Verbatim Mac - National Speech and Debate Association



2019-2020 Debate TopicA Reduction in US Arms Sales GloballyBy: Dustin Rimmey, Topeka High School, KansasResolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce Direct Commercial Sales and/or Foreign Military Sales of arms from the United States.This essay focuses on the current state of arms sales in the United States. Debaters ought to have a solid understanding of what the underlying policies are which govern how the United States government authorizes the sale of arms from the US to countries around the globe. INCLUDEPICTURE "" \* MERGEFORMATINET Table of Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Table of Contents PAGEREF _Toc16589194 \h 2The Ballot Paragraph… PAGEREF _Toc16589195 \h 3Major Policies that Govern Arms Sales--FAA PAGEREF _Toc16589196 \h 4Major Policies that Govern Arms Sales--ACEA PAGEREF _Toc16589197 \h 6Major Policies that Govern Arms Sales--ITAR PAGEREF _Toc16589198 \h 7Major Policies that Govern Arms Sales--CAT PAGEREF _Toc16589199 \h 9The Topic Mechanisms PAGEREF _Toc16589200 \h 10Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc16589201 \h 12The Ballot Paragraph…In the movie Iron Man, upon his triumphant return to the United States, arms dealer Tony Stark reflects upon the world his products helped shape: “I saw young Americans killed by the very weapons I created to defend them and protect them. And I saw that I had become part of a system that is comfortable with zero-accountability…I had my eyes opened. I came to realize that I had more to offer this world than just making things that blow up. And that is why, effective immediately, I am shutting down the weapons manufacturing division of Stark Industries.” Just as Tony Stark faced his day of reckoning, the United States is on the verge of facing a similar fate. President Trump is actively increasing the number of arms contracts offered and authorized by the United States. One must ask whether arms sales make us safer and strengthen our economy, or create blowback which increases terrorism or fuels conflicts in a variety of regions across the globe. Direct Commercial Sales affirmatives would limit the number or type of sales by American companies to foreign militaries. These affirmatives could prohibit the sale of drone technology, reduce small arms sold to nations like Saudi Arabia which are used to perpetrate human rights abuses, or strengthen export controls to prevent future resale of our technology. Foreign Military Sales affirmatives would reduce sales by the Departments of State or Defense to foreign militaries. These affirmatives could prohibit sales of F-35s to Israel which are used for bombing raids, prevent Japanese acquisition of Tomahawk missiles which would provoke China or North Korea, or prevent sales to Qatar which may give U.S. munitions to terrorist organizations. Affirmatives addressing either type of sales could net advantages such as: terrorism, proliferation, human rights credibility, hegemony, and increasing stability in the world’s most volatile regions. Negative teams will have access to alliance-based disadvantages highlighting the need for arms sales to create commonly equipped militaries, defending arms sales as a credible deterrent to prevent conflicts, acknowledging the economic impact of reducing the role of one of the largest economic sectors, or arguing countries like Russia or China would fill in and negate solvency. The only constant element of President Trump’s foreign policy is to increase arms sold by the United States, which makes the literature base broad and accessible. We have not embraced the opportunity to debate arms sales since 1983, and the time to rekindle this debate is now.Major Policies that Govern Arms Sales--FAA There are several policies and/or provisions that govern arms sales from the United States. The legal framework for arms sales is established in 1961 through the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA). The original intention of the FAA was to create the distinction between forms of military and nonmilitary aid. Initially the FAA placed conditions on who could receive any sort of assistance. The FAA prohibited assistance to any nation who: "engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons, or other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, and the security of person, unless such assistance will directly benefit the needy people in such country."As the “need” to sell arms increased throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s to offer security guarantees to allies containing the spread of communism, the FAA was amended. Most notably, the 1974 amendments established the following parameters:Defense articles and defense services to any country shall be furnished solely for internal security (including for antiterrorism and nonproliferation purposes), for legitimate self-defense, to permit the recipient country to participate in regional or collective arrangements or measures consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, or otherwise to permit the recipient country to participate in collective measures requested by the United Nations for the purpose of maintaining or restoring international peace and security, or for the purpose of assisting foreign military forces in less developed friendly countries (or the voluntary efforts of personnel of the Armed Forces of the United States in such countries) to construct public works and to engage in other activities helpful to the economic and social development of such friendly countries. It is the sense of the Congress that such foreign military forces should not be maintained or established solely for civic action activities and that such civic action activities not significantly detract from the capability of the military forces to perform