except in those rare instances in which such a unilateral action would be effective or holds the prospect of changing the position of other countries within a relatively short time.
For much of the recent past, multilateral controls have been applied to a broader range of goods and technologies than appears to have been warranted by the facts, or for which there was a real consensus within CoCom.
The June 1990 CoCom High-Level Meeting produced two significant achievements: (1) the number of controlled-item categories was reduced by approximately one-third and (2) a commitment to further reductions was made through the ab initio creation of a ''core list" of controlled items. Thus, the problem of overinclusiveness appears to be in the process of remediation; it should not be permitted to recur.
Although routine licensing has become more efficient and routine processing times have been reduced, requests for export licenses involving first entry into a new market, or those that require more detailed examination for other reasons, can still be substantially delayed. Moreover, it can be difficult to get information about the cause of any delay and the prospects for its resolution. The U.S. export control system is viewed as overly complex, and process information can be hard to obtain. Reports from other CoCom countries suggest that private industry in those countries has much better access to information about the ongoing export control process. Here again, U.S. companies may be substantially disadvantaged with regard to "first entry" licenses that may open export markets.
The Subpanel on Advanced Industrial Materials noted that while U.S. export controls apply only to a limited portion of worldwide trade in advanced materials, their estimated impact on U.S. competitiveness is substantial. The
The complete report of the Subpanel on Advanced Industrial Materials is included as Appendix A.