As the conflict rages overseas, the public loses the ability to keep track of how it is actually used
They hold nearly 40% of world exports
For about 60 years, the United States has published an annual study called World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers (WMEAT). The document provides detailed information on global arms transfers, defense spending and a number of other military-related topics.
For reasons that remain unclear, last year’s defense spending bill ended those reports. The State Department released its final version in August, silently marking the end of an era of military revelations.
“At one point in history, the WMEAT report has been a model of transparency around the world,” said Jeff Abramson of the Arms Control Association, emphasizing the significance of its origins in the Cold War era.
Of course, the relationship wasn’t perfect. Experts say WMEAT tends to oversell military sales in misleading ways, among other things. But his death is part of a wider shift away from transparency in military affairs, experts say. In recent years, civil society has lost access to some of the more detailed information about what US weapons are exported to, where they go and how they are used, and these are crucial omissions as US companies account for nearly 40% of global exports. of a weapon.
“We are the number one supplier of weapons that enable and extend conflict,” said Ari Tolani of the Center for Civilians in Conflict. “It is a responsibility to understand how and where these defense items and services are transferred and distributed.”
The drivers of this decline remain unclear. Some speculate that the government is simply trying to avoid sharing inconvenient information, such as whether human rights abusers are using American weapons. Others say heightened international tensions have led the United States and other countries to more closely guard their secrets or simply ignore calls to share information with the public.
It is clear that the problem comes from all over the government. Both Congress and the executive branch have contributed to this decline and will need to work together to reverse this course.
Unlike the sudden end of WMEAT, much of the decline in public coverage has been gradual. Take the Section 655 report, an annual survey detailing direct commercial sales (DCS) from US arms manufacturers to foreign customers. The document lasted several hundred pages, providing details so detailed that the researchers were able to determine that in 2008, US manufacturers supplied Colombia with exactly 325 non-automatic firearms worth $ 1,869,129.
The more recent Section 655 reports were much less in-depth, providing only general information on commercial sales in a short format the length of a booklet. For example, readers of the 2021 edition only knew that US companies have sold approximately 3,247 weapons and / or weapons-related items to Colombia worth $ 789,953, and this is hardly a useful figure for those who want to know. more on the arms trade.
It should be noted that the decline in the quality of the report coincided with a relative increase in the use of DCS at the expense of Foreign Military Sales (FMS), which are transactions between countries monitored by the Pentagon. FMS, which has much higher transparency requirements than other programs, dropped to about $ 30 billion last year, while DCS sales authorizations exceeded $ 100 billion for at least the fifth consecutive year. (It is worth noting that DCS clearances do not necessarily lead to sales, but they are useful data as there are no requirements to disclose actual shipments.)
Arms researchers also say that many reports produced by the executive branch have become unavailable to the public. While they could previously ask Congressional offices to share their documents, analysts say such reports are increasingly marked “for official use only,” meaning non-government analysts are not allowed to see them.
The most marked decline in transparency has come in the small arms sector, a worrying development as weapons tend to prolong conflicts and allow for human rights violations, as noted by the Red Cross and the United Nations. Between 1981 and 2010, the United States sent such weapons to about 60% of countries involved in violent conflicts, sometimes supplying them to more than one country in a single war.
In 2020, President Donald Trump moved export regulation of non-automatic firearms from the State Department to the Department of Commerce, which is not required to share detailed information on such sales with the public. Despite hopes that President Joe Biden would reverse Trump’s controversial decision, the policy change remained in effect.
“Everything I have heard and everything they said during the hearings makes me think they are not actively doing it,” said Nate Marks, a researcher at the Center for International Policy.
However, there is one big exception to the decline in transparency, namely arms transfers to Ukraine. Since the Russian invasion, Washington has shared detailed and timely information on 22 separate weapons packages, letting the public know exactly which weapons the United States is sending to support Ukraine’s defense.
Explanations for this extraordinary transparency vary widely. Some experts have expressed a positive assessment, stating that the Biden administration is committed to transparency and sees disclosures as a necessary part of security assistance, a category that has a higher level of built-in control than other types of transfer of assets. weapons. The most cynical analysts see the approach as a way to show off and score political points by announcing a new tranche of aid every two weeks.
Regardless of why they are doing it, most experts agree that Biden’s team’s approach to aid to Ukraine would be a much better basis for transparency in the future. But the biggest change many analysts and activists want comes in a more challenging area: end-use monitoring or EUM.
EUM is a strange term for verifying that weapons 1) get to where they should go and 2) are not used in ways that violate the laws of war. While the US is a relative leader in military transparency, the EUM has long been a blind spot, with officials focusing primarily on whether US weapons have reached the correct warehouse.
“Isn’t that what we think the right end-use monitoring would be, ie if they are being used improperly?” Says Abramson of the Arms Control Association. “For example, is Saudi Arabia using American weapons in Yemen in ways they shouldn’t? This kind of reporting, monitoring and assistance is not the norm, and that’s what we really need to do. “
Even in Ukraine, the US appears to have relied on Kiev’s word on how the weapons were used, according to Abramson, who added that “we don’t really know” what security measures are in place to prevent a diversion.
“I understand that there are policies in place and that they may share them at some point,” he said. “But I haven’t seen them at this stage.”
Fortunately, that may soon change. The House version of the defense spending bill contains a provision that would expand the EUM to include reporting on the possible misuse of US weapons.
If the Senate agrees to release this proposal, Americans will have access to a much clearer picture of how US weapons are used abroad. With billions of dollars worth of US weapons pouring into Ukraine every month, this couldn’t come at a better time.
(Translation of “Work” – Pavel Pavlov)