their military missions and be coordinated with and form part of the total economic and social development effort.Therefore, as long as arms were sold for security or self-defense purposes, or for the need of fulfilling alliance commitments, the sales were deemed as acceptable. After the 1974 amendments to the FAA fell into place, demand for American arms sales increased. In order to create an expedited framework for handling the demand, Congress passes the Arms Control Export Act in 1976.Major Policies that Govern Arms Sales--ACEA According to the ACEA, the Executive Branch has all of the authority to determine whether or not an arms sale would be detrimental to US security or create a destabilizing factor in the region where the arms would be delivered.The Arms Export Control Act authorizes the president to control the import and export of defense articles and services. If the president chooses, he can issue a license to an individual or organization that wishes to export defense articles or services. Otherwise, exportation of these items is not permitted. Decisions on whether to issue an export license for the defense article or service take into account whether the export would contribute to an arms race, aid in the development of weapons of mass destruction, support international terrorism, increase the possibility of outbreak or escalation of conflict, or prejudice the development of bilateral or multilateral arms control or nonproliferation agreements or other arrangements. The defense items controlled by the Arms Export Control Act appear in the United States Munitions List.President Ford signed Executive Order 11958 delegating authority over foreign military sales to the Secretary of State.The United States is committed to strengthening allies and partners worldwide so that they meet their own legitimate self-defense needs and can improve their capabilities to operate beside U.S. forces to address shared security challenges. The U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs (PM) oversees most government-to-government arms transfers and the commercial export licensing of U.S.-origin defense equipment and technologies, consistent with the Arms Export Control Act, the Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, and other statutory authorities and relevant international agreements.Therefore, the executive branch holds nearly all of the power when it comes to arms sales. Congress has limited authority. Unless an emergency is declared, Congress must be notified of an intent to sell 30 days prior, and they can vote on a resolution to block the sale. However, Congress has never successfully done so.Major Policies that Govern Arms Sales--ITAR In addition to the ACEA, Congress also passed the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to create a network of “export controls” to govern what type of technology cannot be sold and/or transferred to different nations. Under ITAR there is a mechanism known as the United States Munitions List (USML). Margaret Gatti describes how both ITAR and the USML functions:In accordance with Part 734.3 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and Part 120.1 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), the U.S. Department of State has exclusive jurisdiction over the export of defense items, i.e. defense articles, defense services and related technical data. Articles, services and related technical data designated as defense items by the Department of State are grouped together as defense items in the Munitions List (Part 121 of the ITAR). The State Department is guided in its designation of defense items by a policy statement outlined in Part 120.3 of the ITAR which makes it clear that it is not the intended use (i.e. military or civilian) of an article, a service or technical data after export which is relevant for determining whether the article, service or technical data is a defense item. Instead, it is an item. s inherent capabilities and design which are considered in determining whether or not an item should be given defense item status. The policy statement further guides the State Department in defense item designation by presenting a two-part test for defense item status. According to this two-part test, articles, services and related technical data may be designated as defense items and placed on the Munitions List if they:1. are?specifically?designed, developed, configured, adapted or modified for a military application;?and?(a) do not have a predominant civil application;?and do not have performance equivalent to that of an article or service used for civil applications;?or2. are?specifically?designed, developed, configured, adapted, or modified for a military application and have significant military or intelligence applications, such that control by the Department of State, Office of Defense Trade Controls is necessary.Items which meet either or both of these tests are considered to have defense item status and, as result, can not be exported from the U.S. without a State Department export license, unless a license exception applies. Alternatively, items, which do not meet either of these tests are not considered to have defense items status. As a result, they are not controlled by the State Department for export purposes and default instead to the export control of the Commerce Department, unless otherwise excluded from Commerce Department control in accordance with the provisions of the EAR.The President also has authority to move items around on the export control lists. For example, President Obama used executive orders to reclassify items and President Trump has attempted to do the same Major Policies that Govern Arms Sales--CAT The final notable policy governing arms sales was updated under the Trump administration. On April 19, 2018, President Trump