Selling Bullets

The real question that should be asked is that what role should arms sales play in American foreign policy? Have the arms sales made the U.S. safer, more secure and strengthened its economic performance or has it faced a blowback and there is a destabilizing impact on a variety of regions across the world. When the brief history of U.S. arms sales policy is discussed in a particular context, it "almost always overshadows the impact of sanctions in determining the political outcome.” History indicates that arms sales can lead to a host of unintended and harmful consequences for the United States and for those who are buying the weapons and where the weapons are strategically deployed.

Indeed there is no real debate involving Washington and discussing the wisdom of exporting vast quantities of weapons around the world. The debate can instigate the opportunity to investigate the profound role weapons sales have played in supporting international terrorism, promoting the conflict, and/or eroding human right obligations. On the negative side, can the security benefits of arms sales be defended or the economic implications of weapon sales on the economy be determined?

Arms sales have frequently been worthwhile and a major boon to the American economy. Weapon sales are an essential part, a crucial tool of U.S. foreign policy. They inevitably generate significant diplomatic flexibility, used as a means to maintain alliances and partnerships, promise leverage to recipient countries and promote strategic stability.

Regrettably, there are numerous instances where American weapons end up being used against U.S. national interests such as regional stability or the prevention of war. U.S. weapons ended up in the hands of ISIS and other terrorist groups and widespread disposal of weapons in the black market. Oppressive governments around the world flagrantly use deadly weapons and perpetrate violence against citizens, commit crimes of murder, torture, unjust imprisonment and enslavement of their own people.

Allies, in turn, have access to more sophisticated weaponry without having to invest in the defence industries and technological developments that may contribute to greater market competition. Ultimately more money flows into American companies, provides them a competitive advantage and offers employment to the skilled American workforce.

Broadly speaking, American arms sales have helped to shore up authoritarian governments, prompted totalitarian adventurism, escalated arms races and hostilities, and proliferated existing or new conflicts.

Historically, the United States has sold weapons to almost any nation engaged in deadly conflicts, and even with disastrous human rights violations. Still, the U.S. government has been willing to sell almost any weapon to those who are seeking them irrespective of the potential security threats. Under these circumstances, it is hard to predict where the arms would end up and where they will ultimately be used.

Since 1976, with the passage of the Arms Export Control Act, the legislation has envisaged a framework and required that the executive should review its criteria for evaluating the risk associated with arms exports that may have damaging effects on international stability and human rights. In effect, the law takes very little decisive action to curb arms sales. The U.S. State Department vets only training and some equipment. It neither gauges the weapons sales and nor does it care if the recipient is violating human rights.

Wedged between a powerful and aggressive defence industry lobby and relative weaknesses of the legislative powers, though the U.S. Congress has the authority to cancel arms deals but it has never successfully obstructed any arms sale on the basis of human rights concerns.

The United States needs to re-evaluate its arms sales policy and improve its risk assessment process. It must impose bans on sales to countries where the risk of damaging consequences is potentially high. The U.S. must find ways to conduct foreign policy in those circumstances where arms sales have been common tactics for achieving its strategic objectives - such as when the United States negotiates to gain access to military bases under a new security deal, strengthens an alliance or seeks to boost counter-terror cooperation or support in the war on terrorism.

The arms sales process requires revision in order to ensure that weapons sales are thoroughly and objectively b scrutinized and provided more extensive congressional participation to streamline the review process. There must be compelling reasons for providing weapons to any nation in the context of world peace, harmony, and tranquility.