Technological Ambiguity & the Wassenaar Arrangement Abstract
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Technological Ambiguity & the Wassenaar Arrangement Samuel A. Evans New College University of Oxford A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Trinity Term 2009 Abstract International cooperation on export controls for technology is based on three assumptions, that it is possible: to know against whom controls should be di- rected; to control the international transfer of technology; and to define the items to be controlled. These assumptions paint a very hierarchical framing of one of the central problems in export controls: dual-use technology. This hierarchical framing has been in continual contention with a competitive fram- ing that views the problem as the marketability of technology. This thesis analyses historical and contemporary debates between these two framings of the problem of dual-use technology, focusing on the multilateral Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies. Using a framework of concepts from Science & Technology Studies and the theory of sociocultural viability, I analyse the Arrangement as a classification system, where political, economic, and social debates are codi- fied in the lists of controlled items, which then structure future debates. How a technology is (not) defined, I argue, depends as much on the particular set of social relations in which the technology is enacted as on any tangible aspects the technology may have. The hierarchical framing is currently hegemonic within Wassenaar, and I show how actors that express this framing use several strategies in resolving anomalies that arise concerning the classification of dual-use technology. These strategies have had mixed success, and I show how they have adequately re- solved some cases (e.g. quantum cryptography), while other areas have proved much more difficult (e.g. focal plane arrays and computers). With the de- velopment of controls on intangible technology transfers, a third, egalitarian framing is arising, and I argue that initial steps have already been taken to incorporate this framing with the discourse on dual-use technology. However, the rise of this framing also calls into question the fundamental assumption of export controls that technology is excludable, and therefore definable. Technological Ambiguity & the Wassenaar Arrangement Samuel A. Evans New College University of Oxford A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Trinity Term 2009 To Grandmother, one of the most inspirational women I have ever known. Acknowledgements There are many people and institutions that have played a part in this thesis, and I am grateful to all of them for the support and encouragement they pro- vided along the this long and winding walk. I was a part of the James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization from its inception until it transformed into the Institute for Science, Innovation, and Society. It consistently provided a stimulating academic environment, particularly as the DPhil student body grew. The Institute was very generous in its financial support for me, provid- ing funding through the Research Training Fund, various jobs, and finally a research assistantship with Sir Crispin Tickell helping run the Policy Foresight Programme. I had the good fortune to have two visiting research positions during my thesis, both funded by the James Martin Institute. The first was as a Young Summer Scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) outside of Vienna. IIASA provided a rich environment of interdisci- plinary scholars, and a venue away from Oxford for me to sort out exactly what the topic of my doctoral thesis would be. The second stint of time away from Oxford was as a Visiting Researcher with the Center for Peace and Security Studies (CPASS) in the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. CPASS provided a chance for me to take courses in international security, and I am particularly grateful to Kai- Henrik Barth, Jasen Castillo, and Dick Van Atta for their time and support. Georgetown also provided an excellent base for conducting many of my US interviews. Early in my research, I spent a few weeks (on and off) in the Harvard Sussex Program at SPRU, University of Sussex. The archives at HSP were very useful in helping me sort out that I did not want to study biological/chemical weapons. Sometimes knowing what you do not want to study is just as important as knowing what you do want to study. New College was one of the main reasons I found my time in Oxford so satisfying. The graduate community there is always a rich source of interesting ideas and personalities. The sports and the chalet in the French Alps provided excellent diversions from the daily grind. I also thank the College for granting me travel awards for various trips, plus a grant to help me finish writing up. In addition to my various institutional affiliations, I am also particularly thankful for several individuals who have helped make this thesis possible. First, I would like to thank my Assessors for my Transfer and Confirmation of Status viva voces: Marc Ventresca, Jochen Prantl, Daniel Neyland, and Caitr´ıonaMcLeish. Their comments and criticisms were extremely helpful in developing and refining the ideas in my thesis. Likewise, Jerry Ravetz provided a very attentive ear and together we worked out that Postnormal Science may not be the best theoretical angle from which to approach my research. I would also like to thank all of the government officials, members of in- dustry, lawyers, and others whom I interviewed for this thesis. Their candour and openness allowed me to understand the Wassenaar Arrangement and their motivations for engaging with it to a degree that would have been impossi- ble working solely from documented sources. I hope that they all are able to find something interesting in my analysis, and I look forward to our continued engagement. Friends and family are an essential part of any pursuit, but I believe they are vital in helping one get through the turbid estuary that is a DPhil. Kathleen Jeffs got me started every week with breakfast and a weekly plan. Christian Tønnensen was a fantastic colleague and fellow guinea pig for doctoral work at the James Martin Institute. Perhaps now that we're done, I can teach him to play squash properly. I thank Nicolas Bouckaert for listening to my far- flung ideas and then reminding me that I had once again invented a major philosophical line of enquiry that was already hundreds of years old. To Mom, Dad, Melissa, and Emily, I have appreciated their constant love and support, even when they (and I) had no idea what I was doing. I am also extremely grateful to Emily for her financial support while writing up. The thesis would never have been written without it. Naomi Weiss showed immense compassion for engaging in all of our early morning chats about dual-use technology. And late night chats. And chats on walks. And emails, and endless hours of editing. I am especially thankful, though, for all those moments that had absolutely nothing to do with the Wassenaar Arrangement. Finally, I express my thanks to my supervisor, Steve Rayner. I have come a long way from the curious visiting student that knocked on his door seven years ago to ask for a tutorial in whatever he wanted to teach me. He has been a wonderful mix of patience and no-nonsense assessment of my progress that has been exactly what I needed to learn how to be a scholar. His family always welcomed me at their table, providing a much-needed bit of normality in an otherwise hectic student lifestyle. After years of fieldwork and some bumbling around, his insistence that \there comes a time in the life of every thesis when it must be written," and concern that the time had already passed for me, was what spurred me on to the end. I look forward to many conversations with him. especially without the pressure of a thesis hanging over us. Statement of Originality I declare that this thesis has not been previously submitted to this or any other University for a degree, and that it is my own work. Abstract International cooperation on export controls for technology is based on three assumptions, that it is possible: to know against whom controls should be di- rected; to control the international transfer of technology; and to define the items to be controlled. These assumptions paint a very hierarchical framing of one of the central problems in export controls: dual-use technology. This hierarchical framing has been in continual contention with a competitive fram- ing that views the problem as the marketability of technology. This thesis analyses historical and contemporary debates between these two framings of the problem of dual-use technology, focusing on the multilateral Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies. Using a framework of concepts from Science & Technology Studies and the theory of sociocultural viability, I analyse the Arrangement as a classification system, where political, economic, and social debates are codi- fied in the lists of controlled items, which then structure future debates. How a technology is (not) defined, I argue, depends as much on the particular set of social relations in which the technology is enacted as on any tangible aspects the technology may have. The hierarchical framing is currently hegemonic within Wassenaar, and I show how actors that express this framing use several strategies in resolving anomalies that arise concerning the classification of dual-use technology. These strategies have had mixed success, and I show how they have adequately re- solved some cases (e.g. quantum cryptography), while other areas have proved much more difficult (e.g.