SECOND MEETING OF STRATEGIC TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SIG

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP84B00049R000501110003-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 7
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 4, 2007
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: July 6, 1982
• Content Type: MEMO

25X1 Approved For Release 2007/09/04: CIA-RDP84B00049R000501110003-6
Next 3 Page(s) In Document Denied
Approved For Release 2007/09/04: CIA-RDP84B00049R000501110003-6
 Approved For Release 2007/09/04: CIA-RDP84B00049R000501110003-6
NSC REVIEWED 8/2/07 NO OBJECTION TO DECLASSIFICATION AND
RELEASE
AGENDA ITEMS
FRIDAY, JUNE 18, 1982
Versailles and Bonn Summit Follow-up
These meetings re-affirmed commitments made at the Ottawa
Summit and the COCOM High Level Meeting on the desirability of
controlling the flow of strategic technologies. Our current
activities pursuant to these agreements include attempting to
strengthen the COCOM embargo, to improve enforcement in multi-
national export controls, and to harmonize the COCOM nations'
licensing procedures.
Japan Technology Transfer Study
There is reason to believe that Japan is one of the leakiest
of the high technology countries of the free world, despite their
membership in COCOM. Several agencies have expressed a variety
of concerns over the Japanese technology problem. A major study
of the question seems to be required.
COCOM as Treaty Organization
DOD has proposed that the USG undertake a study of the
question of converting COCOM into a treaty organization. COCOM
is now a voluntary body with no treaty or executive agreement
at its foundation. They argue that COCOM could be tighter and
more effective in the maintenance of the embargo if it had a
treaty at its base. The question to be answered is what are
the advantages and disadvantages of attempting such a conversion.
Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance Agreements
A preliminary study indicates that there are numerous
weaknesses in our bilateral legal agreements as they pertain
to export control violations. Priorities need to be established
in this area and a program of action undertaken and expanded to
close some of these loopholes.
CONFIDENTIAL
GDS 6/17 88
Approved For Release 2007/09/04: CIA-RDP84B00049R000501110003-6
 Approved For Release 2007/09/04: CIA-RDP84B00049R000501110003-6
Interagency Communications System
DOD has proposed that a dedicated automated electronic
communications system be established among case-processing
agencies in Washington to facilitate paper handling, especially
in licensing decisions which have time deadlines.
Raising Priorities
Defense has asked that the tasking of the Committee on Special
Projects be expanded to cover not only the priorities and prac-
tices of USG representatives abroad but also the training pro-
grarrs for personnel going abroad and for personnel handling this
issue in Washington.
.Spanish Entry into COCOM
Spain has indicated an interest in joining COCOM follow-
ing its entry into NATO which has not occurred. A plan'. to
follow this up is necessary.
Third-country Transfer Problems
Defense has asked that this topic be taken up by the SIG.
The problem deals with weaknesses in the COCOM system when
embargoed items are sold to non-COCOM countries. There are
many facets of the overall question and many countries in-
volved. A status report on where we are and how we should
proceed needs to be prepared.
Approved For Release 2007/09/04: CIA-RDP84B00049R000501110003-6
 Approved For Release 2007/09/04: CIA-RDP84B00049R000501110003-6
Washington, D.C. 20520
,Tune 16. 1982
NSC REVIEWED 8/2/07 NO OBJECTION TO DECLASSIFICATION AND RELEASE
T - James L. Buckley
FROM: L/LEI - T. Michael Peay
SUBJECT: Illegal Transfers of Technology: The Role of
Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties
This office has been asked for its views about the extent
to which existing U.S. extradition and mutual legal assistance
treaties, and those under negotiation, cover offenses relating
to export control violations involving illegal transfers of
technology. Following is a brief discussion of the current and
potentially expanded role that such treaties can play in this
regard.
Extradition Treaties
The United States currently has in force nearly 100
extradition treaties, many of which are 50 or more years old
and do not address such modern crimes as transfer of technology
offenses. Some of our more recent treaties, however, variously
provide for extradition for offenses against laws relating to
"international trade," "importation, exportation or transit,of
goods, articles, or merchandise, including violations of the
customs laws," "protection of industrial property or
copyright," or "willfull evasion of taxes and duties."
Provisions such as these are currently found in several U.S.
extradition treaties, such as those with Colombia (1980), the
Federal Republic of Germany (1980), Japan (1978), Mexico
(1980), the Netherlands (1980) and Norway (1977).
