What role should arms sales play in American foreign policy? Though major deals - like Trump's $110 billion agreement with Saudi Arabia announced in 2017 or the decision to sell arms to Ukraine - provoke brief periods of discussion, there is no real debate in Washington about the wisdom of exporting vast quantities of weapons around the globe to allies and nonallies alike.
Wary of getting involved in future Vietnams but determined to retain America's global leadership role, President Richard Nixon turned to arms transfers as a way to "Wield force and exert influence" without sending American troops abroad.19 In the absence of legislation regulating the president's use of arms sales, Nixon was able to ramp up arms sales quickly and quietly, in most cases without notifying Congress or the public.
Sen. Gaylord Nelson, champion of the AECA, fought for its passage to combat what he viewed as dangerous secrecy: "Foreign military sales constitute major foreign policy decisions involving the United States in military activities without sufficient deliberation. This has gotten us into trouble in the past and could easily do so again."21 These concerns, coming in the wake of widespread anger about the war in Vietnam and the secret bombing of Laos and Cambodia, prompted Congress to reform arms sales policy in an attempt to rein in the White House.
The most recent presidential directive on arms sales, Barack Obama's Presidential Policy Directive 27 from January 2014, identifies a host of criteria to be included in risk assessments and declares that "All arms transfer decisions will be guided by a set of criteria that maintains the appropriate balance between legitimate arms transfers to support U.S. national security and that of our allies and partners, and the need for restraint against the transfer of arms that would enhance the military capabilities of hostile states, serve to facilitate human rights abuses or violations of international humanitarian law, or otherwise undermine international security."29.
A study of arms sales from 1950 to 1995, for example, found that although arms sales appeared to have some restraining effect on major-power allies, they had the opposite effect in other cases, and concluded that "Increased arms transfers from major powers make states significantly more likely to be militarized dispute initiators."80 Another study focused on sub-Saharan Africa from 1967 to 1997 found that "Arms transfers are significant and positive predictors of increased probability of war."81 Recent history provides supporting evidence for these findings: since 2011, Saudi Arabia, the leading buyer of American weapons, has intervened to varying degrees in Yemen, Tunisia, Syria, and Qatar.
Issue an Updated Presidential Policy Directive on Arms Sales - Most importantly, the president should issue a new Presidential Policy Directive reorienting U.S. arms sales policy so that the new default policy is "No sale." The only circumstances in which the United States should sell or transfer arms to another country are when three conditions are met: there is a direct threat to American national security; there is no other way to confront that threat other than arming another country; and the United States is the only potential supplier of the necessary weapons.
Requiring a congressional vote to approve arms sales, on the other hand, would subject arms deals to much more intense scrutiny than has traditionally been the case, and blocking misguided arms sales would be much easier.
https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/risky-business-role-arms-sales-us-foreign-policy
Wary of getting involved in future Vietnams but determined to retain America's global leadership role, President Richard Nixon turned to arms transfers as a way to "Wield force and exert influence" without sending American troops abroad.19 In the absence of legislation regulating the president's use of arms sales, Nixon was able to ramp up arms sales quickly and quietly, in most cases without notifying Congress or the public.
Sen. Gaylord Nelson, champion of the AECA, fought for its passage to combat what he viewed as dangerous secrecy: "Foreign military sales constitute major foreign policy decisions involving the United States in military activities without sufficient deliberation. This has gotten us into trouble in the past and could easily do so again."21 These concerns, coming in the wake of widespread anger about the war in Vietnam and the secret bombing of Laos and Cambodia, prompted Congress to reform arms sales policy in an attempt to rein in the White House.
The most recent presidential directive on arms sales, Barack Obama's Presidential Policy Directive 27 from January 2014, identifies a host of criteria to be included in risk assessments and declares that "All arms transfer decisions will be guided by a set of criteria that maintains the appropriate balance between legitimate arms transfers to support U.S. national security and that of our allies and partners, and the need for restraint against the transfer of arms that would enhance the military capabilities of hostile states, serve to facilitate human rights abuses or violations of international humanitarian law, or otherwise undermine international security."29.
A study of arms sales from 1950 to 1995, for example, found that although arms sales appeared to have some restraining effect on major-power allies, they had the opposite effect in other cases, and concluded that "Increased arms transfers from major powers make states significantly more likely to be militarized dispute initiators."80 Another study focused on sub-Saharan Africa from 1967 to 1997 found that "Arms transfers are significant and positive predictors of increased probability of war."81 Recent history provides supporting evidence for these findings: since 2011, Saudi Arabia, the leading buyer of American weapons, has intervened to varying degrees in Yemen, Tunisia, Syria, and Qatar.
Issue an Updated Presidential Policy Directive on Arms Sales - Most importantly, the president should issue a new Presidential Policy Directive reorienting U.S. arms sales policy so that the new default policy is "No sale." The only circumstances in which the United States should sell or transfer arms to another country are when three conditions are met: there is a direct threat to American national security; there is no other way to confront that threat other than arming another country; and the United States is the only potential supplier of the necessary weapons.
Requiring a congressional vote to approve arms sales, on the other hand, would subject arms deals to much more intense scrutiny than has traditionally been the case, and blocking misguided arms sales would be much easier.
https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/risky-business-role-arms-sales-us-foreign-policy
No comments:
Post a Comment