National

The Trump administration released new conventional arms transfer (CAT) and drone export policies last week.

Why it matters: The policies further Trump's goal of increasing U.S. arms exports, and depart from those of previous administrations by prioritizing economic interests over foreign policy objectives and national security concerns.

The greatest shift in the CAT policy is to drop the past behavior of recipient states as an explicit factor in arms transfer decisions. Instead, the new policy focuses on a variety of risk factors around the transfer; human rights can be considered, for example, but a particular country's human rights or democratic record is no longer determinative. Past transgressions are forgiven and governments receive the benefit of the doubt as long as the sale promotes U.S. economic interests.

The new drone policy makes three main changes:

Allows drones to be sold via the State Department’s Direct Commercial Sales program, so industry can negotiate contracts with recipients separate from the U.S. government.

Removes special scrutiny for drones equipped with laser designators, which help guide munitions to a designated target.

Allows for possible, rather than obligatory, enhanced end-use monitoring for drones, which checks whether weapons are in the right hands and the right places and being used in accordance with the terms of transfer. 

Both the CAT and drone export policies demonstrate a shift in the U.S. approach to considering arms transfers that places greater emphasis on the U.S. economy and support for the defense industrial base. The policies are focused solely on the near-term benefits of arms sales and overlook the potential negative long-term consequences.

What's next: An interagency group now has 60 days to develop an action plan for implementing the policy across the executive branch.

Rachel Stohl is managing director and director of the Conventional Defense Program at the Stimson Center.

With eye on exports boost, Trump admin revises arms transfer policies

There's now less focus on recipient states' democratic and human rights records.

An MQ-9 Reaper remotely piloted aircraft. Photo: Isaac Brekken/Getty Images

Politics

Weapon sales

Expert Voices

World

The Trump administration released new <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="conventional arms transfer (CAT)" data-vars-click-url="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/national-security-presidential-memorandum-regarding-u-s-conventional-arms-transfer-policy/" data-vars-content-id="51e55cb3-764c-4072-93bd-9f75a444f95d" data-vars-headline="With eye on exports boost, Trump admin revises arms transfer policies" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/national-security-presidential-memorandum-regarding-u-s-conventional-arms-transfer-policy/" target="_blank">conventional arms transfer (CAT)</a> and drone export policies last week.Why it matters: The policies further Trump&#x27;s goal of increasing U.S. arms exports, and depart from those of previous administrations by prioritizing economic interests over foreign policy objectives and national security concerns.

U.S. use of armed drones remains controversial, in large part because of ongoing secrecy surrounding the use of lethal drone strikes outside of traditional battlefields and the lack of accountability that goes hand in hand with the absence of transparency.

Why it matters: In the first 18 months of Trump's presidency, U.S. drone policy appears to have become less restrained, transparent and accountable.

Reversed course on measures designed to bring drone use out of the shadows and make it more responsible. It has expanded the possible targets of armed strikes by eliminating the requirement that the person pose an "imminent threat" and has loosened the requirement of "near certainty" that the target is present at the time of the strike to "reasonable certainty," all while refusing to confirm or deny that changes to such policies and procedures have been made.

Increased the frequency and geographic scope of lethal drone strikes, especially in areas where stricter rules around the use of force were previously in place. Between 2009 and 2017, President Obama authorized more than 550 strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere. In his first year in office, President Trump authorized more than 80 strikes in those three countries alone.

Lowered the threshold for strike-decisions and broadened the role of the CIA.

What's next: The U.S. has an opportunity to be an international leader in developing policy frameworks for the transfer and use of armed drones. This is particularly important as U.S. policy and practice also impact how our allies, partners and enemies use drones. Both the administration and Congress have a role to play in ensuring that the U.S. drone program serves U.S interest and remains lawful, appropriate, accountable and transparent.

Rachel Stohl is managing director and director of the Conventional Defense Program at the Stimson Center.

Go deeper: The Stimson Center’s Action Plan on U.S. Drone Policy

Under Trump, U.S. drone strike policy is looser and less transparent

Lethal strikes are being authorized more often and in more areas.

U.S. Air Force Predator drones at base at night

U.S. Air Force MQ-1B Predator unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) at an air base in the Persian Gulf region. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images

Drone strikes

U.S. use of armed drones remains controversial, in large part because of ongoing secrecy surrounding the use of lethal drone strikes outside of traditional battlefields and the lack of accountability that goes hand in hand with the absence of transparency.Why it matters: In the first 18 months of Trump&#x27;s presidency, U.S. drone policy appears to have become less restrained, transparent and accountable.

President Trump's announcement on Friday that the U.S. will “unsign” the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) further erodes the global norms of international weapons sales. 

Why it matters: The ATT is intended to contribute to international peace and security and reduce the human suffering caused by illegal and irresponsible arms trading. The agreement also promotes transparency and accountability in a global market that's worth nearly $100 billion a year but has largely been handled in the shadows.

Background: The ATT was adopted by the UN in April 2013 and entered into force in December 2014. The treaty, which now has 101 States Parties and an additional 34 signatories, regulates the international trade in conventional arms by establishing common international standards for States to incorporate into their national control systems.

The U.S. was an active participant in the negotiations, working to ensure that the treaty text was consistent with its own laws and regulations and supported its national security priorities, foreign policy objectives and longstanding values.

Most of America's closest allies — including all of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea — are ATT States Parties. (Israel and the UAE are signatories, while India, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia remain outside the treaty.)

