Researchers: Export Controls Need to Be 'Reengineered' to Meet Present Moment
The U.S. should take several steps to reduce red tape and streamline arms sales and technology transfers to close trading partners, including more frequently reviewing the jurisdiction of export-controlled items and combining reviews of weapons requests from allies, researchers said in a new report.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The researchers based their recommendations on a survey of countries that have defense procurement memorandums with the U.S., which they called some of America’s “closest industrial partners.” Those survey respondents pointed to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations and the Pentagon’s Technology Security and Foreign Disclosure process as “particularly challenging” when doing business with the U.S., the researchers said.
“While none of these findings are particularly surprising, the survey’s sampling of respondents beyond just the United States’ largest and closest industrial partners confirmed that challenges are pervasive,” said the report, authored by Cynthia Cook and Audrey Aldisert of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. As the U.S. navigates “a more precarious global order,” they said, “working with allies offers an effective way to strengthen partnerships and enhance deterrence.”
For example, the government could more frequently review export control classifications, including through “institutionalized, systematic reviews” of items under the U.S. Munitions List and the Export Administration Regulations' Commerce Control List. Although the State Department and the Bureau of Industry and Security already update their controls from time to time -- including as recently as last year, when both agencies issued proposed and interim final rules to modernize their space-related controls -- the report said more can be done (see 2410180027 and 2411070024).
Any reviews should include scrutiny of technologies on the USML to see if they should be transferred to the CCL, the researchers said, “which is governed by a less restrictive process.”
“Export controls, while critical to safeguard U.S. technologies, are not prepared to meet the challenges of the current geopolitical moment,” they said. These reviews will help “ensure that they are appropriately limiting technology proliferation without causing undue delays and complications.”
The report said survey respondents were asked to rate several key U.S. export control processes on a scale of one to five, with one being not challenging and five being very challenging. No respondent rated any of the processes as not challenging.
The respondents said compliance is especially difficult for rules under the ITAR, “a complex export control system marked by bureaucratic red tape, over which U.S. allies and partners continuously express frustration,” according to the report. And because the ITAR is so “expansive,” the respondents said guidance from various U.S. agencies is sometimes “different or even conflicting. These barriers impede defense industrial cooperation and ultimately jeopardize U.S. and allied defense posture and readiness.”
The U.S. should also combine reviews of foreign military sales involving close allies, the report said. It noted that “every bilateral arrangement requires a separate review, even if two close allies are buying the same equipment,” and past approvals don’t seem to “hold merit” when Congress reviews new FMS requests. It also said countries like Australia, Israel, the U.K. and Ukraine often get “preferential treatment,” but the U.S. usually makes no distinction between a NATO ally or a country with which it has a “minimal defense relationship.”
Export controls shouldn’t be “eliminated, but rather reengineered,” the report said. Instead of treating each sale on its own, allies could work as a group to procure U.S. weapons, or the U.S. could combine reviews to speed up the FMS process. It said the U.S. could start by combining reviews from countries with an existing defense procurement memorandum of understanding or for sales involving Canada, Australia and the U.K.
“Note that addressing export control friction would not only enhance arms exports,” the report said, “but also enable the codevelopment and coproduction that would underpin the expansion of partner industrial bases, helping strengthen forward deterrence and opportunities for surge.”