printable banner

U.S. Department of State - Great Seal

U.S. Department of State

Diplomacy in Action

Dual-Use Technologies & Export Controls


Remarks
Dr. James Harrington
Washington, DC
March 31, 2009

Share

James Harrington: Today I want to talk about some dual-use items. I want to tell you about these unusual devices and instruments, what they are and how do we control them and the Wassenaar Arrangement, which is a top level where the controls are established. I’ll use as examples or case studies, two sensors and cameras and lasers. These are areas where I have been intimately involved and my knowledge has been used in trying to help the State Department and working with the Wassenaar Arrangement to craft good controls. And finally I will show you how these expert controls work, you will get a good idea of what a dual-use item is. At the end I will conclude by talking about our national proposals, that is how do the controls originally get crafted, how do the proposals come forward and the ideas?

The Wassenaar Arrangement was founded about 13 years ago and it was founded out of COCOM. COCOM was an organization that controlled high technology items during the Cold War years. There were 33 countries originally signing an agreement. And the agreement was signed in the City of Wassenaar in the Netherlands and hence the name Wassenaar. The governing body of the Wassenaar Arrangement is the WA Plenary. They meet once a year in December and they generally accept or approve all controls that are established during the year by the experts group. We meet three times a year in Vienna. As a matter of fact the spring experts group meeting is meeting right now in Vienna. And this Saturday I am on my way to Vienna to work on category six items which I will show you in a moment. The experts group consists of diplomats, of scientists, of engineers, of people from mila -- from defense and commerce of the various 40 nations. To establish controls for dual-use items, dual-use very simply means an item or technology that has both military and civilian applications. Today there are 40 members and to be a member you have to produce or export military equipment. These are the 40 participating states, that is the Wassenaarees for a country. Notable that are not on the list, China, India, Israel. Any goods produced outside of these 40 countries would be regarded as having foreign availability. This plays of course into the controls that are crafted because if it is available outside of the 40 countries than the controls have to reflect this. You can’t control something very easily that is available outside the participating states. So what does an experts group do?

Well this is sort of a light hearted approach to looking at it, basically what we do when we get to Vienna is decide of course whether the item is a dual-use item, whether it is a munitions item. Clearly the rocket here is controlled on the munitions list in Category 4 but the law vehicle is open to interpretation. But I would like to show you just a little bit about the structure of the Wassenaar lists. It is important to keep this in mind as we go through, it is not a talk about the details of export control but rather how the various controls are applied and what categories there are with controls. The dual-use on the left consists of nine different categories, within each category there are five different sub-categories. There is sort of a super list, sensitive list and very sensitive list. The basic item is that when we have a dual-use item that is controlled, the controls flow to the Department of Commerce for control and wind up on the Commerce control list. On the other side are the munitions items, the munitions list. In the U.S. that is called the USML, 22 different categories and every item on the munitions list has a military application. These items flow through to the ITAR, controlled by the Director for Defense Trade Controls and backed by the Department of Defense. Munitions lists items, I think it is quite clear what is a munitions, many times we have various armaments, guns, tanks, aircraft, vessels, production equipment, software technology all wind up on the munitions list. So it is not so difficult often to determine what is a munitions item. It is a little more difficult sometimes to determine what is a dual-use list item. The Wassenaar controls for the dual-use items, these are the nine categories. You can see that we have materials, electronics, computers, telecommunications and in Category 6, sensors and cameras. It is this category where I will draw my examples and I think you will get a good, clear picture of what a dual-use item is and how do we control it without me getting into the very boring details of some of the export controls. All of this is publicly available. The Wassenaar.org web site lists entirely all the controls that the 40 countries establish every year.

How it works in the U.S.? Well this is a simple version of it, but the Department of State is a negotiator for the U.S. positions. The Department of Defense, in particular the Defense Technology Security Administration, DTSA for short, is concerned for our fighting forces, our soldiers, our war fighters and as you could expect they often seek tighter controls. One example is night vision equipment, the ability to see in the dark and I am going to illustrate that. They would like to keep tight control on this equipment because it gives our fighting forces a definite advantage to be able to see at night with night vision goggles, for example.

