- cross-posted to:
- unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
- cross-posted to:
- unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
In the era of Trump 2.0, the first question British defence companies are facing when trying to export their weapons abroad is whether they are independent of the US arms industry. Or simply, are they “Itar-free”?
Itar, which stands for the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, refers to a set of longstanding US rules that govern the items on the United States Munitions List, which is aimed at safeguarding national security.
The list contains US-produced software, components and other technology that can be used for either military purposes or serve a dual use. If a weapon is subject to Itar, it cannot be built, sold or supplied to someone else without US consent and support.
One defence industry source said: “Even if you have US engineers, you become Itar-tainted.”
To employ ex-US military employees, UK companies would become subject to Itar restrictions if they have not been granted an exemption.
Although the restrictions are nothing new, a combination of Trump’s tariffs, vague threats to Canada and Denmark and pause on providing military aid and intelligence to Ukraine has left defence companies and governments thinking twice before investing in American components or equipment.
…
Helsing, a European defence tech company, and Auterion, a supplier of drone operating systems with a European headquarters in Munich, also pride themselves on having Itar-free equipment.
Helsing has pursued the policy because it “was founded on the principle of providing sovereign capabilities for a strong Europe”, according to Amelia Gould, the company’s global maritime director.
“Europe has this technology, we don’t need to import everything from the US,” she added.
Brinley Salzmann, the director of overseas and exports for ADS, a defence trade association, said that what was once a preference for Itar-free weapons was quickly becoming a requirement.
He said: “As international collaboration increases and governments seek greater control over their supply chains, the ability to operate without US extraterritorial export restrictions is becoming a strategic consideration.”
…
I’m shocked! Well, not that shocked.
But i’m more interested how this plays out US-internally; the MIC is probably not too pleased with losing sales because US-produced gear is not trustworthy anymore, and the Trump presidency is not even 10% done yet. The MIC is also the largest employer in the US with around 3 million employees in the Department of Defense alone, not calculating anyone in the private sector. That can’t be good for the current admin.
The elephant in the room is China.
If the USA and to an extend the entire West wants to keep their hegemonial power, China has to be contained.
Is there a more elegant way for the MIC to motivate Europe to create more weapon manufacturing capacities?
The MIC won’t object as long as the parts are also not sourced in China.
These sorts of deals leave out US industrial complex. So they are not interessted. The US military is interessted in cheap weapons as well and scale lowers prices. The MIC wants high European defense spending on US weapons.
That requires the West to be somewhat united. The way the US deals with Ukraine right now, that is questioned by Europe. The trade war the US started with China, would be a lot easier, if Western “allies” like Europe, Japan and South Korea would help the US by also raising tariffs. However the US actually added tariffs on those “allies”. It is clearly not US strategy.
The US wants Europe to spend more money on US made weapons.
The mic in the us objects as they are cut out of any deal.
Now that’s an easy one: it’s either Usa or China for many topics.
Currently Usa pulls themselves out of nearly anything you can think about. So what would China do? Celebrate days and nights of course.
They need no more “motivation” LOL