Where it stands: The U.S. now stands with governments such as Russia, China, Syria, Iran and North Korea in opposing measures intended to promote global cooperation and level the playing field.

After giving up its position as a signatory, the U.S. will lose the ability to influence  substantive discussions around the ATT and the leverage to ensure the treaty remains consistent with U.S. priorities and procedures.

What’s next: The U.S. will have to formally notify the ATT depositary that it intends to unsign the treaty and not be bound by its object and purpose. The timeline is unknown, but the announcement has already weakened the pursuit of a safer international arms trade through multilateral diplomacy.

Rachel Stohl is managing director at the Stimson Center and was the consultant to the ATT negotiations.

U.S. exit from Arms Trade Treaty forfeits input on a global challenge

Almost all of America's closest allies are parties to the agreement.

President Trump at lectern holding up signed document

President Trump displaying a signed document rejecting the UN Arms Trade Treaty, at the NRA-ILA Leadership Forum in Indianapolis on April 26. Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images

President Trump&#x27;s <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="announcement" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/trump-signs-formal-request-us-oppose-global-arms-trade-treaty-f2645885-4c4d-4c16-9b5f-f95e3e904a5a.html" data-vars-content-id="9ca3e5c5-9abf-4f6f-b828-6d428a132511" data-vars-headline="U.S. exit from Arms Trade Treaty forfeits input on a global challenge" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.axios.com/trump-signs-formal-request-us-oppose-global-arms-trade-treaty-f2645885-4c4d-4c16-9b5f-f95e3e904a5a.html" target="_self">announcement</a> on Friday that the U.S. will “unsign” the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) further erodes the global norms of international weapons sales. Why it matters: The ATT is intended to contribute to international peace and security and reduce the human suffering caused by illegal and irresponsible arms trading. The agreement also promotes transparency and accountability in a global market that&#x27;s worth nearly $100 billion a year but has largely been handled in the shadows.

President Biden has made the COVID-19 crisis and a post-Trump return to national unity and traditional democratic ideals his top priorities. From vaccinations to stimulus to schools, Biden is seeking bipartisan compromise while showing a willingness to use executive authority and bare Democratic majorities in the U.S. House and Senate to implement his policies. Republican leaders are navigating deep party divisions over if and how to move beyond former President Trump.

Politics & Policy

The Trump administration, according to recent reports, will soon be bringing "Buy America" to international arms sales by asking diplomats to drum up new business for American arms manufacturers. Here's what the administration and Congress should do to ensure that any new policies impacting the $60 billion per year in U.S. arms deals also minimizes the risks to civilians:

The State and Defense departments need to better analyze whether countries receiving weapons will use them in accordance with international law.

The U.S. government must demand oversight of weapons systems it sells to ensure they aren't being misused.

Terms of sale for a limited number of major systems should be strengthened to ensure they're not misused or diverted.

Why it matters: Manufacturers want to sell their wares, but do not want their weapons to indiscriminately harm civilians. A smarter, risk-based approach — focused on certain items, sold to certain partners, at certain times — will save lives and sell more arms. That's a better outcome for U.S. national security, foreign policy and economic vitality. 

Dan Mahanty is director of the U.S. program of the Center for Civilians in Conflict. Rachel Stohl is managing director at the Stimson Center. 

Make U.S. arms sales great again

Expanding business is good, but risks to civilians abroad must be factored in.

Lockheed Martin missiles on display at a defense trade show

Missiles made by U.S. company Lockheed Martin at the Eurosatory defence and security international exhibition outside Paris, France, in June 2016. Photo: Jacques Demarthon / AFP / Getty Images

Expert voices

Business

The Trump administration, according to recent <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="reports" data-vars-click-url="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-weapons/exclusive-trump-to-call-on-pentagon-diplomats-to-play-bigger-arms-sales-role-sources-idUSKBN1EX0WX" data-vars-content-id="fe0a6412-0e23-40d0-bd28-36491ca45f34" data-vars-headline="Make U.S. arms sales great again" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-weapons/exclusive-trump-to-call-on-pentagon-diplomats-to-play-bigger-arms-sales-role-sources-idUSKBN1EX0WX" target="_blank">reports</a>, will soon be bringing &quot;Buy America&quot; to international arms sales by asking diplomats to drum up new business for American arms manufacturers. Here&#x27;s what the administration and Congress should do to ensure that any new policies impacting the $60 billion per year in U.S. arms deals also minimizes the risks to civilians:<ul><li>The State and Defense departments need to better analyze whether countries receiving weapons will use them in accordance with international law.</li><li>The U.S. government must demand oversight of weapons systems it sells to ensure they aren&#x27;t being misused.</li><li>Terms of sale for a limited number of major systems should be strengthened to ensure they&#x27;re not misused or diverted.</li></ul>Why it matters: Manufacturers want to sell their wares, but do not want their weapons to indiscriminately harm civilians. A smarter, risk-based approach — focused on certain items, sold to certain partners, at certain times — will save lives and sell more arms. That&#x27;s a better outcome for U.S. national security, foreign policy and economic vitality. Dan Mahanty is director of the U.S. program of the Center for Civilians in Conflict. Rachel Stohl is managing director at the Stimson Center.

Rachel Stohl

Stories

U.S. exit from Arms Trade Treaty forfeits input on a global challenge

Under Trump, U.S. drone strike policy is looser and less transparent

With eye on exports boost, Trump admin revises arms transfer policies

Make U.S. arms sales great again