Is it in the U.S. national interest to sell the Soviets sophisticated drilling technology in order to assist their oil and gas development? The answer to that question is of such profound importance that it could affect the whole course of history, economically, politically, and militarily.
Yet the Carter Administration is quietly answering that question “yes” without any public or Congressional debate or decision.
There is a debate of sorts that seems to be going on behind closed doors solely within the executive branch of the government. One school of thought argues that it is beneficial to the United States to assist the Soviets to acquire all our latest technology so that we can help them prevent a future Soviet energy crisis and thereby ease the worldwide oil shortage.
Promoting this strategy is the State Department which persists in the foolish myth that a trade “linkage” between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. will reduce tensions and the threat of war. Lined up with State is the Commerce Department, which is trying to help big businesses make short-term profits regardless of long-term disadvantages to U.S. security.
The other school of thought says that Russian troubles are benefits to the United States and we should do nothing to bail them out of their problems. This point of view is supported by the Defense Department, which assigns a higher priority to U.S. security than to businesss profits, and by the Energy Department which wants to direct our attention to U.S. energy development rather than the U.S.S.R.’s.
The event that brought this issue into focus was the controversial sale this year to the Soviet Union by Dresser Industries of a “turnkey” factory plus the necessary technical data to manufacture premium rock drill bits for use in petroleum exploration. A special Pentagon Task Force headed by J. Fred Bucy, president of Texas Instruments, Inc., recommended against the sale because it would assist the Soviets to develop energy resources independent of further U.S. or Western support and give Russia the capability to compete aggressively with the United States in drilling operations in the major oil-producing areas of the world.
However, President Carter on September 6 rejected the advice from the Defense Department, the Energy Department, and national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, and allowed this tremendously important export to go to the Soviet Union. The shipment of the Dresser turnkey factory was approved by Carter without coming to grips with the core issue — whether or not it is in the U.S. national interest to assist Soviet oil and gas development.
It’s too late to stop the Dresser factory, but it’s not too late to stop the export of additional U.S. technology to the Soviets. In the closing days of the 1978 session of Congress, 67 House members sent an urgent letter to President Carter asking him to put a temporary freeze on all technology transfers to Communist bloc countries until Congress can reexamine the matter next year when the Export Administration Act comes up for re-authorization.
The letter written by Congressman Clarence Miller (R-Ohio) and signed by his colleagues in both parties states: “Increasing evidence reveals that the U.S. is transferring technology, directly and indirectly, to the Soviet Union that the Kremlin is using to continue its massive buildup of strategic and conventional forces. This, in part, is enabling the U.S.S.R. to pursue military superiority over the United States.”
Congressman Miller has introduced a bill to amend the Export Administration Act of 1969 by banning the transfer to Communist countries of any technology with potential military, law enforcement, or intelligence gathering applications. The bill requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a military impact report on any proposed technological transfer and makes such transfers subject to a Congressional veto. Debate on this bill should be the first order of business when Congress reconvenes in January.
