Officials Reviewing Arms Transfers Are ‘Absolutely Overworked,’ State Dept. Official Says
Government employees reviewing arms transfers and foreign military sales are tasked with too much work, Mira Resnick, the State Department’s deputy assistant secretary for regional security, said during an event last week hosted by the Stimson Center. Despite the heavy workload, Resnick said, the agency is working to speed up decisions surrounding arms transfers and is working with the Defense Department to make the Foreign Military Sales program more efficient.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
“Our people right now are absolutely overworked,” Resnick said. “But they are working very hard to be able to adjudicate these decisions.”
About 95% of FMS cases “go through the Department of State within 48 hours," Resnick said. The other 5% “can take longer,” she said, and are assessed under the Biden administration's Conventional Arms Transfer (CAT) policy.
“Every case will be adjudicated according to the CAT policy,” Resnick said, adding that “we understand that sometimes contracting takes a while, sometimes production takes a while.” But the State Department wants “to make sure that we're able to provide stakeholders in these decisions answers in a predictable and timely manner.”
Resnick’s comments came about two weeks after the administration released its long-awaited revised CAT policies, which place a heavy emphasis on human rights issues (see 2302230049). Some lawmakers said the new policies fail to prioritize the economic competitiveness of U.S. defense companies (see 2302240043).
The policy puts in place “stronger restrictions” on weapons exports when the risk of violating human rights may be too high, said Annie Shiel, U.S. advocacy director for the Center for Civilians in Conflict. The Trump and Obama administrations allowed arms transfers unless the exporter had “actual knowledge” the weapons would contribute to human rights violations and other crimes, Shiel said, but the Biden administration's policies will prevent arms transfers if they are “more likely than not” to lead to human rights abuses.
The previous criteria was an “almost impossible standard to meet,” Shiel said during the event. “Broadening of that restriction was really critical.”
Christopher Le Mon, the State Department’s deputy assistant secretary for democracy, human rights and labor, said the new human rights criteria was a key area of focus for the administration. “It was kind of unthinkable that if we did assess that an arms transfer would be likely or more likely than not to result in civilian harm … it was kind of unthinkable that we would proceed with that transfer,” Le Mon said. “Codifying that standard as a global one was a really important piece of the policy.”
Although both Shiel and Rachel Stohl, an arms trade expert with Stimson, applauded the new policies, they said they’re concerned the policies are becoming too politicized. “The fact is, this is the third CAT policy in as many administrations, and I find that particularly troubling,” Stohl said. "The U.S. CAT policy may need periodic adjustments,” she said, “but it should not reflect the short-term whims of only one president or administration.” She added that “maybe we can live with this one for more than four years.”