Missile

Missile in United States

Prohibited Export of Missile-related Computer Technology and Satellites in the History of U.S. Economic Sanctions Imposed against China

Note: the status of this economic sanction is: Lifted

Date of the sanction(s): MAY 27, 1991

The Administration announced new sanctions against China to restrict the export of missile technology, missile-related computers, and satellites. The White House indicated that as a matter of policy no new waivers of the ban on export licenses for satellites would be issued. In addition, the White House announced its intention to deny export licenses for high-speed computers that could be used to test missiles. The China Precision Machinery Import-Export Corporation and the China Great Wall Industry Corporation were singled out for sanctions [38].

Some Observations

Action was taken about a month later, on June 25, 1991, when the Secretary of State issued a public notice stating his determination that the two companies had engaged in missile technology proliferation activities. The finding required the imposition of sanctions denying export licenses for items covered by the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Annex for two years and the denial of United States government contracts relating to these same items.

Sanctions by Authority:

Sec. 73(a)(2)(A) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended [P.L. 90- 629; 22 U.S.C. 2797(b)(2)(A)]; Sec. 11B(b)(1)(B)(i) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended [P.L. 96-72; 50 U.S.C. App. 2410b(b)(1)(B)(i)]; U.S. Department of State Public Notice 1423 (56 F.R. 32601)

Occasion(s) Detailed

See March 23, 1992, for waiver of sanction ; see also December 4, 1992, for modification of sanction December 9, 1993, for lifting of sanction

Note: Based on the China: U.S. Economic Sanctions Report.

Resources

Notes and References

  1. 38 “Bush Renewing Trade Privileges for China, but Adds Missile Curbs.” New York Times, May 28, 1991. p. A1, A8. “A Decade of Export Control Policy for China.” The China Business Review, May-June 1992. p. 34.

Posted

in

,

by

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *