Topicality Generic Resolved.....................................................................................................................................3

Resolved ≠ Permanent............................................................................................................4Resolved = Express by Formal Vote/Enacted by Law..............................................................5Resolved = Definite Course of Action......................................................................................6

Colon..........................................................................................................................................7Colon ≠ Matter........................................................................................................................8Colon = Punctuation to Divide Related Clauses......................................................................9

The............................................................................................................................................10The = Specific........................................................................................................................11The = All Parts.......................................................................................................................12The = Particularizes a Noun..................................................................................................13

USFG.........................................................................................................................................14USFG = 3 Branches................................................................................................................15Federal Government = National Government......................................................................16

Should.......................................................................................................................................17Should – Recommended/Not Obligatory..............................................................................18Should – Obligation/Duty.....................................................................................................19

Substantially.............................................................................................................................20Substantially = To a Great or Significant Extent....................................................................21Substantially = Without Material Qualifications...................................................................22Substantial = Considerable value..........................................................................................23Substantially = Contextually Defined....................................................................................24Substantially = Vague/Ambiguous........................................................................................25

Reduce......................................................................................................................................26Reduce = “Convert a Fraction To”.........................................................................................27Reduce = “Make Less in Size”...............................................................................................28Reduce = “Diminish in Strength”...........................................................................................29Reduce ≠ Eliminate...............................................................................................................30Reduce ≠ Time-Frame, End-Point, or Progressive Reduction................................................31Reduction = Incremental.......................................................................................................32Reduction = Temporary Suspensions + Stricter Eligibility Criteria........................................33Reduction ≠ Stricter Eligibility Criteria..................................................................................35Reduce ≠ Decrease...............................................................................................................36Reduce = Decrease...............................................................................................................37Reduction = Abolition/Disarmament....................................................................................38Substantially Reduce = Abolish a Category of Arms..............................................................39Reduction ≠ Restriction/Management..................................................................................40Increased Congressional Oversight = Restriction..................................................................41

FMS/DCS...................................................................................................................................42FMS/DCS = USML – AECA & ITAR..........................................................................................43FMS/DCS ≠ Commerce Control List.......................................................................................45FMS/DCS ≠ CCL – AECA.........................................................................................................47FMS/DCS = CCL.....................................................................................................................48

FMS...........................................................................................................................................50

FMS = Security Assistance W/O Financing............................................................................51FMS ≠ Selling Costs...............................................................................................................52FMS = Classified Equipment/Major Weapons.......................................................................54FMS ≠ Military Aid/FMF........................................................................................................55FMS = Executive Branch........................................................................................................56FMS ≠ Offsets........................................................................................................................57

And/Or......................................................................................................................................59And/Or = Either or Both........................................................................................................60

DCS...........................................................................................................................................61DCS = Licensed Company Foreign Buyer..........................................................................62DCS = US Munitions List........................................................................................................63DCS = CCL..............................................................................................................................65

Of..............................................................................................................................................66Of = Object of Action............................................................................................................67

Arms.........................................................................................................................................68Arms = Defense Articles + Dual Use......................................................................................69Arms = Military Weapons.....................................................................................................70Arms = Munitions List...........................................................................................................71Arms = Broadly Defined........................................................................................................72Arms = Contested Definition in Literature............................................................................73

From.........................................................................................................................................74From = Provenance/Source..................................................................................................75

United States............................................................................................................................77United States........................................................................................................................78

Literature Base Context............................................................................................................80Specific Countries = Core Controversy..................................................................................81Global Rate of Arms Sales = Core Controversy.....................................................................83Process for Case-by-Case Evaluation = Core Controversy.....................................................85

A Brief Note on the File

The most limiting interpretation of “reduce” in the file is under “Reduction ≠ Restriction/Management,” from Pearson 88. The evidence is good: it has intent to define, intent to exclude, and is clearly in the context of the topic literature. I would recommend making this definition the staple of 1nc topicality interpretations. However, the definition is also very limiting, and excludes affirmatives that reduce arms sales to particular states like Taiwan and Saudi Arabia. To facilitate debate about whether a topic that narrow is desirable, I’ve put in a “literature base context” section at the end that helps to demonstrate that there is/is not core controversy in the literature about the overall rate of arms sales or arms sales to particular countries.

Resolved

Resolved ≠ Permanent

Resolved means not intended to be permanentHRC Human Rights Campaign, How to Pass A Resolution https://www.hrc.org/resources/how-to-pass-a-resolution A resolution is an official expression of the opinion or will of a legislative body. The practice of submitting and voting on resolutions is a typical part of business in Congress, state legislatures, and student government associations. It is capable of creating an official stance for your student body, whether the administration agrees with it or not. Resolutions allow the student's voices to be heard, create a change, and to pressure your goverment representatives to listen to your demands as a constituent. Resolutions are different from laws. Resolutions are limited to a specific issue or even, such as LGBT issues, nor intended to be permanent .

Resolved = Express by Formal Vote/Enacted by Law

Resolved means to express by formal vote—this is the only definition that’s in the context of the resolutionWebster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1998 (dictionary.com)

Resolved:5. To express, as an opinion or determination, by resolution and vote; to declare or decide by a formal vote; -- followed by a clause; as, the house resolved (or, it was resolved by the house) that no money should be apropriated (or, to appropriate no money).

‘Resolved’ denotes a proposal to be enacted by law Words and Phrases 64 Permanent Edition

Definition of the word “resolve,” given by Webster is “to express an opinion or determination by resolution or vote; as ‘it was resolved by the legislature;” It is of similar force to the word “enact,” which is defined by Bouvier as meaning “to establish by law”.

Resolved means to decide by formal voteThe American heritage dictionary 00 bartleby.com/61/ResolveVERB:Inflected forms: re·solved, re·solv·ing, re·solvesTRANSITIVE VERB:1. To make a firm decision about. 2. To cause (a person) to reach a decision. See synonyms at decide. 3. To decide or express by formal vote . 4. To change or convert: My resentment resolved itself into resignation. 5. To find a solution to; solve. See synonyms at solve. 6. To remove or dispel (doubts). 7. To bring to a usually successful conclusion: resolve a conflict. 8. Medicine To cause reduction of (an inflammation, for example). 9. Music To cause (a tone or chord) to progress from dissonance to consonance. 10. Chemistry To separate (an optically inactive compound or mixture) into its optically active constituents. 11. To render parts of (an image) visible and distinct. 12. Mathematics To separate (a vector, for example) into coordinate components. 13. To melt or dissolve (something). 14. Archaic To separate (something) into constituent parts. INTRANSITIVE VERB:1. To reach a decision or make a determination: resolve on a course of action. 2. To become separated or reduced to constituents. 3. Music To undergo resolution.

Resolved = Definite Course of Action

‘Resolved’ implies a specific course of action American Heritage 2k (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, http://www.bartleby.com/61/87/R0178700.html)INTRANSITIVE VERB:1. To reach a decision or make a determination: resolve on a course of action. 2. To become separated or reduced to constituents. 3. Music To undergo resolution.

Resolved means determined and firm in intentRandom House 6Unabridged (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=resolved&r=66)re·solved Audio Help /rɪˈzɒlvd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-zolvd] –adjective firm in purpose or intent; determined .

Resolved means “decided”Read Naturally 12 Glossary Level 8.0 https://www.readnaturally.com/knowledgebase/documents-and-resources/28/108resolved39Resolved means decided or firmly made up one's mind . Once I resolved to finish the job, I didn't let anything distract me from finishing it.

Colon

Colon ≠ Matter

The colon is meaningless – everything after it is what’s importantWebster’s 00Guide to Grammar and Writing (http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/colon.htm)Use of a colon before a list or an explanation that is preceded by a clause that can stand by itself. Think of the colon as a gate, inviting one to go on… If the introductory phrase preceding the colon is very brief and the clause following the colon represents the real business of the sentence, begin the clause after the colon with a capital letter.

Colon = Punctuation to Divide Related Clauses

The colon only elaborates on what the debate community was “resolved” to debateEncarta World Dictionary 7 (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=186159866)

co·lon (plural co·lons) noun Definition: 1. punctuation mark : the punctuation mark (:) used to

divide distinct but related sentence components such as clauses in which the second elaborates on the first, or to introduce a list, quotation, or speech. A colon is sometimes used in U.S. business letters after the salutation. Colons are also used between numbers in statements of proportion or time and Biblical or literary references.

The

The = Specific

“The” is used to denote a specific entityAmerican Heritage 00(Fourth Edition, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the)

the 1 P (th before a vowel; th before a consonant)def.art.

a. Used before singular or plural nouns and noun phrases that denote particular,

specified persons or things : the baby; the dress I wore.

b. Used before a noun, and generally stressed, to emphasize one of a group or type as the most outstanding or prominent: considered Lake Shore Drive to be the neighborhood to live in these days.

c. Used to indicate uniqueness : the Prince of Wales; the moon.

