Jan

15

U.S. and Canada Differ on More than the Spelling of “Defense”


Posted by at 7:54 pm on January 15, 2008
Category: Arms ExportDDTC

Maxime Bernier
Canadian Foreign Minister
Maxime Bernier


An article in today’s Toronto-based Globe and Mail uses the occasion of the recent visit of Canadian Foreign Minister Maxime Bernier to Washington to see his U.S. counterpart, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, as an opportunity to comment on disagreements between the two countries on defense trade and export controls. As reported previously on this blog, a major bone of contention between the U.S. and Canada is over Canada’s legal prohibition against nationality-based discrimination and the U.S. refusal to permit transfer of defense technology to Canadians who are dual-nationals of countries subject to U.S. arms embargo, such as China and Syria.

According to the article:

[Canadian] officials have said recently that a solution is not imminent, although they insist they want a deal. And Public Works Minister Michael Fortier, who met U.S. procurement officials in Washington last week and is now the designated point man in negotiations with Washington, won’t discuss the status of the file. Nor did he meet anyone at the State Department, which administers the contentious U.S. export controls.

The article posits two reasons that an agreement over this issue with Canada languishes while the United States has entered into agreements with the United Kingdom and Australia which would ease transfer of technical data to individuals and entities in those countries. First, the article quotes a Virginia-based “trade consultant” who said that

Canada doesn’t have a deal yet because it’s resisting concessions made by the British and the Australians. She pointed out that both those countries agreed to aggressively prosecute violators of the technology-sharing deals, most notably by applying domestic Official Secrets laws.

The second reason cited by the article is this:

Unlike the Aussies and the Brits, Canada buys relatively little of what U.S. military suppliers produce.

I’m not entirely convinced that these are reasons that the U.S. and Canada can’t see eye to eye over the dual national issue. The U.S.-U.K. Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty leaves open the criteria for determining what companies will be within the approved “community” of companies eligible for transfers with export licenses. It would not be surprising if those criteria require agreements by such companies not to transfer defense technologies to dual-nationals of countries subject to an arms embargo. If that’s the case, Canada can’t expect different treatment of dual nationals even if it increases its defense spending in the U.S. or agrees to cover re-exports of non-classified technical data under Canadian laws relating to official secrets or classified data.

Permalink

Bookmark and Share

Copyright © 2008 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


2 Comments:


I’m sorry, but being a US citizen by birth, I am proud to live in a free, democratic and fair country such as the USA. Yet, I cringe at the idea of a double set of rules which grossly discriminate, based on national origin, against those individuals who are legally living in another free and democratic country.

I guess it has never occurred to those who matter at the State Department that such dual national individuals of Canada, UK, Australia, or any other country are very much the equivalent of our US permanent resident aliens… US persons according to ITAR.

When will the ITAR be amended to either (1)restrict transfer of defense technology to US permanent resident aliens; or (2)allow transfer of defense technology to Canadian, UK, Australian or any other country’s dual national individuals – who in many cases have the only fault of being born in a country subject to U.S. arms embargo, such as China and Syria?

Comment by Vito on January 15th, 2008 @ 10:18 pm

Consider this:
A country identified in 126.1.

Two citizens of this country “(one)” an oppressor of the people and “(two)” one of the people.

Citizen (one)emigrates to the US. Citizen (two) emigrates to Australia.

(one) becomes a US citizen (or gets a green card). He (the ex-oppressor – the likes of whom the prohibition was put in place for)now has unfettered access to ITAR type data etc.

(two) becomes an Australian citizen (dual national), he works in Defense and gets a security clearance. As he is from a proscribed country he cannot access ITAR type data etc (maybe a special consideration from DoS may allow him access on a one time special consideration).

So the ex-oppressor is fine for access but the ex-oppressee is not. Is there anyone that believes that DoS has a logic section that filters their judgments and decisions to see if they logically make any sense at all?

Comment by Mike on January 20th, 2008 @ 7:45 pm