[Blank area]

Sometimes, it might be surprising, it is not clear where the item is a military, munitions list item or it should be an ITAR or commerce control list. If that’s the case, the company will put that item forward and get a commodity jurisdiction, which is provided by the Directive for Defense Trade Controls. Well one of the first things that I encountered during my years as a Fellow was this contact lens machine. And I am using this to illustrate what a dual-use item is. I am going to have many examples but this is a good example. I looked at it and I thought, “It makes contact lenses.” It surely does. It is now controlled in category 2, which is materials processing. So this machine does, I didn’t think that there were that many of them but there are a lot of them that are sold. It is a very precise lathe and therefore with some modifications, this contact lens machine can be turned into a machine that makes missile parts, very good missile parts. So the controls that were crafted to control these now contain restrictions on software and firmware, so that you can’t use this contact lens machine to make missile parts. And some variations, small collar, no vacuum chucking and so forth, prevents its use outside of making contact lenses. For example, it is possible if this instrument is going to China under license that if there is a thought that they are not being used correctly, that the Department of Commerce makes sight visits to China to go to the facilities to see that the instrument in fact is being used as it was intended.

Okay, now I would like to give you some specific examples, sensors, which are controlled under category 6.A.2 and cameras, category 6.A.3. This is an area that I still work with very much for the State Department. I actually Chair the International Technical Working Group representing all 40 nations for controls for 6.A.2 and 6.A.3. Well night vision has been around a long time.

Here is an automobile with an infra red or night vision camera. This is a camera that can see low light levels, low light levels. The image from the infra red or low light cameras projected on the windshield of the car. This is a high end automobile, Cadillac, Mercedes, BMW, I wish I had one because I could see then far beyond the view with the naked eye which you have just seen these bright lights way into the distance. And then since I am from New Jersey, I could see all the deer and try to avoid them but you can also see people. So this is the view that you get without the camera and this is with the camera projected in a head’s up display onto the windshield and you can see a person and so forth. The interesting thing about this is since these cameras are controlled, that in the regulations if this camera is removed from the car, it ceases a function. So it cannot be taken out of the car and used for military applications. That’s written in the controls.

I would like to highlight one of the really emerging and extremely good technologies, EMCCD sensors. This is a picture of the sensor chip over here. And you might be familiar with CCD as charge couple device. It is the basis of the sensors in our digital cameras. Every camera that you buy has many mega pixels of charged – of – for a charged couple device. But this is special, it is extremely sensitive. It looks like a CCD except that it can amplify very low light level signals. And that is what the EM stands for, that is electron multiplication. So these sensors are controlled.

There are two manufacturers in the world, e2v that is the name of a company in the UK and Texas Instruments which manufactures these sensors in Japan. They have many civilian applications, there is a fire fighting camera, so that you can see heat from a fire presumably behind a wall. It is used to seek heat. The same sensor in a camera made by Princeton Instruments, who are based in New Jersey, is very good for astronomical purposes. In astronomy, the low light signals are very, very faint so you need a very sensitive camera and this is an example of that. And the same type of camera has many biomedical applications today looking at fluorescence of biological molecules and so forth. It is very, very sensitive so it has very good civilian or industrial applications.

On the other side are the military applications, the ability of this sensor based in a camera to see in the dark. Well I have extracted, snipped out a little bit of the control text of the Wassenaar Arrangement. We didn’t want to see too much of it. And we are not going to look at the words because we don’t care, but just to point out a few things. This is category 6.A.2 for sensors controlling this EMCCD sensor and the quotes and so forth. All of this language is very critical. A lot of wordsmithing goes on, sometimes it seems a little frustrating to me. These are definitions when the quotes are around it, but what you should see and focus on are the parameters. That is how the controls are developed, 900 to 1050 nanometers, response time half a nanosecond, radiant sensitivity 10 milliamps per watt. These are the critical parameters, beyond certain parameters the cameras are controlled or sensors are controlled in this case and below that they are not controlled. So this is just an example. Well we won’t dwell on the text in fact let me show you a little video clip of how this camera works. This is the EMCCD sensor made by e2v in camera made by L3 Communications.

So in the left panel we have a golfer in the daylight, late afternoon. These two images, digital and analog, are the EMCCD chip. It is a pretty good image. And this is the Gen 3, image intensifier tubes that are the sensors used in night vision goggles. Now the image isn’t so good but they are not meant to be taking images in daylight. They are meant to be taking images at night. And this is just a typical digital camera, in a moment I am going to switch to this box and you will see a short video of the golfer. He is in sub starlight conditions, think of that as pitch black. And you see a very nice image and he has got a little light at the golf club, so you can see the end of the golf club as he swings. And you see a reasonable image with the image tube and you don’t see any image with the --.

So, here is the golfer, he is swinging the club as I said there is a little light on the end of the club. Remember he is in the dark virtually, sub starlight. Not so good with the image tube, very good with this EMCCD detector, you see nothing with the digital camera. Quite clearly, these are excellent sensors. Well these sensors can be put into cameras for military applications. Here is an example of a camera, this is a camera made by Desert Star Systems, a small company in California. And this camera is rather large, rather rugged and it is waterproof. Here is a Navy Seal who’s using it in water. Here it is on land. The fact that the camera is so rugged that it can be dropped to me kind of looks like it might bounce. It looks like it has a rubber coating on it. But it is a very rugged camera for military for seeing at night in low light level conditions. This is another camera system by FLIR Systems. FLIR Systems is based in Sweden, one of the Wassenaar countries. Pathfinder is a camera, you see the camera here and in a vehicle whether it is a military or civilian vehicle. You get a nice view.

[video presentation]

That gives you a very clear image of this video showing you how far you can see in the distance. Other thermal cameras also controlled, these a Fluke cameras, the company Fluke. You can see the camera looks something like your digital camera. It is a little bit more rugged because these cameras are used by field service types, electricians, firefighters and so forth. Here is an infra red or thermal imaging camera looking at a motor. The motor is hot, actually these are the temperatures. And you can see the heat, you can see that this motor is perhaps in jeopardy and its lifetime will be shortened if we don’t do something. You can see that with the camera being thermal camera. Here are some contacts that look quite cool and they are visible conditions but with the infra red camera you can see the heat of the contacts. And this is just to illustrate the very fundamentals of radiometry, which says that black absorbs more than white. A black car is hotter than a white car and he is the image with the thermal camera. Many, many civilian applications for this technology made very small and many, many are sold of course.

And now I would like to turn to the second category and talk about some lasers, also controlled in category 6 – 6.A.5 specifically. Now when it comes to military applications, there are many; many, many applications of lasers in the military. Laser dazzlers, I will show what those are, guidance systems, counter measures, designators and range finders. Now the ruby laser was invented almost 50 years ago in 1960 by Ted Maiman. Within a year one of the applications for this ruby laser was a range finder. Very simply, the distance from that laser to some object, line of sight object several kilometers away. So it merely is a laser radar type application in which we are looking at an object and we are determining its distance from a source. Night vision, obstacle avoidance and of course weaponry, high energy lasers and a fiber laser system that I will show you and also chemical and biological detection systems.

Well here are some pictures to show you. All of these lasers can be used for commercial applications, industrial applications as well as for the military. We have some range finders, which is obviously military hardware, which will fire a laser beam downfield and get the return signal to get a distance. Designators are also incorporated; this is a binocular type of arrangement. The designator aspect is to illuminate an object with the laser beam; a missile for example fired from a shoulder fired like a toe missile would fly down the beam and strike the target. That is one application of a designator; it is a beam rider type of application. Laser dazzlers, it is kind of a new application, mostly it is green light. It is this, this pointer is 532 nanometers. This green light; it is just that it is a lot brighter. And you can see here this pen type; I guess this would be a pen type, a couple of hundred meters. But if I make it bigger flashlight, bigger yet it can be a shoulder rifle size type unit. Basically what a dazzler does is if it is shone in the eyes of troops or pilots, it temporarily blinds. In my mind it is like a bunch of flash bulbs going off in your face, going off in your face. So that is one aspect of these laser dazzlers. They are weapons but they are just temporarily blinding weapons.

Countermeasures, here we have a situation for example for the aircraft; we have a ground based laser. The laser would aim at the aircraft and the missile would fly up the beam. So if you are in that aircraft you would want to know if you had been illuminated, if there is a missile on its way and take evasive action. I did some work with countermeasures with the Army and some years ago and the lasers involved with the countermeasures, to foil the incoming missile in the laser beam. It is rather tricky because the designating beam stays on a very short time.

