Author Archive


Mar

9

Some Things Change; Some Things Don’t


Posted by at 9:14 pm on March 9, 2010
Category: Cuba SanctionsIran SanctionsSudanSyriaTechnology Exports

Twitter Keeps Iran AfloatHere’s what has changed at OFAC. Yesterday OFAC announced a general license for Iran and Sudan that would permit export of

certain services and software incident to the exchange of personal communications over the Internet, such as instant messaging, chat and email, social networking, sharing of photos and movies, web browsing, and blogging.

To be eligible the services must be offered free of charge and any software must be EAR99, not subject to the EAR, or mass market software classified under ECCN 5D992. Also, the exporter must not have any reason to believe that the services or software is destined to be used by the government of Sudan or Iran. A similar license was announced for Cuba but it only covered services since BIS controls exports of software to Cuba. Any bets on how long it will take for BIS to act to permit these software exports to Cuba? BIS action will also be necessary for similar exports to Syria.

And here is what hasn’t changed at OFAC. Today OFAC announced that it spent untold tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to fine some poor schlub $575 for buying Cuban cigars over the Internet. I have to assume that this single cigar purchase will provide funds to the current Cuban government that will keep it in power for about five minutes longer than otherwise would have been the case thereby justifying all the government expense involved in imposing the fine.

Permalink Comments (5)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Mar

4

Now You See It, Now You Don’t


Posted by at 10:11 pm on March 4, 2010
Category: DDTC

Poof!I thought I was seeing things. First, I read a notice on the website of the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”) saying that DDTC was putting a temporary hold on export licenses where BAE Systems was an applicant or manufacturer while the agency studied BAE’s recent guilty plea to charges that it paid bribes in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and violated the Arms Export Controls Act by failing to report these bribes as “commissions” in export license applications.” Then the notice was gone.

According to this article in Defense News Daily, I wasn’t hallucinating:

In an Internet notice posted after BAE pleaded guilty on March 1, the State Department said the hold applied to license applications where BAE Systems PLC “or any of its subsidiaries is an applicant, consignee, end user, manufacturer or source.”

In the notice, the department advised export license applicants to determine whether they could modify their applications to remove BAE products. If they could, the notice instructed license applicants to withdraw their applications and amend them. That notice was withdrawn within a day and replaced by one that did not offer advice to license applicants hoping to export BAE products.

And that notice, in turn, was withdrawn and not replaced.

Notwithstanding the confusing impressions left by these disappearing web notices, a State Department spokesman, according to the article, asserted that DDTC was considering whether to debar BAE from exports. Meanwhile a BAE spokesman said that the company interpreted the removal of the web notices to indicate that no hold was currently in place.

Whatever is going on here, DDTC’s continually shifting public position doesn’t permit much confidence in its decision-making process on this issue.

Permalink Comments (5)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Mar

3

Global Recession Hits Criminal Arms Merchants Too


Posted by at 9:38 pm on March 3, 2010
Category: Arms ExportCriminal Penalties

Monzer al-Kassar
ABOVE: Monzer al-Kassar


An article that I just noticed in the February 8 issue of The New Yorker, tells the fascinating story of a D.E.A. sting operation conducted in Spain against Monzer al-Kassar, the notorious arms dealer alleged to have sold weapons both to the Achille Lauro terrorists and to the United States as part of the Iran-Contra affair. Kassar was arrested in Spain, extradited to the United States, and convicted in a Manhattan court to thirty years in prison on charges that he conspired to sell arms to FARC, a paramilitary terrorist group in Colombia.

The whole story is worth reading, but several details in the article are of particular note. First, the article emphasizes that arms dealers can be elusive because they structure their deals to comply with the laws of the countries in which they reside, negotiating sales from one country to another without ever leaving their home base where the brokering transactions are perfectly legal.

Second, and I know this will come as a shock, corrupt countries readily sell end-user certificates to arms dealers and certain arms manufacturers don’t even bother to read the end-user certificates that they demand. In one instance, Kassar bought weapons using an end-user certificate from the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen even though the DPRY had ceased to exist two years earlier when North and South Yemen reunited. One of the D.E.A. undercover agents almost blew his cover when he told Kassar that the Nicaraguan end-user certificate to be used in the FARC transaction had cost several million dollars.

Kassar scoffed, saying that with that kind of money he “could have bought a whole country.”

Third, Kassar was caught because he abandoned his ordinary caution and allowed himself to be taped agreeing to sell arms that the undercover agents told Kassar would be used by FARC to kill Americans. As the reporter for the article stated:

Everyone I spoke to who has worked with Kassar over the years expressed surprise that someone so cautious could be caught on tape agreeing to sell weapons to the FARC. One possible explanation is that, compared with the last decades of the twentieth century—when conflicts in Africa, Europe, and the Middle East generated steady revenue—these are difficult times for weapons traffickers. When Samir first approached Tareq al-Ghazi in Lebanon, Ghazi told him that Kassar had been struggling to maintain his profit margins.

