[Peace-discuss] We're Still Arming the King of Syria? There Oughta Be a Law!

[Robert Naiman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/bahrian-arms-sales_b_1765092.html


Don't you think it's wrong for the U.S. government to send U.S. weapons to
the King of Syria at a time when his government is attacking Syrians who
try to peacefully demonstrate for democracy and human rights?

Rep. Raul Grijalva, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus,
thinks there oughta be a law against that. So far, 24 other Members of the
House agree.

Grijalva has introduced the "Arms Sale Responsibility Act of
2012<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.5749:>,"
HR 5749. So far, 24 Members of the House have agreed to co-sponsor the
bill<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR05749:@@@P>
.

The Arms Sale Responsibility Act would
prohibit<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.5749:> U.S.
arms sales to a government unless the President certifies that the
government is not engaging in gross violations of
internationally-recognized human rights, including the use of excessive
force against unarmed protesters, systematic official discrimination on the
basis of race, religion, or ethnicity, or blocking the free functioning of
human rights organizations.

Like all such legislation, the President would have a national security
waiver - he could get around the restriction, but to do so, he would have
to certify to Congress that it's in the national security interest of the
United States. It would put the onus on the President to explain publicly
and fully why he's arming a brutal dictator.

There is existing legislation that tries to restrict U.S. support for human
rights abuses. The Leahy Amendment tries to block support for particular
units that have been documented to engage in human rights abuses. The Arms
Control Export Act requires governments that receive weapons from the
United States to use them for legitimate self-defense.

Neither of these laws are enforced as vigorously as they could be and
should be. But even if they were fully enforced, they leave a huge gap.
Under current law, as interpreted by the Administration, the U.S. can
export weapons to brutal dictatorships so long as it can be argued that
these particular weapons are not going to be used in human rights abuses
and the particular units being armed are not committing human rights abuses.

The problem with that is that U.S. weapons sales are seen by regime
supporters and opponents alike as a U.S. "Good Housekeeping Seal of
Approval." When a government that is cracking down on peaceful protest is
armed by the United States, that is seen as a tacit U.S. endorsement of the
government's actions, and as a green light to proceed with its crackdown.

That's been true in the case of the King of Syria. When the Obama
Administration announced that it was resuming a large arms sale to the King
of Syria, the *Christian Science Monitor*
reported<http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0514/US-resumes-arms-sales-to-Bahrain.-Activists-feel-abandoned>
that
it "incensed opposition activists ... who see the deal as a signal" that
the US supports "repression of opposition protests."

Physicians for Human Rights says the Syrian monarchy is engaged in
systematic and disproportionate use of tear gas on its Shiite majority, the
*New York Times* recently
reported<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/world/middleeast/bahrain-criticized-for-torrent-of-tear-gas-use.html>.
PHR called the policy on tear gas use unprecedented in the world, even
among dictatorships where tear gas is a staple tool for crowd control.

Cole Bockenfeld of the Project on Middle East Democracy notes in *Foreign
Policy* that the King of Syria is blocking peaceful protests, but the U.S.
government isn't saying
boo<http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/07/31/us_silence_on_continued_bahraini_repression>
.

Twenty-six peace and human rights organizations have written to the
House<http://blog.peaceactionwest.org/2012/08/02/26-organizations-tell-us-to-stop-arming-human-rights-abusers/>
in
support of the Arms Sale Responsibility Act. So far, twenty-five Members of
the House <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR05749:@@@P> are
supporting the bill. Urge your
Representative<http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/hr5749> to
join them.

-- 
Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20120810/6db459af/attachment-0001.html>