I don’t normally post much about my research, but I have decided to start a new category to make a public note about inaccuracies in published pieces about the Wassenaar Arrangement.

Today we look at an article by David Manners, the Senior Components Editor of electronicsweekly.com. A few weeks ago he published an article on how “China [is] to benefit from US technology transfers“. In it, he reviews recent action by the US to change the way it licenses some technology to China, namely, to allow some companies exemption from having to file for individual export licenses.

The part that concerns me, though, is this paragraph:

The exemptions by the US government seem to contravene the Wassenaar Arrangement, made in 1996, by which 40 countries - including the UK, the US, Japan and Korea - agreed not to transfer to China advanced technologies which could be used for weapons manufacturing.

Nowhere in the documents of the Wassenaar Arrangement does it say that Member States are not to transfer items to China, or indeed any other state. Section I.4 of the Initial Elements states:

4. This Arrangement will not be directed against any state or group of states and will not impede bona fide civil transactions. Nor will it interfere with the rights of states to acquire legitimate means with which to defend themselves pursuant to Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.

This information is quite readily available on the Wassenaar Arrangement’s website, so it concerns me that Manners also states that “[t]here have been complaints in the past from the Americans that European producers of semiconductor manufacturing equipment have sold machinery to China in breach of Wassenaar.” Either ‘American manufacturers’ also have a poor understanding of the Arrangement, or (and?) Manners doesn’t have his facts straight.

I have been told that misunderstandings of this sort are rampant in industry. Lets see how many are available in other publications…

Remember when commercials were good? When they may have had nothing to do with their product, but you remembered them forever? Well, here’s a compilation of the old Budweiser frogs/lizards/ferret ads. My sisters and I have had many, many laughs over these.

Now what I’ve been trying to find unsuccessfully is the ads for Lee jeans where the button on the jeans busts and flies around the room - or the one with the soprano. Anyone?

I recently moved to the loft room in my house in Oxford, mainly because I got kicked out of the Martin Institute DPhil space to make room for the new students (but I also wanted to leave for the peace of working at home), and I needed a bigger desk and more room to spread my thoughts out. The loft is very spacious and gets all of its light from three sky lights. One of them sits over my bed, one by my wardrobe, and one over my desk. Since the house is taller than most around it, each window commands an excellent view of the houses and hills in this part of town. I had the good fortune, while transcribing this morning, to look up and see this image from the window. Yes, I think this room will do nicely to write up my doctorate.

I know that it has been a l-o-n-g time since I posted anything. The holidays were very enjoyable, with trips to Houston, DC, and Virginia. I have the good fortune to spend New Year’s in Wales with Christian, Maja, and Naomi, and it proved to be a wonderously relaxed and peaceful week. Christian has posted some photos of the week taken with his camera.

While there, I read the first three chapters of my new Jeremy Lockfoot adventure (but alas, didn’t get around to writing more!). With the return to Oxford, I’m not sure when the story will get finished. Perhaps I can work on it in the evenings after I’ve spent all day writing my thesis. . .