|
This page discusses the U.S. export law ITAR. For the Russian news agency see ITAR-TASS. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) is a set of United States government regulations that authorizes the President of the United States to control the export and import of defense-related articles and services on the United States Munitions List. The regulations are described in Title 22 (Foreign Relations), Chapter I (Department of State), Subchapter M of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Department of State interprets and enforces ITAR. Its goal is to advance national strategic objectives and U.S. foreign policy via the trade controls. For practical purposes, ITAR regulations dictate that information and material pertaining to defense and military related technologies may only be shared with US Persons unless approval from the Department of State is received or a special exemption is used. A "US Person" is a US citizen or permanent resident who does not work for a foreign company, a foreign government, or a foreign governmental agency/organization. It also means any corporation, business, organization or group that is incorporated to do business in the United States. United States companies can face heavy fines if the Department of State discovers they have exposed, without approval or the use of an exemption, non-US-Persons to ITAR-protected information, designs, test data, processes, software code, etc. The list of ITAR-controlled technologies often changes. Until 1996–1997, ITAR classified strong cryptography as arms and prohibited their export from the U.S. Another change occurred as a result of Space Systems/Loral's conduct after the February 1996 failed launch of the INTELSAT 708 satellite. The Department of State charged Space Systems/Loral with violating the Arms Export Control Act and the ITAR. * As a result, technology pertaining to satellites and launch vehicles became more carefully protected.
Controversy There is an open debate between the Department of State and industries and academia regulated by ITAR concerning how harmful the regulatory restrictions are for U.S. businesses and higher education institutions. The Department of State insists that ITAR has limited effect and provides a security benefit to the nation that these sectors must bear. However, many companies and institutions within the affected areas disagree and argue that ITAR is stifling U.S. trade and science. Companies argue that ITAR is a significant trade barrier that acts as a substantial negative subsidy, weakening U.S. industries' ability to compete . U.S. companies point to announcements in Europe by EADS and Alcatel promoting their "ITAR-free" satellites and defense items. * Higher education institutions argue that ITAR prevents the best international students from studying and contributing in the U.S. and prevents cooperation on international scientific projects. There is evidence of ITAR interfering with international cooperation within space science, as noted by Deborah Bass in her Phoenix Mars Lander Blog. Currently, officials at the Department of State dismiss the burden on industry and educational institutions as minor compared to the security provided by ITAR. They also view the announcements of "ITAR-free" items as anecdotal and not systemic. ITAR Controls, Military Sales and Joint Programs ITAR controls have interfered with military sales and cooperation with some of the United States' strongest allies. In April 2006, the Australian Government was reported to have chosen EADS MRH-90 troop-lift helicopters in preference to US Sikorsky models because “the European bid offered the ADF better access to crucial computer source codes than the Sikorsky bid” . ITAR controls, as well as separate policy concerns, have hampered international cooperation in development of the F-35 Lightning II (JSF). The Clinton administration promised the UK that an ITAR waiver would be given, allowing greater technology transfer associated with the project. * Yet, despite the backing of the Bush administration, the waiver has been repeatedly blocked by U.S. Congressman Henry Hyde because of his security concerns about potential technology transfer to third countries. * These difficulties caused the UK to threaten that it would abandon the JSF project and consider alternative aircraft. * The Australian Government has also demanded a guarantee that the US will fully disclose technology needed for the JSF project before Australia commits to further involvement in the project . * See also | ||||||||
|
| |||||||||
 |
|
| |