Arms Supplies: Turkey's Military Actions in Syria
Following a conversation between U.S. President Donald Trump and Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on October 6, 2019, Turkey began military activities against Kurdish forces in northern Syria, claiming the desire to create a buffer zone where Syrian refugees could be resettled. Those Kurdish forces had been U.S. allies in the fight against the Islamic State. Facing Turkey's advances, Kurdish forces chose to ally with Syria's President Bashar al-Assad on October 13. Worries about harm to civilians and misuse of weapons were just some of the concerns raised as a number of countries took actions to limit future weapons supplied to Turkey and Congressional leaders sought similar measures.
This resource page is primarily meant to detail arms supply-related topics and contains a number of subsections (recommended publications, U.S. arms supplies and end use processes, other countries). It will be updated as developments occur.
Experts to contact*: William Hartung (U.S. arms sales), Kate Kizer (civilian harm), Frank Slijper (European actions), Francesco Vignarca (Italy), Jeff Abramson... see additional experts listed on select topics in the resource below.
* Inclusion on the Forum on the Arms Trade expert list does not indicate agreement with or endorsement of the opinions of others.
Last updated: October 30, 2019
This resource page is primarily meant to detail arms supply-related topics and contains a number of subsections (recommended publications, U.S. arms supplies and end use processes, other countries). It will be updated as developments occur.
Experts to contact*: William Hartung (U.S. arms sales), Kate Kizer (civilian harm), Frank Slijper (European actions), Francesco Vignarca (Italy), Jeff Abramson... see additional experts listed on select topics in the resource below.
* Inclusion on the Forum on the Arms Trade expert list does not indicate agreement with or endorsement of the opinions of others.
Last updated: October 30, 2019
Recommended Publications
- Shannon Dick, "How the United States can ensure American weapons aren't used for human rights abuses," MilitaryTimes, October 17, 2019.
- William Hartung, "Turkey's Invasion of Syria, Made in the U.S.A.," Forbes, October 10, 2019. See also related Center for International Policy issue brief (October 11). See "To Curb Turkey's Invasion of Syria, Cut Off US Arms and Support," Inkstick, October 15, 2019.
- "Security Assistance in Focus: Turkey," Security Assistance Monitor factsheet detailing U.S. arms sales and major weapons within the Turkish arsenal, October 11, 2019.
- "Security Assistance in Focus: Syria," Security Assistance Monitor factsheet detailing the fiscal year 2019 U.S. Department of Defense request for arms and equipment for "Vetted Syrian Opposition" groups, which include Kurdish forces in conflict with Turkey, October 10, 2019.
- Frank Slijper, "Power Projection: Turkey´s Military Build-Up: Arms Transfers and an Emerging Military Industry," PAX, January 2017.
United States
The United States is a key weapons supplier to NATO-ally Turkey, accounting for 60% of Turkey's major weapons imports during 2014-2018 according to the latest SIPRI data. (See also latest U.S. government 655 report on annual military assistance, as well as Security Assistance Monitor factsheet.) Turkey's decision to buy Russian S-400 air defense systems, however, led the United States to remove Turkey from the F-35 program, where it had been a partner, and created tension between the two countries and more broadly within NATO.
Under U.S. law, the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) establishes how U.S. supplied weapons and military assistance may be used, requiring that uses are "solely for internal security, for legitimate self-defense, for preventing or hindering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction...,to participate in regional or collective arrangements or measures consistent with the Charter of the United Nations..." (see AECA). Whether Turkey's use of U.S.-supplied weapons is consistent with these requirements, in particular for "legitimate self-defense," is questionable. According to media reports, the Trump administration is paying particular attention to whether Turkey conducts "indiscriminate artillery and airstrikes directed at civilians." As reports of civilian casualties and targeting are made, it is logical to expect challenges as to whether U.S. sales would be legal, as has occurred regarding arms to the Saudi-led coalition (see analysis).
On October 9, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) announced a Turkey sanctions bill that will be introduced when Congress returns from recess.
On October 17, Jim Risch (R-Idaho) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), the chair and ranking members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, announced the pending introduction of legislation - S.2641, that prohibits arms sales to Turkey. Senator Graham introduced a bill which would impose sanctions on Turkey, S.2644, on the same day (see tweet, and media report), and Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) introduced S.2624, which would prohibit arms transfers to Turkey.
In the House, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming) introduced legislation on October 16, H.R.4692, that would also prohibit military assistance, including arms transfers (see press release, bill text). Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) introduced a similar bill, H.R. 4695 (the PACT Act). This legislation passed the House on October 29 by a vote of 403-16.
Note: In arms transfers, end-use monitoring assurances are made in writing. While these finalized forms are not public, there is a standard form regarding end use for significant military equipment that simply lists the permissible purposes, including self-defense. See 22 C.F.R. §123.10(a) (requiring submission of form DSP-83 which includes a certification that the item will only be used for an enumerated purpose). See also the Golden Sentry and Blue Lantern programs, which are charged with end-use monitoring.
Under U.S. law, the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) establishes how U.S. supplied weapons and military assistance may be used, requiring that uses are "solely for internal security, for legitimate self-defense, for preventing or hindering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction...,to participate in regional or collective arrangements or measures consistent with the Charter of the United Nations..." (see AECA). Whether Turkey's use of U.S.-supplied weapons is consistent with these requirements, in particular for "legitimate self-defense," is questionable. According to media reports, the Trump administration is paying particular attention to whether Turkey conducts "indiscriminate artillery and airstrikes directed at civilians." As reports of civilian casualties and targeting are made, it is logical to expect challenges as to whether U.S. sales would be legal, as has occurred regarding arms to the Saudi-led coalition (see analysis).
On October 9, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) announced a Turkey sanctions bill that will be introduced when Congress returns from recess.
On October 17, Jim Risch (R-Idaho) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), the chair and ranking members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, announced the pending introduction of legislation - S.2641, that prohibits arms sales to Turkey. Senator Graham introduced a bill which would impose sanctions on Turkey, S.2644, on the same day (see tweet, and media report), and Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) introduced S.2624, which would prohibit arms transfers to Turkey.
In the House, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming) introduced legislation on October 16, H.R.4692, that would also prohibit military assistance, including arms transfers (see press release, bill text). Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) introduced a similar bill, H.R. 4695 (the PACT Act). This legislation passed the House on October 29 by a vote of 403-16.
Note: In arms transfers, end-use monitoring assurances are made in writing. While these finalized forms are not public, there is a standard form regarding end use for significant military equipment that simply lists the permissible purposes, including self-defense. See 22 C.F.R. §123.10(a) (requiring submission of form DSP-83 which includes a certification that the item will only be used for an enumerated purpose). See also the Golden Sentry and Blue Lantern programs, which are charged with end-use monitoring.
International Responses
A number of countries have announced or debated measures that would suspend current or future arms sales to Turkey. Some of these include:
On October 14, 2019, the EU did not adopt an EU wide embargo but instead agreed that "the EU recalls the decision taken by some Member States to immediately halt arms exports licensing to Turkey. Member States commit to strong national positions regarding their arms export policy to Turkey on the basis of the provision of the Common Position 2008/944/CFSP on arms export control, including the strict application of criteria 4 on regional stability." Criterion 4 stipulates that "Member States shall deny an export licence if there is a clear risk that the intended recipient would use the military technology or equipment to be exported aggressively against another country or to assert by force a territorial claim."
On October 15, 2019, listed-expert Roy Isbister (Saferworld) commented and may be quoted by media as saying: "The EU could not agree across the entire EU to a formal arms embargo. Instead, member states will continue making their own decisions, but over the last couple of days there have been a number of statements from individual Member States announcing more restrictive policies, for example that no new licenses will be issued for the export to Turkey of arms that might be used in Syria. Until each country explicitly indicates that they will not only stop future licenses, but also any licenses already approved from being delivered, it is premature to conclude that EU states are no longer supplying arms to Turkey. And until there is an explicitly agreed EU position, individual states continue to operate with national discretion and it therefore makes no sense to talk about an EU arms embargo."
- Belgium (Flanders) - suspended decisions on pending licenses (Oct. 10) Walloon region continues 2016 ban (Oct 13)
- Canada - suspend new export permits (Oct 15)
- Czech Republic - licenses suspended and new ones not issued (Oct 15)
- Finland - no new licenses will be granted (Oct. 10)
- France - "suspend all planned exports of war material to Turkey which is likely to be employed as part of the offensive in Syria" (Oct. 12)
- Germany - Foreign Minister says will not issue new permits (Oct 12, English)
- Italy - stop new licenses, but not already agreed ones (Oct 14... also, contact Francesco Vignarca)
- Netherlands - Parliament adopted measures to suspend military cooperation and stop deliveries if attacks continue and Turkey does not withdraw, Government suspends arms exports. Questions remain as to whether policy applies to already permitted exports, or only new licenses. (October 10 and 11, 14)
- Norway - suspend arms sales (Oct 10)
- Spain - suspend new licenses (Oct 15)
- Sweden - stops arms exports and revokes two previously approved licences to Turkey (Oct. 15... also, contact Linda Åkerström)
- United Kingdom - Foreign Secretary indicates that no further export licenses granted to weapons that might be used in Syria (Oct 15, go to 11:36:00)
On October 14, 2019, the EU did not adopt an EU wide embargo but instead agreed that "the EU recalls the decision taken by some Member States to immediately halt arms exports licensing to Turkey. Member States commit to strong national positions regarding their arms export policy to Turkey on the basis of the provision of the Common Position 2008/944/CFSP on arms export control, including the strict application of criteria 4 on regional stability." Criterion 4 stipulates that "Member States shall deny an export licence if there is a clear risk that the intended recipient would use the military technology or equipment to be exported aggressively against another country or to assert by force a territorial claim."
On October 15, 2019, listed-expert Roy Isbister (Saferworld) commented and may be quoted by media as saying: "The EU could not agree across the entire EU to a formal arms embargo. Instead, member states will continue making their own decisions, but over the last couple of days there have been a number of statements from individual Member States announcing more restrictive policies, for example that no new licenses will be issued for the export to Turkey of arms that might be used in Syria. Until each country explicitly indicates that they will not only stop future licenses, but also any licenses already approved from being delivered, it is premature to conclude that EU states are no longer supplying arms to Turkey. And until there is an explicitly agreed EU position, individual states continue to operate with national discretion and it therefore makes no sense to talk about an EU arms embargo."