BXA CALLS ON CONGRESS FOR ‘CONSISTENT’ EXPORT CONTROLS

Dept. of Commerce official called on Congress to adopt export control legislation that would establish consistent export review regime. Absence of “coherent, modern statutory basis” for current export law creates uncertainty for U.S. makers of dual-use items such as satellites and computers and harms U.S. credibility in dealing with foreign govts., Asst. Commerce Secy. for Export Enforcement Michael Garcia said Thurs.

Garcia told U.S.-China Commission (USCC) that Export Administration Act expired Aug. for 6th time in 23 years, requiring White House to declare national emergency and invoke safety net emergency powers. He said that pattern had negative impact on Bureau of Export Administration (BXA) and its ability to enforce law effectively: “An export control system must be fluid in the sense that it must be responsive to advances in technology and to evolving threats to national security. Yet it also must be consistent in providing the law-abiding business community with guidance on legitimate transactions and deterring those that would compromise our national security through illegal exports.”

Congress created USCC in Oct. 2000 to investigate possible national security implications of nation’s bilateral trade, economic and financial relationships with China. Congressionally appointed 12-member security review panel is required to provide report to Congress in June, with recommendations for any needed legislative or executive action. Garcia said his ability to monitor high-tech exports to targeted countries while balancing economic security concerns of U.S. companies could be “aided by new authorizing legislation.”

Satellite Industry Assn. recently reiterated that proposed modifications to export regulations were encouraging, but neglected to address industry’s position that commercial communications products had no place on export control list. General Accounting Office issued report earlier this month (CD Jan 11 p11) criticizing State Dept. export review mechanism and offered suggestions for improving its license review process.

USCC must play role in dispelling “rhetoric and imprecision” of critics’ claims that China uses commercial technology to improve its military capabilities, said James Lewis, technology policy dir. of Center for Strategic & International Studies: “While these charges are widely accepted, they are wrong.” Sales of U.S. satellite, computer and telecom technology “have been overwhelmingly civil, and not military, and of little use in weapons production,” he said. Lewis said there was “considerable evidence” that U.S. commercial exports weren’t unimportant for China’s military.

Lewis cited as example unnamed case in which State Dept. denied export of U.S.-made communications satellite based on fear China would use it to collect signals intelligence (sigint): “While both sigint communications satellites pick up communications from the ground, communications satellites lack the capability for covert interception and processing. A commercial telecommunications satellite cannot intercept communications unless it has been substantially modified. Since this satellite was being built in the U.S., no such modification by China was possible.”