. . . the United Arab Emirates. With the publication today by the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) of the additions to the Entity List announced on Wednesday, the UAE moves into first place in terms of the single country with the most entries on the Entity List. The tiny emirate, just a short boat-ride from Iran, now has 36 entries on the Entity List after today’s addition of 34 more companies and individuals.

By today’s action BIS added 108 entities to the list, 33 of which were already on General Order No. 3, Because of the transfer of those entities from General Order No. 3 to the Entity List, that general order is now being repealed and removed from Supplement No. 1 to Part 736 of the Export Administration Regulations. Entities that were previously listed in General Order No. 3 are designated with asterisks.

Entities from a total of thirteen countries were named to the Entity List. Those countries were Canada (2), PRC (3), Egypt (3), Germany (4), Hong Kong (19), Iran (25), Kuwait (2), Lebanon (2), Malaysia (14), Singapore (3), South Korea (1), Syria (3), UAE (34). (Seven entities were located in two countries, which accounts for the total of 115 new entries shown in the preceding list.)

A license is required for all exports to, or involving, any individual or country on the Entity List. No license exceptions are available for such exports, and BIS will apply a policy of denial to license requests.

As of time this entry was posted, BIS had not yet updated the “List to Check” portion of its website to reflect the new additions.

The defense trade cooperation treaties signed by the United States with the United Kingdom and Australia may have just become victims of election year politics. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee announced today, according to this report in Defense News, that further consideration of Senate ratification of these treaties would be deferred until next year, i.e., until after the November elections. This could entail even further delays if the Democrats take the White House and decide to rewrite the treaty in order to put their own stamp on, and take credit for, the treaty.

The current delay seems to be prompted by the Senate panel’s concern that the State Department would need to amend the International Traffic in Arms Regulations in order for the treaty to be enforceable. Although the Foreign Relations Committee had repeatedly asked for such amendments, they had not been forthcoming, and apparently the committee became frustrated with the last response it received from State on September 15 and which the committee deemed incomplete.

According to the Defense News article, the members of the Foreign Relations Committee aren’t the only ones expressing frustration — U.K. officials are reportedly peeved as well:

In Britain, there has been mounting frustration that the measures have stalled, and the delay infuriated U.K. officials who were counting on securing approval before the end of the Bush administration.

“All the U.K. government wants is clarity of message from the U.S. government on what’s happened and whether they are motivated to get this ratified as soon as their processes are completed,” said one British official. “Right now, we’re getting all sorts of messages from each of the three strands of government.”

The Australians, being somewhat more patient than their colonial forebears, are reported to have put another prawn on the barbie, cracked open another tinny of Foster’s, and gone back to watching a game of footy on the telly. (In fact, I imagine that the Australians aren’t pleased with this development either, but I couldn’t find any reported reaction from the Australian government.)

The common wisdom is that the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”) has a “see-through” rule for exports of defense articles, but that the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) does not have a see-through rule for exports of dual use items regulated by it. A “see-through” rule will impose export controls on an item if one of its parts is export controlled.

Well, as the recently released Settlement Agreement with Nalco Company illustrates, it is not strictly the case that BIS doesn’t have “see-through” rules. Nalco agreed to a $115,000 fine for thirteen unlicensed exports of water hardness testing kits to the Bahamas, the Dominican Republican, and Angola. One of the reagents in those kits contained triethanolamine, a chemical weapons precursor classified as ECCN 1C350.

The reason for the “see-through” rule here can be found in the ECCN’s “License Requrement Notes” which indicate that “mixtures” (as opposed to “compounds”) with specified percentages of the listed chemical weapons precursor are controlled by 1C350. Although there is no definition of “compound” or “mixture” in the Export Administration Regulations, it seems reasonable to assume that a “compound” refers to a new substance created by a chemical reaction of the component compounds, whereas a “mixture” refers to a separable commingling of various components. In layman’s (and somewhat simplistic) terms, bread is a “compound” of flour, yeast and water and salad dressing is a “mixture” of oil and vinegar. In the case of triethanolamine, the relevant percentage is 30 percent.

Mixtures containing 30 percent or more of chemical weapons precursors that are used as reagents in testing kits are excluded from 1C350 but are instead classified under ECCN 1C395. Items classified under ECCN IC395 require licenses to any country not a member of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Those countries are listed on Supplement 2 to Part 745 of the EAR and, needless to say, do not include the Bahamas, the Dominican Republic and Angola, the destinations for the exports by Nalco.