29 March 2000
(J.D. Holum comments on satellite technology transfers) (800) By Jim Fisher-Thompson Washington File Staff Writer Washington -- U.S. State Department Senior Adviser for Arms Control and International Security John D. Holum told Congress March 28 that changes in the way the U.S. government licenses the export of critical technology are being made that will "satisfy our allies" as well as "encourage legitimate commercial enterprise." Holum, who headed the former Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) before it was consolidated into the State Department last October, told the House International Relations Committee that "controls is not a dirty word at the Department of State." Declaring that "the defense trade control system....must be preserved," Holum told the lawmakers that the U.S. government was "committed to giving the regulation and facilitation of responsible defense trade the attention and the resources it deserves, and to improving the efficiency, timeliness and security with which we carry out these functions." Much of the regulation of arms for commercial export was transferred by Congress from the Commerce Department to the State Department in the Spring of 1999. In addition to conventional arms, the system also covers satellites, computers and other technology with a dual (military/civilian) use that could fall into the wrong hands and jeopardize the security of the United States. Reforms that Holum said would expedite the licensing process include: -- cutting the processing time for export licenses from 55 days to 21 days; -- doubling the State Department staff working on munitions exports licensing requests; and -- ensuring special handling of requests for North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies. Even before Holum spoke, most of the Congressmen on the panel examining the "munitions list export licensing issues" indicated that they were dissatisfied with the export control system as it was now being administered. Referring to a recent arms accord worked out by the U.S. Defense Department and the United Kingdom called the "Declaration of Principles for Defense Equipment and Industrial Cooperation," Representative Sam Gejdenson (Democrat, Connecticut) said "I'm frustrated..... it's like your agency (State Department) disappeared on this one -- you should be setting policy not DOD." Committee Chairman Ben Gilman (Republican, New York) objected to the U.S.-U.K. declaration, telling Holum that "that agreement, which as you know is not legally binding, was negotiated between our Department of Defense and the British Ministry of Defense. Neither the State Department nor any other U.S. agencies with equities in this document were involved. I expressed my particular concerns about the language on export controls in the declaration." Gilman said "I don't believe in exemptions to U.S. export controls for anyone." Highlighting what he believes are the stifling effects of the current policy of export controls on U.S. industry , Gejdenson added that "while we sit around shuffling paper, other countries are taking market share" by selling their satellites and other products abroad. "This is damaging our national security and our economy," he stated. Representative Donald Manzullo (Republican, Illinois) also said he believed the export licensing regime, as it exists today, was "archaic and naive." He said that commercial satellites do not have military applications, and added that if "we continue with our policy America will no longer be in the business of making commercial satellites." Representative Steve Kuykendall (Republican, California), where much of the U.S. space industry is located, was not a member of the Committee but was allowed to attend the hearing. He echoed Manzullo when he noted that "I'm already experiencing job losses in my district because of satellites that cannot be sold." Representative Dana Rohrabacher (Republican, California) expressed dissatisfaction with the export licensing system because it gave too much away -- to China. He said he was concerned that transferring technology to China, especially in the field of satellites, was "dangerous." He bore down on the dual use aspect of satellite technology, asserting that it was not always easy to separate its military and civilian applications and asked "what are we doing providing Communist China" with "force-multiplier technology" like satellites that might eventually be used against U.S. allies and even U.S. troops. Representative Howard Berman (Democrat, California) pointed out that when the Clinton administration established an embargo on the sale of satellite technology to China in 1994, because of that nation's help toward arming Pakistan, Rohrabacher opposed the move. Rohrabacher said that was true, but he added that he has since changed his mind. Rohrabacher said "what has happened since 1994 has convinced me that the PRC (People's Republic of China) is not evolving toward democracy...and is becoming more belligerent. I learned from my mistake." (The Washington File is a product of the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: usinfo.state.gov)