Us Export Control Policy in the High Performance Computer Sector

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Us Export Control Policy in the High Performance Computer Sector Robert Johnston U.S. EXPORT CONTROL POLICY IN THE HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTER SECTOR by Robert Johnston Robert Johnston is a doctoral candidate at the American University, School of International Service in Washington, D.C., and a political risk analyst at the Parvus International Corporation in Silver Spring, Maryland. Previously, he was a research analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), in Washington, D.C. ince the end of the Cold War, proliferation, they have liberalized policy goals. Despite their inherent successive U.S. administra- the export control regime for HPCs appeal, neither nonproliferation nor Stions have struggled to create markedly.1 trade promotion has been able to and enforce an export control policy Nonproliferation advocates have assume the central role held by con- that balances the conflicting de- blamed these changes for the appear- tainment during the Cold War. In mands of promoting trade and coun- ance of American-made HPCs in fact, no concept has been able to tering the proliferation of weapons Russian nuclear weapons labs and generate the consensus needed to of mass destruction (WMD). The Chinese research facilities that may assume this role. Instead, American high performance computer (HPC) be military-related. foreign policy since the end of the industry presents a major challenge Cold War has largely been reactive, in this respect. HPC technology is This struggle between nonprolif- responding to immediate crises with- highly profitable, creating powerful eration advocates and trade promot- out being clearly guided by a broader incentives for export, while it also ers has taken place in a conceptual strategy. vacuum caused by the end of the has numerous potential military ap- The development of HPC export plications, making it a significant Cold War, and the failure of any overarching concept to assume the controls under the Clinton adminis- proliferation threat. In its policies tration reflects this broader pattern toward the regulation of dual-use role played by containment in U.S. foreign policy prior to 1991. Vari- of drift. The early years of the ad- technology exports such as HPCs, ministration were marked by an al- the Clinton administration has gen- ous concepts, including nonprolif- eration and trade promotion, most unbroken string of victories by erally won laurels from trade pro- those who favored liberalization of moters and darts from champions of continue to compete for dominance in American foreign policymaking. HPC export controls, despite the nonproliferation. While administra- warnings of nonproliferation advo- tion officials argue that current The Clinton administration has de- clared that both nonproliferation and cates, who feared the consequences policy strikes a balance between of the rapid spread of this technol- competing interests in trade and non- trade promotion are major foreign 44 The Nonproliferation Review/Winter 1998 Robert Johnston ogy. Bolstered by the absence of any This article examines the devel- term to describe: urgent security threats, the trade pro- opment of U.S. HPC export control the technology, or collection of technologies that make it moters were able to convince the policy since the end of the Cold War. possible to address the most Clinton administration to launch two It begins by discussing the potential computationally demanding significant liberalizations of HPC proliferation and security implica- problems...this term recog- nizes that a computing sys- export controls in 1993 and 1995. tions of HPC exports. It then tem today depends not only More recently, revelations in 1997 sketches the history of U.S. export on a powerful computa- controls on dual-use technologies, tional engine, but also high about exports of American-made speed networks, advanced HPCs to Russia and China may shift before detailing the development of storage systems, sophisti- the balance of forces in the other U.S. export controls on HPCs, with cated graphics, collections particular emphasis on the Bush ad- of less than the most pow- direction. By dramatically liberaliz- erful computers, etc.7 ing HPC export controls, the Clin- ministration (1989-1993) and the ton administration has changed the early years of the Clinton adminis- The primary measurement of the nature of the debate among nonpro- tration (1993-1995). Next, the ar- capabilities of a computer is Millions liferation advocates and trade pro- ticle examines the as yet of Theoretical Operations Per Sec- moters. During the Bush unsuccessful attempts in Congress to ond, or MTOPS. The rapid growth administration, the debate on U.S. reform the export control process by in the MTOPS capabilities of HPCs HPC export control policy tended to passing a revised Export Adminis- during the 1990s has been reflected be couched in terms of whether U.S. tration Act and discusses the impor- in certain policy actions by the Clin- high technology manufacturers were tance of multilateral arms control ton administration. In September losing export revenues. Today, new regimes in the formulation of U.S. 1993, the Clinton administration emphasis is being placed on how export control policy. It concludes raised the definition of a U.S. technology might be contribut- with a detailed examination of the supercomputer from 195 to 2,000 8 ing to WMD programs in foreign 1997 revelations about the export of MTOPS. By the October 1995 re- countries. The trade promoters, de- U.S.-made HPCs to Russian nuclear view of export control policy, the spite their success in shaping export weapons labs and Chinese facilities level of 3,000 to 5,000 MTOPS was control policy during the Clinton ad- with possible military links, and dis- already being considered as “mid- 9 ministration, have now lost the ini- cusses the impact of these revela- range.” Just two months later, in a tiative, and are being asked tions on current and future HPC further review of policy, the very uncomfortable questions about how export control policy. MTOPS standard was on the verge their HPC technology products have of becoming obsolete, because pro- ended up in Chinese or Russian HIGH PERFORMANCE cessing speed could be achieved at weapons labs. As a result of these COMPUTERS AS A supercomputer levels by using revelations, nonproliferation advo- SECURITY ISSUE widely-available parallel processing technology.10 Revolutions in minia- cates in Congress were able to in- An HPC is a “general purpose turization meant that the desktops of clude language in the 1998 Defense computer that is faster than commer- the 1990s matched the capabilities Authorization Act (Public Law 105- cial competitors and that has suffi- of the supercomputers of the 1980s, 85), passed in November 1997, that cient central memory to compute complicating efforts to design an tightened HPC export controls.2 problem sets of general scientific export licensing policy that could Nevertheless, the battle over HPC interest,”4 or a computer “designed keep pace with technological ad- export controls continues. Draft specifically to achieve the highest vances. 11 regulations on end-user verification execution rate possible in scientific of HPC exports issued by the Com- computation for a given technol- As with other “dual-use” tech- merce Department in January 1998, ogy.”5 HPC systems are also fre- nologies, HPC export licensing which were harshly criticized by quently referred to as policy must balance commercial and nonproliferation advocates, suggest “supercomputers.”6 However, given security interests. Commercially, the that trade promoters remain a pow- the complexity of the technologies HPC industry is viewed as “strate- erful political force in Washington.3 involved, HPC is perhaps the best gic,” since “higher profits will not term. Seymour Goodman uses this be competed away by new entrants, The Nonproliferation Review/Winter 1998 45 Robert Johnston because huge start-up costs, econo- HPCs are also useful for design- post-Cold War HPC export control mies of scale, and learning curve ing and testing advanced conven- policy becomes even more striking. advantages create high barriers to tional weaponry. They have played During the Cold War, COCOM 12 entry.” These entry barriers, to- a key role in the design of critical provided the primary structure for gether with lucrative government American defense systems such as the organization of U.S. export li- procurement opportunities, have fos- stealth aircraft, infrared trackers to cense processing. COCOM had tered a strong HPC industry in the detect incoming missiles, acoustic clear, broad lists of controlled dual- United States. The major competi- detectors for use in shallow water, use technology items that required 16 tor to the United States is Japan, airborne lasers, and rocket motors. licenses for export to the Eastern where the HPC industry has also HPC systems are also central to “in- bloc.20 Under the 1949 Export Con- benefited from government trade formation warfare” and “informa- trol Act, the president had consider- protection as well as funding through tion dominance” strategies that are able autonomy to establish strong 13 keiretsu. Among the leading com- becoming a key concern of Ameri- export controls lists, even above and 17 mercial applications of HPC are can military strategy. As informa- beyond COCOM standards. The managing the operation of precision tion warfare becomes a more critical president initially enjoyed “defer- machine tools and helping in the aspect of conflict, the possible ence” from allies, Congress, and in- design of aircraft and motor vehicles. spread of HPC systems to rogue dustry, but consensus support for a HPC technology also has a num- states will raise additional security tight technology embargo against the 18 ber of military uses, including the concerns. Collectively, the use of Eastern bloc began to collapse in the development of WMD, the design of HPC systems in the design, testing 1960s.21 Several trends contributed so-called “smart” conventional and maintenance of nuclear, conven- to the eroding consensus, including: weapons, and the management of tional and information warfare overuse of sanctions and export con- information warfare.
Recommended publications
  • CPC Outreach Journal #740
    USAF COUNTERPROLIFERATION CENTER CPC OUTREACH JOURNAL Maxwell AFB, Alabama Issue No. 740, 02 September 2009 Articles & Other Documents: U.S. Eyes 12 Giant "Bunker Buster" Bombs Pakistan Denies It Altered US-made Missiles U.S. Mulls Alternatives For Missile Shield NSA: India Doesn‘t Need Another Nuclear Test Iran is Continuing Nuclear Activity, says United Nations Pakistani Nuke Scientist says Restrictions Lifted Watchdog Iran Ducking Scrutiny of Alleged Nuclear-Weapon 'Pak Enhancing Its Nuclear Weapons Capabilities' Studies, IAEA Says Nuclear Agency Says Iran Has Bolstered Ability to Ministry Wants ¥176 Billion for Missile Shield Make Fuel but Slowed Its Output Iran, Syria have not Carried Out Sufficient Cooperation Would-Be Killer Linked to Al Qaeda, Saudis Say in Clarifying Nuke Issues: IAEA Cargo of North Korea Materiel is Seized En Route to Israel Has Iran in Its Sights Iran Watchdog Extends Probe into Alleged Secret Site Don't Get Scammed By Russia Again 'IAEA Hiding Incriminating Evidence' Israeli Nuclear Weapons and Western Hypocrisy Iran 'Ready' for Nuclear Talks Another Attempt to Malign Pak Nuke Program Russia: Building a Nuclear Deterrent for the Sake of Controversy Over Pokhran-II Needless: Manmohan Peace (60th Anniversary of the First Soviet Atomic Test) U.S. Says Pakistan Made Changes to Missiles Sold for Defense Welcome to the CPC Outreach Journal. As part of USAF Counterproliferation Center’s mission to counter weapons of mass destruction through education and research, we’re providing our government and civilian community a source for timely counterproliferation information. This information includes articles, papers and other documents addressing issues pertinent to US military response options for dealing with chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats and countermeasures.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Policy Toward Iraq Hearing Committee On
    U.S. POLICY TOWARD IRAQ HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION OCTOBER 4, 2001 Serial No. 107–44 Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 75–563PDF WASHINGTON : 2001 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:39 Dec 14, 2001 Jkt 075563 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 F:\WORK\MESA\100401\75563 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1 COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York TOM LANTOS, California JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa HOWARD L. BERMAN, California DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American DAN BURTON, Indiana Samoa ELTON GALLEGLY, California DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina SHERROD BROWN, Ohio DANA ROHRABACHER, California CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia EDWARD R. ROYCE, California EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama PETER T. KING, New York BRAD SHERMAN, California STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ROBERT WEXLER, Florida AMO HOUGHTON, New York JIM DAVIS, Florida JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York RICHARD BURR, North Carolina WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana GREGORY W.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Policy Toward Iran—Next Steps
    UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAN—NEXT STEPS HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION MARCH 8, 2006 Serial No. 109–183 Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 26–438PDF WASHINGTON : 2006 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Mar 21 2002 12:49 Aug 21, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 F:\WORK\FULL\030806\26438.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa TOM LANTOS, California CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, HOWARD L. BERMAN, California Vice Chairman GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York DAN BURTON, Indiana ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American ELTON GALLEGLY, California Samoa ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey DANA ROHRABACHER, California SHERROD BROWN, Ohio EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BRAD SHERMAN, California PETER T. KING, New York ROBERT WEXLER, Florida STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts RON PAUL, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York DARRELL ISSA, California BARBARA LEE, California JEFF FLAKE, Arizona JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon MARK GREEN, Wisconsin SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada JERRY WELLER, Illinois GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California MIKE PENCE, Indiana ADAM B.
    [Show full text]
  • Indo-Us Nuclear Cooperation: Altering Strategic Positioning & Shifting Balance of Power in South Asia
    “INDO-US NUCLEAR COOPERATION: ALTERING STRATEGIC POSITIONING & SHIFTING BALANCE OF POWER IN SOUTH ASIA” The Regional Centre for Strategic Studies (RCSS) is an independent, non-profit and non-governmental organization for collaborative research, networking and interaction on strategic and international issues pertaining to South Asia. Set up in 1992, the RCSS is based in Colombo, Sri Lanka. The RCSS is a South Asian forum for studies, training and multi-track dialogue and deliberation on issues of regional interest. All activities of RCSS are designed with a South Asia focus and are usually participated by experts from all South Asian countries. The Centre is envisaged as a forum for advancing the cause of cooperation, security, conflict resolution, confidence building, peace and development in the countries of the South Asian region. The RCSS serves its South Asian and international constituency by: (a) networking programmes that promote interaction, communication and exchange between institutions and individuals within and outside the region engaged in South Asian strategic studies; (b) organizing regional workshops and seminars and sponsoring and coordinating collaborative research; and (c) disseminating output of the research through publications which include books, monographs and a quarterly newsletter. The RCSS facilitates scholars and other professionals of South Asia to address, mutually and collectively, problems and issues of topical interest for all countries of the region. Queries may be addressed to: Regional Centre for Strategic Studies 410/27 Bauddhaloka Mawatha Colombo 7 SRI LANKA Tel: (94-11) 2690913-4 Fax: 2690769; e-mail: [email protected] RCSS website: http://www.rcss.org RCSS Policy Studies 44 “INDO-US NUCLEAR COOPERATION: Altering Strategic Positioning & Shifting Balance of Power in South Asia” SADIA TASLEEM REGIONAL CENTRE FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES COLOMBO Published by Regional Centre for Strategic Studies 410/27, Bauddhaloka Mawatha Colombo 7, Sri Lanka.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony of Gary Milhollin Before the US-Israeli Joint Parliamentary
    WISCONSIN PROJECT ON NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL Testimony of Gary Milhollin Professor Emeritus, University of Wisconsin Law School and Director, Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control Before the US-Israeli Joint Parliamentary Committee September 17, 2003 1701 K STREET, NW SUITE 805 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 PHONE: 202-223-8299 FAX: 202-223-8298 EMAIL: [email protected] I am pleased to appear before this joint committee to discuss Iran's nuclear program and Iran's imports of sensitive technology. I direct the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, a research organization here in Washington that is devoted to stopping the spread of mass destruction weapons. I will begin by describing the challenge posed by Iran to the nuclear non-proliferation regime, and then I will comment on some important Iranian procurement attempts. I will conclude with a discussion of Iran's possible noncompliance with its international obligations. I would like to submit one item for the record. It is a recent op-ed and table authored by myself and Valerie Lincy for the Week in Review section of the New York Times. The article discusses the possibility that Iran could gain nuclear weapon capability while claiming to be a member in good standing of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The article can be found electronically on my organization's web site: http://www.wisconsinproject.org. The Stakes With Iraq now under U.S. occupation, Iran is rapidly emerging as the new mass destruction weapon threat in the Middle East. If Iran's nuclear program continues down its present path, Iran is likely to achieve nuclear weapon capability within the next few years.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony of Gary Milhollin
    Testimony of Gary Milhollin Professor Emeritus, University of Wisconsin Law School and Director, Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control Before the Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate May 26, 2000 I am pleased to appear before this distinguished Committee to testify on the export of dual-use technology. I would like to submit three items for the record. The first is an article on supercomputer export controls that I wrote for the Outlook section of the Washington Post on March 12, the second is an article on Iraqi procurement efforts that I wrote for the New Yorker magazine on December 13, 1999 and the third is a report entitled “25 Myths about Export Control” that my organization prepared a few years ago but which is still relevant to the issues we face today. The Committee has asked me to comment on two concepts that have been proposed for use in U.S. export controls. The first is known as “mass market status;” the second as “foreign availability.” The Committee has asked what the effect would be on our national security if these concepts were adopted as U.S. policy. The two concepts are now incorporated into S. 1712, the bill recently reported by the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. In my judgment, if this bill were enacted it would overturn and to a great extent nullify the system of export controls that the United States has built up over the past half-century. Our present law attempts to strike a balance between national security and freedom of trade.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:36 24 May 2016 India’S Nuclear Debate Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:36 24 May 2016
    Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:36 24 May 2016 India’s Nuclear Debate Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:36 24 May 2016 Series Note War and International Politics in South Asia Series Editor: Srinath Raghavan Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research, and Lecturer in Defence Studies, King’s College London, University of London. Th is Series seeks to foster original and rigorous scholarship on the dynamics of war and international politics in South Asia. Following Clausewitz, war is understood as both a political and a social phenomenon which manifests itself in a variety of forms ranging from total wars to armed insurrections. International politics is closely intertwined with it, for war not only plays an important role in the formation of an international order but also a threat to its continued existence. Th e Series will therefore focus on the international as well as domestic dimensions of war and security in South Asia. Comparative studies with other geographical areas are also of interest. A fundamental premise of this Series is that we cannot do justice to the com- plexities of war by studying it from any single, privileged academic standpoint; the phenomenon is best explained in a multidisciplinary framework. Th e Series welcomes a wide array of approaches, paradigms and methodologies, and is interested in historical, theoretical, and policy-oriented scholarship. In addition to monographs, the Series will from time to time publish collections of essays. Also in this Series Fighting Like a Guerrilla: Th e Indian Army and Counterinsurgency Rajesh Rajagopalan ISBN 978-0-415-45684-5 Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 01:36 24 May 2016 Indian Foreign Policy in a Unipolar World Editor: Harsh V.
    [Show full text]
  • Technologies Underlying Weapons of Mass Destruction
    Technologies Underlying Weapons of Mass Destruction December 1993 OTA-BP-ISC-115 NTIS order #PB94-126984 GPO stock #052-003-01361-4 Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies Underlying Weapons of Mass Destruction, OTA-BP-ISC-115 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1993). Foreword ontrolling the spread of weapons of mass destruction depends on how hard it is to manufacture them and on how easy such weapon programs are to detect. This background paper, a companion volume to OTA’s report Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Assessing the Risks,cl reviews the technical requirements for countries to develop and build nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, along with the systems most capable of delivering these weapons to distant or defended targets: ballistic missiles, combat aircraft, and cruise missiles. It identities evidence that might indicate the production of weapons of mass destruction, and technical hurdles that might provide opportunities to control their spread. Of the weapons considered here, nuclear weapons are the most difficult and expensive to develop-primarily due to the difficulty of producing the required nuclear materials. These materials, and the equipment needed to produce them, have quite limited civilian applications and are tightly controlled. States have produced nuclear weapon materials indigenously by evading international controls, but at great cost and with substantial opportunity for detection. For chemical and biological weapon materials, in contrast, most of the equipment needed also has civilian applications and has become widely available, making the capability to produce such weapons much more difficult to monitor and control.
    [Show full text]
  • Has the United States Violated Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 1993 Parsing Good Faith: Has the United States Violated Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? David A. Koplow Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1735 1993 Wis. L. Rev. 301 This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the International Law Commons, and the National Security Law Commons ARTICLES PARSING GOOD FAITH: HAS THE UNITED STATES VIOLATED ARTICLE VI OF THE NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY? DAVID A. KOPLOW* The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has long been the cornerstone of the international effort to retard the spread of nuclear weaponry to additional countries, now appreciated as the greatest post-cold war threat to international peace and security. Under this treaty, the parties also undertook to pursue in good faith additional negotiations leading to further reductions in nuclear weapons-and, in fact, such subsequent bargaining has recently yielded dramatic, far-reaching successes. Professor Koplow, however, argues that in one crucial respect, the United States has been derelict in implementing the obligations of the NPT: Recent American presidents have rigidly refused to participate in negotiations that could lead to a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, abolishing all nuclear explosions everywhere. Although the NPT's requirement of test ban negotiations is ambiguously stated, a close reading of the legal materials establishes that it was a key ingredient in the basic bargain of the NPT, and that numerous countries consider it a major, unresolved treaty controversy.
    [Show full text]
  • Export Control Development in the United Arab Emirates: from Commitments to Compliance
    The Dubai Initiative Policy Brief Export Control Development in the United Arab Emirates: From Commitments to Compliance Dr. Bryan R. Early Export Control Development in the United Arab Emirates: From Commitments to Compliance Dubai Initiative – Policy Brief Dr. Bryan R. Early Research Fellow, The Dubai Initiative Better Center for Science and International Affairs Harvard University July 6, 2009 ExPort ConTRol DEvEloPmEnT In THE UnITED ARAB Emirates | 1 Introduction The swiftness with which the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has launched its civil nuclear program presents a number of challenges for policymakers in seek- ing to ensure the program’s safety and security. At the onset of its efforts, the UAE government consulted with a set of the world’s leading nuclear suppliers to develop a framework that would help its nuclear program conform to the highest standards in terms of safety, security, and nonproliferation. The UAE drew on these con- sultations in making a sweeping set of international commitments in April 2008 to ensure that the sensitive nuclear materials and technologies it would acquire as part of its nuclear program would be securely controlled.1 While the UAE has been widely praised for the depth and breadth of the nonproliferation commitments it has made, it will be the UAE’s efficacy at complying with them by which its suc- cess will be judged. The largest commitment-compliance gap for the UAE government po- tentially relates to its system of nonproliferation export controls. Export controls While the UAE’s are national restrictions that governments place upon their constituencies’ exports recent nonprolifera- of sensitive goods and technologies, which generally include arms and dual-use goods that can contribute to WMD programs.2 Up until the fall of 2007, the UAE tion commitments did not possess a comprehensive export control law at the federal level—let alone strongly signaled an institutional framework capable of administering it.3 This allowed the country to the international to be exploited by the A.Q.
    [Show full text]
  • Seminal Issues As Viewed Through the Lens of the Progressive Case
    Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law LARC @ Cardozo Law Articles Faculty 2005 Transcript of Weapons of Mass Destruction, National Security, and a Free Press: Seminal Issues as Viewed through the Lens of the Progressive Case David Rudenstine Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, [email protected] James R. Schlesinger Norman Dorsen Robert E. Cattanach Brady Williamson See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation David Rudenstine, James R. Schlesinger, Norman Dorsen, Robert E. Cattanach, Brady Williamson, Frank Tuerkheimer, Howard Morland, Gary Milhollin & Anthony Lewis, Transcript of Weapons of Mass Destruction, National Security, and a Free Press: Seminal Issues as Viewed through the Lens of the Progressive Case, 26 Cardozo Law Review 1337 (2005). Available at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-articles/168 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty at LARC @ Cardozo Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of LARC @ Cardozo Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Authors David Rudenstine, James R. Schlesinger, Norman Dorsen, Robert E. Cattanach, Brady Williamson, Frank Tuerkheimer, Howard Morland, Gary Milhollin, and Anthony Lewis This article is available at LARC @ Cardozo Law: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-articles/168 TRANSCRIPT OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND A FREE PRESS: SEMINAL ISSUES AS VIEWED THROUGH THE LENS OF THE PROGRESSIVE CASE' WELCOME David Rudenstine^ It is wonderful having you all here for this very special twenty-fifth anniversary commemoration of this historic case involving the publication of the article by The Progressive magazine.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran: Weapons Proliferation, Terrorism, and Democracy Hearing
    S. HRG. 109–211 IRAN: WEAPONS PROLIFERATION, TERRORISM, AND DEMOCRACY HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MAY 19, 2005 Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 25–153 PDF WASHINGTON : 2005 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:49 Dec 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 963494.SEN SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire BILL NELSON, Florida LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska BARACK OBAMA, Illinois MEL MARTINEZ, Florida KENNETH A. MYERS, Jr., Staff Director ANTONY J. BLINKEN, Democratic Staff Director (II) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:49 Dec 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 963494.SEN SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1 CONTENTS Page Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., U.S. Senator from Delaware ..................................... 57 Prepared opening statement ............................................................................ 57 Burns, Hon. R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Depart- ment of State, Washington, DC .........................................................................
    [Show full text]