The fact sheet released by the State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs on the defense trade treaty recently signed by President Bush and Australia’s Prime Minister Howard provides few details on what the treaty says. Fortunately, a detailed FAQ on the treaty was posted on the Australian Prime Minister’s website. Here are some of the more interesting portions of the FAQ.

First, unlicensed exports under the treaty will still require governmental notification:

Under the Treaty, US exporters will only need to advise the State Department that they have engaged in an eligible defence export activity; they will not need to apply for a licence.

Second, although government-to-government sales under the Foreign Military Sales programs are not addressed by the treaty transfers of technical data relating to the approved FMS equipment will not be required:

The arrangements for approving the export of US defence equipment to Australia on a government-to-government basis under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program will not be included under the Treaty. But once the equipment has been received in Australia, retransfers of the FMS-origin technology within the approved community of Australian companies will be permitted without the need for further approvals, significantly enhancing our ability to support this equipment in country and creating improved opportunities for Australian companies.

Third, the treaty permits unlicensed exports to companies in the “approved community.” The FAQ provides more detail on the requirements to be in that community. An Australian company would be excluded if

– There is a serious failure to comply with Australian export control laws and regulations and/or the commitments undertaken in joining the approved community;

– A company fails to meet its security obligations under the Defence Industry Security Program;

– There is a failure to provide written notification of material changes in the facts provided with the company’s application for qualification;

– There is a significant risk that there will be unauthorised diversion of articles or data provided under the treaty;

– There are false statements, misrepresentations or omissions of fact in the application or export related documentation, or significant failures to provide or maintain records of US defence articles and data in the company’s possession.

Fourth, the treaty will include verification procedures:

The Treaty will stipulate the setting up of a compliance and audit regime, the details of which have yet to be mutually determined.

Finally, as with the analogous U.S.-U.K. treaty, the treaty with Australia will exclude “highly sensitive exports” although there is not yet any agreement as to what articles will be deemed to be “highly sensitive.”

An article in today’s edition of the Financial Times reports on a press conference given yesterday by John Rood, Assistant Secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, where Rood discussed the recently signed Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty between the U.S. and the U.K. (Don’t go looking for a transcript at the State Department’s website; usually only Sean McCormack’s daily press briefing is posted and other special press briefings, such as Rood’s on the treaty, are not.)

Rood had a few interesting things to say. First, he said that the administration hopes to get the treaty through the Senate before the end of this year. This seems optimistic at this point with the August recess nearly upon us. Additionally, it is unclear how functional the Senate will be after the slumber party planned for the next few nights.

Second, Rood said that the State Department and the Department of Defense hoped to have “implementation procedures” in place “within six months” to determine what companies and individuals would be part of the “approved community” that could receive and disclose ITAR-controlled technical data without formal approval by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC).

Finally, Rood more or less dashed the hopes of other countries — such as Canada and Australia — that might arguably wish to have similar treatment as the U.K. Rood said the treaty was entered into because of the “close relationship” between the U.S. and U.K. Then he said:

If other countries approach us we’d have to ask ‘Do they have the same close relationship?’ I don’t know if we’ll do anything like that or not.

I’m sure that remark was well received in Ottawa and Canberra.