Export Control Act

Last updated

The Export Control Act of 1940 was one in a series of legislative efforts by the US government and initially the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt to accomplish two tasks: to avoid scarcity of critical commodities in a likely prewar environment [1] and to limit the exportation of materiel to Imperial Japan. The act originated as a presidential proclamation by Roosevelt forbidding the exporting of aircraft parts, chemicals, and minerals without a license, and it was intended to induce Japan to curtail its occupation of the coast of Indochina. [2]

Contents

The text stated that whenever the President deemed it "necessary in the interest of national defense," he could prohibit or curtail the exportation of military equipment, munitions, tools, and materials. [3] [4]

Although controls were first authorized in 1940 in regard to munitions and similar materials essential to the defense effort, its coverage was extended in 1942 to all commodities and broader geographic coverage after the United States entered World War II. The act was extended with modifications through 1948, and it was envisioned that remaining controls would soon disappear at the time of re-enactment in 1949.

The scarcity of certain goods in the world markets, however, made the continuance of controls necessary to prevent a drain on such goods from plentiful American supplies with its consequential inflationary effects. National security and foreign policy concerns, especially following the outbreak of the Korean War, were new and compelling reasons for passing the Export Control Act of 1949 and in extending it until (at least) 1958. The law included both domestic policies aimed primarily at conditions within the United States as well as controls directed at conditions outside the country, as instruments of American foreign policy.

That is exemplified by the restrictions on export of certain strategic or military items to the Soviet bloc or to other countries that it felt, if permitted, would be detrimental to US foreign policy during the Cold War.

The foreign policy motive became so strong that it brought legislation directing the president to enlist the co-operation of other nations in enacting controls on trade with the Soviet block to parallel those of the United States. The benefits of the various economic and military aid programs were to be withheld from nations unless they co-operated, as in the Mutual Defense Assistance Control Act of 1951.

Background

"Moral embargo"

The act was seen as a codified "moral embargo" in that it was an expression of moral outrage [5] stemming from the Japanese bombing of civilians in mainland China in the late 1930s. In June 1938, US Secretary of State, Cordell Hull condemned the slaughter and its "material encouragement." A month later, the Department of State notified aircraft manufacturers and exporters that the US government was "strongly opposed" [5] to the sale of airplanes and related materiel to nations using airplanes to attack civilian populations.

End of commercial treaties

Following the failure of diplomatic efforts to protect endangered American lives, rights, and economic interests in China, America considered commercial retaliation against Japan, Japanese authorities, or Japanese-sponsored agents in China. The American government felt that its 1911 commercial treaty with Japan was not affording an appropriate level of protection to US commerce in areas within or occupied by Japan. Simultaneously, Japan's position under the treaty, as a most favoured nation, legally prevented the adoption of retaliatory measures against Japanese commerce. The United States gave its six months' notice of its withdrawal from the treaty in July 1939 and so removed the primary legal obstacle for embargo. [5] [6]

Effects

The embargo, which halted the shipment of material such as airplanes, parts, machine tools, and aviation gasoline, was designed to be an unfriendly act. However, expanding it to include oil was specifically avoided. Since Japan was dependent on US oil, it was then thought that it would be a provocative step. [7]

The act was expanded in September of that year to include iron and steel scrap, [8] an act that Japanese Ambassador Kensuke Horinouchi warned Hull on October 8, 1940, might be considered an "unfriendly act [9]

Controls were first authorized in 1940 in regard to munitions and similar materials essential to the defense effort, and they were extended in 1942 to all commodities. [10] Always intended to be temporary, the 1940 act was successfully extended in 1944, 1945, 1946, and 1947. [11]

Postwar use

After World War II, the Export Control Act was expanded to prevent the diversion of advanced technology to the Soviet bloc and China and, in later years, to alter the behavior of foreign countries. [1] Scarcity of certain goods in the world markets made the continuance of controls necessary to prevent a drain on such goods from plentiful American supplies, with its consequential inflationary influence. It was envisioned that remaining controls would soon disappear at the time of re-enactment in 1949, [12] but national security and foreign policy, especially following the outbreak of the Korean War, were new and compelling reasons for extending the Export Control Act of 1949 [13] in 1951, 1953, 1956 and again in 1958. [14]