‘The’ means unique and specificMerriam-Websters 8 Online Collegiate Dictionary, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary Main Entry: 1 the1 a—used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent is definite or has been previously specified by context or by circumstance <put the cat out>

b—used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent is a unique or a

particular member of its class <the President><the Lord>

The word “the” implies there is only one – as in the USFGCambridge Dictionaries Online 7

used to refer to things or people when only one exists at any one time :

The = All Parts

“The” means “all parts”Merriam-Websters 8 Online Collegiate Dictionary, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Main Entry: 1 the4 -- used as a function word before a noun or a substantivized adjective to indicate reference to a group as a whole <the elite>

The = Particularizes a Noun

The word “the” particularizes its nounWords and Phrases 64Second Series, 1914, Updated 1964, Volume 4, 1905, pg. 893.

As designating a particular objectThe article “the” directs what particular thing or things are to be taken or assumed as spoken of, and determine what particular thing is meant. It is used before nouns with a specifying or particularizing effect so that its use immediately preceding “state” in the constitutional requirement that indictments shall conclude “against the peace and dignity of the state,” points out the state whose peace and dignity has been offended, and its omission in the indictment is a fatal defect.

The word “the” specifies the noun after it to be a particular specific one Webster’s II 95New College Dictionary, 1995, pg.1143.

1. a. – Used before singular or plural nouns and noun phrases that denote particular persons or things <read the newspaper> b. – Used before a noun, and generally stressed, emphasizing one of a group or type as the most outstanding or prominent <...continues...>

The word “the” particularizes its nounCambridge 7Dictionaries Online, 2007.

The (PARTICULAR) – determiner – 1 used before nouns to refer to things or people when a

listener or reader knows which particular things or people are being referred to , especially because they have already been mentioned or because what is happening makes it clear:

USFG

USFG = 3 Branches

The U.S. government is 3 branchesBlack’s Law Dictionary 90 (6th Edition, p. 695)

In the United States, government consists of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches in addition to administrative agencies. In a broader sense, includes the federal government and all its agencies and bureaus, state and county governments, and city and township governments.

The United States federal government constitutes of the executive, legislative, and judicial branchWordnet Princeton 7 http://poets.notredame.ac.jp/cgi-bin/wn?cmd=wn&word=federal_government

federal government -- (a government with strong central powers) United States government,

United States, U.S. government, US Government, U.S. -- ( the executive and legislative and

judicial branches of the federal government of the United States ) HAS INSTANCE=> Capital,

Washington -- ( the federal government of the United States )

Federal Government = National Government

Federal government is central governmentWEBSTER'S 76 NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY UNABRIDGED, p. 833.

Federal government. Of or relating to the central government of a nation, having the character of a federation as distinguished from the governments of the constituent unites (as states or provinces).

Federal government is the national government that expresses powerBlack’s Law 4 Dictionary, 8th Edition, June 1, 2004, pg.716.

Federal government . 1. A national government that exercises some degree of control over smaller political units that have surrendered some degree of power in exchange for the right to participate in national politics matters – Also termed (in federal states) central government. 2. the U.S. government – Also termed national government. [Cases: United States -1 C.J.S. United States - - 2-3]

Federal refers to the national government and it’s distinct from state lawDictionary of Government and Politics ’98 (Ed. P.H. Collin, p. 116)

federal [‘federal] adjective (a) referring to a system of government in which a group of states are linked together in a federation; a federal constitution = constitution (such as that in Germany) which provides for a series of semi-autonomous states joined together in a national federation (b) referring especially to the federal government of the United States; federal court or federal laws = court or laws of the USA, as opposed to state courts or state laws.

USFG is the federal government of the USA, based in DCDictionary of Government and Politics ’98 (Ed. P.H. Collin, p. 292)

United States of America (USA) [ju:’naitid ‘steits av e’merike] noun independent country, a federation of states (originally thirteen, now fifty in North America; the United States Code = book containing all the permanent laws of the USA, arranged in sections according to subject and revised from time to time COMMENT: the federal government (based in Washington D.C.) is formed of a legislature (the Congress) with two chambers (the Senate and House of

Representatives), an executive (the President) and a judiciary (the Supreme Court). Each of the fifty states making up the USA has its own legislature and executive (the Governor) as well as its own legal system and constitution

Should

Should – Recommended/Not Obligatory

Should expresses desirabilityCambridge Dictionary of American English, 7 (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=should*1+0&dict=A)

should (DUTY)auxiliary verb used to express that it is necessary, desirable , advisable, or important to perform the action of the following verb

Should isn’t mandatory Taylor and Howard 5 ( Resources for the Future, Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa (Michael and Julie, “Investing in Africa's future: U.S. Agricultural development assistance for Sub-Saharan Africa”, 9/12, http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0001784/5-US-agric_Sept2005_Chap2.pdf)

Other legislated DA earmarks in the FY2005 appropriations bill are smaller and more targeted: plant biotechnology research and development ($25 million), the American Schools and Hospitals Abroad program ($20 million), women’s leadership capacity ($15 million), the International Fertilizer Development Center ($2.3 million), and clean water treatment ($2 million). Interestingly, in the wording of the bill, Congress uses the term shall in connection with only two of these eight earmarks; the others say that USAID should make the prescribed amount available. The difference between shall and should may have legal significance—one is clearly mandatory while the other is a strong admonition —but it makes little practical difference in USAID’s need to comply with the congressional directive to the best of its ability.

Should is permissive—it’s a persuasive recommendationWords and Phrases 2 (“Words and Phrases: Permanent Edition” Vol. 39 Set to Signed. Pub. By Thomson West. P. 370)

Cal.App. 5 Dist. 1976. Term “should,” as used in statutory provision that motion to suppress search warrant should first be heard by magistrate who issued warrant, is used in regular, persuasive sense, as recommendation, and is thus not mandatory but permissive . West’s Ann.Pen Code, § 1538.5(b).---Cuevas v. Superior Court, 130 Cal. Rptr. 238, 58 Cal.App.3d 406 ----Searches 191.

Should means desirable or recommended, not mandatoryWords and Phrases, 2002 (“Words and Phrases: Permanent Edition” Vol. 39 Set to Signed. Pub. By Thomson West. P. 372-373)

Or. 1952. Where safety regulation for sawmill industry providing that a two by two inch guard rail should be installed at extreme outer edge of walkways adjacent to sorting tables was immediately preceded by other regulations in which word “shall” instead of “should” was used, and word “should” did not appear to be result of inadvertent use in particular regulation, use of word “should” was intended to convey idea that particular precaution involved was desirable

and recommended, but not mandatory . ORS 654.005 et seq.----Baldassarre v. West Oregon Lumber Co., 239 P.2d 839, 193 Or. 556.---Labor & Emp. 2857

Should – Obligation/Duty

Should is a duty or obligationWebster's 84 II, p. 1078

Should is used to express duty or obligation

Should is equal to obligationWords and Phrases 53 Vol. 39, p. 313.

The word “should”, denotes an obligation in various degrees , usually milder than ought. Baldassarre v. West Oregon Lumber Co., 239 p.2d 839, 842, 198 Or. 556.

Should indicates obligation or dutyCompact Oxford English Dictionary 8 (“should”, 2008, http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/should?view=uk)

Should modal verb (3rd sing. should) 1 used to indicate obligation, duty , or correctness. 2 used to indicate what is probable. 3 formal expressing the conditional mood. 4 used in a clause with ‘that’ after a main clause describing feelings. 5 used in a clause with ‘that’ expressing purpose. 6 (in the first person) expressing a polite request or acceptance. 7 (in the first person) expressing a conjecture or hope. USAGE Strictly speaking should is used with I and we, as in I should be grateful if you would let me know, while would is used with you, he, she, it, and they, as in you didn’t say you would be late; in practice would is normally used instead of should in reported speech and conditional clauses, such as I said I would be late. In speech the distinction tends to be obscured, through the use of the contracted forms I’d, we’d, etc.

Substantially

Substantially = To a Great or Significant Extent

Substantially means “to a great or significant extent” Lexico No Date(https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/substantially)

substantially

1 To a great or significant extent .‘profits grew substantially’as submodifier ‘substantially higher pension costs’2 For the most part; essentially.‘things will remain substantially the same over the next ten years’

Substantially = Without Material Qualifications

Substantially means without material qualificationBlack’s Law Dictionary 1991 [p. 1024]Substantially - means essentially; without material qualification .

Substantial = Considerable value

Substantial means considerable valueWord and Phrases 1960'Substantial" means "of real worth and importance; of considerable value ; valuable." Bequest to charitable institution, making 1/48 of expenditures in state, held exempt from taxation; such expenditures constituting "substantial" part of its activities. Tax Commission of Ohio v. American Humane Education Soc., 181 N.E. 557, 42 Ohio App.

