From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Russia/India Sanctions (2 of 2)
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:37:18 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.01 Jul 13 1992

[Continuing the discussion of US trade sanctions over transfer of
rocket engine technology from Russia to India ...]
 
Why does the US (and other countries) object to this deal?
  Back in the late 1980's the US and most other industrialized
countries signed a set of treaties called the Missile Control
Technology Regime (MCTR).  This treaty, which has the force of law
within the US, is designed to slow or prevent the further spread of
weapons of mass destruction - in this case missiles which are
capable of delivering nuclear weapons.  (India has nuclear weapons -
they've tested them.)  The current control regime only covers
missiles with a range more than 300 km and a payload of more than
500 kg.  These regulations have been signed by about 50 nations.
The sanctions are required by the MCTR.
   Under the MCTR, which has the force of law in the US for
international trade, the US must object and impose sanctions or
other retailatory trade actions for this technology transfer.
  
Is the US being inconsistent in this objection?
    IMHO, not really.  From my records the US over the past 2-3
years has imposed or threatened sanctions in about 4 cases.
    In spring 1991, the US imposed sanctions on China because the
PRC was selling missile technology to Korea and Saudi Arabia in
violation of the MCTR.  Among other things, these sanctions
prohibited the launch of US satellites on Chinese boosters and held
up launch of a US- built comsat on the Long March.  They were lifted
in mid-92 after China publically said it would follow the MCTR.
    In mid-1991 Arianespace offered Brazil the technology for the
large cryo engines used on Ariane as part of an offset package to
secure the Brazilsat launch contract.  This offer was roundly
condemned by the US, Britain, Germany and Italy.  (It should be
noted Brazil had sold military missile systems and technologies to
Iraq and Libya.) Sanctions were threatened.  France looked at the
MCTR and their obligations under it, and withdrew the offer.
    In early 1991, the Soviet Union offered to sell ICBM technology
to Brazil in exchange for a launch contract for a small Earth
resources satellite being built by Brazil.  Again, this was viewed
as a violation of the MCTR, and objections were made by the US and
European countries.  The Soviet offer was withdrawn in the turmoil
surrounding the fall of the Soviet Union.
    In 1989, a US firm was approached by Israel to transfer space
launch vehicle technology to Israel in support of the Shavit launch
vehicle project.  The US firm had developed a small, all-solid fuel
space launch vehicle based upon an existing large sounding rocket
project line, but had not yet launched it.  This technology transfer
was ruled to be covered by the MCTR and the deal was cancelled.
  
Final Notes -  it should be noted the Soviet Union was one of the
signatories to the MCTR.  However, a complicating factors in the
India/Russian deal is the status of the Russia under the MCTR is
nebulous.  The Russian government has claimed that it will follow
the MCTR, but hasn't signed it.  Furthermore, Glavkosmos, who sold
the engines and technology, is a ex-Soviet agency and not the
current Russian Space Agency.  Furthermore, Glavkosmos is not being
supported by the Russian government and is rather desperate for hard
currency.  But the firm is located within Russia and the Russian
government is responsible for regulating trade to and from Russia.
Thus the sanctions - specifically directed towards Glavkosmos and
not the RSA, NPO Energia, or any other Russian firm or agency.
    Other missile programs currently covered by the MCTR include:
- Brazil: Sonda III, Sonda IV, SS-300, SS-1000, MB/EE Series
Missile, VLS Space Launch Vehicle.
- China: M Series Missiles, CSS-2.
- India: Agni, Prithvi, SLV-3, Satellite Launch Vehicle, Augmented
Satellite Launch Vehicle (ASLV), Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle
(PSLV), Geostationary Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV).
- Iran: Surface-to-Surface Missile Project, Scud Development
Project.
- North Korea: Nodong 1, Scud Development Project.
- Pakistan: Haft Series Missiles
- South Africa: Surface-to-Surface Missile Project, Space Launch
Vehicle.
  Middle East countries and their projects are listed in a separate
subchapter of the rules.
  
    To summarize, I can understand why the sanctions were imposed.
I think the deal went ahead between ISRO and Glavkosmos without a
lot of thought about policy considerations or the consequences.  And
due to turmoil within the Russian economy and government, there was
not a lot of oversight.  There is plenty of evidence that the US and
other countries tried to talk to India and Russia about concerns
with the deal, but these concerns were either ignored or shrugged
off.  There were complicating factors from the change of government
in Moscow.
   The US is apparently being very consistent in imposing these
sanctions, and in this case has limited them to the participating
organizations and not imposed blanket restrictions.  Looking at the
specifics of the deal, I believe I can understand the concern about
technology transfer.
   If the deal had just been to sell engines and not to also provide
training and technology transfer in how to build such engines - then
I believe the deal would probably have not caused any problems.
 
  [Sorry about the length of this response, but a rather complex
issue had been dismissed in a couple of paragraphs of flame.]
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                         Space Technology Investor
  
w

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space