2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Iowa City Press-Citizen Writers Group: Clinton NO Progressive Candidate [View all]vkkv
(3,384 posts)From the Dept of STATE.
http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/rm/2014/225118.htm
Conventional Arms Transfer Policy: Advancing American National Security Through Security Cooperation
Remarks
Gregory M. Kausner
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs
Remarks to IISS
Washington, DC
April 23, 2014
The Arms Sale Process
Some refer to our arms transfer decision-making process as onerous, inflexible, and arcane. There is no question; it is not perfect. As the policy states, we will continue to pursue efforts to streamline security cooperation. The deliberate review of U.S. arms transfers, however, is an affirmation of how seriously we take this business.
Both the Departments of State and Defense assess the policy and technical impacts of each and every transfer. The U.S. Congress plays a vital oversight role as well. All major arms transfers require us to notify Congress, and an extensive consultation process exists to ensure that congressional concerns are addressed.
Now, we often hear the question do you ever reject an arms transfer? Although we do not advertise such decisions, we reject sales all the time. ( meaning the State Dept!)
When we decide to move forward with a transfer, however, transparency remains a hallmark of the CAT policy in fact, our major Foreign Military Sales are posted upon notification to Congress on the public website of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, and the texts of both Foreign Military Sales and Direct Commercial Sales notifications are published in the Federal Register.
Conclusion
We recognize the challenges associated with U.S. arms transfers. Across the interagency, we work day in and day out to ensure transfers are carefully considered, and made or denied for the right reasons that promote American security and reflect American values.
Each delivery of U.S. security assistance sends a message to our friends and foes. It is an act of support and trust for our partners and allies. It provides them the capabilities to defend themselves, and to provide for the stability of their region.
The advantages of security assistance as both a complement to, and a substitute for, U.S. boots on the ground are clear and compelling. As someone who works these issues every day, however, I will be the first to tell you that the decision to train or equip a foreign partner is not always an easy one. Yet we cannot simply turn our back on the complexities of building partner capacity. To do so would open the door for other suppliers and actors. It would hamper our allies efforts to work with us on common security issues. It would distance us from our partners.
It would disadvantage the very industry on which we rely for our technological security capabilities and advantage. It would take away our voice in circumstances where it might matter the most.
So, we transfer arms with our eyes wide open, with laws, regulation, and policy designed to reflect caution, but also shaped to ensure that our security policy supports, and reinforces, our foreign policy. And we see results every day, from coalition operations against shared threats, to multinational training exercises, to the conversations that occur between American troops and foreign partners partners who came here for training and left here as friends. We will remain cautious in using arms transfers as a tool of foreign policy, but we should never forget that our national security is in many ways dependent upon, and advanced as a result of, our security cooperation.
Thank you.