Upon hearing that the London Times had an article today that cited the Wassenaar Arrangement, I thought, “maybe now we can start getting some properly researched journalism on the Arrangement.” Maybe, but not likely. (more…)

The second post in the new Wassenaar category, this one higlights a lesser error, but nonetheless still an error. Ariel Cohen’s article in the Middle East Times, The Real World: Iran’s space rocket launch has this to say about the Wassenaar Arrangement:

Attempts to thwart Iran’s missile ambitions are hampered by the fact that Tehran is being backed by Russia and China. These powers are actually partners in the Iranian ballistic missile and space programs which they view as both geopolitically desirable (to dilute U.S. influence) – and lucrative. Russian, Chinese and North Korean cooperation would be desirable and necessary to stop Iran’s missile program. Although China is not a member of the Wassenaar Arrangement which limits the spread of advanced weapons technology (the successor of CoCom – the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls) and the Missile Technology Control Regime, Russia is. Pressure should be exerted on Moscow to abide by these control regimes.

All went fine until the final sentence. While I cannot say whether Russia fully abides by these regimes, I can say that even if they do, that won’t stop them exporting to Iran. Wassenaar is not meant to prevent a country from exporting a technology, it is meant to make sure that, when a technology that is controlled is exported to a non-member, it is a purposeful decision of the exporting country. In that way, it reduces uncertainty about the exporting countries intentions because they knew (or were supposed to know) that the technology left their borders.

The point that Cohen could have made is that he believes the sale of these items to Iran creates a ‘destabilising accumulation’ in this region of the world. This is most definitely an argument that can be raised at the meetings of the Wassenaar Arrangement, as shown in paragraph 1 of the Initial Elements:

The Wassenaar Arrangement has been established in order to contribute to regional and international security and stability, by promoting transparency and greater responsibility in transfers of conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies, thus preventing destabilising accumulations. Participating States will seek, through their national policies, to ensure that transfers of these items do not contribute to the development or enhancement of military capabilities which undermine these goals, and are not diverted to support such capabilities.

The subtle point here is that Wassenaar does not tell countries what they can and cannot export (unlike the old COCOM system). Instead, it allows the 40 Member States to discuss their export control practices. If they think that technology going to Iran is destabilising the region, they may decide to not export there any more, but that decision must be unanimous in order for it to become part of the Arrangement. Whether or not this is the best way to handle the issue of technology exports, I leave to the reader. My point here is to clarify what Wassenaar is.

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…