I want a POLICY BRIEF 2000 words

The Democratic Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution   

Thursday, 12th March 2020     

         

Executive Summary

The Democratic Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution (DIPCR) submits this policy brief

advocating for stricter policy against the occurrence of “arming rebels”. We define this term

as: “the provision of military equipment to an organised group engaged in armed opposition

to their established government and whom possess political objectives”. This document

provides clear ethical explanations throughout, arguing that such an act is immoral and not a

preferable option to military intervention. Above all else, the DIPCR proposes a revision to

U.S. arms export policy, and the termination of such endeavours to rebel forces.

This research specifically scrutinises the ethics surrounding the supply of arms by the United

States of America. It is isolated to involve only the physical supplying of weapons to rebel

groups, and therefore does not analyse the provision of logistical support and/or financial

donations.

Problem analysis

The arming of rebels has become one of the most popular ways in which a foreign state can

project its foreign policy objectives in civil wars. Especially in what Mary Kaldor calls “new

wars” - wars constituted by the disintegration of states and defined by a combination of

organised violence and human rights abuses (Kaldor, 1999). The benefit is that the

supplying state can seriously influence a conflict, while minimising or even eliminating risk to

their own military forces. Having said that, scholars such as James Pattison (2015) alert us

to the ethical dilemma of ​motives ​behind such an act of intervention.​ ​As Pattison states, the

claim that motives matter is based upon a Kantian notion that those supplying arms should

be doing so with the “right” motives - perhaps to put an end to human rights abuses or to

overthrow a brutal dictator (Pattison, 2015, p.464). Although history suggests that this is not

always the true motive behind intervention. For spacial reasons, this brief does not include

the armament of a group rebelling against an invading or occupying force.

Although this brief is largely specified, it directly connects to the larger, divisive dichotomy

between military and humanitarian intervention. As this paper will demonstrate, the action of

arming rebels has numerous direct and indirect causal effects on a conflict, that are likely to

result in a grave escalation of violence. Such are the detrimental consequences this action is

likely to have, it raises an ethical question as to whether arming rebels is really the last

feasible option before a direct military intervention. Pattison calls this last resort a

“presumptive” condition, since waging war itself should be the last option (Pattison, 2015).

To this end, the DIPCR argues that physically arming a rebel group has a higher level of

immorality due to the severity of the potential consequences on civilians. In empowering

rebel forces, the nature of the consequences is more unpredictable due to the lack of control

over the group and the conflict by the supplying state (in our case the U.S.). In this scenario,

the difference between ​doing ​and ​allowing ​for the conditions of suffering is subsequently not

absolute, and therefore we propose that arming rebels ​is ​in itself a belligerent and immoral

action, more so than military intervention.

It is therefore the essence of ​consequences ​that best ties the issue with the study of ethics.

What the consequentialist takes into account when deciding whether an act is moral or

immoral, are the consequences; the results of the action (Widdows, 2011, p.44). This paper

presents an opportunity for the consequentialist to explore whether the ends really do justify

the means with regards to arming rebels.

Policy Critique

Arms Export Control Act 1976: Chapter 2C - Exchange of Training and Rebel Support

Section 36:

Section 36 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) refers to the state-sanctioned provision of

arms to other foreign actors.

“...the president shall, upon the request of such committee or the Committee on Foreign

Affairs of the House of Representatives, transmit promptly to both such committees a

statement setting forth, to the extent specified in such request—

(D) an evaluation, prepared by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Secretary of

Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence, of the manner, if any, in which the proposed

sale would— (iii)​ increase the possibility of an outbreak or escalation of conflict​”

In accordance with section 36, the president is required to inform the U.S. Congress

regarding the potential consequences behind a proposed arms sale. Point (D; (iii)) only

accounts for how the president must ​communicate​ the exportation of arms ​after ​the decision

to approve it has already been made. At most, this section ensures a transparent process

occurs.

Transparency appears to be a critical aspect for the U.S. regarding arms sales and is

frequently highlighted amongst different official state websites and documents as such:

“Review and monitoring are integral components of the process for U.S.-origin defense

equipment delivered to any recipient nation” (The United States Department of State, 2019).

To be clear, this is not a suggestion that transparency shouldn’t be an important element to

US arms export policy - on the contrary. ​The DIPCR aligns with the viewpoint of​ the CATO

Institute of whom also state: “​U.S. arms sales policy should prioritize ​transparency, data

collection, and risk mitigation​” (CATO Institute, 2019). ​However, the president is not faced

with many procedural obstructions to the sanctioning of arms exportation, even if the

possibility of conflict escalation is high. We confront this weakness in accordance with the

ethical framework of consequentialism, within the parameters of ​Just War ​theory.

The DIPCR’s critique of section 36 stems from our consequentialist ethical principles

regarding ​jus in bello ​(just conduct in war) and ​jus post bellum​ (justice after the fighting has

stopped)​. ​The critique is not targeted towards ​jus ad bellum ​(just cause to go to war) as the

DIPCR recognises the reasons for a rebellious against a brutal dictatorial government may

be, as we see it, legitimate. We as an institution stand by the moral values as outlined in the

problem analysis that sanction state intervention, and therefore this analysis presumes this

criteria for intervention in the first place has been met.

With that said, the DIPCR’s overarching issue is the difficulty the supplying state has with

maintaining ​control​. That is, control of the rebel group and their conduct during the war and

control of where the weapons end up after the conflict has ended, known as “diffusion”.

James Pattison (2015) highlights three critical objections that align with the DIPCR’s

concerns. Firstly, the “Rebel-Risk Objection” which suggests it can be difficult to determine

who the rebels are and those against whom the rebels will use force (Pattinson, 2015,

pp.457-458). Framing this point along the lines of a revisionist approach to just war theory,

the DIPCR recognises that it may even be difficult to determine who is a noncombatant and

to ensure that there is no harm inflicted on innocents. Secondly, Pattison introduces the

“Escalation Objection”. To Pattison, the arming of rebels could “significantly escalate

hostilities” if in response, other parties or the sitting government seek additional arms as

well. In this scenario, more civilians are likely to be harmed as a direct result of there being

more destructive capabilities on all sides (Pattison, 2015, pp.458-459). Finally, Pattison

explains the “Diffusion Objection” - a concept we have already defined. It is incredibly

challenging to confirm that the weapons are delivered to or actually stay in the possession of

just​ the rebel forces. After the fighting has ceased, it is very likely that the weapons will

descend into the black market or retained by former combatants, which will likely result in

higher rates of homicide, more violent crime, and a probable return to conflict at a later time

(Pattison, 2015, pp.460-461).

Policy Recommendations

The Demcratic Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution proposes the following

recommendations:

(1) The United States suspends all exports of weapons and ammunitions to armed

non-state actors; militias; rebel forces

Considering the unpredictability of rebel forces and the ways in which they may wage war,

the DIPCR proposes that all arms sales to such groups should be suspended. In accordance

with Michael Walzer’s problematic theory regarding the ​moral reality of war​, we recognise

that the ‘military code’ is unlikely to apply to rebel groups engaged in civil war (2015,

pp.34-35). Having reviewed previous and relevant conflicts, there is little indication

suggesting that combatants will follow a chivalrous code of conduct. Thus the DIPCR can

not endorse any sale of arms where the occurrence of unscrupulous conduct is extremely

likely.

Moreover, historical trends suggest that rebel groups may not necessarily hold the same

moral values, distinguishing combatants from noncombatants. At the absolute core of the

issue, is that even if a war is just, there is no guarantee it will be fought out justly between all

parties. As Walzer explains, a chivalrous conflict must contain the mutual intentions “to set

certain classes of people outside the permissible range of warfare” (Walzer, 2015, pp.42-43).

We recognise the shifting strategic landscape surrounding warfare may incorporate

historically-known noncombatants such as women and children, as new combatants.

Regardless, the DIPCR believes there should be a group of peoples consequently protected

from warfare. This includes ordinary citizens (not in possession of arms) or captured and

wounded soldiers. The overarching premise of this recommendation is the lack of certainty

over whether arming rebels will ensure that only those who are liable to harm would actually

be subject to it.

(2) Track the use of American weapons.​ The United States should expand its monitoring

capabilities of weapons to encourage a responsible use and to inform future arms

sales decisions

Inspired by the recommendations of CATO Institute, the DIPCR proposes that the U.S.

increases its monitoring capabilities of weapons sold to foreign nations. We believe that in

projecting an ethically informed foreign policy agenda, the U.S. qualifies for moral agency,

and is subsequently capable of ethical reasoning beyond borders (Erskine, 2004). Chris

Brown (2001) argues that each state has its own “personality” which allows it to make ethical

judgements, and that some are enabled to project their moral judgements onto international

society (p.17). The DIPCR certainly believes that the United States has a responsibility to

project its liberal judgements and values where grave humanitarian assistance is required.

With that in mind, we still reject the “exceptionalist” argument that it may be permissible to

arm rebels if they are fighting a just war. Whilst a rebellion may be an initial response to a

just cause, it may later come to support an unjust cause, such as to gain access to natural

resources. Furthermore, a rebellion could consist of multiple subjective just or unjust

elements that are too difficult to separate. For example, a rebellion against a dictatorial

government may be unjust, but if a certain attack by the government jeopardizes the safety

of a refugee camp, then the rebels have a just right to defend it. In any case, separating the

good from bad and right from wrong amongst the “fog of war” can be challenging. Hence we

maintain our absolutist overarching recommendation that the U.S. does not contribute to the

exacerbation of conflicts through arming rebels.

