What Experts Are Saying About Export Controls & National Security

More and more experts agree that the current export control system does not protect America

Outgoing Secretary of Defense William Cohen stated in a January 2001 letter to Members of Congress:

-- “Over the last year, DoD has sought to identify an alternative to the MTOPS approach to controlling hardware that would permit effective export controls on high performance computer hardware. After intensive effort, DoD concluded that no alternative approach is feasible, given [these] market and technology trends. In short, our ability to control the acquisition of computer hardware is already largely ineffective and will be increasingly so within a very short time frame.”

-- “Controls that are ineffective due to market and technological realities do not benefit national security. In fact, they can harm national security by giving a false sense of protection; by diverting people and other finite export control resources from areas in which they can be effective; and by unnecessarily impeding the U.S. computer industry’s ability to compete in global markets.”

The bipartisan General Accounting Office (GAO) determined in a December 2000 report that:

-- “The current system of controlling the export of individual machines is ineffective in limiting countries of concern from obtaining high performance computing capabilities for military applications. In addition, … using MTOPS to establish export control thresholds is outdated and no longer a valid means for controlling computing capabilities…” (page 10)

-- “As technological advances in high performance computing make it more difficult to maintain the U.S. lead in military capabilities by denying advanced technology transfers to countries of concern, it may become necessary to explore other options to maintain the U.S. lead in military technology.” (page 7)

According to a December 1999 report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Globalization and Security, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology:

-- “Protection of capabilities and technologies readily available on the world market is, at best, unhelpful to the maintenance of military dominance, and, at worst, counterproductive.”

-- “DoD should attempt to protect for the purposes of maintaining military advantage only those capabilities and technologies of which the U.S. is the sole possessor and whose protection is deemed necessary to preserve an essential military capability. Protection of capabilities and technologies readily available on the world market is, at best, unhelpful to the maintenance of military dominance, and, at worst, counterproductive (e.g., by undermining the industry upon which U.S. military-technological supremacy depends)." (Executive Summary)

-- “Consider the case of high-performance computing. Microprocessors, which are the essential ingredient for high-performance computers (HPCs), have long been a commodity product widely available on the world market from a vast range of sources. Chip-maker Intel alone has over 50,000 authorized dealers worldwide." (Page 26-27)

-- “Exports are now the key to growth and good health. In the computer and communications satellite industries, for example, between 50% and 60% of all revenues come from foreign sales. Any significant restriction on exports would likely slow corporate growth and limit the extent to which profits can be put back into research and development on next-generation technology. . . . If U.S. high-tech exports are restricted in any significant manner, it could well have a stifling effect on the U.S. military’s rate of technological advancement.” (Page 27)

And more:

-- “I don’t think we can effectively control raw computing power. There’s too much available and it only indirectly contributes to military power so it would be foolish to try to control computer exports.” -- Richard Perle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for President Reagan

-- “Those who oppose reform of the current export control system fail to see an important reality -- dramatic increases in computing power and the wide availability of computer systems from both US and foreign sources have demonstrated the ineffectiveness of most restrictions on computer exports. We need to create a new, more modern system, one that enhances our national security while maintaining our technological innovation and economic progress.” -- U.S. Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT), vice-chairman of the Joint Economic Committee

-- “If you can buy it at Radio Shack, so can anybody else. If something is mass-marketed -- as much as you might want to keep that technology from falling into the wrong hands -- the bottom line is, once it is sold on a mass-marketed basis, you're wasting your time in trying to protect that technology.” -- U.S. Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee