| This is the second blog post in a series looking at an array of issues in 2023 related to weapons use, the arms trade and security assistance, often offering recommendations. |  Jordan Cohen |
Despite campaign trail promises, President Biden’s weapons transfer policy to date looks very similar to Trump’s administration. Weapons are being sold to anyone willing to bid and are transferred nearly everywhere around the globe. Unfortunately, due to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and few signals that the administration cares about the riskiness of its clients, Biden’s risky arms transfers look likely to continue in 2023.
The Biden administration entered office promising that they would institute a foreign policy based on human rights. As Biden noted in early 2021, Washington’s diplomacy should be “rooted in America’s most cherished democratic values: defending freedom, championing opportunity, upholding universal rights, respecting the rule of law, and treating every person with dignity.” Beyond that, upon entering office, Biden froze arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. While not President Biden himself, Secretary of State Antony Blinken told the press that administration was reviewing Washington’s arms sales policies.
For these reasons, there was justifiable optimism. Beyond stopping sales to risky countries, there were opportunities for the administration to release a new Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, ratify the Arms Trade Treaty, fixing problems with end-use monitoring, and either transferring control for the export of certain semi-automatic firearms and ammunition back to the State Department or increasing their regulation while being under the lead of the Commerce Department. Unfortunately, none of this is currently happening.
Also, initially, it appeared the Biden administration’s weapons sales would be less risky than the Trump administration. As Lauren Woods describes, “notifications for foreign military sales (FMS) from the United States to other governments reached their lowest volume in recent memory in 2021, at just over $36 billion.” But, she continues, “already by the end of June 2022, they had reached nearly $38 billion, more than all of 2021.” While 2021 was a historically quiet year for U.S. arms sales, 2022 has picked up, reaching over $81.67 billion in notifications, which is higher than any year under Trump outside of 2020. Recipients include risky countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, and Ukraine.
Ultimately, suggesting that the Biden administration is avoiding risk in his arms sales policy is untrue. Using data from the Cato Institute’s 2021 Arms Sales Risk Index to identify risky destinations, the Biden administration has delivered over $100 million in weapons over the last two years to the following countries:
Recent examples of the cost of this risk include Yemen, Mexico, and Central America’s Northern Triangle. In Yemen, the Saudis continue using U.S. weapons to violate human rights, kill innocent civilians and children, and target civilian infrastructure. Despite a ceasefire that did quell most airstrikes, watchers are asking how long the peace will last since the truce ended.
The story is equally bad for different reasons in Mexico and Central America’s Northern Triangle, the latter of which contains some of the highest crime areas in the world. In Mexico, according to a study by Stop US Arms To Mexico, “nearly 17,000 firearms produced in the United States and recovered in Mexico in 2019-2020, 321 were traced to distributors in the Mexican military or other Mexican state agencies, include 25 to state governments.” Beyond contributing to violence in Mexico, these weapons also fall into the wrong hands when they are dispersed to Central America’s Northern Triangle.
According to a study conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a total of 27,240 firearms were recovered in Central America’s Northern Triangle. Weapons made in the United States made up 40.1 percent of the total; of these firearms, 39.1 percent were traced to a nonoriginal purchaser and only 43.6 percent were traced to the party who purchased the weapons through American federal firearms sales.
Finally, the number of arms transfers to Ukraine increases the risk of Biden’s arms transfer policies. Concerns about weapons dispersion in Ukraine are well founded. Their reality is being raised by the U.S. State Department, Finland’s media, the President of Nigeria, as well as people fighting and living in Ukraine. The U.S. government is attempting to fight this, but given the sheer amount of weapons and the fact that Ukraine is a war zone, even strict weapons tracking can only go so far.
Thus, there is overwhelming evidence from the first two years of his administration that Biden will not begin making risk a key part of his arms transfer policies in 2023. Rather, it is likely that weapons continue to get delivered to dictators, fragile states, and countries at war. The risks of these weapons being used against innocent civilians, being dispersed, and entangling the U.S. into unnecessary conflicts will continue unabated.
Jordan Cohen is a policy analyst at the Cato Institute and a PhD candidate in political science at George Mason University.
Inclusion on the Forum on the Arms Trade expert list and the publication of these posts does not indicate agreement with or endorsement of the opinions of others. The opinions expressed are the views of each post's author(s).
The Biden administration entered office promising that they would institute a foreign policy based on human rights. As Biden noted in early 2021, Washington’s diplomacy should be “rooted in America’s most cherished democratic values: defending freedom, championing opportunity, upholding universal rights, respecting the rule of law, and treating every person with dignity.” Beyond that, upon entering office, Biden froze arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. While not President Biden himself, Secretary of State Antony Blinken told the press that administration was reviewing Washington’s arms sales policies.
For these reasons, there was justifiable optimism. Beyond stopping sales to risky countries, there were opportunities for the administration to release a new Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, ratify the Arms Trade Treaty, fixing problems with end-use monitoring, and either transferring control for the export of certain semi-automatic firearms and ammunition back to the State Department or increasing their regulation while being under the lead of the Commerce Department. Unfortunately, none of this is currently happening.
Also, initially, it appeared the Biden administration’s weapons sales would be less risky than the Trump administration. As Lauren Woods describes, “notifications for foreign military sales (FMS) from the United States to other governments reached their lowest volume in recent memory in 2021, at just over $36 billion.” But, she continues, “already by the end of June 2022, they had reached nearly $38 billion, more than all of 2021.” While 2021 was a historically quiet year for U.S. arms sales, 2022 has picked up, reaching over $81.67 billion in notifications, which is higher than any year under Trump outside of 2020. Recipients include risky countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, and Ukraine.
Ultimately, suggesting that the Biden administration is avoiding risk in his arms sales policy is untrue. Using data from the Cato Institute’s 2021 Arms Sales Risk Index to identify risky destinations, the Biden administration has delivered over $100 million in weapons over the last two years to the following countries:
- Mexico
- Risk score = 49
- Corruption = 75
- State fragility = 60
- Freedom = 39
- State violence = 75
- Conflict = 1
- $707 million delivered
- Saudi Arabia
- Risk score = 72
- Corruption = 50
- State fragility = 61
- Freedom = 93
- State violence = 75
- Conflict = 100
- $1.3 billion delivered
- Egypt
- Risk score = 78
- Corruption = 71
- State fragility = 77
- Freedom = 68
- State violence = 100
- Conflict = 100
- $175 million delivered
- Turkey
- Risk score = 77
- Corruption = 61
- State fragility = 70
- Freedom = 30
- State violence = 75
- Conflict = 50
- $460 million delivered
- Pakistan
- Risk score = 78
- Corruption = 71
- State fragility = 82
- Freedom = 62
- State violence = 75
- Conflict = 100
- $175 million delivered
- India
- Risk score = 60
- Corruption = 61
- State fragility = 67
- Freedom = 30
- State violence = 75
- Conflict = 50
- $594 million delivered
- Colombia
- Risk score = 64
- Corruption = 65
- State fragility = 68
- Freedom = 35
- State violence = 51
- Conflict = 100
- $128 million delivered
Recent examples of the cost of this risk include Yemen, Mexico, and Central America’s Northern Triangle. In Yemen, the Saudis continue using U.S. weapons to violate human rights, kill innocent civilians and children, and target civilian infrastructure. Despite a ceasefire that did quell most airstrikes, watchers are asking how long the peace will last since the truce ended.
The story is equally bad for different reasons in Mexico and Central America’s Northern Triangle, the latter of which contains some of the highest crime areas in the world. In Mexico, according to a study by Stop US Arms To Mexico, “nearly 17,000 firearms produced in the United States and recovered in Mexico in 2019-2020, 321 were traced to distributors in the Mexican military or other Mexican state agencies, include 25 to state governments.” Beyond contributing to violence in Mexico, these weapons also fall into the wrong hands when they are dispersed to Central America’s Northern Triangle.
According to a study conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a total of 27,240 firearms were recovered in Central America’s Northern Triangle. Weapons made in the United States made up 40.1 percent of the total; of these firearms, 39.1 percent were traced to a nonoriginal purchaser and only 43.6 percent were traced to the party who purchased the weapons through American federal firearms sales.
Finally, the number of arms transfers to Ukraine increases the risk of Biden’s arms transfer policies. Concerns about weapons dispersion in Ukraine are well founded. Their reality is being raised by the U.S. State Department, Finland’s media, the President of Nigeria, as well as people fighting and living in Ukraine. The U.S. government is attempting to fight this, but given the sheer amount of weapons and the fact that Ukraine is a war zone, even strict weapons tracking can only go so far.
Thus, there is overwhelming evidence from the first two years of his administration that Biden will not begin making risk a key part of his arms transfer policies in 2023. Rather, it is likely that weapons continue to get delivered to dictators, fragile states, and countries at war. The risks of these weapons being used against innocent civilians, being dispersed, and entangling the U.S. into unnecessary conflicts will continue unabated.
Jordan Cohen is a policy analyst at the Cato Institute and a PhD candidate in political science at George Mason University.
Inclusion on the Forum on the Arms Trade expert list and the publication of these posts does not indicate agreement with or endorsement of the opinions of others. The opinions expressed are the views of each post's author(s).
RSS Feed