issued National Security Presidential Memorandum 10 (NSPM-10) updating the Conventional Arms Transfer policy. Under the updated CAT, sales that benefit the US economy takes the forefront. While items like the Leahy Amendment used to prevent transfers solely on human rights grounds the current CAT policy increases the focus on “domestic economic security.” Section 1 of NSPM-10 states:When a proposed transfer is in the national security interest, which includes our economic security, and in our foreign policy interest, the executive branch will advocate strongly on behalf of United States companies. The executive branch will also streamline procedures, clarify regulations, increase contracting predictability and flexibility, and maximize the ability of the United States industry to grow and support allies and partners.This increased focus on streamlined processes and US economic security has made arms sales even more likely to get pushed through the approval process with little consideration of negative consequences of sales.The Topic Mechanisms Affirmative cases must reduce either Foreign Military Sales and/or Direct Commercial Sales. LMS Defense offers a handy comparison of the two processes:U.S. Defense companies have two main avenues for selling on the international market: Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) and Foreign Military Sales (FMS).This chart explains the main differences between Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and Direct Commercial Sales (DCS). ?Both are viable options for U.S. defense companies seeking to do business overseas.?Foreign Military SalesDirect Commercial SalesNature of RelationshipThe US DOD will negotiate with the Customer on behalf of the Vendor.Customer negotiates directly with the Vendor.United States Government InvolvementThe US DOD?assumes contracting risk and is responsible for ensuring that the Vendor meets cost, schedule, and performance requirements.? The US DOD guarantees payment by the Customer.U.S. Government (USG) is not involved in the transaction, and does not act on behalf of the Customer or Vendor should complications arise.Export LicensesThis is a government-to-government transfer, so the export process is managed the US DOD. No involvement by the Vendor is required.The Vendor?must obtain export approval from the U.S. State Department. The Vendor?is responsible for submitting a completed DSP-83.Congress notificationAny required notifications to Congress are jointly sponsored by the US DOD and the State Department.Congress must be notified by the State Department of a decision to issue an export license if the sale includes significant defense equipment valued at $14 million or more.? (Basically, both DCS and FMS require the same type of notification)Contract IssuesUS DOD procures the defense articles under the same contractual provisions used for all DOD procurement. The Customer pays an additional 3.5% of the total price to cover the contracting and administrative services provided by US DOD.The Vendor?negotiates with the Customer.? The Customer assumes management responsibility. These activities represent overhead management costs to the Customer. The size and skill of the Customer contracting staff may be a limiting factor during procurement.Cash Flow RequirementsThe initial deposit required is usually somewhat lower than commercial contract down payments. ?This facilitates payment by the Customer.Direct commercial contracts generally require a relatively large down payment, payable at the time of contract signature. ?This may create difficulties for the Customer.Availability of Foreign Military Financing Program (FMF) FundingU.S. financial assistance, through the Foreign Military Financing Program (FMF) may be available to the Customer. ?If FMF funds are available, they must be processed through FMS (except for the ten countries granted an exception).If the Customer?wishes to use FMF funding, DCS is not an option. ?Ten countries are granted an exception that allows them to use FMF funding to pay for DCS contracts: Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey, Portugal, Pakistan, Yemen, and Greece.Here is the simplest way to think of the differences between the two processes. Direct Commercial Sales are when a Foreign Entity works with a US company to purchase arms. Literally, all the US government does during this process is approve or disapprove of the export licenses, all other business is handled exclusively between the foreign country and the American arms exporter. Foreign Direct Sales are when a foreign country petitions the US government for an arms agreement, and the US government works as the processor and guarantor of the sale. When a foreign government petitions for a sale, the US government will work with an American arms manufacturer to procure and distribute arms to the foreign country. Additionally, arms may be purchased through Foreign Military Financing offered by the US government (essentially a grant to buy weapons systems). Conclusion In conclusion, while the processes that govern arms sales seem super technical, it can be broken down into three simple questions:Is the sale in the National Security interest of the United States?Is the sale in the Economic Security of the United States?Is the foreign government working directly with the arms dealer or the US Government?The answer to these three questions will determine both if the sale will be approved, and if so, through which process will be used. Some arms are OK to sell to anyone, some arms are prohibited from specific countries, those are the export control laws that the US enforces and purchasing entities are required to follow. I hope these descriptions add some context to what can seem like a murky administrative process! ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download