Obstacle avoidance, it is very important. Lasers are used to see wires, to see power lines. You can see non-conducting, non metallic objects such as ropes which could play havoc with a low flying helicopter. This is an unmanned air vehicle; there is an avoidance laser in this. Basically these are laser radars so that there is a beam coming back that eventually winds up giving us this image. And the sensing chemical and biological agents, laser involved, the laser fires out into the atmosphere. Again it is a laser radar or more accurately LIDAR in which the beam if it traverses a chemical or biological agent there is a return signal. And that return signal has a signature of the chemical biological agents in the atmosphere and then these can be detected. So it is a detection system.

Finally for the general laser category, the high energy lasers, these are the death rays that you have heard about. I was involved for many years with these programs in developing some components of High Energy Lasers. Not the lasers themselves but the windows and mirrors. This is the airborne laser program or I call it the airborne laser laboratory. It is a 747 with a high powered laser right up at the top. This is one million watt category laser. These are chemical lasers and you can see this aircraft at Boeing field. Usually it is parked there if you happen to be in Seattle. I have seen it, I don’t know if it is always parked there and people would come out. The idea is to destroy ballistic missiles. Now don’t think of the Buck Rogers approach, we are not going to melt them but we sure are going to destroy or destruct its navigation system so the danger is averted. A similar very, very powerful chemical laser on board a ship just happens to be a [unintelligible] fluoride laser. Anyways these are extremely powerful lasers meant for military applications.

Well, one of the really exciting areas, one of the areas where the technology has moved very fast is fiber lasers. This came under close scrutiny a couple of years ago in Vienna when we were crafting controls for fiber lasers. Now when you think of fiber optics and this is what this is, we think of thin strands of glass only several times the size of a human hair that are in the ground and carry our telecommunications and our broadband and give you all these high speeds on the internet. But these same fibers if doped with neodymium, with the terbium and some rare earth elements anyway can be turned into a laser. Well they are very small. I can coil them up. There are extremely efficient and they are very bright, a small spot comes out of the fiber.

A scenario envisioned by the Air Force, this is a camera just to show you, we wind up a coil of this fiber, fiber laser behind the mirror. A power supply to make the laser work could be carried in something like a flash unit. So we wouldn’t see it any different than a flash unit. Pushing the shutter, a mirror pops up, a short burst of one micron light comes out of this camera and it is a blinding weapon. I am sorry to say, it is very difficult to envision some of these things but this is the truth of it all. And this wave length is very penetrating to the eye, so it is a very dangerous weapon and therefore controls for these fiber lasers are carefully constructed, let’s put it that way.

But on the other hand we have an enormous number of industrial applications. The company IPG Photonics, the world’s largest maker of fiber lasers is based in the Boston area. This is a picture of one of their high powered fiber laser systems. Well frankly it doesn’t look like much, it is a box. But this box can produce fifty thousand watts of continuous power used for industrial welding, cutting in the automotive industry. Here is a smaller version of it, fiber laser, doing something cutting, making very complicated shape gears and so forth, cutting thin disks and laser marking. Actually engraving different and then can be done very fast, so this is the other side. But fiber lasers are controlled beyond certain powers.

Finally I would like to conclude my talk by telling you a little bit about how our national proposals are crafted. The way it works is proposals come in from the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce and they flow to the Department of State where they are vetted, where they are streamlined, where they are made a little more readable sometimes. Interagency meetings are held, I often go to these meetings. And which we, State, decides which proposals should go forward to the Wassenaar experts group. And the first meeting, the spring meeting, as I say is going on this week. And other agencies can contribute but mostly it is Defense and Commerce. So from the point of view of the Department of Defense, they have technical working groups. Input comes in from their National Defense Laboratories, for example, for night vision equipment, a lot of help and support and proposals come from the night vision laboratories which army lab at Fort Balfour, which is very nearby. Licensing officers often see deficiencies, suggestions, controls or decontrols, make suggestions and they go to the Secretary of Defense with these proposals. And they are forwarded to the Department of State and collected along with those from the Department of Commerce. The Bureau of Industry and Security has -- takes advice from the technical advisory committees, these are committees made up of industrial representatives. They are the tax. Industrial leaders put in a lot of suggestions. Licensing reviewers again, the public and generally the Department of Commerce often seeks decontrols or relaxation of controls and those proposals also go to the Department of State.

Well in conclusion, just shows you that the whole process of control and export controls for these dual-use items is a balancing process, which we have to balance the legitimate interests of the Department of Defense and protecting our war fighters and the concerns of the Department of Commerce, that we don’t harm the business environment. And we keep it efficient and we keep a level playing field in the words of the Department of Commerce.

