Author Archive


Oct

6

N.J. Pol Nixes N.Y. Philharmonic Gig in Cuba


Posted by at 7:32 pm on October 6, 2009
Category: Cuba SanctionsOFAC

Empty StageLast week the New York Philharmonic announced that it had been forced to cancel its planned concert in Cuba at the end of October. Although the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) granted licenses to let the instrumentalists travel to Cuba, it declined to permit the orchestra’s patrons who were footing the bill for the trip to tag along.

This decision seems at odds with current initiatives by the White House to ease travel restrictions to Cuba. It now appears that the outcome was the handiwork of New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez, who threatened to vote against health reform if a single note of Gershwin was heard in a Havana concert hall. Menendez was reportedly infuriated by the recent success of a concert by a Colombian pop-star in Cuba, and didn’t want such a horrifying event to recur if the New York orchestra traveled to the island. Apparently for every note of Beethoven that a Cuban hears, Raúl Castro gets another week in office and Fidel draws another thousand breaths.

Permalink Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2009 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Oct

5

A “Red Flag” Flies Over Ras Al-Khaimah


Posted by at 7:12 pm on October 5, 2009
Category: Iran Sanctions

Ras Al-KhaimahLast week, Canadian officials announced that they had intercepted navigational microchips headed for Iran. More interestingly, in an interview that George Webb, the head of Canada Border Services Agency’s Counter Proliferation Section, gave to Canada’s National Post after the interception, Webb stated that Iran appears to have shifted its transhipment efforts from Dubai to Ras Al-Khaimah.

Unless you are a follower of the America’s Cup, you may not have ever heard of Ras Al-Khaimah, which at least for the moment is scheduled to host the prestigious regatta in February 2010. It is the northernmost emirate in the U.A.E. and borders on the Strait of Hormuz. Once known as Juffar and a former notorious base for pirates in the region, it now is the home of the most important container port in the U.A.E. and is also the closest port in the UAE to Bandar-e-Abbas in Iran. It also appears to be, according to Webb, almost completely under the influence of Iran. And, as scrutiny on exports to Dubai have increased, Webb claims that Iran has begun to shift its transhipment operations from Dubai to Ras Al-Khaimah

Webb’s claim of Iranian influence in Ras Al-Khaimah is apparently supported by this report on the Israeli news website Ynetnews.com.

This is a particularly sensitive report that UAE officials, who are very concerned about Iran, would prefer not be published. According to sources linked to the case, the Iranians have real foothold in the UAE, particularly in Ras al-Khaimah. Iran has cultivated close business relations with [Ras Al-Khaimah’s] Crown Prince Saud bin Saqr al-Qasimi and his close associate, Lebanese Shiite businessman, Massad Khater.

According to these sources, this is not merely an innocent business relationship. Khater is a partner in a ceramics factory called Ras al-Khaimah Ceramics. This factory, the sources claim, directly aids Iran’s weapons and missiles industry. The factory even has a branch in the Iranian city of Natanz, where parts for Iranian warheads are produced.

U.S. exporters should take this new information into account and take special care with any shipments headed to Ras al-Khaimah. And yes, a red flag does fly over the emirate, both literally and, now, figuratively.

Permalink Comments Off on A “Red Flag” Flies Over Ras Al-Khaimah

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2009 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Oct

1

Can Locke Unlock the Grip of U.S. Export Controls?


Posted by at 8:33 pm on October 1, 2009
Category: BISWassenaar

Commerce Secretary Gary LockeAt today’s Update Conference in Washington, D.C., Commerce Secretary Gary Locke announced a sweeping vision for reform of U.S. export laws:

First, we should consider eliminating certain dual-use export license requirements for allies and partner nations — consistent with statutory and international obligations.

Of course, the rub here is what is meant by “consistent with . . . international obligations”? Obviously, this is a reference to the Wassenaar Arrangement, under which the United States has agreed to impose export controls on items on the “Lists of Dual-Use Goods and Technologies” made a part of that arrangement. But, as made clear in the 2006 “Best Practices Guidelines for the Licensing of Items on the Basic List and Sensitive List of Dual-Use Goods and Technologies,” members of the Arrangement are free to establish general licenses or license exceptions which permit the unlimited export of specified goods on the lists to specified destinations. The Guidelines, however, state that the member state should still require companies exporting under those general licenses or license exceptions to keep sufficient records of these exports to permit verification that any terms and conditions of the general licenses or license exceptions have been complied with.

Second, I’ve asked BIS to explore implementing a fast-track process for the review of dual-use export licenses for other key countries that do not pose a significant threat and have a strong history of export control compliance.

This is a laudable goal in theory that may be difficult to achieve in practice. Often the imposition of tighter deadlines for licensing decisions results in more applications being returned without action for minor errors — errors that would previously have been ignored — just so that the licensing officer can stay within the required time frame. That certainly seems to have been the result of the shortened processing guidelines for commodity jurisdiction requests filed with the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls.

And, of course we will continue to scour the Export Administration Regulations and de-list those items and technologies that no longer pose a threat to national security.

Here the Wassenaar Arrangement may prove to be somewhat more of an obstacle. Under the Arrangement, the United States is obligated to control the export of items on the Wassenaar Lists and the overwhelming number of commodities on the Commerce Control List (“CCL”) are also on the Wassenaar Lists. The United States can only really remove those common items from the CCL if it convinces other Wassenaar members to remove the same items from the Wassenaar lists at one of the plenary sessions held under the Arrangement.