Such descriptions of extraditable offenses are arguably
broad enough to cover a number of offenses relating to illegal
transfers of technology, although to date there have not been
any extradition requests alleging such offenses.
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties
Mutual legal assistance treaties have proven to be very
valuable law enforcement tools. Such treaties enable U.S. law
enforcement authorities to obtain information and evidence, as
well as other forms of foreign legal assistance in aid of U.S.
criminal investigations and prosecutions. To date, the U.S.
has been able to negotiate only four such treaties, in
particular, those with Switzerland (1973) and Turkey (1979)
(both currently in force) and with Colombia (1980) and the
Netherlands (1980) (both ratified by the U.S. but awaiting
ratification by Colombia and the Netherlands). The small
number of such treaties is due in part to the complexity of the
legal issues covered and to the difficulty of reconciling two
Approved For Release 2007/09/04: CIA-RDP84B00049R000501110003-6
 Approved For Release 2007/09/04: CIA-RDP84B00049R000501110003-6
different legal systems as well as to the fact that the U.S.
has only recently embarked upon a program of negotiating such
treaties. Additional considerations are the political will of
a foreign government to enter into such a treaty and the
commitment of USG attorney resources to negotiate such treaties.
As with extradition treaties, mutual legal assistance
treaties generally provide for legal assistance in connection
with any criminal matters when the facts underlying the offense
charged in the Requesting State would also constitute an
offense in the Requested State. This "dual criminality"
standard is not always a prerequisite, however. The first
precedent in which we negotiated that prerequisite out of a
treaty is our 1980 Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty with
Colombia. Under that treaty, the U.S. may obtain assistance
even when the criminal act under investigation is not an
offense in Colombia, or is not regulated by its laws. Similar
provisions are found in the treaty with the Netherlands which
has already received U.S. ratification, and in the treaty
currently under negotiation with the Federal Republic of.
Germany. Such a provision would be particularly useful in a
mutual legal assistance treaty with a country whose export
control laws are not as extensive as those in the U.S.
Conclusion and Recommendation
The United States, through the Departments of State and
Justice, has in recent years been pursuing a policy of
enhancing its international law enforcement efforts by: (a)
modernizing and expanding the network of U.S. extradition
treaties; and (b) increasing the number of mutual legal
assistance treaties. This policy is being implemented,
however, within a framework of budgetary and personnel
constraints, coupled with the need to take into account
appropriate criteria for determining which countries should
receive the highest priority. Among the criteria currently
applied are (i) existing and projected U.S. or foreign requests
for extradition and legal assistance; (ii) countries
significant to U.S. anti-narcotics efforts; and (iii) bilateral
political considerations.
In carrying out the negotiation of such law enforcement
treaties, the Office of the Legal Adviser, in conjunction with
the Justice Department, will seek the inclusion within such
treaties of provisions that will expressly encompass export
control violations involving transfers of technology. In fact,
during the current negotiations with the Swiss for a new
extradition treaty, we said that we wanted to make sure the new
treaty would make it possible for the U.S. to extradite persons
charged with violating our laws governing technology transfer.
The Swiss have agreed in principle to include such a provision.
Approved For Release 2007/09/04: CIA-RDP84B00049R000501110003-6
 Approved For Release 2007/09/04: CIA-RDP84B00049R000501110003-6
State and Justice are currently endeavoring to draw up a
list of priority countries where the U.S. should primarily
target its negotiations resources. In deciding which countries
should be placed on that list, L will seek to give due priority
to those friendly countries with respect to which the U.S. has
the greatest problems with technology transfers in violation of
U.S. law. L is prepared to consult with you and other
interested offices in this connection.
Drafted:L/LEI:TMPeay:pgp Clearances:L/LEI:JHSmith
6/16/82 x27545 DOJ/OIA:MAbbell
Approved For Release 2007/09/04: CIA-RDP84B00049R000501110003-6
 Approved For Release 2007/09/04: CIA-RDP84B00049R000501110003-6
?ITTAL SLIP
TO:
NSC REVIEWED 8/2/07 NO OBJECTION TO DECLASSIFICATION AND
RELEASE
FORM N0.
1 FEB 55 241
REPLACES FORM 36-8
WHICH MAY 8E USED.
Approved For Release 2007/09/04: CIA-RDP84B00049R000501110003-6