The Export Control Act of 1949 is an example of the type of legislation that it renders, subject to the regulations promulgated under it, all persons wherever situated. Under its provisions, exports of scarce materials are controlled both from an economic standpoint (short supply and consequent inflationary effect on foreign demand) and the security standpoint (autarchy and self-sufficiency in strategic resources not available in sufficiently large quantities). They are both domestic policies aimed primarily at conditions within the United States, but controls are also directed at conditions outside the country as an instrument of US foreign policy. That is exemplified by the restrictions on the export of certain strategic or military items to the Soviet bloc or to other countries that it felt, if permitted, would be detrimental to American foreign policy. [15] The last motive became so strong that it brought legislation directing the president to enlist the co-operation of other nations in enacting controls on trade with the Soviet block to parallel those of the United States. The benefits of the various economic and military aid programs were to be withheld from non-cooperating nations. [16]

See also

Related Research Articles

The diplomatic history of the United States oscillated among three positions: isolation from diplomatic entanglements of other nations ; alliances with European and other military partners; and unilateralism, or operating on its own sovereign policy decisions. The US always was large in terms of area, but its population was small, only 4 million in 1790. Population growth was rapid, reaching 7.2 million in 1810, 32 million in 1860, 76 million in 1900, 132 million in 1940, and 316 million in 2013. Economic growth in terms of overall GDP was even faster. However, the nation's military strength was quite limited in peacetime before 1940.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Embargo Act of 1807</span> 1807 U.S. law forbidding trade with all other countries

The Embargo Act of 1807 was a general trade embargo on all foreign nations that was enacted by the United States Congress. As a successor or replacement law for the 1806 Non-importation Act and passed as the Napoleonic Wars continued, it represented an escalation of attempts to persuade Britain to stop any impressment of American sailors and to respect American sovereignty and neutrality but also attempted to pressure France and other nations in the pursuit of general diplomatic and economic leverage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reciprocal Tariff Act</span> 1934 United States tariff law

The Reciprocal Tariff Act provided for the negotiation of tariff agreements between the United States and separate nations, particularly Latin American countries. The Act served as an institutional reform intended to authorize the president to negotiate with foreign nations to reduce tariffs in return for reciprocal reductions in tariffs in the United States up to 50%. It resulted in a reduction of duties. This was the policy of the low tariff Democrats in response to the high tariff Republican program which produced the Smoot–Hawley tariff of 1930 that raised rates, and sharply reduced international trade. The Reciprocal Tariff Act was promoted heavily by Secretary of State Cordell Hull.

The Neutrality Acts were a series of acts passed by the US Congress in 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1939 in response to the growing threats and wars that led to World War II. They were spurred by the growth in isolationism and non-interventionism in the US following the US joining World War I, and they sought to ensure that the US would not become entangled again in foreign conflicts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lend-Lease</span> WWII program to provide U.S. allies with free armaments

Lend-Lease, formally the Lend-Lease Act and introduced as An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States, was a policy under which the United States supplied the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, France, the Republic of China, and other Allied nations of the Second World War with food, oil, and materiel between 1941 and 1945. The aid was given free of charge on the basis that such help was essential for the defense of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1973 oil crisis</span> OAPEC petroleum embargo

In October 1973, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) announced that it was implementing a total oil embargo against countries that had supported Israel at any point during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which began after Egypt and Syria launched a large-scale surprise attack in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to recover the territories that they had lost to Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War. In an effort that was led by Faisal of Saudi Arabia, the initial countries that OAPEC targeted were Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This list was later expanded to include Portugal, Rhodesia, and South Africa. In March 1974, OAPEC lifted the embargo, but the price of oil had risen by nearly 300%: from US$3 per barrel ($19/m3) to nearly US$12 per barrel ($75/m3) globally. Prices in the United States were significantly higher than the global average. After it was implemented, the embargo caused an oil crisis, or "shock", with many short- and long-term effects on the global economy as well as on global politics. The 1973 embargo later came to be referred to as the "first oil shock" vis-à-vis the "second oil shock" that was the 1979 oil crisis, brought upon by the Iranian Revolution.

Economic sanctions or embargoes are commercial and financial penalties applied by states or institutions against states, groups, or individuals. Economic sanctions are a form of coercion that attempts to get an actor to change its behavior through disruption in economic exchange. Sanctions can be intended to compel or deterrence.

The Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (CoCom) was established in 1949 at the beginning of the Cold War to coordinate controls on exports from Western Bloc countries to the Soviet Union and its allies. CoCom ceased to function on March 31, 1994, but the control list of embargoed goods was retained by the member nations until the Wassenaar Arrangement was established in 1996.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mutual Defense Assistance Act</span> United States law, part of the Marshall Plan

The Mutual Defense Assistance Act was a United States Act of Congress signed by President Harry S. Truman on 6 October 1949. For U.S. foreign policy, it was the first U.S. military foreign aid legislation of the Cold War era, and initially to Europe. The Act followed Truman's signing of the Economic Cooperation Act, on April 3, 1948, which provided non-military, economic reconstruction and development aid to Europe.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States embargo against Cuba</span> Ongoing restriction on trade with Cuba by the United States

The United States embargo against Cuba has prevented U.S. businesses from conducting trade or commerce with Cuban interests since 1958. Modern diplomatic relations are cold, stemming from historic conflict and divergent political ideologies. U.S. economic sanctions against Cuba are comprehensive and impact all sectors of the Cuban economy. It is the most enduring trade embargo in modern history.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Japan–Soviet Union relations</span> Bilateral relations

Relations between the Soviet Unionand Japan between the Communist takeover in 1917 and the collapse of Communism in 1991 tended to be hostile. Japan had sent troops to counter the Bolshevik presence in Russia's Far East during the Russian Civil War, and both countries had been in opposite camps during World War II and the Cold War. In addition, territorial conflicts over the Kuril Islands and South Sakhalin were a constant source of tension. These, with a number of smaller conflicts, prevented both countries from signing a peace treaty after World War II, and even today matters remain unresolved.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Energy Policy and Conservation Act</span> US federal law concerning domestic fuel supply

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) is a United States Act of Congress that responded to the 1973 oil crisis by creating a comprehensive approach to federal energy policy. The primary goals of EPCA are to increase energy production and supply, reduce energy demand, provide energy efficiency, and give the executive branch additional powers to respond to disruptions in energy supply. Most notably, EPCA established the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products, and Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Russia–Taiwan relations</span> Bilateral relations

Russia–Taiwan relations or Taiwan–Russia relations are the bilateral foreign relations between Taiwan and Russia. Due to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, relations became tense after Taiwan imposed sanctions against Russia. Russia placed Taiwan on a list of "unfriendly countries", along with South Korea, Japan, Singapore, the United States, European Union members, NATO members, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Micronesia and Ukraine.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Food power</span> Use of agriculture as a means of political control

In international politics, food power is the use of agriculture as a means of political control whereby one nation or group of nations offers or withholds commodities from another nation or group of nations in order to manipulate behavior. Its potential use as a weapon was recognised after OPEC’s earlier use of oil as a political weapon. Food has a major influence on political actions of a nation. In response to acts of food power, a nation usually acts in the interest of its citizens to provide food.

The Cuban Assets Control Regulations, (CACR) 31 CFR 515, generally regulate relations between Cuba and the U.S. and are the main mechanism of domestic enforcement of the United States embargo against Cuba.

The ABCD line was a series of embargoes against the Empire of Japan by foreign nations, including America, Britain, China, and the Dutch. It was also known as the ABCD encirclement. In 1940, in an effort to discourage Japanese militarism, these nations and others stopped selling iron ore, steel and oil to Japan, denying it the raw materials needed to continue its activities in China and French Indochina. In Japan, the government and nationalists viewed these embargoes as acts of aggression; imported oil made up about 80% of domestic consumption, without which Japan's economy, let alone its military, would grind to a halt. The Japanese media, influenced by military propagandists, began to refer to the embargoes as the "ABCD ("American-British-Chinese-Dutch") encirclement" or "ABCD line".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arab League boycott of Israel</span> Political strategy adopted by the Arab League in 1945

The Arab League boycott of Israel is a strategy adopted by the Arab League and its member states to boycott economic and other relations between Arabs and the Arab states and Israel and specifically stopping all trade with Israel which adds to that country's economic and military strength. A secondary boycott was later imposed, to boycott non-Israeli companies that do business with Israel, and later a tertiary boycott involved the blacklisting of firms that do business with other companies that do business with Israel. An official organized boycott of the Yishuv was adopted by the Arab League in December 1945, and persisted against Israel after its establishment in 1948. The boycott was designed to weaken Jewish industry in Palestine and to deter Jewish immigration to the region.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, third and fourth terms</span> U.S. presidential administration from 1941 to 1945

The third presidential term of Franklin D. Roosevelt began on January 20, 1941, when he was once again inaugurated as the 32nd president of the United States, and the fourth term of his presidency ended with his death on April 12, 1945. Roosevelt won a third term by defeating Republican nominee Wendell Willkie in the 1940 United States presidential election. He remains the only president to serve for more than two terms. Unlike his first two terms, Roosevelt's third and fourth terms were dominated by foreign policy concerns, as the United States became involved in World War II in December 1941.