(3) Congress should approve all major arms deals and revoke the president’s ability to

sell arms through emergency powers

We propose the removal of the obscure “emergency provision” in the Arms Export Control

Act, which allows the president to bypass legally mandated Congressional reviews of arms

sales. This recommendation also accounts for sales to foreign nations who are engaged in a

multi-dimensional civil war or regional conflict like in Yemen or Syria today. Well-publicised is

the U.S. and UK’s arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Riyadh has relied on such munitions to wage

a military campaign in Yemen, of which has left thousands of innocent civilians dead and the

country in ruins. Some reports even suggest that some of these weapons have found their

way into the hands of militant groups in the region, reaffirming the DIPCR’s concerns

regarding control and diffusion.

As elucidated throughout this paper, we recognise the difficult situation presented to

countries like the U.S., or as Michael Walzer calls it - the ‘moral dilemma’ (Walzer, 1973, p.

160). This involves a problematic situation in which one must choose between two courses

of action, both of which would be morally wrong to undertake. In our case, the situation is

whether to arm a rebel force conducting violence, supposedly against a nation’s brutal

dictatorial government, or instead to violate said nation’s territorial sovereignty; while

simultaneously putting the lives of one’s own military personnel at risk through a

conventional military intervention. David Fischer (2011) seeks to extend morality from the

private realm to the international arena. Fisher advocates national morality at an individual

level, remarking the importance of soldiers within national armies to be trained in the virtues

of combat (Fisher, 2011). The DIPCR proposes that while waging war is an immoral act, it

may still be necessary if it is to bring about an end to a larger reoccurring immoral act in

another nation.

Although in setting about doing this, where a military intervention is required as a last resort,

it should be from the more virtuous conventional armies, where at least the ethical principles

of ​jus in bellum ​will be honoured accordingly. Only this can ensure a greater control of the

conflict and then also the post-conflict dynamic of the country. Nonetheless, a further

legislative layer should be installed into the process of approving arms exports to foreign

countries. So if a military intervention is not possible, the U.S. does not perpetuate the

violence and suffering of a nation and its people through arming rebels.

Bibliography

Bergman-Rosamond, A., & Phythian, M. (Eds.). (2011). ​War, ethics and justice: new perspectives on a post-9/11 world​. Routledge. Available from​: https://www.dawsonera.com/readonline/9780203868522​ ​[Accessed 9th March 2020]. Brown, C. (2001). ​Ethics, interests and foreign policy​. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CATO Institute (2019). U.S. Arms Sales Policy. Cato.org. Available from: https://www.cato.org/publications/publications/us-arms-sales-policy​ [Accessed 8th March 2020]. Defense One. (2019). ​It’s Time for Congress to Rein in US Arms Exports. ​www.defenseone.com. Available from: https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/09/its-time-congress-rein-us-arms-exports/159779/ [Accessed 10th March 2020]. Erskine, T. (2004). ‘Blood on the UN’s Hands? Assigning Responsibilities to an Intergovernmental Organization’, ​Global Society​, vol. 18, no. 1, 21-42. Available from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1360082032000173554​ [Accessed 8th March 2020]. Fisher, D. (2012). Morality and war: Can war be just in the twenty-first century?. ​Scientia Militaria: South African Journal of Military Studies​, ​40​(2), 174-177. Available from: https://scientiamilitaria.journals.ac.za/pub​ ​[Accessed 10th March 2020]. Kaldor, M. (1999).​ New and Old Wars: Organised Violence in a Global Era.​ Cambridge: Polity Press. Pattison, J. (2015). The ethics of arming rebels. ​Ethics & International Affairs​, ​29​(4), 455-471. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/5EEBE300BCD35D2882F B4515C3069497/S089267941500043Xa.pdf/ethics_of_arming_rebels.pdf​ [Accessed 3rd March 2020]. United States Department of State (2019). U.S. Arms Sales and Defense Trade. State.gov. Available from:​ ​https://www.state.gov/u-s-arms-sales-and-defense-trade/​ [Accessed 9th March 2020]. US Arms Export Act 2018, c.2C. Available from: https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/Arms%20Export%20Control%20Act.pdf​ [Accessed 8th March 2020]. Walzer, M. (1973). Political action: The problem of dirty hands. ​Philosophy & public affairs​, 2(2)

(Winter, 1973), 160-180. Available from:​ ​https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2265139.pdf​ [Accessed 8th March 2020]. Walzer, M. (2015). ​Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations​. USA: Basic books.

Widdows, H. (2011). ​Global Ethics: An Introduction​. Durham: Acumen Publishing Limited. Available

from:​ ​https://www.dawsonera.com/readonline/9781844652839​ [Accessed 5th March 2020].