July 9, 2007 (LPAC)--Just before leaving office, Britain's Tony Blair got George Bush to sign a treaty June 22, which would exempt the British from licensing requirements for US arms exports, if it is confirmed by the US Senate. One of the reasons that Blair chose the vehicle of a treaty rather than simple legislation, is that treaties only require the consent of the US Senate, not the House of Representatives, which has repeatedly blocked such action in the past.

Until he retired at the end of the 109th Congress, Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), who was chairman of the House International Relations Committee for six years, stood in the way of attempts to loosen arms export licensing requirements for Great Britain. As the Financial Times put it, in a Nov. 22, 2005 article, "For years, Mr. Hyde and his powerful aide, Walker Roberts, have stymied administration attempts to pass legislation that would grant Britain an exemption from the complicated US military export laws, called the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)."

Britain was first promised an exemption in 2000 by the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration proceeded to negotiate an agreement which was initialed in 2003 (as was one with Australia, as well), but Hyde would not consider the proposed legislation sent up to Capitol Hill in 2003.

Hyde's objections centered on the risk that U.S. supplied defense equipment could be diverted from Britain (or Australia) to third countries less friendly to U.S. interests. In fact, neither the U.K. nor the Australian agreements negotiated by the State Department included any language committing either government to seeking prior consent from the U.S. before re-exporting any defense technology acquired from the U.S. to another country, according to a May 1, 2004 report produced by Hyde's committee. The report stated that the U.K.'s decision not to agree to such consent "is not only highly disappointing but potentially highly prejudicial to United States interests around the world..."

The Hyde report also noted that the proposed exemptions would greatly hinder law enforcement of the Arms Export Control Act, a concern first raised by the justice Department in April of 2000 when the exemption was first proposed. Under the current licensing requirements, documentation is required on every step of the transaction, from the manufacturer applying for the license to the end user receiving the equipment and everyone in between who facilitates the transfer. Under the exemption, there would be no documentation of arms transfers. The U.S. would then have to depend on British government cooperation to investigate any illicit transfers. The U.K. agreement, however, lacks any binding commitment to provide such cooperation. When asked why the U.K. refused to agree to meeting the requirements of U.S. law, State replied that the British argued "to do so would infringe on UK sovereignty including by unacceptably fettering the discretion of the UK Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make licensing determinations."