New Presidential Directive on Arms Export Control Highlights Tension in U.S. Policy
Earlier this month, the White House released a Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) on United States Conventional Arms Export Policy. The announcement was touted as an arms policy upgrade for meant to promote exports of U.S. arms and technical support systems and to stipulate the restraints involved in authorizing sales and transfers of arms and associated technology. In terms of technical capabilities, the PPD officially expands the government’s oversight controls to cover more advanced technologies such as satellite and surveillance technology, small, dual-use items such as night vision goggles, and other advanced weapons and technical support systems. The PPD also lists more detailed regulatory restraints, emphasizing possible human rights violations and other end-use abuses as grounds for rejecting an arms transfer sale. Finally, the PPD specifies how the U.S. government can actively support and promote the U.S. arms industry. Read more about the new arms sales policy directive and its implications on our blog.
This Directive is the first revision to U.S. arms export control policy in almost two decades. It supersedes a previous PPD on Arms Control Policy, PPD/NSC-34, signed by President Bill Clinton on February 10, 1995. In addition to Clinton’s Directive, the Wassenaar Arrangement, a multilateral export control regime, was established as the new international regulatory apparatus. Both Clinton’s PPD and the Wassenaar Arrangement stressed transparency as a means to prevent the “destabilizing accumulation” of weapons in vulnerable regions. But the language pertaining to the potential for human rights abuses and to the sale of advanced technical capabilities was vague and minimal. In expanding and sharpening its oversight authority, the new Directive attempts to address what were considered to be deficiencies in U.S. policy and in international standards.
The tension in this policy revolves around finding a balance between subjecting arms deals to general foreign policy and national security considerations and, as Tom Kelly, the State Department's acting assistant secretary for political-military affairs said, making sure “that it's very clear that human rights considerations really are at the core of our arms transfer decisions." But there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical that the upgrades do not go far enough. As former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy says, “[t]here are downside risks. . . . You can have governments change, or governments misuse US weaponry.”
Indeed, despite a rhetorical commitment to review the possible negative side effects of any arms deal, the Obama Administration has embraced arms exports as a “vital tool” in its foreign policy toolkit, meant for building partner capacity and bolstering U.S. regional security agreements in critical locations. This has led some to argue that the “Obama Administration has abandoned any pretense of limiting overseas arms sales, and embraced the reality that America is likely to remain the world’s biggest weapons merchant for many years to come.” It remains unclear, therefore, how human rights considerations in arms transfers will be upheld in an era of rising worldwide defense budgets and a more aggressive U.S. arms export initiative.
The potential for clashes in policy priorities, as found in the new PPD, is perhaps higher in the Middle East and North Africa than any other region. New reports show that defense budgets and weapons purchases in the region are growing fast. In a report to Congress titled “Conventional Arms Sales to Developing Nations, 2004-2011,” the Congressional Research Service showed that in 2011, “Saudi Arabia ranked first in the value of arms transfer agreements among all developing nations weapons purchasers, concluding $33.7 billion in such agreements. The Saudis concluded $33.4 billion of these agreements with the United States (99%). . . . The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E) ranked third with $4.5 billion.” Since 2011, the Middle East has surged ahead in new weapons purchases. According to IHS Jane’s Annual Defence Budgets Review, “[f]our out of the five countries that saw the fastest rise in military spending are from the Middle East,” and, “[i]n the top 10 of fastest-growing defense markets, six countries are from the Middle East. Besides Oman and Saudi Arabia, they are Iraq, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates and Algeria.” Analysts predict the Middle East will continue to boost global weapons sales figures.
Middle Eastern countries rank first in global arms purchases and represent the biggest share of U.S. arms transfer agreements and deliveries. The new policy offers some hope that the U.S. will take potential human rights violations and end-use abuse concerns seriously, especially as sales increase. New weapons deals reported last week could be the first test of the Administration’s seriousness, and its use of the policy to exercise restraint.