Nov

15

Diamonds Are An Ogre’s Best Friend


Posted by at 2:13 pm on November 15, 2012
Category: OFACZimbabwe Sanctions

Robert Mugabe
ABOVE: Robert Mugabe

A report in the Zimbabwe Herald, the state-owned mouthpiece for the Mugabe dictatorship, provides an entertaining, if somewhat fictive, account of the recently concluded Zimbabwe Diamond Conference in Victoria Falls. The purpose of the conference was to provide some support for the diamond industry in Zimbabwe which, although free of Kimberly Process Certification issues, is severely crippled by economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control against the Mugabe regime.

The pro-Mugabe news outlet had this to say:

KIMBERLEY Process Certification Scheme chairperson Mrs Gillian Milovanovic yesterday came under fire from delegates attending the inaugural Zimbabwe Diamond Conference here for failing to protect Zimbabwe’s diamond industry from America. Delegates expressed concern that Zimbabwe’s diamond sector continues to face obstacles despite the country receiving the KP’s nod to trade its gems.

They unanimously agreed that the American approach towards Zimbabwe’s gems sought to promote conflict diamonds.

During an open session, delegates said Mrs Milovanovic, who is American, should recuse herself from chairing the KP because she was failing to protect Zimbabwe from America’s Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctions.

This blog has noted before that the Kimberly Process certification and OFAC sanctions against the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation (“ZMDC”), which has a monopoly on sales of Zimbabwe diamonds, deal with completely separate issues.

The Kimberly Process certification is limited to finding that the certified diamonds are not conflict diamonds, which are defined as ‘“rough diamonds used by rebel movements or their allies to finance conflict aimed at undermining legitimate governments.” Obviously, Zimbabwe diamonds aren’t being used to undermine a legitimate government; indeed, they are being used to prop up the existing dictatorial regime in Zimbabwe.

The OFAC sanctions, however, arise not from any insurgency or rebel conflict in Zimbabwe. Instead, they are premised on human rights abuses by the Zimbabwe dictatorship. In the case of ZMDC, OFAC sanctions are presumably a response to documented reports of torture and forced labor in the diamond fields run by ZMDC.

Just because something isn’t a conflict diamond under the Kimberly Process, doesn’t mean it isn’t a blood diamond.

[For extra added amusement, unrelated to export issues, look carefully at the caption to the picture illustrating the Herald story.]

Permalink Comments (2)



Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)



Nov

13

Don’t Forget Palau


Posted by at 3:21 pm on November 13, 2012
Category: Cuba Sanctions

PalauAs reliable as the appearance of fall foliage and jack-o-lanterns,  another fall ritual took place earlier this afternoon in New York City. The United Nations voted, yet again, to condemn the U.S. ban on exports to Cuba, as it has reliably done for the past 21 years. This year the vote was 188-3 against the embargo; last year it was 186-2. The countries voting against this year were the United States (duh!), Israel and Palau. Last year Palau chose to abstain, but as the former U.S. possession appears set to elect a new President, perhaps they thought it wise to curry a little U.S. favor.

Ronald Godard spoke before the Assembly on behalf of the United States defending the embargo, and he did so with a curious argument. Rebutting Cuban claims that the sanctions caused economic injury to Cuba, Godard blamed the island’s financial woes on the “economic policies that Cuban government has pursued for the past half century.” But wait, if the sanctions aren’t having any financial impact on Cuba, what exactly is our purpose for imposing them? We can’t take Cuba’s cake and have them eat it too.

Permalink Comments (1)



Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)



Nov

9

Voluntary Disclosure Leads To Large Fine


Posted by at 2:17 pm on November 9, 2012
Category: BIS

fusesIllinois-based Littlefuse, Inc., which, not surprisingly, makes fuses, filed a voluntary disclosure with the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) relating to 37 unlicensed exports, worth $90,017.96, to the Philippines (presumably its own manufacturing facility there.) In return for its efforts, BIS wrangled an agreement from the company to pay a $180,000 fine. Yes, I know that BIS could have fined Littlefuse 100 Billion Dollars (more accurately, 9.25 million dollars, at $250,000 per export), but twice the value of the exports seems exorbitant where there is no evidence that Littlefuse knew of and intentionally ignored the license requirement.

Interestingly, the charging documents accuse Littlefuse of exporting a “liquid crystal polymer” classified as ECCN 1C008.b to the Philippines. Unfortunately, the ECCN in question only controls “liquid crystal copolymers.” “What’s a little ‘co’ among friends?” you may ask. Polymer, copolymer, schmopolymer. Actually, there is a difference. A copolymer is “a polymer derived from two (or more) monomeric species, as opposed to a homopolymer where only one monomer is used.” So, whereas all copolymers are polymers, not all polymers are copolymers. In other words, exporting a “liquid crystal polymer” is not necessarily a violation of the rules.

BIS expects exporters to have sufficient sophistication to understand and apply the technical terminology of the Commerce Control List with substantial penalties imposed for failure to do so. That is not such a reasonable expectation when the agency itself appears not to understand the relevant terminology used by its own control list.

Permalink Comments Off on Voluntary Disclosure Leads To Large Fine



Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)



Nov

7

T Minus 180 and Counting


Posted by at 5:17 pm on November 7, 2012
Category: BIS

tempus fugitI suppose it was inevitable. The Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) today announced a proposed rule that would require that a final voluntary disclosure be filed within 180 days after the filing of the initial notification. Currently there is no time limit imposed during which the final disclosure must be filed after the initial notification.

The proposed rule would allow an extension to be granted upon a showing that “more than 180 days is reasonably needed to complete the narrative account.” Examples given of circumstances that might justify an extension include mass layoffs (gee, thanks!), bankruptcy (dead companies don’t talk) and delays in obtaining BIS classification decisions necessary to the final disclosure (imagine that!).

To be fair, it does seem that 180 days should in most cases be enough time to conduct the necessary internal investigation and file the final voluntary disclosure. Currently, the Department of State imposes a much shorter deadline — 60 days — between the filing of the initial notification and the final voluntary disclosure. Even so, I can’t resist pointing out that this is another example of an agency that imposes deadlines on the people it regulates but imposes no such deadlines upon itself. After the final voluntary disclosure is filed, BIS can take as much time as it wants to provide a decision.

Comments on the proposed rule are requested by January 7, 2013.

Permalink Comments Off on T Minus 180 and Counting



Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)



Nov

6

The Gripes of Roth


Posted by at 5:27 pm on November 6, 2012
Category: Criminal Penalties

Professor John Roth
ABOVE: Professor Reece Roth


General news media reports on export law matters, and particularly on export law criminal proceedings, are often riddled with substantive errors about export law. A reader brought to my attention this Bloomberg Businessweek article on the Professor Roth case, a case which this blog covered extensively. The article more or less gets everything right and is worth a read, particularly as it concerns the aftermath of Professor Roth’s conviction and imprisonment.

Some interesting details:

  • Roth is unrepentant and still models himself a “a martyr for the open exchange of ideas.” Even more unappealingly, he characterized his research as involving hard problems which required that he hire foreign students, American students apparently not being quite up to the task in his view.
  • The University of Tennessee, in a move that Kremlinologists might find familiar, distanced itself from Professor Roth last April by “shredding his office library: 200 cubic feet of books, laboratory notes, and scientific articles, including 300 by Roth himself.”
  • The FBI put a wire on Roth’s Chinese graduate student, who was working on the Air Force project without State Department permission, and used him to try to get Roth to make incriminating statements.
Permalink Comments (1)



Copyright © 2012 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


« Previous posts | Next posts »