US Should Use Indo-Pacific Framework to Collaborate on Tech Controls, Trade Groups Say
The U.S. should make export control harmonization a priority as it pursues its Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, ensuring that any restrictions are aligned with member countries and not unfairly hampering American companies, U.S. trade groups told the Commerce Department in comments released this week (see 2203140018). The U.S. could even use the IPEF to create a new multilateral export control regime, some groups said, which could specifically focus on semiconductor equipment or other advanced technologies.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
IPEF participants should coordinate extensively on export controls and limit restrictions to technologies that “pose direct and tangible national security risks,” the Semiconductor Industry Association said, especially because the Indo-Pacific region represents such a critical market for U.S. exports. SIA said the region accounted for more than a quarter of total U.S. semiconductor shipments in 2021.
The U.S. should use the framework to work closely with Indo-Pacific countries on the scope, application and enforcement of new controls, SIA said, and use the forum to “seek clarification” on each country’s licensing policies and definitions for common terms. This would help remove “unnecessary burdens” for exporters, improve industry compliance and lead to more multilateral controls, SIA said. The group warned against unilateral restrictions, which would “achieve little in terms of advancing U.S. national security if alternative sources of supply from our allies or trading partners are readily available.”
The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation said the U.S. should use the IPEF to launch a “Joint Commercial Intelligence Forum,” which would allow member countries to share information on export controls, foreign investment reviews and other trade-related “defensive mechanisms.” This would help the U.S. and trading partners “develop a more ambitious and effective plurilateral approach to promulgate” export controls and foreign investment screening. The IPEF could even develop a specific plurilateral regime for semiconductors or a broader set of advanced technologies, ITI said, such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing.
The IPEF should also include a “transparent and predictable regulatory process,” including “robust consultation” with industry, before any new export controls are issued, said SEMI, a trade group representing the microelectronics industry. “This includes adequate comment and implementation periods, whereby industry has an opportunity to share its views and expertise with government,” the group said. Intel said a multilateral export control regime with Indo-Pacific partners would “ensure products are available in an increasingly digital world.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce agreed that export controls should be heavily coordinated, although it said “complete and identical alignment of different countries’ export control regimes is probably not feasible.” Still, the IPEF can establish a framework for member countries to discuss the “commercial implications” of evolving export restrictions over sensitive technologies to “ensure the greatest possible coordination and alignment with our Indo-Pacific partners and to avoid unfair disadvantage to U.S. businesses.”
The chamber also warned the U.S. against imposing narrow, unilateral controls over broad technology categories, which it said would only hurt U.S. companies. Those restrictions could create a “lose-lose outcome whereby U.S. businesses are compelled to forgo important export sales but those sensitive technologies end up being provided by our competitors anyway, defeating the national security objectives,” the Chamber said. “This would be an especially untenable outcome with our Indo-Pacific partners, since these are among the countries most directly exposed to any perceived threat from enhanced Chinese capabilities -- and should not be undermining U.S. export controls to benefit their own exporters.”