Information and US Export Controls

  • Stuart Macdonald

Abstract

The Bucy report is just 39 pages long. By modern reporting standards, that should have disqualified it from being taken seriously.1 It appeared in 1976, the product of a task force chaired by Fred Bucy of Texas Instruments, and set up by the Department of Defense to consider export controls from the perspective of the means by which Western technology was being transferred to the Soviet bloc. The report’s conclusions are hardly startling — certainly not in the same league as those of a more recent report from the National Academy of Sciences2 — and yet their influence has been immense. Among the most prominent are that export controls have to tackle technology transfer mechanisms to be effective, especially the most active mechanisms, and that controls should concentrate on those critical technologies that would represent the most significant advance to the receiving nation.

Keywords

Mercury Lacton OECD Dock Alan 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 6.
    Heinrich Vogel, ‘Economic relations with the East: diverging views’ in Dick Clark (ed.), United States—Soviet Relations: Building a Congressional Cadre, Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies (1986) pp. 29–32.Google Scholar
  2. 10.
    Harold J. Berman and John R. Garson, ‘United States export controls — past, present and future’, Columbia Law Review, 67 (5) (1967) pp. 791–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 11.
    Richard Perle, ‘The eastward technology flow: a plan of common action’, Strategic Review (Spring 1984) p. 29.Google Scholar
  4. 12.
    Richard Perle, ‘Technology and the quiet war’, Strategic Review (Winter 1983) p.35.Google Scholar
  5. 13.
    Clyde H. Farnsworth, ‘Pentagon’s wider role on exports’, New York Times (21 March 1984) p. D1.Google Scholar
  6. 46.
    John Shattuck, ‘Federal restrictions and the free flow of academic information and ideas’, Government Information Quarterly, 3 (1) (1986) pp. 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 49.
    William H. Gregory, ‘The technology transfer mess’, Aviation Week and Space Technology (14 May 1984) p. 13.Google Scholar
  8. 50.
    James J. Harford, ‘DOD position no Perle of wisdom’, Aerospace America (July 1984) pp. 16–18.Google Scholar
  9. 52.
    Harold C. Relyea, ‘Shrouding the endless frontier — scientific communication and national security: the search for balance’ in Relyea (ed.), Striking a Balance pp. 75–124.Google Scholar
  10. 55.
    See Stuart Macdonald, ‘Personal communication in research and development’ in W. Callebaut et al. (eds), Theory of Knowledge and Science Policy, Belgium: University of Ghent (1980) pp. 255–71.Google Scholar
  11. 56.
    Bobby R. Inman, ‘National security and technical information’ in Relyea (ed.), Striking a Balance pp. 51–5.Google Scholar
  12. 57.
    Mary Fagan, ‘Admiral shells U.S. export controls’, Electronics Weekly (24 July 1985) p. 4.Google Scholar
  13. 58.
    Bobby Inman as quoted in Kevin Cahill, ‘Washington’s hard heart begins to soften’, Computer News (25 October 1985) p. 16.Google Scholar
  14. 64.
    Hanns-Dieter Jacobsen, ‘High technology in U.S. foreign trade relations’, German Foreign Affairs Review, 36 (4) (1985) pp. 405–17.Google Scholar
  15. 69.
    Susan Watts, ‘Why the White House won’t play ball’, Computer Weekly (12 December 1985) p. 12.Google Scholar
  16. 70.
    Shoichi Saba, ‘The U.S. and Japanese electronics industries: competition and cooperation’, Issues in Science and Technology, 11 (3) (Spring 1986) pp. 53–60.Google Scholar
  17. 71.
    Dorinda G. Dallmeyer, ‘National security and the semiconductor industry’, Technology Review (November-December 1987) pp. 47–55.Google Scholar
  18. 78.
    Mary Fagan, ‘U.S. data protection threat to European companies’, Independent (13 April 1988) p. 23.Google Scholar
  19. 79.
    Martin Tolchin, ‘U.S. fears foreign contracts imperil vital data’, New York Times (9 February 1987 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Stuart Macdonald 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stuart Macdonald
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University of QueenslandBrisbaneUK
  2. 2.the City UniversityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations