Asheville, North Carolina, Mar. 2 (AGR)— A major controversy is
brewing between US editors and publishers, and the US Treasury Department
over a Sept. 30, 2003 ruling stating that editors face fines of a half
million dollars and up to 10 years imprisonment for the editing of written
works authored in nations under US trade embargo.
The issue arose when the Institute of Electrical and Electonics Engineers(IEEE)
asked the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control
(OFAC) to clarify embargo - related questions about the group’s
publishing activities relating to Iranian authors.
R. Richard Newcom, director of OFAC, ruled that while publication of
material originating from countries under US trade embargo is a protected
activity, the editing of an article or manuscripts would in effect be
providing a service to an “enemy nation,” and thus be a violation
of US law.
“US persons may not provide the Iranian author substantive or artistic
alterations or enhancements of the manuscript and the US Entity may
not facilitate the provision of such alteration or enhancements,”
ruled Newcom, continuing, “Collaboration on and editing of manuscripts
submitted by persons in Iran, including activities such as the reordering
of paragraphs or sentences, correction of syntax, grammar, and replacement
of inappropriate words by US persons, prior to publication, may result
in a substantive altered or enhanced product, and is therefore prohibited.”
Newcom clarified that “the US Entity would not be prohibited from
accepting camera-ready copies of manuscripts from persons in Iran for
publication in its journal.”
Trade experts surmise that the logic of the ruling applies to articles
and manuscripts authored in Iran, Cuba, Sudan, and Libya, but not to
submissions from Iraq, North Korea, Zimbabwe, the Balkans, or Liberia,
where embargoes are more limited.
The ruling stands as a marked departure from Cold War policy which encouraged
the free flow of information, and criticized Eastern Bloc nations from
restricting freedom of the press.
The IEEE has chosen to follow the letter of the law and has applied
for a US Treasury Department permit approving the trade of this service
with embargoed nations. Such exemptions have occurred throughout the
history of the Trading with the Enemy Act, exempting US companies from
trade restrictions against Hitler, the Soviet Bloc, and pre-US administered
Iraq, among others. The exemptions historically have favored large industrial,
agricultural, technology-based and natural resource-based corporations
with vast political and economic influence.
Though the IEEE applied for an exemption permit to edit materials from
Iranian authors in October 2003, immediately following the OFAC ruling,
OFAC is yet to rule on their petition.
According to the journal The Scientist, most scientific societies are
defying or ignoring the rule, which applies to all US publications.
In late February the American Chemical Society (ACS), a professional
and academic clearinghouse, which publishes roughly 24,000 articles
each year, decided to lift its moratorium on editing, therefore, in
most cases, publishing materials from the embargoed nations in question.
The ACS has expressed that they have taken these actions as a matter
of ethics, and with the intent of posing a challenge to the ruling on
two separate premises.
Firstly, the ACS plans to contend that the OFAC ruling is unconstitutional
on First Amendment grounds, stating that it represents prior restraint.
Secondly, the ACS plans to contend that a 1988 congressional amendment,
the Berman Amendment (named after former congressman Howard Berman,
D-CA), exempts informational materials from items that would be restricted
under trade embargo. The ACS believes that the logic of the Berman Amendment
includes the right to engage in normal activities related to publishing,
such as copy editing. This part of the ACS challenge relies on debunking
OFAC’s interpretation of the provision of a “service,”
which has become broadly defined in international trade under the WTO
agreement.
Speaking on Democracy Now, Robert Bovenschulte, president of the publications
division of the ACS, said, “the copy editing matter [in the OFAC
ruling] is particularly curious because — basically, they are alleging
that some important service is being provided by a person who sits there
and makes sure that the language of the paper has appropriate English
and conforms to publishers’ style guidelines.
“What worries us as publishers generally about this, is that we
are in the position, if we apply for a license, asking permission of
the government as to what we ought to publish, and how we ought to publish
it. We believe that is a fundamental violation of the first amendment.”
The ruling thus far has only been discussed in relation to its effects
on academic and intellectual journals. The basis of the ACS complaint
is that the stifling of scientific information on a broad basis leads
to bad science an issue that scientists have already taken the Bush
administration to task over.
On Feb. 18 the Union of Concerned Scientist reported, “more than
60 leading scientists --including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts,
former federal agency directors, and university chairs and presidents
-- issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action
to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking.”
The OFAC ruling does not limit itself to scientific journals. The US
Treasury Department is yet to prosecute a case against publications
in violation of the ruling, however, it has already had a chilling effect
on publication of materials from embargoed nations, as some publications
have chosen to follow the full letter of the law.
The effects of the OFAS ruling on the reporting of news from those nations
deemed enemies is staggering. The nature of language barriers often
necessitates the translation, and copy editing of materials from foreign
nations in order to make publication of foreign authored news possible.
While the embargo is in principal against a “rouge nation”
governments, the ruling’s effects stifle all authors in embargo-sanctioned
nations, leading to the absence of all voices, friendly or unfriendly
to US interests. Presumably, this leaves vast power over freedom of
information in the hands of OFAC who decides on a case-by-case basis
what entities are granted permits to edit news authored within the boarders
of embargoed nations.