In summary, key points that the Wassenaar lists are dynamic. While you look at them today, they will change next year. Some parts will change; most of it stays the same. They are dynamic because new items are added; new technologies are coming forth that are very good, so new controls need to be made for these new items. At the same time controls that exist have to be viewed carefully, are they still valid? Should they be relaxed? Should they be removed? These are the decontrols. So both sides are looked at but the ultimate goal, a balancing between maintaining global security and unduly restricting, excuse me, commercial interests and the business interests.

So the idea of the whole Wassenaar, using their words, is to prevent destabilizing accumulations of dual-use items.

Well thank you very much for your attention. And I would be happy to answer any questions.

[applause]

Female speaker: We have microphones set up and you will not get your question into the record unless you go to a microphone. Please.

Vaughn Rican: I am Vaughn Rican from AAAS. How much does this process interface with when you have U.N. regulations or sanctions put on a country, like North Korea or Iran or areas like that?

James Harrington: Well Vaughn that is a good question. I am, you know, not a licensing type but basically the Wassenaar Arrangement is only one contributing source for export control. There is the Nuclear Regulatory, choosing things like this. So when we have the rogue states or the terrorist countries, they are given separate considerations and export to those countries would be -- I am not answering exactly specifically but they are certainly taken -- there are four countries I guess that are in this category. So they are much more restrictive in those areas, they are outside the Wassenaar Arrangement clearly. So they would be heavily restrictive with those areas. No matter what, the license is not going to be an issue.

Chris Canasaro: Hi, I am Chris Canasaro [spelled phonetically]. I am a AAAS Fellow. I got here a bit late so I wasn’t sure if you covered the proposal put forth by Brent Scowcroft, the National Academies report in January on how to revise?

James Harrington:

Yes, I have heard about it but I haven’t read it in detail. I know that there has been a lot of effort in trying to take a look at this.

Chris Canasaro: Okay, one of the things that they suggested was to have sunset clauses built into all of the agreements. I wonder if you have any comment on that.

James Harrington: Well, I guess if I were representing the Department of Defense, I would not think much of that idea. Because we are going to keep these controls in force until the foreign availability becomes such that it is, do not need to be enforced. I mean putting a time limit that is what you are talking about, I cannot, perhaps from the Department of Commerce view that would work. Again the controls are reviewed every year; they probably would say that’s not necessary. I can’t speak officially of course for the Department of State but I think I see the wisdom in trying to do something like that. But for example, these image tubes have been controlled for years for night vision goggles. Now night vision is made outside of these 40 countries, you can go to spycameras.com and you can buy night vision equipment from China. So maybe in some sense what you are saying might be good but you don’t know how the technology might be transferred, how long it might take.

Robert Utera: Hi, I am Robert Utera [spelled phonetically]. I am a Jefferson Science Fellow and ISN. You commented on how this lister dynamic and you have been involved in these experts group so I wonder if you could in your own experience talk about to what extent that dynamic is driven by being proactive versus reactive? Proactive meaning experts say we know that this technology is coming down the pipe and here are going to be the applications and reactive being, you know, look at this product in the marker and look at these intelligence reports. And this is a gap that is just outside the specs that you have set down.

James Harrington: Yes, very good question, very good question. When it comes to being reactive as opposed to proactive, I guess I would maybe point to the Department of Defense. It tends to be more reactive, you know, let me see this camera. You say this camera is made in Korea, I want to see it. So there is this, “Show it to me first and I will check it out and let you know,” rather than anticipating what is coming. We don’t, when it comes to anticipating, yes they do, but you have to keep in mind that controls are based on items that are manufactured. To give you an example, when I was in the office I got handed a little article from The New York Times that talked about slow light, we can stop light or slow light down. And they asked me, “Should we control it?” Well it sounded humorous in the one hand because there is no device made to slow light. It is coming down the pipe, it may come to something, it may not. But in general there is a proactive aspect looking at technologies coming but it really -- it has to be manufactured. Cryptography, things like this, if neuro networks for example, if there are already made, then yes they look at it. And sometimes the Defense Department with some imaging in the sub-millimeter wave region for example, they propose it but the U.S. will look at it and say it is not ready yet. It doesn’t work that well, it is not, it is just too experimental. And we wait a year.

Andy Reynolds: Andy Reynolds, Department of State. Hi Jim.

James Harrington: Hi, Andy.

