U.S. forces demonstrate airpower at Farnborough International Air Show

Farnborough International Air Show visitors observe static displays of U.S. military aircraft July 16, 2016. (U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Eric Burks)

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration’s new Conventional Arms Transfer (CAT) policy sets an overarching standard that takes into account potential human rights impacts of any weapon sales, effectively reversing the economic-first stance of the previous policy.

The long-awaited revised policy, released today, sets the Biden administration’s approach to weapons sales and, officials say, reflects the foreign policy vision outlined in the National Security Strategy released last October. 

A State Department official told reporters on background ahead of the policy’s release that one of the “explicit presumptions” set out in the policy is that US national security is enhanced when human rights are better respected overseas. As a result, the policy aims to ensure that conventional arms transfers can “help partners build up their capacity and their inclination to prevent civilian harm and to abide by their international obligations,” including international human rights and humanitarian law. 

To that point, the revised policy is the first version with a standalone section on the interconnection of arms transfers and human rights that sets a new standard for when the administration won’t go through with an arms transfer, the official said Wednesday. 

“And that new standard is where we assess that it’s more likely than not that the arms to be transferred could be used either to command or to facilitate the commission of serious human rights abuses, serious violations of international humanitarian law, genocide, crimes against humanity,” the official said. “The prior standard for this in 2018 and actually going back to 2014 was restricted arms transfers only in cases where the US government had actual knowledge that the arms…to be transferred were going to be used in a smaller subset of sort of serious international crimes.” 

Putting human rights as a key factor is a change from the Trump administration’s guidance, which reflected that administration’s belief that “economic security is national security.” Under the 2018 Trump CAT policy, restrictions on exporting everything from guns to drones were loosened, and US diplomats were encouraged to sell more arms as a broader part of their mission. While hailed by industry as a potential game changer, especially in markets where China could pose a competitor, human rights advocates felt the policy was too focused on pure bottom-line dollars. 

Those positions will likely be reversed as the new policy is digested. In effect, the Trump CAT’s mission was to sell more weapons specifically as a boost to the American economy; the Biden CAT walks back that drive, instead putting the emphasis on how arms transfers can further the White House’s foreign policy aims. 

The administration will make recommendations on conventional arms transfers on a case-by-case basis, according to another official on background, and will have to make several considerations, including but not limited to whether the potential sale:

  • Has an effect on the defense industrial base
  • Ensures US technological advantage
  • Reduces reliance on a foreign competitor
  • Supports a strategic asset
  • Builds a capability that is in the interest of the US and builds interoperability with the US

Another new consideration the government will look at for arms transfers include an analysis of the recipient government’s capacity for “security sector governance, and what we mean there is sort of security institutions, security forces, that are subject to rule of law that have effective accountability in the case of abuses, where there is effective civilian control of security forces, where there is transparency in security sector governance,” an official said.

“This is the first time we’ve looked at this,” the official continued. “We’ve seen this obviously over the years as an indicator of whether a receiving government will use US arms transfers responsibly and we want to be explicit about the consideration of secure sector governance but also create some opportunities for countries to improve that metric.”

The government will also focus on four areas when it supports an arms transfer decision that “haven’t seen much progress” in ensuring the US’s global competitiveness: competitive financing, exportability, deciding what US’s risk tolerance is for technology security and making “sure that even if the United States military is not procuring a certain system, that we can be able to identify the needs of our partners and work with industry to be able to act accordingly,” an official said.

According to the most recent figures collected by the Stockholm International Peace Research institute (SIPRI), the US was responsible for 39 percent of all weapon exports between 2017-2021. For that same time period, Russia was next at 19 percent, followed by France at 11 percent, China at 4.6 percent and Germany at 4.5 percent. Given Russia’s status globally as a result of its invasion of Ukraine — not to mention the challenges its domestic arms companies are facing — it seems likely in the coming years Russia’s total will drop, while rising European defense budgets could provide as boost to US firms.

Rachel Stohl, vice president of research programs at the Stimson Center, told Breaking Defense that the new policy “has the potential to shape the future of U.S. arms transfers.

“But a policy is only as good as its implementation,” she said. “I hope the reality lives up to the rhetoric.”