One of the key questions within the academic literature on arms transfers is simply “why”. Why do states transfer coercive capability to potential rival states? The answer to this question is not easy, and there appear to be as many answers to the question as there are states that sell arms. Explanations for arms sales typically boil down to economic imperatives or state interests. These are good explanations as far as they go, but even if we assume that these are the two main pressures that states face to sell arms, the degree to which one is more important than the other is still on the table.
My own beginning in the literature was launched with an assumption that arms sales by powerful states are used as a deliberate foreign policy tool. I used the SIPRI classifications for exporters and assumed that the US and Russia (as heir to the Soviet Union) as hegemonic suppliers would be deliberate in their use of arms sales to enhance their foreign policy goals. I found that this was not the case in either the US or Russia. Russia is more dependent on arms sales - for a number of reasons that I won’t go into here - than is the US, but that arms sales are still driven by economic and other special interests in the US context.
What is surprising, is the fact that arms sales are an issue that make it onto the agenda of state executives and in meetings between heads of state. In today’s post, I am interested in a number of news articles detailing the sale of aircraft [1] by Russia and the United States.
The first article is mundane. It describes the delivery of 4 refurbished F-16 fighter jets to Indonesia by the United States. The article describes the process of refurbishment and the means of delivery, and then notes that this is part of a sale of 16 fighters to the Indonesian government. This article is most interesting when contrasted to the next article. This article describes a letter sent by two Senators to the Trump administration arguing that the US should sign an agreement to allow F-16s to be produced in India. The Senators argue that the deal is important to protect American jobs and the capability of producing a weapons system that is vital to the US arsenal. (The US has almost as many F-16s in its arsenal - 1000 as India has fighter aircraft 1050 - and India has the world’s 4th largest capacity).
This argument is interesting to me, because it assumes that the President will become involved in brokering deals with other states on behalf of private firms.
The third article is interesting because it examines the communication between different branches of the US government, but in the opposite direction. This article describes the Trump administration’s intention to allow the sale of F-16s to Bahrain reversing the Obama administration decision that had stopped the sales because of human rights concerns.
The State Department originally notified Congress of the planned $4.87 billion sale last September during the Obama administration.
But it was pulled back because of the Obama administration's concerns that Bahrain had not made promised progress on human rights matters.
The decision by the new administration signals its backing for Sunni-led countries as counterweights to Shi'ite Iran's influence in the region.
Brian Dooley of Washington-based Human Rights First said separating the sale of the warplanes from human rights requirements would "encourage further repression" and create instability in Bahrain.
In my dissertation, I found that the US takes many considerations into view when selling arms, but that state security interests trump all the other considerations. In this case, regional stability is more important than regime stability.
The final article is one that describes the use of Arms as a deal sweetener by the Putin regime in negotiation with Serbia for a number of weapons systems.
Serbia is to soon receive six Mikoyan MiG-29 jets from Russia as a gift, Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic said.
Vucic made the comment after a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who personally approved the transfer, Tass reported.
"President Putin will sign a decree in the coming days to transfer the planes to us," Vucic said. "Then, technical issues will have to be tackled: how to transport the planes, whether they should be disassembled into parts or one of the countries will provide its airspace for their flight. Of course, we favor the latter option because this is faster.
Putin has shown a willingness to be involved in bargaining for arms transfers. He may be considered the arms saleseman in chief because many of his meetings with foreign leaders result in new arms deals being signed. I am not sure, still, what to make of this behavior from a state and its leader, but I am very interesting in thinking through these issues for a long time.
________________
[1] Aircraft because that is the latest project I’m working on with one of my coauthors.
