Why the Phrase “Non-Lethal Arms" May Be More Harmful Than It Sounds
Since debate in the United States intensified about whether to provide weapons to Ukraine to help repel the Russian-backed separatists, U.S. foreign policy and defense experts inside and outside the government are increasingly employing the phrase “non-lethal” or “lethal” arms in an attempt to distinguish between the sensitivity of U.S. military equipment exports. While the phrase “non-lethal arms” has existed for decades, its current use appears to undercut U.S. controls onarms with significant military value, with potentially damaging consequences in Ukraine and beyond.
The Obama Administration has argued against providing lethal arms such as light anti-armor missiles to the Ukrainian military out of concern that they could “lead to an escalation of violence rather than an end to it.” Instead, the administration supplied the Ukrainian military with non-lethal aid such as counter-mortar detection units, body armor, small boats and night vision goggles. More recently, the President announced that it would approve $75 million in non-lethal aid such as armored Humvees and surveillance drones through the European Reassurance Initiative Fund.
Within this context, and similar to U.S. law, anything that "is not a weapon, ammunition, or other equipment or material that is designed to inflict serious bodily injury or death." In other words, guns, mortars and missiles are lethal arms and almost any thing else is not.
Although armored Humvees aren’t designed to kill, they are designed to securely move troops into combat zones, which can result in the killing of enemy forces. As journalist Joshua Keating put it, “Waging war entails a lot more than just shooting a gun, and the non-lethal aid can have results that are decidedly lethal.” According to U.S. Army Colonel McDonnell in 2011 before a New York court, night vision technology also provides a “significant advantage” to a military to maneuver and fight at night allowing it to “defeat the enemy in the most severe conditions and under limited visibility.” Similarly, surveillance drones can identify enemy areas to strike. This is why some non-lethal arms, including certain armored personnel carreirs, night vision goggles and surveillance drones, are designated by the State Department as "significant military equipment."
Excluding the fact that the Ukrainian separatists or Russia may not see a big difference between the administration’s distinction of non-lethal arms, the current use of the phrase downplays the importance of ensuring the U.S. arms that are going to Ukraine are adequately controlled. According to a recent Security Assistance Monitor blog post, there is a strong chance that U.S. arms, including non-lethal aid such as night vision goggles, could reach and abet some of Ukraine’s volunteer brigades with an abusive record. Likewise, U.S.-supplied body armor to the Ukraine military could be sold on the black market as some of Canada’s military exports have done in the recent past. Despite these concerns, there has been very little discussion about properly controlling non-lethal arms to Ukraine.
According to Keating, the use of the phrase non-lethal arms has been controversial in other instances of U.S. arms exports. "The United States provided more than $1 billion of it [non-lethal arms] to El Salvador’s military during the country’s brutal civil war in the 1980s, despite criticism from human rights groups. Ronald Reagan’s administration controversially gave hundreds of millions of dollars in non-lethal aid to Nicaragua’s Contra rebels. In 1977, the United States halted weapons shipments to dictator Mobutu Sese Seko’s government in Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo), but continued providing non-lethal aid including a C-130 transport aircraft, a plane that has been frequently modified to carry bombs and artillery."
As the United States government, media and experts continues to use phrases such as non-lethal arms in the debate about arms exports to Ukraine and other countries, it must be careful to not loose sight of the significant military importance of other non-lethal arms exports. While these arms may not directly kill or injure combat forces or civilians, they can greatly assist efforts to kill and injure fighting forces as well as innocent civilians and be real force multipliers for militaries. If used improperly, non-lethal arms also present similar risks to U.S. interests and national security.
Colby Goodman is a Senior Research Associate with the Security Assistance Monitor and covers a range of U.S. military and police aid, arms sales and training issues.