SOMERVILLE, Mass.—While the United States likes to claim it has the gold standard of arms export control measures, in practice the measures offer few restrictions on U.S. presidents’ ability to ship arms wherever they like, according to a new report from the World Peace Foundation (WPF) at Tufts University’s The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

The Arms Export Control Act (AECE) of 1976, as well as the United States’ international obligations, are meant to ensure decisions to export arms take into account the potential to escalate conflict or fall into the hands of U.S. enemies. The AECA sets up Congress as a check on presidential decisions.

“The potential for arms sales to exacerbate a conflict rarely stops a sale,” said report author Jennifer Erickson, associate professor of political science and international studies at Boston College. “When we do restrain exports, more often than not, political calculations are at work, rather than the legal checks and balances Congress put in place.”

Among the key findings of On the Front Lines: Conflict Zones and U.S. Arms Exports:

• Conflict is not a consistent deterrent for U.S. arms exports. The United States usually prioritizes diplomatic and economic ties in export decision making—regardless of the conflict status of the recipient.
• Presidents face few restrictions on using arms sales to meet policy goals. U.S. law sets an almost unreachable vote threshold for Congress to block or modify arms sales.
• Even when the U.S. chooses not to supply weapons to conflict zones, it can and does use alternative means, such as common allies, to get arms to combatants.
• There is no realistic way for the U.S. government to guarantee the weapons it sells are used only by the buyer, in ways that conform with U.S. interests. We cannot ensure weapons are only used defensively, for instance. And arms have staying power. Years after initial sales, they may be used instead for priorities the U.S. opposes.
• Interpretation of regulations may become looser still as the U.S. enters a “New Cold War” with China or Russia.

In coming to these conclusions, the report examines U.S. arms sales, and restraint, connected to recent conflicts in Libya, Nigeria, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The World Peace Foundation commissioned similar studies on arms sales by the governments of the United Kingdom and France.

These studies follow earlier research by the WPF on which nations send arms into conflict zones, available on the website, Who Arms War? 

“The United States has all the regulations and policy tools it needs to ensure we do not make already dangerous places even more deadly,” said Alex de Waal, World Peace Foundation executive director and research professor at The Fletcher School. “We have mechanisms that can minimize the risk of America arming deadly actors. What we don’t seem to have is the political will to actually use those mechanisms. On numerous occasions American arms have made the world a more dangerous place, including for Americans.”

ABOUT THE WORLD PEACE FOUNDATION

Established by the publisher Edwin Ginn in 1910, the World Peace Foundation aims to “educate the people of all nations to a full knowledge of the waste and destructiveness of war and of preparation for war, its evil effects on present social conditions and on the wellbeing of future generations, and to promote international justice and the brotherhood of man, and generally by every practical means to promote peace and goodwill among all mankind.”