Defense Industries, Foreign Policy and Armed Conflict: US study
“On the Front Lines: Conflict zones and U.S. Arms Exports,” by Jennifer Erickson (World Peace Foundation, March 23, 2022).
The Report finds that conflict does little to alter existing intergovernmental arms trade relationships, even when recipients’ policies and practices do not serve US interests. In contrast, there is unlikely to be an established pre-conflict arms trade between supplier states and armed rebel groups. Instead, the United States may initiate or facilitate arms supplies – small arms especially – as a form of political and military support during conflict. This occurs despite the risk that small arms are frequently diverted to illicit markets or to groups opposed to the United States.
Available for Download:
Launch Event |Overview | Key Findings | Policy Recommendations |Author
March 23, 2022
“On the Front Lines: Conflict zones and U.S. Arms Exports,” by Jennifer Erickson (World Peace Foundation, March 23, 2022).
4:00pm EST Virtual Event
Register to join this event
Jennifer Erickson, an associate professor of Political Science and International Studies at Boston College, will present insights from her new report, “On the Front Lines: Conflict Zones and US Arms Exports” (World Peace Foundation, March 2022). In the paper, she details US domestic and international arms export controls, and what actually happened in five conflict zones: Libya, Nigeria, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen
Dr. Erickson is an expert on conventional arms transfers and arms export controls, sanctions and arms embargoes, and new weapons and the laws and norms of war. She is the author of Dangerous Trade: Conventional Arms Exports, Human Rights, and International Reputation (Columbia, 2015).
This report is part of the research program “Defense Industries, Foreign Policy and Armed Conflict” funded in part by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and is carried out in partnership with the OpenSecrets. It asks: why, despite robust regulation mechanisms in key exporting countries and international monitoring efforts, has the global arms trade proven remarkably resistant to effective controls – with direct enabling consequences on conflict situations?
Learn more about “Defense Industries, Foreign Policy and Armed Conflict.
Report Overview
The US export control system was tasked in the 1970s with restraining arms supplies to regions of conflict and instability, while also accounting for US economic interests and national security needs. Today, the United States continues to be the largest arms supplier in the world, with a global customer base. What has been less clear – and increasingly the topic of political debate – is whether its export control system meaningfully restrains arms supplies to conflict zones.
The first section of this report examines US domestic arms export law and policy. The centerpiece of the US arms export control system is the 1976 Arms Export Control Act (AECA), which gives the president authority over arms exports and imports. The AECA directs export decisions to take the outbreak or escalation of conflict into account. However, conflict does not trigger an obligation of license denial. The AECA also positions Congress as a check on executive decision-making. In practice, Congressional oversight has been weak to non-existent. The executive branch can therefore shape arms transfers around its current policy priorities.
The second section provides an overview of US international obligations. While the United States is legally bound to implement mandatory United Nations arms embargoes and to act in a manner consistent with international law, it faces relatively few arms-export specific multilateral obligations. US presidential administrations therefore have considerable legal authority over their conventional arms export decision-making, as well as considerable flexibility in their interpretation of US and international arms export rules and whether they choose to privilege arms export promotion or restraint in the face of conflict.
Finally, this report examines US arms supply and restraint to recent and contemporary conflicts in Libya, Nigeria, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. It identifies different political and economic patterns in supplies to state and non-state actors. US arms trade relationships with other governments can be long-standing and often perceived as strategically valuable. Conflict does little to alter existing intergovernmental arms trade relationships, even when recipients’ policies and practices do not serve US interests. In contrast, there is unlikely to be an established pre-conflict arms trade between supplier states and armed rebel groups. Instead, the United States may initiate or facilitate arms supplies – small arms especially – as a form of political and military support during conflict. This occurs despite the risk that small arms are frequently diverted to illicit markets or to groups opposed to the United States.
Key Findings
Conflict is not a consistent deterrent for US arms exports. The United States tends to prioritize diplomatic and economic ties in its arms export decision-making, whatever the conflict status of the recipient. At times, conflict may deter the US from forming new supply relationships, but it is unlikely to change export patterns where supply relationships already exist.
US presidential administrations face few real restrictions in their ability to use arms exports to meet their policy goals. US law sets an almost unreachable threshold for Congressional action to block or modify proposed arms sales, and it is remarkably resilient to change. In practice, US arms export policy is set by presidential administrations and provides significant flexibility to use arms supplies and denials to meet a variety of their broader “strategic” policy goals.
Even when the United States chooses not to supply weapons to conflict zones directly, it may facilitate or back alternative sources of supplies for belligerents it seeks to support. While it is rare for the United States to cut off arms to a long-standing customer due to conflict, in cases it might be politically difficult for it to provide arms, it may permit or promote supplies to continue through common allies or other means.
Arms transfers come with intractable risks. There is no realistic way for the US government to guarantee that the weapons it transfers are used by the recipients it intends, in ways that serve US interests. While the US government may take precautions to ensure that its arms transfers are used for defensive not offensive purposes or do not fall into the “wrong hands,” these precautions often come up short. Weapons are highly durable goods, and recipient priorities may shift over time, in ways the US government cannot predict or control. In addition, small arms especially may easily change hands in complex conflict environments, intentionally or inadvertently diverted to illicit markets, armed groups, or governments that oppose US interests.
“New Cold War” dynamics may increase US reluctance to cut off arms supplies to conflict zones. Instead, national security rationale may encourage looser interpretation of restrictions for fear of losing out on perceived strategic relationships and other anticipated economic and political arms sales benefits to China. Heightened security concerns about Russia may lead to similar dynamics.
Policy Recommendations
About the author
Jennifer L. Erickson is an associate professor of Political Science and International Studies at Boston College. Her research interests include conventional arms transfers and arms export controls, sanctions and arms embargoes, and new weapons and the laws and norms of war. Erickson’s book, Dangerous Trade: Conventional Arms Exports, Human Rights, and International Reputation (Columbia, 2015), explains states’ commitment to and compliance with new humanitarian arms export initiatives, articulated in the UN Arms Trade Treaty and related multilateral agreements, and is the winner of the APSA Foreign Policy Section’s 2017 Best Book Award. Erickson’s academic articles on arms transfer policies and practices have been published in the European Journal of International Relations, Journal of Peace Research, Political Science Quarterly, International Studies Perspectives, and Review of International Studies. Erickson is a faculty affiliate at MIT’s Security Studies Program. Previously, she has held fellowships at Stanford University, Dartmouth College, and from the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD). She has also been an affiliate at the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard University, the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP), and the Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB). She has a B.A. in Political Science from St. Olaf College and a Ph.D. in Government from Cornell University.
This report is part of the WPF research program, Defense industries, Foreign Policies and Armed Conflict, funded in part by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and carried out in partnership with the OpenSecrets. It asks: why, despite robust regulation mechanisms in key exporting countries and international monitoring efforts, has the global arms trade proven remarkably resistant to effective controls – with direct enabling consequences on conflict situations?