Congress, Global, Naval Warfare
SYDNEY — The US State Department this month declined to certify that the United Kingdom and Australia had “comparable” arms control practices, meaning they’re currently not eligible for some key defense trade exemptions. And while government officials painted the decision as little more than a procedural bump in the road for the budding AUKUS trilateral security arrangement, an industry advocate, analysts and some American lawmakers said it may signal less-than-smooth waters ahead for a critical multi-national project.
State’s decision means it will probably be at least another four months before the three countries can begin simpler and faster sharing of sensitive weapon technology.
“I think I would say we expect to finalize the new trade exemptions based on stakeholder input over the next 120 days,” a State Department official told reporters today, adding that it’s possible the certification could come sooner.
The official announced that the department on Wednesday will publicly publish a proposed trade exemption rule for a 30-day public comment period — one to be mirrored by the governments of the UK and Australia the same day.
The most recent deadline for State Department exemption certification lapsed on April 19. At the time both the State Department and the UK Ministry of Defence hailed good “progress” on the tech sharing agenda, but State said it wanted more time to consult industry before proceeding. (The Australian Department of Defence and Foreign Ministry did not respond to a request for comment.)
However, as any longtime observer of arms export law and policy knows, nothing is certain until after it’s happened.
The tenor of reaction in Australia and in the United States was best described as worried optimism about the effects the delay would have on the two-track plan for Australia to buy at least three American nuclear-powered Virginia-class submarines and build a small fleet of SSN AUKUS boats with the help of the US and the UK. The second track of AUKUS, known as Pillar II, revolves around the joint development of advanced capabilities that the nations are pursuing, focusing on areas such as automation and artificial intelligence, quantum computing and hypersonic missile technology.
“I think definitely from the Australian perspective, it really seemed like we had done everything possible that we could do in a really quick timeframe to get that certification,” Amy McDonnell, chief operating officer for the Export Controls Australia Group here, told Breaking Defense in an interview. “So, all of the requirements that were put on to us for having to have a system of export controls comparable to that of the United States — we did that. So we changed our legislation on March 27, the Defense Trade Controls Amendment Act came into force.”
In a post she wrote for the group, McDonnell wrote that “State’s failure […] to certify Australia for its inclusion under the ITAR exemption has stalled progress in defense cooperation efforts. This decision not only affects immediate defense collaboration with follow-on implications for the strategic dynamics of the Indo-Pacific region.”
A top American expert on defense trade, Bill Greenwalt, said some members of Congress who had written the ITAR legislation knew that the certification process at the State Department offered an avenue for skeptics of the ITAR exemption to stall or derail the unprecedented plan to exempt Australia and the UK.
“The legislation had the long-standing poison pill of State certifying comparable systems. So, despite the legislation seemingly doing the right thing, there are those in Congress who knew this would complicate matters and potentially derail AUKUS,” said…
This article was originally published by a breakingdefense.com . Read the Original article here. .