A diminished demand for black-market weapons may be driving other arms traffickers to assume risks that they would never have taken in the past. A year after the capture of Kassar, the S.O.D. team arrested Viktor Bout, the Tajik arms dealer, in Bangkok—using the same sting. (Bout asserts his innocence, and, to date, the Thai government has refused to extradite him.)

Kassar maintains his innocence and continues to insist that he was playing along with the D.E.A undercover agents in order to turn them in to Spanish authorities.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Mar

2

Iran Obtains Centrifuge Equipment from Swiss Firm


Posted by at 9:54 pm on March 2, 2010
Category: Iran Sanctions

centrifugesA fascinating AP story, which so far has not been picked up by any AP affiliate newspapers, provides detailed information about how 103 pressure transducers made their way from Inficon, a Swiss firm, to Iran where, presumably, they will be used in Iran’s allegedly peaceful uranium enrichment program. The story, not surprisingly, involves a lot of looking the other way by the firms involved followed by numerous declarations that they were shocked, shocked to learn where the transducers were headed.

The transducers’ journey started with an order placed by a Shanghai-based company with a Taiwanese agent for Swiss firm Inficon. The equipment was supposed to be destined to the Shanghai company itself but after it made an initial payment had been made to the Taiwanese agent and the order had been placed by the agent with Inficon, the Shanghai company said that the equipment should be shipped instead to Tehran. When the Taiwanese agent received the shipment from Inficon, it dutifully forwarded the merchandise to Tehran.

The allegedly-neutral Swiss have, of course, denied any responsibility in the matter. The CEO of Inficon calmly told reporters that all the papers were in order:

“The end-user certificate we got did not say Iran,” he said. “The deal was done via a Chinese company. And we have a certificate with the name of a Chinese end-user on it.”

In the next breath he admitted, and most proliferation experts will confirm, that the size of the order was, er, suspicious:

[He] said that before the goods were sent, Inficon reported the transaction to Switzerland’s State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, because the number of transducers raised its suspicions. “We always have the goods checked when it is a big order,” he said. “If someone wants one single device it’s not delicate. But if someone wants 100 at once, that’s very unusual for this type of product.”

The Swiss Government approved the export because, notwithstanding these suspicions, Inficon didn’t “know” that the goods were headed to Iran and therefore the export was legal under Swiss law. It seems to me that this is not the first time that the Swiss have defended weapons exports that went to the bad guys by claiming that they weren’t absolutely one-hundred and twenty percent certain that the goods were headed to the bad guys.

As a cautionary note to U.S. readers and exporters: we don’t live in Switzerland. Burying your head in the sand is not a viable export compliance strategy.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Feb

25

Balli Exec Tells Alma Mater His Defense to Iran Export Charges


Posted by at 9:14 pm on February 25, 2010
Category: BISIran Sanctions

Vahid Alaghband
ABOVE: Valid
Alaghband


Valid Alaghband, Chairman of the Balli Group, which just agreed to a $17 million fine to settle charges that it exported U.S.-origin commercial passenger aircraft to Iran, took to the pages of the daily student newspaper of his alma mater Cornell University to present his side of the story. Frankly, his story isn’t very convincing, and I doubt that regular readers of this blog or others familiar with U.S. export laws will be swayed by Alaghband’s story. Some may, in fact, chuckle that Alaghband would publicly mount the defense that he does.

The confusion arises from the use of the term “export” which, to a layman, signifies a sale and purchase (or physical trade) of goods across international borders. That is not how the U.S. regulations necessarily define exports and our settlement with the U.S. authorities does not remotely suggest that Balli Aviation sold its aircraft to Iran. Balli Aviation legally and beneficially owned its fleet of aircraft at all material times.

Epic fail, as the kids on the blogs say nowadays. Anybody with even a smidgen of familiarity with U.S. export laws is aware that you can export stuff to Iran which hasn’t been sold to Iran. To begin with, the aircraft in question were flown in an out of Iran carrying commercial passengers. Balli was charged with re-exporting the aircraft to Iran and the Export Administration Regulations, in section 734.2(b), provide a pretty unambiguous definition of re-export:

“Reexport” means an actual shipment or transmission of items subject to the EAR from one foreign country to another foreign country

Hmm. I don’t see anything in that restricting an export to a cross-border purchase and sale, do you? I didn’t think so.

What happened here was that Balli leased the aircraft to an Armenian airline, Blue Sky, that then operated the aircraft in and out of Iran under a code-sharing arrangement with Mahan Airways. Or as Mr. Alaghband admits:

Balli Aviation … [leased] three of the aircraft to an Armenian operator which serviced the civilian passenger traffic under arrangements with a local operator.

The “local operator, which Alaghband can’t bring himself to name, was the Iranian carrier Mahan.

Alaghband also claims that Norton Rose, a prominent U.K. law firm, told him that this scheme would comply with U.S. export laws. If Norton Rose did indeed provide such profoundly awful advice, and I have no evidence of this other than Alaghband’s claim that they did, this would underline what I might have thought obvious: a firm of British solicitors with not even a single office in the United States might not be the best choice for obtaining advice on complying with U.S. export laws.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)