Concerned about Israel’s use of US -supplied F-16 fighters during the recent escalation of violence in the Middle East, US Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan) is asking President George W. Bush to investigate whether Israel’s use of the fighters — and other American-made weaponry — violates US arms export laws.
While the findings of the Bush administration’s investigation are not known, a Congressional staff member familiar with the issue says the General Accounting Office — the investigative arms of Congress — will likely release in September a report commissioned by Conyers detailing which US-supplied military hardware in the arsenals of Israel and its neighbors is subject to the terms of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).
According to Conyers’ letter to the President, “It appears on the face of numerous international reports that attacks on the Palestinian Authority Headquarters and regional police stations fall outside [the terms of the Arms Export Control Act.].” Conyers cites Israel’s use of F-16s in mid-May to attack the Palestinian Authority headquarters and regional police stations.
The move by Conyers — who is the ranking minority member of the Congressional Armed Services Committee — is part of a groundswell of concern on Capitol Hill about how and to whom American arms are exported. Worries in Congress that US allies are using American arms have also lead to the creation of a bipartisan panel to study the issue.
Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israeli Embassy on Washington, is dismissive of congressional concerns: “Israel’s use of weaponry complies with the spirit and letter of all its obligations to the United States,” Regev says. “Those weapons are used in self-defense and self-defense only.”
Regev says Israel finds itself in a difficult situation finding an effective response to terrorism, and that its military’s counter-terrorism efforts are defensive in nature.
Khalil Jahshan, vice president of the Arab Defense Committee, disagrees. Jahshan says Israeli attacks on civilians and, in particular, the recent, bloody attack on the Palestinian Statistical Bureau, is clearly an overreaction. “I think Congress should freeze all consideration of arms sales to Israel until the current investigation is complete and available to the public,” Jahshan says.
A January 2001 report by the National Lawyers Guild, a left-leaning legal association, concludes, “Under no reasonable interpretation of the terms ‘internal security’ and ‘legitimate self-defense’ can Israel’s use of excessive and indiscriminate lethal force against a civilian population be justified.”
The Arms Export Control Act permits transfers of defense equipment for “internal security” and “legitimate self-defense” reasons. The Foreign Assistance Act, the section of US law that provides guidelines for US foreign aid, says that only under certain exceptions may US security assistance “be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.”
Neither law defines “internal security,” “legitimated self-defense” or “gross violations of human rights,” leaving the interpretation of the law to the White House. A Defense Department official familiar with US arms transfer policy in the Middle East believes “it is highly unlikely” that the Bush Administration will find Israel in violation of American law.
In 1999, total US military sales to Israel — including surplus items and direct transfers of arms from the Pentagon inventory — totaled $949,431,000.
Israel’s announcement last Spring at the Paris air show that it intends to purchase an additional 50 American-made F-16 “Fighting Falcon” fighter planes has heightened concerns about Israel’s use of the aircraft and related equipment. The Pentagon official is concerned the US is sending the wrong message by selling new F-16s during some of the worst hostilities while some European nations have cut sales. In December, both France and Germany refused to issue export licenses to Israel for defense materials.
A recent Congressional study by a group of prominent government and private experts concludes that multilateral regimes meant to control the proliferation of militarily sensitive equipment and technology is ineffective. The report, “Study Group on Enhancing Multilateral Export Controls,” sees a need to stem the flood of American-made weaponry to countries suspected of misusing US arms. The authors of the study calls on the President, Congress and the defense industry to make the reform of multilateral export controls a top priority before US power, prosperity and security are compromised.
The Congressionally mandated report concludes that current US and multilateral systems to control conventional as well as nuclear, biological and chemical technologies and equipment are “increasingly at odds with a world of rapid technological innovations, the globalization of business and the internationalization of the defense base.”
These regimes, says the study, do not effectively control the transfer of sensitive technologies to countries and regions of concern. The Washington- based Stimson Center and the Center for Strategic and International Studies coordinated the study, which aimed to develop a multilateral framework for an “agreement that would regulate certain militarily useful goods and technologies.”
The study offers three key recommendations. First, it calls for strengthening multilateral arrangements with enhanced information exchanges and procedural reforms, then consolidating existing multilateral regimes into a single body. Second, it suggests export control polices between close allies and friends be harmonized in a supplemental framework. This supplemental framework would place stricter controls on the most sensitive technologies to end-users outside of this framework. Third, the panel recommends re-authorizing the Export Administration Act and the reform of US export controls by overhauling the regulatory policies and processes for approving export licenses for munitions.