The foreign policy of the United States was controlled personally by Franklin D. Roosevelt during his first and second and third and fourth terms as the president of the United States from 1933 to 1945. He depended heavily on Henry Morgenthau Jr., Sumner Welles, and Harry Hopkins. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Cordell Hull handled routine matters. Roosevelt was an internationalist, while powerful members of Congress favored more isolationist solutions in order to keep the U.S. out of European wars. There was considerable tension before the Attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. The attack converted the isolationists or made them irrelevant. The US began aid to the Soviet Union after Germany invaded it in June 1941. After the US declared war in December 1941, key decisions were made at the highest level by Roosevelt, Britain's Winston Churchill and the Soviet Union's Joseph Stalin, along with their top aides. After 1938 Washington's policy was to help China in its war against Japan, including cutting off money and oil to Japan. While isolationism was powerful regarding Europe, American public and elite opinion strongly opposed Japan.

References

  1. 1 2 "Overview of U.S. Export Control Laws". America.gov. Archived from the original on October 26, 2008. Retrieved October 27, 2008.
  2. ↑ "July 5, 1940: United States passes Export Control Act". History.com. Archived from the original on July 13, 2012. Retrieved September 4, 2012.
  3. ↑ "World War II Resources". iBiblio.Org. Retrieved October 27, 2008.
  4. ↑ "U.S. Naval Chronology Of W.W.II, 1940". Navsource.org. Retrieved October 27, 2008.
  5. 1 2 3 "Relations with Japan: 1938-1940". Mt. Holyoke University. Archived from the original on June 8, 2008. Retrieved October 27, 2008.
  6. ↑ "Peace and War: United States Foreign Policy, 1931-1941". U.S. Department of State Publication (1983): 87–97. 1983.
  7. ↑ Toland, John (2003). The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire 1936–1945. New York: Random House. ISBN   978-0-8129-6858-3.
  8. ↑ "The Documentary History of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidency:Vol. 7: U.S.-Japan Relations: Trade Relations and the Sino-Japanese War, 1938-1940". lexisnexis.com. Retrieved October 27, 2008.[ permanent dead link ]
  9. ↑ Department of State 1943 , p. 96 After it was announced in September iron and steel scrap export would also be prohibited, Japanese Ambassador Kensuke Horinouchi protested to Secretary Hull on October 8, 1940 warning this might be considered an "unfriendly act."
  10. ↑ Act of July 2, 1940, ch. 508, § 6, 54 Stat. 714; Act of June 30, 1942, ch. 461, 56 Stat. 463. Cited in Paul H Silverstone, The Export Control Act of 1949: Extraterritorial Enforcement, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 107, No. 3, Jan., 1959, p. 331-32.
  11. ↑ Act of July 1, 1944, ch,360, 58 Stat. 671; Act of June 30, 1945, ch. 205, 59 Stat.270; Act of May 23, 1946, ch.269, 60 Stat. 215; Act of June 30, 1947, ch. 184, § 1, 61 Stat. 214; Second Decontrol Act of 1947, ch. 248, § 4, 61 Stat. 323. Cited in Silverstone
  12. ↑ S.Rep. Bo. 31, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. 2-3 (1949). Cited in, Paul H Silverstone, The Export Control Act of 1949: Extraterritorial Enforcement, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 107, No. 3, Jan., 1959, p.331-32 and ff
  13. ↑ 63 Stat.7, 50 U.S.C. App. §§2021-32 (1952). Cited in Silverstone
  14. ↑ Act of May 16, 1951, ch. 83, 65 Stat. 43; Act of June 16, 1953, ch.116, 67 Stat. 62; Act of June 29, 1956, ch.473, § 1, 70 Stat.407; Pib. L. No.466, 72 Stat.220 (U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. (July 20, 1958)). See H.R. Rep. No.318, 82nd Cong., 1st Sess. (1951). Cited in Silverstone
  15. ↑ Sect 2, 63 Stat.7 (1949), 50 USC App. § 2022 (1952). Cited in Silverstone
  16. ↑ Mutual Defense Assistance Control Act of 1951 (Battle Act) (ch 575, 65 Stat. 644, 22 USC § 1611-13c (1952). Cited in Silverstone)

Works cited

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.