Talk:Offset agreement/Archives/2013

OFFSET AND FOCI (FOREIGN OWNERSHIP, CONTROL OR INFLUENCE)
What is the implication of having an SSA in place due to foreign ownership of a US company and having the foreign parent company satisfy the obligation of the ICA? Would this be considered in violation of the SSA? Does anyone know what I am referring to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.111.136.1 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The question (in the article discussion on Offset agreements) is not relevant for simple foreign offsets (direct or military) that are implemented by U.S. Aerospace & Defense companies. There cannot be SSA in U.S. for indirect (civilian) offsets; there are confidential agreements with foreign governments, often simply lack of transparency and methods to circumvent the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

On the other hand, your question has a great relevance because of the rapid trans-nationalization of Defense industry and offset practices. See also Frequently Asked Questions Regarding FOCI.

On this topics see: Council on Foreign Relations Study Group on the Arms Trade and the Transnationalization of the Defense Industry: Economic versus Security Drivers,, especially James Franklin and Michael Pocalyko, Monticello Capital papers; See also U.S. Congress public reports on defense trade offsets: Committee on Armed Services - House of Representatives, Hearings held June 17 and July 8, 2004.

FOCI, National Industrial Security Program and SSA Special Security Arrangement issues are also essential in US international programs with non U.S. partners, such as Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter F35, or with foreign Defense companies operating in U.S. with DoD contracts (directly or indirectly), such as BAE and Finmeccanica, but it is beyond offset agreements, though connected with it.

For practical purposes you can call Defense Security Service and Defense_Security_Service, in your area (703) 325-4588,

You can ask information also via email: fclserver@anl.gov, efcl@dss.mil, see Pguietti (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Title
The article's title is "Offset agreement" but it deals exclusively with military agreements. Are there no other agreements called offset agreements? Pol098 (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that “offset agreement” is more general than “defense offset agreement,” that is, not all offset agreements are defense (or military) offset agreements. If you google or bing “offset agreement” you find that more than 80% are “defense offset agreements.” However you are right, it is something like saying America to mean United States, or England or Great Britain to mean United Kingdom.

A more correct title should be Offset Agreement (Defense) or Defense Offset Agreement.

Defense Offset Agreement belongs to both economics (international trade) and defense. Pguietti (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)