Substantially = Contextually Defined

Substantially must be given meaning and should be contextually interpretedCJS 83 Corpus Juris Secundum, 1983 , 765.“Substantially. A relative and elastic term which should be interpreted in accordance with the

context in which it isused. While it must be employed with care and discrimination, it must,

nevertheless, be given effect .” 48

Substantially = Vague/Ambiguous

Precisely defining substantially is impossible – its inherently ambiguous, and specific interpretations are arbitrary Stark 97 (Stephen, patent attorney, “NOTE: KEY WORDS AND TRICKY PHRASES: AN ANALYSIS OF PATENT DRAFTER'S ATTEMPTS TO CIRCUMVENT THE LANGUAGE OF 35 U.S.C., Journal of Intellectual Property Law, Fall, 1997 5 J. Intell. Prop. L. 365, lexis)

In patent law, ambiguity of claim language necessarily results in uncertainty in the scope of protection. This uncertainty impairs all of society--the patentee, the competitor, and the public. The process of determining a particular meaning to define a term in a patent claim may result in ambiguity. 1. Ordinary Meaning. First, words in a patent are to be

given their ordinary meaning unless otherwise defined. n30 However, what if a particular word has multiple meanings? For example, consider the word "substantial." The Webster dictionary gives eleven different definitions of the word substantial . n31 Additionally, there

are another two definitions specifically provided for the adverb "substantially ." n32 Thus, the

"ordinary meaning" is not clear. The first definition of the word "substantial" given by the Webster's Dictionary is "of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size , etc." n33 Supposing that this is the precise definition that the drafter had in mind when drafting the patent, the meaning of "ample or considerable amount" appears amorphous . This could have one of at least the

following interpretations: (1) almost all , (2) more than half , or (3) barely enough to do the

job . Therefore, the use of a term, such as "substantial," which usually has a very ambiguous

meaning, makes the scope of protection particularly hard to determine .

Reduce

Reduce = “Convert a Fraction To”

Reduce means convert a fraction to – that’s distinct from abolitionOxford English Dictionary No Date“Reduce: Definition of Reduce in English by Lexico Dictionaries.” Lexico Dictionaries | English, Lexico Dictionaries, www.lexico.com/en/definition/reduce.Convert a fraction to (the form with the lowest terms).

Reduce = “Make Less in Size”

Reduce means to reduce in size, amount, or intensityWalker ‘4“Reduce” means to reduce in size, amount, or intensity. Allen Walker Read, (Prof., English, Columbia U.), THE NEW INTERNATIONAL WEBSTER’S COMPREHENSIVE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 2004, 1058.

Reduce : To make less in size , amount, number, intensity , etc.; diminish.

Reduce = “Diminish in Strength”

Reduce means “diminish in strength” – that means reductions can be qualitative or quantitativeMerriam Webster No Date“Reduce.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reduce.To diminish in strength or density

Reduce ≠ Eliminate

Reduce doesn’t mean eliminate Michigan District Court 11 (“SAGINAW OFFICE SERVICE, INC., Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant. Civil Action No. 09-CV-13889 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERN DIVISION,” Lexis)In determining whether the words "reduce" and "adjust" are ambiguous, the Court is directed to consider the ordinary meanings of the words, Rory, 703 N.W.2d at 28, and to harmonize [*11] the disputed terms with other parts of the contract, Royal, 706 N.W.2d at 432 ("construction should be avoided that would render any part of the contract surplusage or nugatory"). "When determining the common, ordinary meaning of a word or phrase, consulting a dictionary is appropriate." Stanton v. City of Battle Creek, 466 Mich. 611, 647

N.W.2d 508 (Mich. 2002). The Court finds that the plain meanings of these terms do not unambiguously support the Bank's position. The dictionary definition of "adjust" is to "adapt" or "to bring to a more satisfactory state." Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 27 (2002) ("Webster's"). This is a fairly broad definition,

which may be subject to, alternatively, narrower or more expansive scope. To say that the complete elimination of a schedule brings

it to a more satisfactory state is undoubtedly an expansive view of adjustment. It is the Court's duty to determine the intent of the contracting parties from the language of the contract itself, Rory, 703 N.W.2d at 30 ("the intent of the contracting parties is best discerned by the language actually used in the contract"), and in this case, it cannot unambiguously be said that the sense in which the parties used these [*12] terms embraces the

Bank's more expansive definition. Likewise, "reduce" means "to diminish in size, amount, extent, or number," Webster's, at 1905, but the term does not, in the context of the TSA, unambiguously embody an expansive scope that views complete deletion as a subset of diminution .

Reduction is distinct from elimination and means diminishing without bringing to naughtWords and Phrases 2 (Volume 36B, p. 80)

The word " reduce ," in its ordinary signification, does not mean to cancel, destroy, or bring to

naught , but to diminish, lower, or bring to an inferior state . Green v. Sklar, 74 N. E. 595, 596, 188 Mass.

363.

Reduce ≠ Time-Frame, End-Point, or Progressive Reduction

“Reduce” doesn’t imply a time-frame, end-point, or progressive process of reduction and can involve qualitative upgrades and year-on-year increases in arms sales – prefer our evidence because its in the context of US government negotiations over the meaning of the term reduce in Taiwanese arms salesThornton 5(Richard Thornton, professor of history and International Affairs at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., The Reagan Revolution II: Rebuilding the Western Alliance, pgs. 311-313)

The Chinese delayed final agreement to almost the last minute because of their refusal to drop their demand for a date certain for termination of arms sales and to accept an explicit linkage of the two conditions which the United States had insisted upon since 1978—Chinese commitment to the peaceful settlement of the dispute with Taiwan and agreement to permit the United States to continue to sell arms to the island. However, when the State Department cabled the administration’s “final draft” to the Chinese on August 15, they accepted within twenty-four hours.

Last-minute creative drafting brought the Chinese to final agreement on the 17th. The crux of the nine-paragraph communiqué was a quid pro quo found in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6. In paragraph 4, the Chinese government declared its “fundamental policy to strive for a peaceful solution to the Taiwan question.” The “Message to Compatriots in Taiwan,” of January 1, 1979 promulgated the policy of “striving for peaceful reunification of the motherland,” and the nine-point proposal of September 30, 1981 reaffirmed it.

Paragraph 5 contained the diluted connection to the quid pro quo. It stated that the United States government “understands and appreciates the Chinese policy of striving for a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question.” (The Chinese refused to accept the U.S. term “peaceful settlement,” insisting upon “peaceful resolution,” instead.)

Then, paragraph 6 completed the “if-then” relationship. “Having in mind the foregoing statements…the United States Government states that it does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan.”

Its arms sales to Taiwan will not exceed, either in qualitative or quantitative terms, the level of those supplied in recent years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and China, and that it intends to reduce gradually its sales of arms to Taiwan, leading over a period of time to a final resolution.

The implicit quid pro quo was that as long as the Chinese pursued a policy of peaceful settlement the United States would gradually reduce sales of arms to Taiwan. In testimony before Congress the next day, Holdridge made explicit that China’s failure to adhere to its commitment would absolve the United States from its side of the bargain. Brandishing a figurative sword of Damocles over Beijing’s head, he said: “the administration would reconsider its refusal to sell advanced F-16 jets to Taipei if China goes back on its ‘fundamental policy’ of dealing peacefully with Taiwan.”

Finally, U.S. negotiators qualified all of the concessions Haig had unilaterally extended to China. While the United States agreed to reduce arms sales it did not stipulate a time frame , nor a terminal date , as Haig had urged

and the Chinese demanded. Negotiators also made clear that the term “reduce gradually” did

not bind the U nited S tates to a year-after-year reduction, but only to gradual reduction

over time, which could mean an increase in any one year over the previous year . The Chinese

had wanted the term “progressive reduction.” The quantity/quality limitation Haig had extended was also reinterpreted to mean that

the United States would replace obsolete equipment and technology with its nearest

equivalent , modern replacements, effectively eliminating any advantage the Chinese might obtain through obsolescence. Finally, the highest level of the Carter

administration’s sales to Taiwan had been $835 million in 1982 dollars, which established a reasonably high starting point from which to calculate “reductions.”

Reduction = Incremental

Reducing arm sales is not complete abolition Gomez ‘16 Gomez, Eric, Cato Institute, “A Costly Commitment.” Cato.org, Cato Institute, 28 Sept. 2016, object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa800.pdf.

Stepping down from the U.S. defense commitment would likely involve reductions in U.S.

arms sales . Reductions in the size, quantity, and frequency of arms sales would likely precede any reductions to the defense commitment because arms sales are a

measurable signal of American support for Taiwan. Lyle J. Goldstein of the U.S. Naval War College points out, “Arms sales have for some time taken on a purely symbolic meaning.”60 This implies that the negative effects of reducing arms sales would be relatively small, since China’s extant military advantages are not being offset by U.S.

weaponry. Additionally, stopping the arms sales would not have to be instantaneous . The United States

could reduce arms sales incrementally to give Taiwan time to improve its self-defense capabilities.