Andy Reynolds: A question on your key points here.

James Harrington: Yes.

Andy Reynolds: And that is the dynamic nature of the lists and how are items and technologies bought to your deliberations? And what portion of your time in your sensors and lasers group, for example, is spent on looking at new petitions for technology versus the licensing questions that you have to consider?

James Harrington: Yes, that is a good question. It is both really. The proposals that come forward are addressed first because national proposals from any of the 40 countries are on the table and have to be addressed. At the same time, for example, it is a good question that you ask about sensors and cameras. I am chair of the Technical Working Group and we have a plenary mandate to look at the new technologies. The idea is that if we make a new detector today, control it today, another one comes that is a little new, why don’t we make a category that encompasses them all and not have to every year go back and change it because somebody came up with something. So it is both and quite honestly Andy most time is spent carefully going over the proposals that are there. And looking at the current regulations and controls to see if they can be changed to be a little more understandable.

Andy Reynolds: And you have been doing this about three years now?

James Harrington: That is right. Yes, after my Jefferson Science year in this office, I continued. The day I walked out of my fellowship is the day that I started as a Foreign Affairs Officer.

Andy Reynolds: Have you seen the volume going up in your categories?

James Harrington: Yes, I have seen -- we did lasers, we did successfully and I was chair of that effort in the international scene. And now I do it for sensors and cameras and what I see is the difficulty. So going up, going up in difficulty. It is a very contentious subject and I will tell you that the whole area of sensors and cameras is one of the key areas for the United States in terms of control. The other stuff somewhat pales, I shouldn’t put it that way, before sensors and cameras, because it is so critical. And therefore what I see are the arguments between Defense and Commerce with State in the middle and I am getting buffeted about.

Andy Reynolds: We are really glad that you were able to stay on. That is really the heart of the Jefferson idea.

James Harrington: Well, thank you very much.

Andy Reynolds: Jeffersons here and then Jeffersons continuing in their work.

James Harrington: I thank you and it is very enjoyable. I might add that the head of science person, GS 15, in that office but I continue my work. And I very much enjoy being with all the diplomats and certainly going to Vienna. It is hardly a hardship tour. [Laughter]

Kathy Bailey: Hi, Kathy Bailey from the National Academies. Going back to the question a minute ago about beyond fortress America. The recommendations in that report were dealing with the technology alert list. And so it might be helpful if you explained a little bit about how the Wassenaar list relates to some of these others, the Commerce control list, the ITAR, the Technology Alert list. The second thing is in the Beyond Fortress America report the recommendation to go back and have a sunset clause and on the listings to periodically review it, gets to the point of what happens when a technology is commonly available on the world market? Why do we need to continue to control that? And again that is more looking at it from the U.S. versus a multinational approach. So two things there.

James Harrington: So Kathy the technology, the technology alert list, well basically the Wassenaar Arrangement and the dual-use list are at the top level. And they come down ultimately if it is a dual-use item being controlled on Commerce’s control list are through the export administration and regulations. There is some problems sometimes because the item may be viewed by the Department of Defense as an ITAR control item. If you look at the ITAR, it is a pretty general description of the sensors and so forth. So that is a problem. The technology alert list, I am not that familiar with and I can’t say, but I can tell you that the controls, generally dual-use winds up in Commerce control. That is the way that is supposed to work. And the munitions list wind up in ITAR. Sometimes there is an overlap.

In terms of a sunset or a, you know, that is right, in fact the industry often points out that this item is available. It is available and they will give you a whole list of outside of the 40 countries, where it is available, India, Singapore, China and so forth. And therefore let’s get it off. But it is not so easy and I am not sure when you see the other side of it, the defense side and some of the state side that it is that important, take it off. Because the controls do work, they do prevent this destabilizing accumulation. If it were freely available it might go the other way. But in time, these items would be removed. If it’s mass marketed, one of the things is that you take your digital camera. Go outside in dim light, I don’t mean in darkness but it’s not bad. It is supposedly coming that these cameras will work in the dark. If that happens, we will have a hard time controlling night vision. It’s not so easy to take off what you already have.

Barry Nash: Good morning, Barry Nash from the State Government of Victoria, Australia Trading Business Office. I was just wondering if you had any comment on the influence of the yet to be ratified Defense Trade Treaty between Australia and the United States? And the United Kingdom has one pending as well, would have on things such as Wassenaar and ITAR?

James Harrington: That’s a pretty detailed question. I am not exactly sure; it might be somebody else who would know better. But I do know that I participate with the representative from Australia, Peter, and he is always there. He is very supportive of all the controls and he contributes a great deal. That is by way of saying that Australia is very involved in the Wassenaar Arrangement. Some countries, by the way, are not. They don’t even show up. But I can’t speak and the U.K. is another country that is very important participation and they put forth proposals. So I really don’t know exactly about the treaty between Australia and the U.S. in terms of trade controls. I’m sorry. But I can tell you that the Wassenaar is at the top level. Australia is a member of the Wassenaar Arrangement. So they, every member has to obey these controls. If you don’t, then they get [unintelligible] you can call them on the carpet I guess to put it in simple terms.

Barry Nast:  I just speak of participation probably has something to do with Vienna being quite difficult to handle it as well.

James Harrington: Yes, right. Everybody likes to go to Vienna and sometimes permanent missions are there.

Ralph Hazelstine: Good morning, my name is Ralph Hazelstine and I represent TNO from the Netherlands. Actually I used to live in Wassenaar for a number of years.

James Harrington: Oh did you really. I haven’t been to the town. It has got quite a reputation now.

Ralph Hazelstine: My question is, you talked about the balance between commerce and defense and the tensions there, do you see or do you expect any changes because of the new administration?

James Harrington: Hm, difficult question. Well I certainly haven’t seen anything and I mean it is a young administration of course. But no, I have -- the President is very supportive of science. I am not exactly sure, it is possible. It’s possible because ultimately the control rests with the President, if it gets that far, if it escalates beyond the usual DDTC and the other organizations and the Secretary of State and defense and commerce. I don’t know, but it is possible. There is certainly an outcry from commerce and commercial interests and businesses, let’s put it frankly, to relax things. Business is at the heart of many of these controls and the establishment of controls certainly from the other countries. Is it good for business? It is, we want a level playing field. We want the U.S. discriminated against in other countries. And that is one of the key factors. But having said that, there is the military interests that all countries take a look at and do have to guard against these things. I don’t know, I am not sure, President Obama what he will do. But I don’t think they are going to get any tighter.

Ralph Hazeltine: Thank you.

Leslie Shumway: Leslie Shumway [spelled phonetically], DHS. You mentioned three countries in particular, Israel, China and Singapore.

James Harrington: India, not Singapore.

Leslie Shumway: That do not participate in this agreement.

James Harrington: I would say out of 185 -- 190 countries, 40 do.

Leslie Shumway: And for Israel in particular I was interested, is this all because of commerce or what are the other reasons that they do not participate, perhaps?

James Harrington: I can’t exactly say and I suppose if I had some thoughts on it maybe, I don’t represent, I don’t want to represent official State Department policy. But I can tell you this, what I didn’t mention is that -- the organization, the U.S. among others tried to bring in these other countries. And Israel was one where there was a great deal of effort to bring them into it. Why they are not in, I am not sure. But they have chosen not to be in. They don’t want to obey these regulations.

Leslie Shumway: So do you think it is something more than commerce is their reasoning or --

James Harrington: More than the commercial interests of Israel?

Leslie Shumway: More than the desire to be able to sell their products to whoever they please?

James Harrington: That is probably a large part of it. I mean if we are going to be honest about it all, it really is. But 33 initial countries, there are 40 today. South Africa was a recent addition. So they do come in and if we have everybody joining, I guess, there would be no reason, everybody would obey the controls. I think, it is my feeling that Israel will join and it won’t be that long.

Leslie Shumway: I believe that the countries that you mentioned, they make very superior systems.

James Harrington: Yes, sometimes they do, that it right. I agree with you.

Leslie Shumway: Thank you.

Male speaker: Jim, I was on that Beyond Fortress America committee. I mean we worked hard for two years. Bob Gates was the original chairman and he was, I mean co-chairman and he was replaced by Brent Scowcroft, so there was a lot of horsepower behind that report. And I still remember one of the meetings where Scowcroft stood up and he says, “The export control system is broken.” The visa system is broken and we have got to make some changes. So there is quite a bit of horsepower, and it is being briefed around pretty vigorously in the community.

James Harrington: Yeah.

Male speaker: One of the real problems is in the space area, the space confluence area and the ITARs. It all goes back to the Cox report and making satellites, starting with communication satellites. But then anything related to satellites automatically a military issue.

