RSS

When people filled the streets of Tunis, took to the squares of Cairo and demonstrated in Tripoli to topple their leaders and with them the dictatorships, to global applause the EU and the US have placed themselves on the right side of history by supporting those who want democracy.

Nevertheless, with every new Arab uprising, the Janus face of the European and American foreign policy telling the regimes to listen to demands for democracy and to condemn violent suppression comes to light. A huge amount of the weapons used by Ben Ali, Mubarak and Qaddafi to repress their fellow citizens come from European and American arms suppliers.

As leading international actors the EU and the US seek to promote fundamental civil political and economic rights such as peace, stability and respect for human rights. This is the celebrated face of their foreign policy. The other face - the "dark" side - is their arms transfer behavior. Small domestic markets and shrinking government military expenditures have placed European arms industries under pressure to export in order to survive in a global market dominated by the US. The American arms exporters compete with European weaponry but also with the abundance of cheap surplus weapons from the former Eastern Bloc market. Indeed the biggest markets for arms exports are often in states engaged in conflict or high levels of domestic suppression - precisely where the EU’s foreign policy agenda as well as the Obama administration try to promote human rights. Yet as both aspire to strengthen their position as a "Force for Good", the contradictions become especially glaring. Although they seek to solve international conflicts and promote universal norms, arms transfers can undermine these goals and their credibility as agents for the pursuit of a "Good World". Thus, the idea that democracy and peace can be spread throughout the world through arms exports may strike many as a contradiction in terms. Nevertheless, arms transfers could serve as a long-term instrument of an ethical foreign policy.

Arms exports can provide means for governments to engage in crises and domestic repression of human rights. The denial of arms sales can function as a sanction for an importer’s poor conduct and thus, limit its ability to repress and violate human rights. Moreover, arms transfers can be seen as an approval of a recipient’s political behavior, which means that denying them is a signal of disapproval and distances the exporting countries from a consumer’s domestically questionable policies.

Although the EU and the US strongly emphasize the link between human rights and arms transfers by supporting the international effort to reach a legally binding global arms trade treaty (ATT) there are a number of stances that prevent them from being a "Force for Good". In the case of North Africa they both failed to meet their own standards of arms export policies and reduced foreign policy to a narrow pursuit of commercial gain. The EU and the US sold not only "tools of armed conflict (tanks and combat aircraft) to governments hovering on the brink of instability", they also exported "tools of domestic repression such as armored vehicles, small arms, tear gas, and riot equipment". While the EU afterwards reacted with an EU-wide stop on trade with licensing of arms for sale to Libya, the USA is still keeping silent on its future plans for arms sales to North Africa.

But there are things that Brussels and Washington can do to avoid more harm and establish arms transfers as a long-time instrument for the pursuit of a “Good World“.

First, they both must engage with other leading arms exporting countries in a strategic debate at the track-two-or semi-official level with industrial figures and civilian persons from the arms control movement outside government. By holding open-ended talks that go beyond the official level, these participants can address the medium- and long-term implications of the current arms transfer policies and specific economic and political issues driving the different lobby groups apart. While politicians will not be officially involved in the debates, track-two participants should keep them up-dated about new developments and seek their expert knowledge about politics.

Second, both sides must sustain and strengthen the link between human rights and arms transfers, as the European Union and the US signaled during the last United Nations meeting for a legally binding accord to regulate the conventional arms trade. They need to support strong parameter language that obligates countries to avoid trading with governments that violate human rights or commit abuse of the international humanitarian law. This link must be insulated from the overall ups and downs of the world economic situation, to avoid feeding mistrust in the credibility of the EU and the USA as a "Force for Good".

Third, both the European Commission and the Obama Administration should expand ways of co-operation on practical support for democratic principles and civil society with better coordination to help achieve functioning self-determination in conflict regions.

All of these steps will strengthen the European and American pursuit of the "Good World", while avoiding the violation of democratic values in favor of economic interests. It will not be easy - the EU and the US will need to make a sustained commitment to a legally binding international treaty to regulate the conventional arms trade with as much candor as possible. Unless this happens, however, progress will be limited on having an effective impact in conflict zones where the uncontrolled flow of weapons is causing humanitarian catastrophes. This would undermine what is a generally commendable EU/US approach on the ATT.

Katja Kruse is a graduate student of European Security Studies at the European University Viadrina.

This article was submitted for the atlantic-community.org's competition: "Empowering Women in International Relations." It coincides with the 10th Anniversary of UN resolution 1325 calling for an increased influence of women in all aspects of peace and security. The contest is sponsored by the U.S. Mission to NATO and the NATO Public Diplomacy Division.

You can read more submissions from the competition here.