What your not understanding is, THE LAW is the same law for both. Whether they allow Permits, to cross international borders or states borders are decisions made by the powers that be. Those powers change with the wind(all the time) the REASONS they do or do not give permits, are a changing thing.
But without question, THE LAW is the same for all CITES 1 reptiles.
If you would have READ CITES, you would quickly understand, its regulations are actually based on protecting WILD animals(in their native habitat), NOT PROTECTING captive animals.
Its local governments that choose to switch that intent and make it more about captive animals, with no meaning to WILD animals. The reason is, they can do whatever they want. And they really can do nothing about the wild ones. And yes, egos and politics play an important part with CAPTIVE animals.
Any sane person should and could understand, the more they are bred in captivity, the better it is for wild populations. As long as the taking of the founder stock does not impact those wild populations. In this case, it surely does not. The wild population is nothing more then a large captive managed population.
In the case of the indo government, they dearly wanted Komodos to be bred in captivity, and in many different places. They wanted that in case of servere volcanic activity that could destroy those few islands these lizards occur on.
The Indo government does not play silly games about the best provider being AZA or accredited. They simply wanted them in capable hands. Zoos and politics got in the way of that.
But as you can see, our zoos cannot maintain them in any number and will end up maintaining a few old individuals. The reason is, They cannot do anything with the ones they produce. Handcuffed by their own regulations and naive direction. But then, it surely ain't my problem. Cheers