James Harrington: Right, that’s right.

Male speaker: And that has put a bunch of second and third tier; it doesn’t hurt the big weapons suppliers because they have other business, certainly in the last administration a lot of business. But the second and third tier business who made components for space satellite, that has turned out to be a big problem for these little companies, that’s companies.

James Harrington: That’s right.

Male speaker: So that is one of the issues.

James Harrington: Because a lot of this is space qualified, if you see the terms in the Wassenaar then that is a hold over for many years, probably the COCOM days, if it is space qualified. But gee, what if it is space qualified and just happened to make it work in space but I don’t want to sell it in space.

Male speaker: Why Andy Reynolds will remember this but when I came to State in 2000, the State Department and the Defense Department, the Commerce Department had been arguing for two years over 15 different components as to whether they were really space qualified or not. And then comes the Cox Report and then and finally it had to go; three committee chairmen on the Hill had to write letters to the National Security Council. And then the Embassy had to have a meeting which went to deputy’s level to decide about these 15 little components. I mean the thing that really has been a nightmare, a nightmare in implementation. But I did have another question, do you think it works? I still remember being in Poland years ago and someone said to me, you know I have been offered a Polaris missile. It is pretty expensive but I can get it, three times the core cost, you know the basic cost. And it does seem that people who want things, get them. You know whether it is cocaine, weapons or whatever, if you are willing to pay enough, you can get it. I was wondering how you think this works?

James Harrington: Yes, that is true. One of the problems is that the path of some of these control dual-use items is circuitous. Detectors may be made here, sent to Singagore where there aren’t controls, cameras made and exported. That is true. But do they work, I have wondered that to. From everything I have learned, that answer would have to be yes. They do work because these are controls they are obeyed by the 40 nations. And it does prevent accumulations or getting these in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. On the other hand, many of this night vision equipment and much of these sensors and such are licensed. They are licensable items, so we buy them. And it is just a matter of going and getting a license. We haven’t talked about that. But just the effort in getting a license, the time, the money it costs the company. If I can go to Belgium and buy that from Photonics and void some of these problems with paperwork, I might do it. So that’s another thing and plus you didn’t mention our deemed exports, which is very hot issue amongst universities.

Male speaker: You even have companies in Europe which are now advertising ITAR-free products.

James Harrington: Yes, I know.

Male speaker: You just think of that.

James Harrington: I have seen that.

Male speaker: And again, driving American companies out of business. Just another key part of it.

James Harrington: This has to be, this is where the disagreement often occurs with defense and the State Department.

Male speaker: I may have missed something in the beginning but just one more question. I thought you said that to be a member of Wassenaar, you had to be a military products exporter.

James Harrington: Right or at least, well, you are talking about Japan for example; they don’t quote export military equipment. They have to make equipment, produce equipment or be a military supplier, that is military related.

Male speaker: Okay because someone could argue, “I am just making this but I am not a military supplier because I don’t sell it for that purpose.” So they stay out but in effect they are getting around the agreement.

James Harrington: Yes, that is right.

Male speaker: It seemed like a strange criteria.

James Harrington: It is but that is the basis of the way that this arrangement was set up to control military items. [unintelligible]

Male speaker: Thank you.

James Harrington: Okay, you are welcome.

[low audio]

Dan Lifer: I am Dan Lifer [spelled phonetically], an intern in STAS. I was wondering if you feel that there are gaps in the purview of the Wassenaar Arrangements and whether it would help to add an additional category, currently unregulated technologies.

James Harrington: From everything that I have seen of the nine categories, and they really are very broad and there have been some suggestions for name changes but not adding a new category. It seems to fit, sometimes it may not be. There is a good example of lasers and telecommunications controlled under Category 5. Why, it is a laser, put it in six. So little things like that but there is a place and I have not seen the need to do that. Does that answer your question?

Dan Lifer: Yes.

James Harrington: No, generally not, it is complicated enough I guess. And it would take a big effort to get a new category in, possibly.

Female speaker: Thank you very much.



Back to Top
Sign-in

Do you already have an account on one of these sites? Click the logo to sign in and create your own customized State Department page. Want to learn more? Check out our FAQ!

OpenID is a service that allows you to sign in to many different websites using a single identity. Find out more about OpenID and how to get an OpenID-enabled account.