Reduction = Temporary Suspensions + Stricter Eligibility Criteria

Temporary suspensions and more restrictive eligibility criteria are both reductions relative to the status quoWilliams 2United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, opinion authored by Judge Anne Claire Williams of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Heinz v. Cent. Laborers' Pension Fund, 303 F.3d 802, Decided September 13, 2002

We conclude that plaintiffs' loss of the option of working as construction supervisors was a reduction of their early retirement benefits within the meaning of § 1054(g)(2). HN6 A

participant's benefits cannot be understood without reference to the conditions imposed

on receiving those benefits , and an amendment placing materially greater restrictions on

the receipt of the benefit " reduces " the benefit just as surely as a decrease in the size of

the monthly benefit payment. We have not before interpreted the prohibition in the anti-

cutback rule as limited to amendments that reduce the amount of the periodic payment, and

we find nothing in the language of the rule that suggests such an interpretation. In Ahng, [**10] for

example, we held that the plaintiffs had stated a claim for violation of § 1054(g) when they alleged that a [*806] plan amendment changed the deadline by which the employee must retire in order to receive supplemental early retirement benefits. 96 F.3d at 1036-37; see also Bellas v. CBS, Inc., 221 F.3d 517 (3d Cir. 2000) (plan amendment that changed eligibility requirements for early retirement benefits violated § 1054(g)). Similarly, in Michael v. Riverside Cement Co. Pension Plan, 266 F.3d 1023, 1027-28 (9th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit held that an amendment that eliminated the plan's "no-offset rule," which had allowed a participant to receive full early retirement benefits without regard to the amount he already received upon previous retirement, violated § 1054(g) even though the amendment increased the plaintiff's monthly benefit payment. Cf. Hickey, 980 F.2d at

468 (7th Cir. 1992) (plan amendment that eliminated the particiant's right to cost-of-living adjustments violated the anti-cutback rule). The Fund argues that these cases are distinguishable because a change in the eligibility requirements , as in Ahng

[**11] for example, differs from a change in the conditions triggering suspension of benefit

payments in that the former permanently reduces benefits or eliminates certain participants'

rights to benefits, whereas a suspension is temporary . We find the distinction unconvincing .

Although with a suspension the interruption in benefit payments is temporary, the retiree

never recovers the payments lost during the employment period. The amendment thus

" eliminates " monthly benefit payments for participants who take certain jobs after

retirement and " reduces " the participant's total early retirement benefits by an amount

determined by how long the disqualifying work continues. Plaintiffs lost a valuable right they

had earned before the amendment--the right to continue to work in the industry while

receiving monthly benefit payments-- and that loss was permanent . 5Link to the text of the

note [**12] In our judgment, this was a reduction of early retirement benefits within the

plain meaning of § 1054(g)(2). 6Link to the text of the note [**13] [*807] B. Spacek v. Maritime Association The Fund points out, however, that "suspensions" are

not identified along with the prohibitions against decreases, reductions, and elimination of benefits in the anti-cutback rule. The Fund relies on Spacek v. Maritime Ass'n, 134 F.3d 283 (5th Cir. 1998), in which the Fifth Circuit concluded that an amendment like the one in this case did not violate the anti-cutback rule because it concerned a "suspension" and not a "reduction" in benefits. 7Link to the text of the note The Fifth Circuit supported its conclusion with: (1) an examination of the use of the two terms under the statute and related regulations; (2) the legislative history of the Retirement Equity Act; and (3) a Treasury regulation concerning the effect of suspensions on "accrued benefits." We respectfully conclude, however, that the Fifth Circuit's arguments do not support its conclusion. [**14] 1. Suspensions and reductions under ERISA. In Spacek, the court noted that "throughout the statute and corresponding regulations, the concepts of reduction of benefits and suspension of benefit payments are used in distinct ways, often within a single provision." 134 F.3d at 288-89 (citing 29 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), 1341a(d) & 1342(d)(1)(A)(v); 29 C.F.R. § 2520.104b-4(a)(1)(iii)). From this the court reasoned that to interpret the prohibition in the anti-cutback rule against amendments that reduce benefits as applying to suspensions would "make the word 'suspension' redundant in all of these statutory provisions and interpretive regulations." Spacek, 134 F.3d at 289. This redundancy, according to Spacek, would violate the canon of statutory construction that every word in a statute must be given meaning. Id. We disagree with the inference that Spacek draws from the various provisions that refer to both reductions and suspensions. Our interpretation of the anti-cutback rule does not suggest that all suspensions are "reductions" (or vice versa), only that if the suspension is pursuant [**15] to an amendment

that reduces benefits (attributable to service before the amendment), then it is a reduction within the anti-cutback rule. This interpretation does not render the word "suspension" in the other provisions redundant. For example, Spacek relies on various provisions in Title IV of ERISA (relating to financially troubled and terminated plans) that refer to both "reduction of benefits" and "suspension of benefit payments"; according to Spacek, to avoid redundancy, the former phrase must be construed as excluding the latter. Id. But Spacek's identification of the two relevant phrases is too narrow; to the extent the Title IV provisions identify two separate categories, they are amendments that reduce benefits on the one hand, and suspension [*808] of benefit payments, on the other. Section 1441, governing plan terminations, is typical: (a) Amendment of plan by plan sponsor to reduce benefits, and suspension of benefit payments Notwithstanding sections 1053 and 1054 of this title, the plan sponsor of a terminated multiemployer plan to which section 1341a(d) of this title applies shall amend the plan to reduce benefits, and shall suspend [**16] benefit payments, as required by this section. 29 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (emphasis added) 8Link to the text of the note [**17] ;see also 29 U.S.C. § 1425(a)(1) & 26 U.S.C. § 418D(a)(1) (plans in reorganization may amend the plan to reduce benefits); 29 U.S.C. § 1426(a) & 26 U.S.C. § 418E(a) (insolvent plans may suspend benefit payments); 29 U.S.C. § 1053 (a)(3)(E)(ii) & 26 U.S.C. § 411(a)(3)(F) (exception to forfeiture rule for amendments that reduce benefits under §§ 1441 or 1425, and suspension of benefit payments under §§ 1441 and 1426). Because the latter category (suspension of benefit payments) includes suspensions not according to any amendment, as in the case of insolvent plans, for example, it is not rendered superfluous by interpreting the amendment in this case as falling into the former category (amendments that reduce benefits). 9Link to the text of the note In other words, even crediting the reliability of any inference about the anti-cutback rule that can be drawn from the use of these phrases in various provisions relating to terminated or troubled plans, the most we can infer is that a suspension of benefit payments not falling into the first category--amendments that reduce benefits--should be excluded from the anti-cutback rule. But other than in the case of insolvent or terminated plans, an administrator's authority to suspend benefits must come from the plan. [**18] And as we noted before, no one is disputing that the suspension in this case would be proper if it were contained in the original plan. It is the propriety of the amendment to the plan that is at issue in this case, and not the suspension itself, and therefore we cannot infer from the distinction made in Title IV between suspensions of benefit payments and amendments that reduce benefits that the amendment in this case is beyond the anti-cutback rule. 10Link to the text of the note [**19] [*809] We do not view the omission of a specific reference to suspensions in the anti-cutback rule as an oversight, but as unnecessary. Adding a reference to suspensions in § 1054(g)(1) (e.g., "The accrued benefit of a participant under a plan may not be decreased [or suspended] by an amendment of the plan") or § 1054(g)(2) (e.g., "a plan amendment which has the effect of …eliminating[,] reducing[, or suspending] an early retirement benefit …"), would be awkward and perhaps overbroad; it is not the suspension of benefit payments that offends the anti-cutback rule, but the change (to the detriment of the participant) in the conditions triggering the suspension, and this concept is adequately captured by the prohibition against amendments that reduce benefits. 2. Legislative history of the Retirement Equity Act. The Fund, again relying on Spacek, also points to the legislative history of the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, which added paragraph (2)--the provision concerning amendments that reduce or eliminate early retirement benefits--to § 1054(g). See Spacek, 134 F.3d at 289-90. Spacek found instructive the following comment made [**20] by Representative William Clay during the final House debates on the Retirement Equity Act: Nor do those provisions in any way apply to or affect the provisions of ERISA section 203(a)(3)(B) and code section 411(a)(3)(B) relating to the suspension of benefits for post-retirement employment, including the authorization for multiemployer plans to adopt stricter rules for the suspension of subsidized early retirement benefits. Spacek, 134 F.3d at 289 (quoting 130 Cong. Rec. 23,487 (1984)). The Fifth Circuit concluded that Representative Clay's remark means that the anti-cutback rule in § 1054(g) does not limit the power of the plan to amend the plan to expand the restrictions on post-retirement employment. See Spacek, 134 F.3d at 289-90. We find Representative Clay's remark ambiguous at best on the question of whether amendments concerning suspensions for disqualifying employment are outside the coverage of § 1054(g). 11Link to the text of the note [**23] But even if Representative Clay's understanding of the anti-cutback rule were consistent with the Fifth Circuit's--that suspensions upon disqualifying re-employment represent an additional exception to § 1054(g)--we [**21] find nothing in the legislative history to indicate that anyone else in Congress shared the understanding attributed to Representative Clay by the Fifth Circuit. The parties have not identified, [*810] and we have been unable to find, any further reference in the legislative history of the Retirement Equity Act to the exception for suspensions that the Fifth Circuit infers from Representative Clay's remarks. 12Link to the text of the note The absence of any additional support in the legislative history suggests to us that the Fifth Circuit gave undue weight to the statement of Representative Clay, which (as interpreted by the Fifth Circuit) is at odds with the straightforward language of the statute. See Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438, 122 S. Ct. 941, 953-54, 151 L. Ed. 2d 908 (2002) (rejecting interpretation contained in the floor statements of the statute's sponsors); Monterey Coal Co. v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 743 F.2d 589, 596 (7th Cir. 1984) (same); Alex v. City of Chicago, 29 F.3d 1235, 1239 n.3 (7th Cir. 1994) ("Isolated remarks of individual legislators, …[can] not be used to find ambiguity, or contrary intent, in statutory [**22] language that, with respect to a case in hand, is clear on its own terms without rendering nugatory the 'plain meaning' canon of construction."). 13Link to the text of the note Accordingly, we conclude that Representative Clay's remarks cannot be used to support an exception to the anti-cutback rule for amendments that expand disqualifying employment. 3. Treasury Regulation 26 C.F.R. § 1.411(c)-1(f). The court in Spacek also found support in 26 C.F.R. § 1.411(c)-1(f), a Treasury Department regulation concerning the allocation of accrued benefits between employer and employee contributions. By way of background, the court first noted that the term "accrued benefit" means the employees' benefit as accrued under [**24] the plan, expressed in the form of "an annual benefit commencing at normal retirement age," 29 U.S.C. § 1002(23), 14Link to the text of the note or, for early retirement benefits, the actuarial equivalent of the benefit commencing at normal retirement age. See Spacek, 134 F.3d at 290 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1054(c)(3); 26 C.F.R. § 1.411(c) -1(e)). 15Link to the text of the note The Treasury regulation relied upon by Spacek, 26 C.F.R. § 1.411(c)-1(f)(1), states that in calculating the actuarial equivalent of an accrued benefit, "no adjustment …is required on account of any suspension of benefits" if the suspension is permitted under ERISA § 203(a)(3)(B)--the section dealing with restrictions on post-

