Why is US so eager to relax arms export?

Source
China Military Online
Editor
Lin Congyi
Time
2022-09-07 21:08:26

By Guo Xiaobing

American media reported that the US Department of Defense formed a so-called Tiger Team last month to be responsible for examining the efficiency of America's foreign arms sales and streamlining the process of the transactions.

America's arms export is divided into two types. One is foreign military sales (FMS), which is implemented based on intergovernmental agreements; the other is direct commercial sales (DCS), which is through commercial channels. The limited information revealed by US media shows that the attempt to simplify the process mainly involves the intergovernmental FMS. This type of arms export is subject to the management of the Office of Regional Security and Arms Transfers (RSAT) under the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, US Department of State, which, however, needs to work closely with the DoD’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) in the approval process, and much of the work is carried out by the DoD too. The new Tiger Team will reform the part of the FMS process involving the DoD, and perhaps also relax the screening of the final users of the exported military equipment.

The US is the world's largest arms exporter. Statistics from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) show that during the five years from 2017 to 2021, America's arms deals accounted for 39% of the global total, twice as large as the second-ranking Russia's. Why then is it so eager to relax the regulations and expand its arms export?

First, it hopes to get ahead of China and Russia in the arms trade competition. Washington sees arms trade as an important aspect of major-country competition and prides itself on its quality weapons albeit the high price. To vie for the international market against the fair-priced and quality military equipment made by China and Russia, it needs to be more efficient and streamline the process in order to get a head-start on the rivals.

Second, it wants to augment the diplomatic and strategic functions of the arms trade to keep the allies in leash and meddle in hotspot regions. The American policy on the transfer of conventional weapons makes it clear that weapon export must serve America's national strategy, diplomatic policy and national defense interests. Modern weaponry is systematic. Once other countries become dependent on American equipment, they will easily be subject to the seller in many other aspects, including intelligence, diplomacy, and operations. At the current stage, one obvious purpose of the US is to interfere more in Ukraine and other conflicting regions through arms export.

Third, the adjustment of arms export policy is also driven by economic and political considerations at home. On the economic front, American military industry is quite competitive in the world, and exporting more weapons suits Biden's wish to reinvigorate American manufacturing. On the internal affairs front, although the Biden administration is not as ardent a mouthpiece for American arms dealers as the previous one, it is still closely intertwined with the military industrial complex. For instance, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), a think tank in close ties with the Biden administration, gets a lot of funds from the arms dealers and goes to great lengths to pave the way for relaxing the export of drones.

The more convenient arms export on the American part will drive international relations in the direction of military tension and bloc confrontation. On the international stage, the inundation of American weapons will further underscore the military elements in inter-state relations, adding fuel to the existing tension and the signs of the arms race in certain regions. Moreover, while relaxing its arms export regulation toward allies and partners, the US has kept – or rather intensified – the arms sales ban and high-tech export regulation toward the so-called rivals, forcing the more integrated “global village” apart into different blocs and trying to forge a limited global system governed by its own rules. That doesn't spell good news for the world.

(The author is director of the Center for Arms Control Studies, China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations)

Editor's note: This article is originally published on huanqiu.com, and is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online. The information, ideas or opinions appearing in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of eng.chinamil.com.cn.

Related News

back