category XXI applies to specially modified swords. But a replica of a sword that Schwarzenegger used in a movie doesn’t fit any of those criteria.
I believe this is just another case of a customs agent fresh from an ITAR course that thinks he/she may have just hit the jackpot with a major illegal export “weapons bust”!
I had a customs agent once call me to inform they intended to hold one of our EAR99, NLR exports because they recognized our “…company is a defense company and therefore this shipment must be subject to ITAR.”
My reaction of course was to clarify “must be subject to ITAR”, which luckily was resolved with some brochures and a conversation with the cutoms supervisor.
Overall, I think it is a good they are scrutinizing and ‘questioning” but our patience while customs agents learn on the job does have a limit…
Perhaps later is better than never. Reading the string, I pause to note that machetes are controlled under ECCN 0A988, which requires a license for export of machetes to Iraq, North Korea, and Rwanda.
ECCN 0A918.b controls bayonets.
I could find no ECCN for swords – barbarian or otherwise – nor could I find a hook in the USML.
I suspect I was being a bit too dry in my humor. No, the “substantial military” use of the sword started to fade with the English longbowmen, accelerated by the general use of gunpowder and in this day of the AH-64D Longbow is purely ceremonial.
My point was that the “any modification” rule is overwhelming in its coverage and should be reined back to something more sensible. Quite honestly, in my opinion, shortened co-axial cables or a minor commercial electronic component with an extra lead wire attached and no other change is no more a reasonable munitions item than a mass produced movie replica.
I suspect that the previous commentor is correct; this is porbably merely a case of an enthusiastic but incompletely trained Customs Agent and a shipper with a sense of humor and access to his local paper’s OpEd submissions page.
Clif, as always, I find it difficult to argue (and not concur) with your “rational thought and logical deductionâ€â€¦ and to a significant degree, I concede that its good “someone is reviewing what leaves the country†– However, I am sometimes a bit frustrated by overzealous Customs agents, that as “J†said, “have just enough information to be dangerous†(which may not include full comprehension of the law).
As for the comment from Mr. Carpenter that “U.S. servicemen as well as civilians lost their lives†and “To discount this dishonors their serviceâ€â€¦. (sorry but) That gave me a chuckle..it sounds like something a politician would say to distract people — once they got “too rational†in reviewing the facts (a “logic bombâ€, if you will). Not only is that a ridiculous exaggeration (as you have adeptly articulated some key differences) but it the specific kind of political/fear mongering-rhetoric that “keeps the madness going.†Anyway, Clif, thanks for (trying) to keep ’em sane….
Mr. Carpenter, You stated that: “The Imperial Japanese Army and Navy issued swords to both noncommissioned and commissioned officers up to and during World War II. Many U.S. servicemen as well as civilians lost their lives as they were beheaded by swords. To discount this dishonors their service.” So you are saying that you concur these swords should be export controlled under the USML?
So, German military under Hitler bred german shepard dogs and used them during the war. Animals bred for military use are specifically “modified” by breeding and selecting only those animals with certain characteristics. Different military forces still use dogs today, and other animals such as dolphins. Shouldn’t these be covered under the USML as well?
What about a kitchen knife that was used somewhere to commit some atrocity?
I think there is a limit to everything…
I agree with Mr. Thompson’s and Mr. Vito’s comments, and cannot resist taking them to ridiculous extreme. Because it was specially designed for the military, a Purple Heart would be subject to the ITAR.
To Non-Americans this discussion seems rather strange.
If I was on a battlefield with no arms but my Conan-Sword, I would desert!!
Maybe the officer just wasn’t firm with modern weapons and thought that a Conan-Sword must be state of the art if even Arnie uses it in films where they have all possibilities?! Arnie could have had an M16 or an F16 instead, be he had been given this tremendous sword!
Or he is a Star Wars fan. Remember what those Jedis destroyed with their light swords. Maybe he mixed up CONAN with CORUSCANT??!
It will remain a miracle to me ;-o!
Good luck
Frammi
