U.S. Slow To Ease Export Controls On High-Tech Items

WASHINGTON--One week after the Chernobyl nuclear plant exploded in April 1986, Soviet contacts called Carnegie Mellon University robot researcher William ("Red") Whittaker to ask for help in saving thousands of Soviet cleanup workers from radiation exposure. Whittaker's autonomous robots were already cleaning up the disabled Three Mile Island nuclear plant, and his technology was widely acknowledged as the world's best in replacing humans in hazardous environments. But a year later, after 5,000 Chernobyl workers had absorbed 125,000 rem of radiation, and Soviet robots had proved largely ineffective, Whittaker's technology had still not left the United States. The reason? Approval of the exchange took six months to pass through a labyrinth of U.S. export controls on high technology. By the time permission was finally granted, the Chernobyl cleanup was nearly over. No U.S. technology ever took part in the operation (The Scientist, Jan. 22, 1990, page 2). The example, while extreme, will likely come as no surprise to the countless other U.S. scientists who have found collaboration with Soviet researchers hampered by rigid U.S. export controls. Although few disagree with the aim of such restrictions - to keep sensitive defense technology out of the hands of potential enemies - most complain that their scope is too broad. Many currently restricted items are easily available here, or are of little military value. In response to pressure from U.S. allies, a committee of the National Security Council (NSC) recommended last month that the U.S. support liberalization of export restrictions adopted by the Coordination Committee for Multilateral Export Control (COCOM), whose members include the North Atlantic Treaty Organization nations, Australia, and Japan. A new U.S. policy, however, is unlikely to satisfy critics or go as far as other COCOM nations want. As a 1987 National Academy of Sciences report ("Balancing The National Interest," Washington, D.C., National Academy, 1987) notes, the list of controlled items and technologies has not been completely overhauled since the system was created before World War II. As recently as last year, for example, common "AT-class" computers - those modeled on the lines of the IBM AT personal computer - were restricted, despite the fact that the majority of AT-class computers are manufactured in Japan and other countries where they easily could be purchased by Soviets. Scientific equipment is especially likely to find itself entrapped in a tangle of red tape, often requiring case-by-case handling that can lengthen the approval process by months, according to the National Academy report. Because the equipment is often based on leading-edge technology, it may be flagged for review despite its clear nonmilitary application. One example cited by the National Academy report describes a two-and-a-half-year effort by one U.S. company to sell a nuclear magnetic spectrometer to a medical institute in Eastern Europe. Because the spectrometer included some 32-bit computer hardware and a 30-megabyte hard disk drive, it was subject to lengthy review, despite that fact that similar machines were being sold to Communist countries by West German companies. One key to a successful exchange is knowing the right words to use. "It all depends on how it is couched," says Whittaker. "Rather than call my [machines] robots [which would likely flag them for extensive review], I might call them unmanned work systems or remote systems" to ease them through the approval process. But for many other scientists, whose equipment cannot be so easily disguised, the only solution is to wait. Although the Commerce Department reports an average processing time of about a month, approximately 5% of the cases took longer than 100 days. And despite warming relations between East and West, U.S. export restrictions have so far largely refused to thaw. "I don't see that anything has changed," says Whittaker. But relief may be in sight, starting with the NSC decision. The National Academy is working on a successor to its 1987 report. Due out in early 1991, the new report's conclusions are expected to be even stronger in favor of a revamped export control system. In addition, on November 21 Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio), chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, introduced a bill (S. 1978) that would create an independent agency to oversee export restrictions. Such an agency would assume authority that now rests with the Commerce Department, State Department, and the Department of Defense. The goal would be to make the process more efficient and more able to balance the needs of industry against the requirements of national security. G. Christopher Anderson is a reporter in the Washington, D.C., office of Nature.

U.S. Slow To Ease Export Controls On High-Tech Items

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of