WASHINGTON-The United States’ current export-control policy is so stringent that instead of achieving the goal of national security, the policy could in reality be harming national security, defense experts told the Senate Banking Committee last week.
“America needs effective export controls to protect its national security. Our current system of export controls fails the test-fails badly. It provides inadequate security where it is most needed, and it imposes counterproductive procedures that I believe are now causing security problems. … It is the task of this committee to develop a new framework for export controls that protects America from the loss of critical technology, but promotes the economic vitality and growth of our economy,” said John J. Hamre, president and chief executive officer of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
This was music to the ears of Sen. Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.), who has introduced legislation that would relax the export controls on dual-use items. Dual-use items were developed primarily for commercial uses but also have military applications.
Enzi said he has tried 12 different times to reform the export-control system, but has always met resistance from higher ranking senators. Indeed, last year’s bill was openly opposed by the chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations, Intelligence, Armed Services and Government Affairs committees.
This year appears to be different and Enzi, who noted he has not heard from the senators or committees in question, believes the bill will be voted out of the banking committee before the end of the month.
While Enzi has had to battle some pretty powerful senators, he has had in his corner Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
Gramm said he has spent more than 40 hours talking to individual senators opposed to the bill.
Another reason the bill did not advance may have been a lack of cooperation that existed between the Republican Senate and the Clinton administration.
“The real problem that we didn’t get anything done the last several years was that you didn’t trust the administration,” said Hamre, who was deputy secretary for defense during the Clinton administration.
After the hearing, Enzi told reporters the groundwork has already been laid with the Bush administration, but that real negotiations will have to wait until underlings have been appointed.
“We would prefer to meet with the person who will implement this law but we will settle for the cabinet level,” said Enzi. He said he has met with or spoken to National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, Commerce Secretary Donald Evans, and Colin Powell, the secretary of state.
Gramm said the bill would relax the export controls on products that are widely available. “If I can buy something at Radio Shack even though it will run a missile-defense system in some region in China, the Chinese Embassy knows where the Radio Shack is and I assume they go there like I do,” he said.
This is a philosophy that differs from others who are constantly worried about protecting trade secrets, but Gramm, who said he has in the past been a national-security hawk, indicated he has worked that out for himself.
“Ultimately our security is to be sure that we are the engine which are driving the technology because a) we will always have it first and b) always understand it better. So when I am looking at our national security concerns, there is a very real trade-off between guaranteeing that we are always the engine and protecting the secrets we have. I guess when forced to err here, I come down on the side of immediately cutting loose things that we can’t really control,” said Gramm.
