Multilateral Export Control Regimes

Abstract

Multilateral Export Control Regimes (MERCS) are formal consultative mechanisms created by industrialized states that have agreed to co-operate in their efforts to curb the proliferation of certain military and dual-use technologies. In the post-cold war era, disputes over the necessity and legitimacy of export controls have emerged as major sources of tension in several non-proliferation, arms control, and disarmament forums. These disputes often have a North-South component. Many Northern states argue that national export controls are an important and necessary element of most non-proliferation regimes and often play a key role in retarding -- if not preventing -- the diffusion of sensitive military and dual-use technologies to potential proliferators.(f.1) They also argue that national measures to manage or restrict technology transfers can be effective only if their design and implementation are co-ordinated with most or all of the states that possess the relevant technologies. Finally, many Northern governments insist that export controls are legitimate instruments of statecraft, that there is nothing in any global non-proliferation agreement such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which explicitly prohibits such controls, and that such agreements often create an obligation to control exports.From the perspective of many Southern states, on the other hand, export controls, especially when co-ordinated within Northern-dominated multilateral regimes, are illegitimate, unnecessary, and 'discriminatory.' Southern critics argue that MERCs are little more than 'white nations' clubs' created to deny developing countries access to needed military and commercial technologies.(f.2) This view is compounded by the widespread belief that MERCs violate both the spirit and the letter of many global non-proliferation agreements, which many Southern capitals see as 'free trade' arrangements, and by what one observer has called the South's 'restitution ethic' -- that is, a belief that the former colonial powers of the North 'owe restitution to the South for past transgressions.'(f.3)The adversarial positions taken by states on both sides of the dispute contribute to a climate of confrontation that seriously complicates the task of negotiating and improving the kind of inclusive, co-operative, and widely agreed arrangements that are ultimately necessary to the long-term success of the non-proliferation project.(f.4) Indeed, differences over multilateral export controls have emerged as major stumbling blocks in several non-proliferation, arms control, and disarmament forums, including those which deal with nuclear, chemical, biological, ballistic missile, and conventional weapons technologies. So serious are these disputes that some observers argue that the growing 'perceptual divide' associated with such export control regimes is one of the most serious challenges confronting policy-makers seeking to manage the diffusion of militarily relevant technology.(f.5)Against this backdrop, this article has two basic purposes: to provide an analytic overview of the perceptual divide that has developed regarding the necessity and legitimacy of multilateral export controls; and to identify a number of practical, realistic, and constructive measures for bridging this divide.Serious disagreements have developed between those (primarily Northern) states that see MERCs as necessary and legitimate and thus should be retained and those (primarily Southern) states that see them as unnecessary and illegitimate and thus should be dismantled. However this dispute is resolved in the long run, in the short- to medium-term MERCs are likely to remain an important mechanism for managing the global diffusion of weapons-related technology. That being the case, sustained efforts have to be made to encourage Southern states to accept that MERCs are necessary and legitimate. Canada can play an important, if limited, role in catalyzing multilateral initiatives intended to advance this agenda. …