retirement employment. 16Link to the text of the note According to the [*811] Fifth Circuit, "because the reduction in total benefits paid over the lifetime of the plan participant as a result of the suspension need not be accounted

for actuarially in computing the participant's accrued benefit," an amendment "authorizing such a suspension does not serve to decrease the participant's accrued benefits, and thus cannot violate § 1054(g)." 134 F.3d at 291. [**25]

Reduction ≠ Stricter Eligibility Criteria

Stricter eligibility criteria for arms sales are regulations, not on-face reductions of arms sales – treating regulation as reduction mixes burdens and makes the aff effects topical at bestPerlo-Freeman 17(Samuel Perlo-Freeman, Head of the SIPRI Project on Military Expenditure in the Arms Transfers and Military Expenditure Programme, currently on leave of absence to work with the World Peace Foundation where he leads the Global Arms Trade and Corruption Project, was a Senior Lecturer at the University of the West of England, working in the field of defence and peace economics, “Sweden’s proposed “Democracy Criterion” for arms exports – taking the lead in export controls, or new words for old policies,” Forum on the Arms Trade, December 12, 2017, https://www.forumarmstrade.org/blog/category/arms-sales)

Sweden, as part of the European Union, is already bound by the EU Common Position on arms exports, which requires an export license to be denied if, among other things, there is a clear risk that the equipment to be exported might be used for violations of human rights

or international humanitarian law. However, this is always part of a case-by-case evaluation relating to the specific equipment

being sold; the status of the recipient state as such plays no direct role in the criteria, except in the small number of cases where there is either a UN or an EU arms embargo. The democracy criterion would therefore be significantly stricter than the EU Common Position—and indeed most if not all major arms exporters.In fact, Swedish law already goes beyond the Common Position in terms of considering the status of the recipient, in relation to human rights abuses, but the new law clearly strengthens this.

Specifically, the law requires that the proposed recipient state’s democratic status—relating to the

existence of democratic institutions, the possibility for freedom of expression and respect for fundamental democratic principles—shall be a “central

condition” in the evaluation of export license applications , and that serious failings in these will constitute an “obstacle” to

approval. Regarding human rights, where the existing law states that “gross and systematic” violations of human rights constitute an obstacle to approving a license, the bar is lowered to “serious and systematic” abuses. The potential for a sale to counteract sustainable development is also to be considered, and there are further measures to improve transparency in arms sales.

What the law does not enact, however, is an absolute ban on arms exports to dictatorships or to human rights abusers; each export license application is still to be judged individually, based on an overall judgment taking into account numerous factors, including those relating to security and defense policy. Thus, arms sales to non-democratic states could still be approved if the government (through the export control agency, ISP, the Inspectorate for Strategic Products) decides that defense industrial considerations outweigh the recipient’s lack of democracy. As far as I can tell, the law does not specify exactly how these issues are to be weighed against one another.This lack of a clear ban on arms sales to non-democratic regimes, even dictatorships, has led to criticism from the peace movement, and in Parliament by the Left Party. Svenska Freds (Swedish Peace) has been particularly critical of the proposed law as leaving open too many loopholes to allow, essentially, business as usual. The proposal states that lack of democracy will be an “obstacle” to license approval, but, asks Svenska Freds Chairperson Agnes Hellström, “How high an obstacle”?Other parties, including the Green Party and the generally right-wing Christian Democrats stated that they would have preferred a complete ban on arms sales to dictatorships, but accepted the cross-party proposal as a reasonable compromise. The two largest parties in the Swedish Parliament, the Social Democrats and the center-right Moderates both have strong traditional ties to the arms industry (via the unions and the business community respectively), and the former were the architects of the post-War policy of armed neutrality under which the Swedish arms industry—still remarkably advanced for a country of 10 million—was developed. Thus, a more absolute measure would have been unlikely to gain favor with these dominant players.

The question that will only be answered with time is, will the new regulations lead to a

significant reduction in arms sales to undemocratic regimes, and perhaps a complete halt to sales to the worst dictatorships, or will the new form of words be simply used by the government to claim that it has fulfilled the promise of a ”democracy criterion,” while continuing with business as usual? (Also to be seen is whether the interests of sustaining an arms industry facing a severely limited domestic

market will always be high enough to vault the democracy and human rights obstacles.)

Reduce ≠ Decrease

Reduction can increase the total size of forces – prefer our evidence because its in the context of military deploymentsFoote 1904(Captain Stephen M. Foote, U.S. Army Artillery Corps, “Smaller Batteries for Field Artillery,” Journal of the Military Service Institution of the United States, July, September, and November 1904 Issue, pgs. 19-20)

It has been decided to reduce our batteries from 6 of the old guns to 4 of the new. But we must not be deceived by the word “reduce.” As a matter of fact we are increasing the

size of our batteries in number of carriages , number of horses and number of men. And we are putting in two repair wagons (battery wagon and forge), so that we are practically making a combination of two 2-gun batteries. I know it will at first thought strike artillery officers as the rankest heresy for a field artillery officer to advocate a reduction in the number of guns, men or horses of a battery, but I really think the question whether the artillery would not be benefited by such reduction under the present conditions is worth careful consideration and study.

A reduction in the number of guns in a battery from 6 of the old to 4 of the new still

makes the new battery larger than the old by two carriages .

Reduce = Decrease

Reduce means diminish and cannot mean increaseUS Federal Court of Appeals 99 (“CUNA MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee,” Lexis)

"The amount determined" under § 809, by which the policyholder dividend deduction is to be "reduced," is the "excess" specified in § 809(c)(1). Like the word "excess," the word "reduced" is a common, unambiguous, non-technical term that is given its ordinary meaning. See San Joaquin Fruit & Inv. Co., 297 U.S. at 499. "Reduce" means "to diminish in size, amount, extent, or number." Webster's Third International Dictionary 1905. Under CUNA's interpretation of "excess" in § 809(c), however, the result of the "amount determination" under § 809 would be not to reduce the policyholder dividends deduction, but to increase it. This would directly contradict the explicit

instruction in § 808(c)(2) that the deduction "be reduced." The word "reduce" cannot be interpreted , as CUNA would

treat it, to mean "increase."

