One of the most fascinating pieces of news about arms sales came out in a Reuters story a few days ago. The gist of the plan is that the Trump administration has a plan for the diplomatic and military apparatus to make the sale of arms a priority. It's part of the "buy American" plan to increase manufacturing capability within the US.
I am not surprised by this development. In my 2013 PhD thesis[2] I examined US and Russian decision-making on arms sales. I found that both states were reliant on foreign sales to some degree. Russia has had - and this increased under Putin - a strategy of arms promotion at all levels of the state for a long time. It is surprising how often Putin's name comes up when new arms deals are announced. He is Russia's salesman in chief when it comes to arms sales.
The US move to an open policy of arms sales promotion makes sense under two common assumptions about arms sales. The first assumption is about economics - and apparently that is the argument that is being made to justify this shift in foreign policy. It is expensive to develop new weapons systems. It is expensive to maintain manufacturing for spare parts. Having external customers keeps production going, and provides partial relief for development costs. It provides employment (which is particularly important in defense industries that can affect Congressional races where they are concentrated), and it ensures domestic manufacturing capability into the future.
During the Cold War both the US and the Soviets could sustain their arms development because of the large internal market for weapons and the sizes of their military economies in general. The end of the Cold war changed the imperatives for both states. Russia felt this need first, and more acutely. The United States needed arms sales more after the contraction of the armed forces during the 1990s.
The second assumption about arms sales that supports this development is the idea that arms purchases and sales are part of relationship building between states. This is a connection that has not been explored too deeply by arms scholarship. My current book project, which adapts and expands my dissertation examines these relationships more closely. Trump is a businessman in a business that is dominated by personal relationships. It seems natural that he would want to have a policy that reflects those preferences. The fact that he is focusing on the sale of arms highlights to me the importance of arms sales to state identity. Arms sales are still not "sexy" like conflict and other types of security studies, but the more we see such fascinating real-world examples of their importance, the more likely that academics will pay more attention.
_______
[1] Blanton, Shannon Lindsey. 2005. "Foreign Policy in Transition? Human Rights, Democracy, and U.S. Arms Exports." International Studies Quarterly 49: 647–668.
[2] Willardson, Spencer L. 2013. "Under the Influence of Arms: The Causes and Consequences of Arms Transfers." PhD Thesis. University of Iowa. Link
President Donald Trump is expected to announce a “whole of government” approach that will also ease export rules on U.S. military exports and give greater weight to the economic benefits for American manufacturers in a decision-making process that has long focused heavily on human rights considerations, according to people familiar with the plan.This is a real shift in the recent policies of the United States in terms of seeking to be more limited about which states received US arms. Richard Johnson and I have a paper coming out in ISQ soon that looks at whether or not this rhetoric on human rights has any real substantive effects on arms sales by major democratic suppliers (hint: it does not - with a few caveats). Our study is a follow up and expansion of Lindsay Blanton's 2005 work that looked at US arms sales only [1].
I am not surprised by this development. In my 2013 PhD thesis[2] I examined US and Russian decision-making on arms sales. I found that both states were reliant on foreign sales to some degree. Russia has had - and this increased under Putin - a strategy of arms promotion at all levels of the state for a long time. It is surprising how often Putin's name comes up when new arms deals are announced. He is Russia's salesman in chief when it comes to arms sales.
The US move to an open policy of arms sales promotion makes sense under two common assumptions about arms sales. The first assumption is about economics - and apparently that is the argument that is being made to justify this shift in foreign policy. It is expensive to develop new weapons systems. It is expensive to maintain manufacturing for spare parts. Having external customers keeps production going, and provides partial relief for development costs. It provides employment (which is particularly important in defense industries that can affect Congressional races where they are concentrated), and it ensures domestic manufacturing capability into the future.
During the Cold War both the US and the Soviets could sustain their arms development because of the large internal market for weapons and the sizes of their military economies in general. The end of the Cold war changed the imperatives for both states. Russia felt this need first, and more acutely. The United States needed arms sales more after the contraction of the armed forces during the 1990s.
The second assumption about arms sales that supports this development is the idea that arms purchases and sales are part of relationship building between states. This is a connection that has not been explored too deeply by arms scholarship. My current book project, which adapts and expands my dissertation examines these relationships more closely. Trump is a businessman in a business that is dominated by personal relationships. It seems natural that he would want to have a policy that reflects those preferences. The fact that he is focusing on the sale of arms highlights to me the importance of arms sales to state identity. Arms sales are still not "sexy" like conflict and other types of security studies, but the more we see such fascinating real-world examples of their importance, the more likely that academics will pay more attention.
_______
[1] Blanton, Shannon Lindsey. 2005. "Foreign Policy in Transition? Human Rights, Democracy, and U.S. Arms Exports." International Studies Quarterly 49: 647–668.
No comments:
Post a Comment