Of course, there are all those items in Category 0 of the CCL that aren’t on the Wassenaar Lists, so we can look forward, perhaps, to the immediate removal of “horses by sea” (ECCN 0A980) and “plastic handcuffs” (ECCN 0A982), otherwise known as plastic cable ties, from the CCL.

Permalink Comments (10)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2009 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Sep

30

Dutch Export Defendant Flies to U.S. to Face Charges


Posted by at 4:50 pm on September 30, 2009
Category: Criminal PenaltiesIran Sanctions

Rob KraaipoelBack in 2007, I discussed in two posts (here and here) a criminal complaint filed against Netherlands-based Aviation Services International, B.V., and its owner Rob Kraaipoel, a citizen and resident of the Netherlands. The criminal complaint accused Kraaipoel and his company of exporting U.S.-origin items from the Netherlands to Iran without required U.S. licenses. Given the absence of any contacts by Aviation Services and Kraaipoel with the United States, I stated that the U.S.-origin of the goods was not a sufficient basis for criminal jurisdiction over the two Dutch entities and that an extradition request might not be viewed favorably by Dutch courts. A temporary denial order was later put in place by the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) against Kraaipoel and his company. That order forbade U.S. entities from exporting any items to Kraaipoel or Aviation Services or participating in any exports to them. And that, I thought, would be the end of the matter.

So I was more than a little surprised to read that Kraaipoel appeared last week before a federal judge here in D.C. entering a plea of guilty, both individually and on behalf of Aviation Services, to charges arising from his exports of U.S.-origin goods from the Netherlands to Iran. Had he foolishly planned a vacation to Disneyland and gotten nabbed at an airport in the United States? Had a Dutch judge actually granted a motion for extradition in this matter? No, according to the government’s motion to quash an arrest warrant issued against Kraaipoel in 2007, Kraaipoel had retained U.S. counsel and had voluntarily agreed to fly to the United States to face the music.

Why on earth would he do that? The plea agreement, after the agreed downward adjustments from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, calls for a penalty of 46 to 57 months in jail. Of course, we can only speculate here, but it seems that several factors might be in play. Even if a Dutch court was unlikely to entertain an extradition motion, law enforcement authorities in other jurisdictions might enforce the warrant at the request of the United States. Think Roman Polanski. This has been done in at least one export case where a U.K. resident was arrested by Polish authorities based on a U.S. arrest warrant. The BIS denial order would also have probably been hurting Kraaipoel’s business, but the last temporary denial order expired in April 2009, and Kraaipoel and his company are not currently on the Denied Parties List. Even if more TDOs are imposed, nothing in a guilty plea would motivate BIS to lift a denial order but rather would serve more as a basis to extend any existing denial order.

Oddly Kraaipoel was allowed to return to the Netherlands after entering his plea and no date for sentencing was set. An AP report quoted Kraaipoel’s attorney as saying that the defendants were hoping for a sentence of probation only in light of anticipated cooperation with prosecutors. The plea agreement indeed provides that Kraaipoel would be released pending sentencing in light of his anticipated cooperation in further investigations. And it further states provides that in the event that Kraaipoel provides “substantial assistance,” the government would move that the defendant be allowed to argue for a sentence with a lesser period of incarceration. The proffer of proof indicates that Kraaipoel was acting in concert with Iranian individuals operating in Cyprus and the U.A.E. Sounds like they might be the next targets of this investigation.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2009 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Sep

29

Gone Missing


Posted by at 7:21 pm on September 29, 2009
Category: DDTC

page_not_found

Yesterday the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls issued a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on Form DS-4076. This form is the one proposed by DDTC for mandatory filing of Commodity Jurisdiction (“CJ”) requests with the agency via D-Trade, its electronic filing system. The announcement led some to speculate breathlessly that the adoption of the new mandatory CJ form is just around the corner.

Actually, as long as this form has been kicking around at DDTC, the agency has been publishing the same request for comments on the form. Here is an almost identical notice issued in 2005. So I’m not sure much can be inferred from yesterday’s Federal Register notice.

And then there’s this. The form on which DDTC is supposedly seeking comment is not printed with the notice and has been “disappeared” from the DDTC website. The link to the form on the “Future Enhancements” page no longer functions and leads instead to a “page not found” error page. Another link was working yesterday and would bring up the form but today it brings up a “page not found” error page as well. And a Google search of the DDTC site shows that the form isn’t hiding anywhere else on the website. You can, however, view a copy that Google has kept in its cache here.

The form seems unchanged from previous versions of the proposed CJ form. In general, it asks for much more information than is required under the current CJ guidelines. And then, the proposed form still contains a bitter pill for applicants to swallow. It asks whether the item subject to the CJ has ever been exported before. In other words, if you’ve exported something, believing it not to be USML, the result of a CJ request may include a directed disclosure.

UPDATE: Doug Jacobson found on the DDTC site what looks to be a new version of the DS-4076 here. I don’t see any links to this version anywhere on the DDTC site and the only links on the site purporting to go to form DS-4076 remain broken and don’t point towards this revised form of the DS-4076. The filing instructions at the end of this version of the DS-4076 form rather oddly provide for electronic uploading of the form outside the D-Trade system and direct the electronic filer to yet another broken link.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2009 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)