Gates Pushes Arms Export Fixes

Gates Pushes Arms Export Fixes

UPDATED: Link To Gates Speech; He Calls For New Export Legislation

Higher walls around fewer things. That is the “new” approach on arms exports that Deputy Defense Secretary Bill Lynn advocated last week before a gathering organized by the Aerospace Industries Association. Lynn knew his audience. AIA, pushed hard by the big primes who depend for much of their profits on foreign sales, has nagged and worried and cajoled every administration since I started covering defense in 1997 to get them to loosen the slow and negative grip that the State Department has had on arms export licenses.

And Lynn’s boss, Robert Gates, is scheduled to deliver a Tuesday address on the topic to the Business Executives for National Security and, in a major departure from past Pentagon efforts, he will call for new legislation to fix the problem.


Gates will tell his audience that a super restrictive bureaucratic system that treats everything as a threat in fact undermines u.s. security in a variety of ways. A more rational system will enhance U.S. security by concentrating on those technologies that truly need to be restricted.

AIA sent out a press release touting the event. For much of the last decade I covered arms exports, detailing the struggle between the White House, State Department and Defense Department. Usually, the Pentagon wanted State to lighten up and treat America’s allies — and possible business partners — with the respect one usually accords to those willing to die with us.

I attribute much of this administration’s turnaround to two factors: the crucial role our allies have played for so long and for which they have received so relatively little in return over the years and the administration’s need for them in Afghanistan; and the influence of John Hamre and his CSIS mafia. Hamre made the most masterful and effective run at changing the export control system when he was deputy defense secretary. He and Dave Oliver and Jim Bodner outfoxed State at just about every turn but the enormous weight of the legislation that governs arms exports eventually overcame all the fancy policy moves by industry and the Pentagon. However, the Political-Military bureaucracy at State also recognized that it could do its job more efficiently and with more concern for the needs of the business community. And it did, speeding the time it took for a license to get processed and letting companies where the license was in the process.

But the fundament of the law did not change. It requires the State Department to assume that it will say no to all arms export license applications. And the Munitions List, which details what is subject to an export license, still includes huge numbers of parts, assemblies and technologies. Industry has long argued that much equipment on the list can and should be removed.

Now the Obama administration — and presumably Gates– is returning to the arguments that Hamre made almost a decade ago. Focus on the really important and rare technologies that make America’s military so powerful and unique. Don’t waste your time and resources trying to control things that don’t really need controlling. Take the resources freed by the narrower focus and use them to really control what matters. It’s a compelling argument but few in Congress have ever wanted to take the risk attendant with changing the law, which must be done if the system is to change much. The folks at AIA have been remarkably upbeat about the prospects for real change over the last six months. But Congress will have to exercise political courage and act on an issue that won’t have much of an upside for members and could come back and bite them on the butt, though it might well help the country.

Perhaps the most telling effect of the arms export license process over the last decade has been the stark and steep decline in our international market share of the commercial satellite business. Once Republicans succeeded in punishing a major Democratic fundraiser who led a space company by moving commercial satellites to the Munitions List – the only equipment placed there by law — the industry faltered and America lost its commanding edge. If America is to retain what was once its commanding strategic edge it must renounce the Cold War approach embodied by the arms export process as it stands today. Changing the system to allow easier trade with NATO and other close allies will help us sell more equipment. That will increase our influence and make our companies more competitive. And focusing on fewer, more important technologies will actually allow those who do the important job of ensuring bad guys don’t get access to our technology to0 do their job more effectively.

I don’t often riff like this on a policy issue, but it is one I am far too familiar with and about which I feel strongly. Let’s hope Gates does his usually persuasive job in his speech and begins the thankless but important job of convincing lawmakers that they must ply their trade yet again, this time in the interests of both America and its friends, and change the laws governing the exports of U.S arms weapons.

Join the Conversation

I agree to disagree, I’m OK with with mechanical items such as vehicles, small arms, and such items — but not with techno items which is what gives us our edge (fire control and guidance systems, intel sensors and such). I say this because we have actualy been in wars at one time or another with most of our so called allies, some of which to this date still resent us. We never know who will be our next foe, if we want to maintain military supperiority then we need to hold back on some things.

Makes sense… just watch the Israelis.

Good Morning Folks,

I’m not sure where Colin is going with this one. Of late the only “major” problem has been the source code for the F-35. The UK wants it included in the deal to but aircraft. The US wants to keep it secret.

To Drake 1, Israel is the second largest supplier to China of military technology behind Russia. It was Israeli engineers that basically built Chinas AWACS, and several are said to have been killed in its crash, and J-10 fighter that has all those peculiar institutions all in a frizzy.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

I’m not so sure that ITAR is actually the problem.

Much of our military communications infrastructure is being carried by renting extra capacity on commercial satellites which were bought, built, and launched AFTER satellites were put on the Munitions List. Most of these provide communications to foreign countries; many are owned by foreign consortiums (and were that way from the get-go.)

The issue is not that ITAR makes things expensive; it’s that these offshore firms are just doing what Lockheed did in the Nineties, which is loss-leading their commercial business in hopes of getting customer lock-in. Astrium wasn’t expecting to make money on ASTRA 1M and 1N; but they are certainly planning to make money on 2E, 2F, 2G, and 5B. Unfortunately, Lockheed learned that there is no such thing as customer lock-in, and that even when you _do_ make money on commercial satellites you don’t make enough to cover your earlier losses. And Lockheed’s commercial satellite division is now about 85% government business (MUOS, GPS III, GOES-R)

That and other technology transfers to the Chinese is why I don’t trust them

While I agree with this move, the devil is in the details. On the bright side, we don’t have to go nonsense “approval” processes to sell our weapons to allied nations that the government GAVE them as FMS. (in other words they already have it but we’re asking to sell it….) The worrisome part is that any great system is MORE than the sum of its parts; and you could see a movement to sell components abroad since they’re not-export controlled. The problem with this (taken too far) is that you could have a situation where technologies/part a, b, c, d, & e are all easily exported because each is approved, but when put together can equal a technology of device we’re tightly guarding.

The State Department has NO business in the control of arms to other contries. This was and still is a mistake, the State Department should stick to policy matters only. The DOD is fully capable of determining which technologies should be controlled. Get the State Department beauracracy out of the FMS loop and everything will run smoothe.

Good Thursday morning everyone,
First thank you for allowing me to join. I think the DOD fails to realize that the weapons and weaponry systems they do not sales or deal other countries will do. In a global networked economy the tactical advantage in to reversing onto draconian or dissarming stages but controlling the level of armory. By this, I already assessed other countries to fully scalate weapons manufacturing, selling, servicing, training and customized manufacturing locally in interested countries if possible with no limits on the funging. The reason of this is to makes sure there is long term alliances and trending controlling rather than commercial relationships. Hence deeper and thoroughness on analysis with new scope and structure is required.

The consequences of cutting or regulating weapons market will only make the US to loose competitive advantage as well as marketing and strategic negotiations playground.

i AGREE

As an U.S. expat working as the Manager of ITAR compliance for a foreign company engaged in contracts repairing US origin aircraft, I am keenly aware of the frustration and resentment when having to comply with these complex regulations. I agree with Secretary Gates that there needs to be changes in the regulations to reduce the control on some defense articles and technical data of less importance items while maintaining control of the fewer more sensitive ones. I have heard comments made by those at various levels suggesting purchasing aircraft and equipment from countries other that the U.S. because of the difficulties in dealing with the U.S. Export laws. Relaxing these regulations, I believe would be beneficial in promoting future business and cooperation with our allies and trade partners.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement