COSEPUP Charge to the Panel
Having carefully studied the terms of the legislation, and consulted with the relevant federal agencies, COSEPUP has developed a five-point plan of action, outlined below, that incorporates all of the major issues raised in the legislative request. The charge, as stated below, reflects the changes made at the August 24, 1989, organizational and planning meeting of the panel. Changes are denoted by brackets.
The Academy panel will consider various existing and alternative conceptual approaches to the design of national security export controls, including methodologies for determining which end products and technologies are likely to make a significant difference in the military [capabilities] of controlled countries. The panel will reach an independent judgment regarding which, if any, of the alternative approaches is most viable, given (a) the changing nature of the threat posed by the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies, (b) the current estimate of Warsaw Pact military capabilities and its requirements for technology, (c) the need to harmonize U.S. control policies to the greatest possible extent with those of the other CoCom allies, and (d) the realities of the global diffusion of some technologies to countries that are beyond the effective reach of CoCom controls and, [(e) the need to maintain a balance between the protection of U.S. (and Western) advantage in key military systems and the promotion of economic vitality and trade]. The panel will not restrict itself to evaluate incremental changes to the current system.
Based on its consideration of point one, the Academy panel will seek to develop a set of dynamic and implementable principles for determining which technologies should be subject to control and at what point technological diffusion and/or obsolescence dictates that a particular technology should be decontrolled. In making its prescriptions, the panel will take account of both "process" problems in administering controls within the U.S. government and the CoCom framework, and the [changing] global political, economic, and technological [trends] .
The Academy panel will attempt to demonstrate how its principles would be applied to a few selected technologies corresponding to sections of the Control List (CL), maintained by the Department of Commerce, and the Militarily Critical Technologies List (MCTL), maintained by the Department of Defense. However, because the technology subject to control is in most cases highly dynamic, such an exercise can at best represent only a "snapshot" example of what must be a continuously evolving process of list revision.
In addition to the problem of technological obsolescence, the effectiveness and currency of both the CL and the MCTL are constrained by the availability of identical or functionally similar technology beyond the effective reach of the CoCom allies. The Academy panel will first seek to clarify in operational terms the meaning of "foreign availability." It will examine the process used within both the U.S. Government and CoCom for certifying the existence of "foreign availability," making recommendations as appropriate for improvements in the methodology. Finally, it will develop proposals to rationalize and harmonize the U.S. and CoCom procedures for dealing with identified cases of foreign availability.
The Academy panel will continue the examination of the administration of the export control program begun in its earlier study, Balancing the National Interest. To the extent warranted, the Academy panel will develop proposals for new procedures and organizational arrangements to ensure more timely, predictable, and effective decision making. As instructed in the report of the congressional conferees, the committee will pay particular attention to the questions of (a) how the extensive knowledge and expertise of private industry can be better integrated into all aspects of the export control policy process, and (b) how fundamental policy disputes involving questions of economic competitiveness vs. military security can be resolved in a fair, expeditious, and regularized fashion.
Approved by COSEPUP, October 30, 1989