Reduction = Abolition/Disarmament

Reduction is equivalent to “disarmament” or “abolition” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan 12(“Japan's Efforts on Disarmament and Non-proliferation,” June 1, 2012, https://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/un/disarmament/arms/overview.html)

The term 'disarmament' , in general, refers to the reduction , curtailment, or abolition of a variety of armaments and weaponry through international agreement. The term 'arms control' emerged during the Cold War to refer to the regulation, inspection, verification, and building of confidence with regard to weapons and armaments, as well as the restriction of movements of conventional weapons. Arms control was born out of nuclear arms control negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1970s, and has mainly been used as a concept for building efforts to control nuclear arms between nuclear superpowers.

Substantially Reduce = Abolish a Category of Arms

“Substantially reduce” means abolishing entire categories of armsDavenport ‘17(Davenport, Kelsey. “Sections: Fact Sheets & Briefs.” Fact Sheets | Arms Control Association, July 2017, www.armscontrol.org/taxonomy/term/168?page=4)

Near the Cold War’s end, leaders in Washington and Moscow made reciprocal unilateral pledges to substantially limit and reduce their nuclear weaponry , most notably their tactical or

“battlefield” nuclear weapons, such as nuclear artillery shells. President George H.W. Bush initiated these commitments, collectively known as the Presidential Nuclear Initiatives (PNIs), in September 1991 in recognition of the break up of the Eastern bloc and out of concern for the Kremlin’s ability to maintain control of its

vast nuclear arsenal as political changes swept the Soviet Union. By pledging to end foreign deployments of entire

categories of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons , Bush hoped that leaders in Moscow would follow suit; and they did, at least in part. All Soviet nuclear weapons were reportedly successfully consolidated on Russian soil. Still, Washington alleges Moscow has not yet fulfilled all of its PNI destruction commitments. Meanwhile, Russia opposes the continued stationing of U.S. tactical nuclear gravity bombs in Europe, which the PNIs did not cover. Despite lingering concerns about each other’s tactical nuclear weapons, the two sides have not negotiated further reductions or transparency measures for these arms since the early 1990s.

Reduction ≠ Restriction/Management

Reduction of arms sales is distinct from restriction or management and must include quantitative or qualitative ceilings or explicitly curtail weapon exports Pearson 88(Frederic S. Pearson, Prof. of Political Science and Fellow at the Center of International Studies @ University of Missouri-St Louis, Arms Transfer Limitations and Third World Security, ed. Thomas Ohlson, SIPRI publication, pgs. 129-130)

Based on these general perspectives, second-tier suppliers have formulated both unilateral and multilateral positions on the management, restriction or reduction of Third

World arms transfers. These are examined separately in order to assess the restraints most likely to be adopted in the future. Arms trade management ,

whether unilateral or multilateral, implies rules for reporting or licensing sales in specific

circumstances , as well as potential market sharing arrangements. Restriction of sales entails

disapproval , banning or embargoes to specific states or classes of states or of specific

types of weapon . Reduction of transfers includes more sweeping measures, such as

qualitative or quantitative limits or ceilings , and deliberate government policies or

international agreements designed to curtail weapon exports . In the process of devising restraints, there can be trade-

offs, such as restraints on transferring arms versus the technology or equipment to make or use them, on naval versus air versus land systems, or on weapon deliveries versus

new sales agreements.

Increased Congressional Oversight = Restriction

Increasing congressional oversight is a reporting restriction on arms sales, not a reduction of arms salesSamelson 89(Dr. Louis J. Samelson, Editor, The DISAM [Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management] Journal, “Legislative Constraints on U.S. Arms Transfers,” paper presented at DSAA-DISAM joint sponsored symposium on “U.S. Military Sales in the 1990s,” July 26, 1989)

Let us now review the wide variety of other types of controls Congress employs to regulate (i.e., constrain) military assistance. It is fashionable to speak today of Congressional “oversight” of executive branch programs. Unfortunately, such oversight, in reality, often amounts to a special version of the 3 “R’s”—i.e., “ reports, restraints, and

restrictions .” We will begin with the issue of Congressionally mandated reports.

Statutory Reports

The Security Assistance Management Manual (SAMM), Dod 5105.38-M, identifies 44 separate military assistance statutory reporting requirements for DOD. Many of these call for multiple reports to Congress throughout the year. These range from detailed notifications to Congress of prospective arms sales , notifications of defense

articles furnished under emergency conditions, notifications involving waivers of non-recurring R&D and production costs, reports of security assistance surveys, reports on the

military expenditures of foreign nations, etc.

FMS/DCS

FMS/DCS = USML – AECA & ITAR

FMS sells “defense articles” and “defense services”AECA No Date (Arms Export Control Act, the governing Act that defines FMS and DCS from Cornell Law Institute, “22 U.S. Code § 2761. Sales from stocks”, No Date, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2761)(a) Eligible countries or international organizations; basis of payment; valuation of certain defense articles(1) The President may sell defense articles and defense services from the stocks of the

Department of Defense and the Coast Guard to any eligible country or international organization if such country or

international organization agrees to pay in United States dollars—(A) in the case of a defense article not intended to be replaced at the time such agreement is entered into, not less than the actual value thereof;(B) in the case of a defense article intended to be replaced at the time such agreement is entered into, the estimated cost of replacement of such article, including the contract or production costs less any depreciation in the value of such article; or(C) in the case of the sale of a defense service, the full cost to the United States Government of furnishing such service, except that in the case of training sold to a purchaser who is concurrently receiving assistance under chapter 5 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 [22 U.S.C. 2347 et seq.] or to any high-income foreign country (as described in that chapter), only those additional costs that are incurred by the United States Government in furnishing such assistance.

DCS sells “defense articles” and “defense services”AECA No Date (Arms Export Control Act, the governing Act that defines FMS and DCS from Cornell Law Institute, “22 U.S. Code § 2761. Sales from stocks”, No Date, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2761)(a) Sale of defense articles and services by President to United States companies; restriction on performance of services; reimbursement credited to selling agencySubject to the conditions specified in subsection (b) of this section, the President may , on a

negotiated contract basis, under cash terms (1) sell defense articles at not less than their

estimated replacement cost (or actual cost in the case of services), or (2) procure or

manufacture and sell defense articles at not less than their contract or manufacturing cost to

the United States Government, to any United States company for incorporation into end

items (and for concurrent or follow-on support) to be sold by such a company either (i) on a

direct commercial basis to a friendly foreign country or international organization pursuant

to an export license or approval under section 2778 of this title or (ii) in the case of ammunition parts subject to subsection (b) of this section, using

commercial practices which restrict actual delivery directly to a friendly foreign country or international organization pursuant to approval under section 2778 of this title. The President may also sell defense services in support of such sales of defense articles , subject

to the requirements of this subchapter: Provided, however, That such services may be performed only in the United States. The amount of reimbursement received from such sales shall be credited to the current applicable appropriation, fund, or account of the selling agency of the United States Government.(b) Conditions of saleDefense articles and defense services may be sold, procured and sold, or manufactured and sold, pursuant to subsection (a) of this section only if (1) the end item to which the articles apply is to be procured for the armed forces of a friendly country or international organization, (2) the articles would be supplied to the prime contractor as government-furnished equipment or materials if the end item were being procured for the use of the United States Armed Forces, and (3) the articles and services are available only from United States Government sources or are not available to the prime contractor directly from United States commercial sources at such times as may be required to meet the prime contractor’s delivery schedule.

Defense Articles are defined by the US Munitions List – AECA provesAECA No Date (Arms Export Control Act, the governing Act that defines FMS and DCS from Cornell Law Institute, “22 U.S. Code § 2778. Control of arms exports and imports”, No Date, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2778)(a) Presidential control of exports and imports of defense articles and services , guidance of

policy, etc.; designation of United States Munitions List ; issuance of export licenses; negotiations information

(1) In furtherance of world peace and the security and foreign policy of the United States, the President is authorized to control the import and the export of defense articles and defense services and to provide foreign policy guidance to persons of the United States involved in the export and import of such articles and services. The President is authorized to designate those items which shall be considered as

defense articles and defense services for the purposes of this section and to promulgate

regulations for the import and export of such articles and services. The items so designated

shall constitute the United States Munitions List .(2) Decisions on issuing export licenses under this section shall take into account whether the export of an article would contribute to an arms race, aid in the development of weapons of mass destruction, support international terrorism, increase the possibility of outbreak or escalation of conflict, or prejudice the development of bilateral or multilateral arms control or nonproliferation agreements or other arrangements.(3) In exercising the authorities conferred by this section, the President may require that any defense article or defense service be sold under this chapter as a condition of its eligibility for export, and may require that persons engaged in the negotiation for the export of defense articles and services keep the President fully and currently informed of the progress and future prospects of such negotiations.

Defense Articles are defined by the US Munitions List – ITAR implements FMS and DCS in the AECA ITAR No Date (International Traffic in Arms Regulations, It’s ITAR, “22 CFR § 120.2 - Designation of defense articles and defense services.”, No Date, https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/120.2)The Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778(a) and 2794(7)) provides that the President shall designate the articles and services deemed to be defense articles and defense services for purposes of import or export controls. The President has delegated to the Secretary of State the authority to control the export and temporary import of defense articles and services. The items designated by the Secretary of State for purposes of export and temporary import control constitute the U.S. Munitions List specified in part 121 of this subchapter. Defense articles on the U.S. Munitions List specified in

part 121 of this subchapter that are also subject to permanent import control by the Attorney General on the U.S. Munitions Import List enumerated in 27 CFR part 447 are

subject to temporary import controls administered by the Secretary of State. Designations of defense articles and defense services are made by the Department of State with the concurrence of the Department of Defense. The scope of the U.S. Munitions List shall be changed only by amendments made pursuant to section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778). For a designation or determination on whether a particular item is enumerated on the U.S. Munitions List, see§ 120.4 of this subchapter.

Defense Articles are designated by section 121.1 of ITAR – THAT’S THE MUNITIONS LISTITAR No Date (International Traffic in Arms Regulations, It’s ITAR, “22 CFR § 120.6 - Defense article.”, No Date, https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/120.6)Defense article means any item or technical data designated in § 121.1 of this subchapter . The

policy described in § 120.3 is applicable to designations of additional items. This term includes technical data recorded or stored in any physical form, models, mockups or other items that reveal technical data directly relating to items designated in § 121.1 of this subchapter. It also includes forgings, castings, and other unfinished products, such as extrusions and machined bodies, that have reached a stage in manufacturing where they are clearly identifiable by mechanical properties, material composition, geometry, or function as defense articles. It does not include basic marketing information on function or purpose or general system descriptions.

FMS/DCS ≠ Commerce Control List

Commerce Control is distinct from FMS and DCS –items on the USML are subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations Act which implements Foreign Military Sales and Direct Commercial Sales – all other items are subject to the Export Administration Regulations Act which includes the Commerce Control ListDOS 18 (Department of State, federal executive department equivalent to the foreign ministry, “International Traffic in Arms Regulations: U.S. Munitions List Categories I, II, and III ”, 5/24, Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2018 / Proposed Rules, https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/federal-register-notices-1/2219-83-fr-24198-state-cat-i-iii-proposed-rule-5-24-18/file)SUMMARY: The Department of State (the Department) proposes to amend the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to revise Categories I (firearms, close assault weapons and combat shotguns), II (guns and armament) and III (ammunition and ordnance) of the U.S. Munitions List (USML) to describe more precisely the articles warranting export and temporary import control on the USML. Items removed from the USML would become subject to the

Export Administration Regulations (EAR). DATES: The Department will accept comments on this proposed rule until July 9, 2018.ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit comments within 45 days of the date of publication by one of the following methods: • Email: DDTCPublicComments@ state.gov with the subject line, ‘‘ITAR Amendment—Categories I, II, and III.’’ • Internet: At www.regulations.gov, search for this notice using Docket DOS–2017–0046. Comments received after that date will be considered if feasible, but consideration cannot be assured. Those submitting comments should not include any personally identifying information they do not desire to be made public or information for which a claim of confidentiality is asserted, because those comments and/or transmittal emails will be made available for public inspection and copying after the close of the comment period via the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls website at www.pmddtc.state.gov. Parties who wish to comment anonymously may do so by submitting their comments via www.regulations.gov, leaving the fields that would identify the commenter blank and including no identifying information in the comment itself. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Monjay, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, Department of State, telephone (202) 663–2817; email DDTCPublicComments@state.gov. ATTN: Regulatory Change, USML Categories I, II, and III.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), U.S. Department of State, administers the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR parts 120 through 130). The items subject to the jurisdiction of the ITAR, i.e., ‘‘defense

articles,’’ are identified on the ITAR’s U.S. Munitions List (USML) (22 CFR 121.1). With few

exceptions, items not subject to the export control jurisdiction of the ITAR are subject to the

jurisdiction of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR, 15 CFR parts 730 through 774,

which includes the Commerce Control List (CCL) in Supplement No. 1 to part 774),

administered by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), U.S. Department of Commerce .

Both the ITAR and the EAR impose license requirements on exports and reexports. The Department of Commerce is publishing a companion rule in this edition of the Federal Register.

FMS/DCS ≠ CCL – AECA

Commerce Control List is not topical – 600 series items are precluded by statute from becoming defense articlesAECA No Date (Arms Export Control Act, governing document for foreign military sales and direct commercial sales, “22 U.S. Code § 2778. Control of arms exports and imports”, No Date, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2778)(5) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the President shall take such actions as may be necessary to require that, at the time of export or reexport of any major defense equipment listed on the 600 series of the Commerce Control List contained in Supplement No. 1 to part 774 of subtitle B of title 15, Code of Federal Regulations, the major defense equipment will not be subsequently modified so as to transform such major defense equipment into a defense article.(B) The President may authorize the transformation of any major defense equipment described in subparagraph (A) into a defense article if the President—(i) determines that such transformation is appropriate and in the national interests of the United States; and(ii) provides notice of such transformation to the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate consistent with the notification requirements of section 2776(b)(5)(A) of this title.(C) In this paragraph, the term “defense article” means an item designated by the President pursuant to subsection (a)(1).(6) The President shall ensure that any major defense equipment that is listed on the 600 series of the Commerce Control List contained in Supplement No. 1 to part 774 of subtitle B of title 15, Code of Federal Regulations, shall continue to be subject to the notification and reporting requirements of the following provisions of law:(A) Section 2321j(f) of this title.(B) Section 2415 of this title.(C) Section 2753(d)(3)(A) of this title.(D) Section 2765 of this title.(E) Section 2776(b), (c), and (d) of this title.

FMS/DCS = CCL

All Export Military Sales include Commerce Control ListeCFR No Date (Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, the codification of the general and permanent rules and regulations (sometimes called administrative law) published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the federal government of the United States, from Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute, “15 CFR § 701.2 - Definitions.”, https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/15/701.2)§ 701.2 Definitions .(a)Offsets. Compensation practices required as a condition of purchase in either government-to-government or commercial sales of:(1) Defense articles and/or defense services as defined by the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations; or(2) Items controlled under an Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) that has the numeral “6” as its third character in the Commerce Control List found in supplement no. 1 to part 774 of this chapter other than semi-submersible and submersible vessels specially designed for cargo transport and parts, components, accessories and attachments specially designed therefor controlled under ECCN 8A620.b; test, inspection and production equipment controlled in ECCN 8B620.b, software controlled in ECCN 8D620.b and technology controlled in ECCN 8E620.b.(b) Military Export Sales. Exports that are either Foreign Military Sales (FMS) or commercial

(direct) sales of :

(1) Defense articles and/ or defense services as defined by the Arms Export Control Act and

International Traffic in Arms Regulations; or

(2) Items controlled under an Export Control Classification Number ( ECCN ) that has the

numeral “6” as its third character in the Commerce Control List found in supplement no. 1 to

part 774 of this chapter other than semi-submersible and submersible vessels specially

designed for cargo transport and parts, components, accessories and attachments specially designed therefor controlled under ECCN 8A620.b; test, inspection and production equipment controlled in ECCN 8B620.b; software controlled in ECCN 8D620.b; and technology controlled in ECCN 8E620.b.

CCL is topical – it’s a defense article thru “technical data”DSCA No Date (Defense Security Cooperation Agency, part of the United States Department of Defense, provides financial and technical assistance, transfer of defense matériel, training and services to allies, and promotes military-to-military contacts and is working with Defense Institute of Security Cooperation Studies, “Green Book: Chapter 7 Technology Transfer, Export Controls, and International Programs Security”, No Date, https://www.discs.dsca.mil/documents/greenbook/07_Chapter.pdf?id=1)*Easily answered by ANY “of arms” definition – technical data is NOT ARMSBefore we can understand how to control the transfer of technology, we must define a “defense article.” Per the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), Section 120.6, a “defense article” is any item or technical data designated in Section 121.1 of the ITAR, (i.e., the U.S. Munitions List (USML)). The USML identifies articles that have a primarily defense-related

utility. So the USML addresses the “items,” but what is “technical data?” Per the ITAR, Section 120.10:Technical data means : (1) Information, other than software as defined in Section 120.10(a)(4), which is required for the design, development, production, manufacture, assembly, operation, repair, testing, maintenance or modification of defense articles. This includes information in the form of blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation. (2) Classified information relating to defense articles and defense services on the USML and 600-

series items controlled by the Commerce Control List .

Flows neg – highlighted in yellow – you can contrive an aff definition from hereBIS No Date (Bureau of Industry and Commerce, from US Department of Commerce, “Offset Definitions”, No Date, https://bis.doc.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=54&id=181)Offsets: Compensation practices required as a condition of purchase in either government-

to-government or commercial sales of : (1) Defense articles and/or defense services as defined by the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. § 2778) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 C.F.R. §§ 120-130); or (2) Items controlled under an Export Control

Classification Number (ECCN) that has the numeral ‘‘6’’ as its third character in the

Commerce Control List found in Supplement No. 1 to part 774 of this chapter other than

semisubmersible and submersible vessels specially designed for cargo transport and parts,

components, accessories and attachments specially designed therefor controlled under ECCN 8A620.b; test, inspection and production equipment controlled in ECCN 8B620.b, software controlled in ECCN 8D620.b and technology controlled in ECCN 8E620.b.Military Export Sales : Exports that are either Foreign Military Sales (FMS) or commercial

(direct) sales of defense articles and/or defense services as defined by the Arms Export Control Act and International Traffic Arms Regulations.

FMS

FMS = Security Assistance W/O Financing

Foreign Military Sales is security assistance regardless of financingDOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms 19 (DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms”, June 2019, https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/dictionary.pdf,)foreign military sales — That portion of United States security assistance for sales programs that require agreements/contracts between the United States Government and an authorized recipient government or international organization for defense articles and services to be provided to the recipient for current stocks or new procurements under Department of Defense-managed contracts, regardless of the source of financing. Also called FMS. (JP 3-20)

FMS ≠ Selling Costs

Foreign Military Sales excludes selling costsDCAA 02 (Defense Contract Audit Agency, agency of the United States Department of Defense under the direction of the Under Secretary of Defense, “Chapter 65 - Selling Costs”, 2/1/2002, https://www.dcaa.mil/Content/Documents/sac/Chapter65.pdf)65-5.1 IntroductionSeveral types of selling costs are expressly unallowable per FAR 31.205-38 and other subsections of the FAR and DFARS. FAR 31.201-6 and CAS 405 (see CAM Section 8-405) require contractors to identify and exclude any expressly unallowable costs, including directly associated costs, from any billing, claim, or proposal applicable to a Government contract. Costs that have been made expressly unallowable by other subsections of FAR 31.205 should not be considered as allowable selling costs under 31.205-38 (see 65-2). Auditors should screen selling costs to ensure that contractors have properly identified and segregated the expressly unallowable costs discussed in the sections that follow.65-5.2 Foreign Selling CostsDirect selling costs incurred in connection with potential and actual Foreign Military Sales, as defined by the Arms Export Control Act, or foreign sales of military products or services are allowable on U.S. Government contracts. Effective August 25, 2003, FAR 31.205-38 was revised to remove the distinction between the allowability of foreign and domestic selling costs involving direct selling and market planning efforts other than long range planning. This eliminates the requirement that foreign selling costs must be related to products normally sold to the U.S. Government to be allowable. However, distinguishing between foreign and domestic broadly targeted sales efforts remain unchanged. The allowability of these costs are covered in FAR 31.205-1 (see Chapter 1, Advertising and Public Relations).

These are selling costsECFR 19 (Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, codification of the general and permanent rules and regulations published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the federal government of the United States, “31.205-38 Selling costs.”, https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=2f9c788dc00dd8cf2cd7a31296f592cd&node=se48.1.31_1205_638&rgn=div8,)31.205-38 Selling costs .(a) “Selling” is a generic term encompassing all efforts to market the contractor's products or services, some of which are covered specifically in other subsections of 31.205. The costs of any selling efforts other than those addressed in this cost principle are unallowable.(b) Selling activity includes the following broad categories:

(1) Advertising. Advertising is defined at 31.205-1(b), and advertising costs are subject to the allowability provisions of 31.205-1(d) and (f).(2) Corporate image enhancement . Corporate image enhancement activities, including

broadly targeted sales efforts , other than advertising, are included within the definition of public relations at 31.205-1(a), and the costs of such efforts are subject to the allowability provisions at 31.205-1(e) and (f).

(3) Bid and proposal costs . Bid and proposal costs are defined at 31.205-18 and are subject to the allowability provisions of that subsection.(4) Market planning . Market planning involves market research and analysis and general management planning concerned with development of the contractor's business. Long-range market planning costs are subject to the allowability provisions of 31.205-12. Other market planning costs are allowable.(5) Direct selling . Direct selling efforts are those acts or actions to induce particular customers to purchase particular products or services of the contractor. Direct selling is characterized by person-to-person contact and includes such efforts as familiarizing a potential customer with the contractor's products or services, conditions of sale, service capabilities, etc. It also includes negotiation, liaison between customer and contractor personnel, technical and consulting efforts, individual demonstrations, and any other efforts having as their purpose the application or adaptation of the contractor's products or services for a particular customer's use. The cost of direct selling efforts is allowable.

FMS = Classified Equipment/Major Weapons

FMS includes classified equipment, items in US arsenals, major weapons systemsDCAA 02 (Defense Contract Audit Agency, agency of the United States Department of Defense under the direction of the Under Secretary of Defense, “Chapter 65 - Selling Costs”, 2/1/2002, https://www.dcaa.mil/Content/Documents/sac/Chapter65.pdf)65-6.2 Definition of Foreign Military Sales (FMS)The Arms Export Control Act (formerly known as the Foreign Military Sales Act of 1968) defines FMS as sales of defense articles and services to foreign governments. Although it is DoD policy to encourage the purchase of defense articles and services directly from U.S. sources, most of them are purchased through established DoD procurement and contract administration channels because many kinds of defense transactions are not conducive to direct sales. These include transactions that require Government-to-Government arrangements, such as sales of classified equipment, items produced in U.S. arsenals, major weapon systems, and sales in situations where the U.S. Government wants to exercise special control. Additionally, foreign governments usually want the advantages of DoD's procurement expertise, including contract administration and audit. Thus, FMS only encompasses Government-to-Government transactions as defined by the DoD Security Assistance Management Manual (DoD 5105.38-M).

FMS ≠ Military Aid/FMF

Foreign Military Sales excludes military aid – foreign military financing eligibility has a distinct set of eligibility criteria and is administered separatelySkaggs 79 (Allen H., Director of The Aerospace Research Center, “U.S. MILITARY EXPORTS 1970-1978”, December 1979, https://www.aia-aerospace.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/US-MILITARY-EXPORTS-1970-1978.pdf)A. Definition of TermsU.S. military exports include two types of sales and two types of grant aid. Sales to foreign governments may be arranged through the Department of Defense (DoD), whereby DoD endeavers to recover its full costs of the personnel effort and administrative costs involved. These sales are defined as Foreign Military Sales , or FMS, a term often mistakenly used to

include all foreign military aid or sales. Military sales to a foreign government directly

arranged by a producing company are defined as Commercial Sales and must be approved and licensed by the Department of State.Grant aid currently is given to qualifying countries under the Military Assistance Program (MAP). Prior to the termination of the Vietnam conflict, Military Assistance Service Funded programs (MASF) were also included. Generally, a country qualifying for grant aid is one

considered to be incapable of paying for defense articles essential to mutual security without significantly reducing its rate of economic growth.There are other avenues by which military equipment may be exported foremost among them being the transfer of Excess Defense Articles (EDA), items taken out of the U.S. defense inventory in times of emergency or special circumstances and provided to foreign nations.

FMS = Executive Branch

Foreign military sales involve the executive branch – Secretary of State determines eligibility – Secretary of Defense executes the programDSCA 16 (Defense Security Cooperation Agency, The Defense Security Cooperation Agency, as part of the United States Department of Defense, provides financial and technical assistance, transfer of defense matériel, training and services to allies, and promotes military-to-military contacts, “Foreign Military Sales (FMS)”, 10/15/2016, https://www.dsca.mil/programs/foreign-military-sales-fms)Purpose:The Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program is a form of security assistance authorized by the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), as amended [22 U.S.C. 2751, et. seq.] and a fundamental tool of U.S. foreign policy.Under Section 3, of the AECA, the U.S. may sell defense articles and services to foreign countries and international organizations when the President formally finds that to do so will strengthen the security of the U.S. and promote world peace.Under FMS, the U.S. Government and a foreign government enter into a government-to-government agreement called a Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA).Who:Secretary of State determines which countries will have programs . Secretary of Defense

executes the program .Funding:May be funded by country national funds or U.S. Government funds.

FMS ≠ Offsets

Foreign Military Sales and offsets are distincteCFR No Date (Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, the codification of the general and permanent rules and regulations (sometimes called administrative law) published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the federal government of the United States, from Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute, “15 CFR § 701.2 - Definitions.”, https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/15/701.2)*Not a phenomenal card because it doesn’t have a clear intent to exclude – but it does define offsets and export military sales (FMS and DCS) as distinct§ 701.2 Definitions .

(a) Offsets. Compensation practices required as a condition of purchase in either

government-to-government or commercial sales of :(1) Defense articles and/or defense services as defined by the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations; or(2) Items controlled under an Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) that has the numeral “6” as its third character in the Commerce Control List found in supplement no. 1 to part 774 of this chapter other than semi-submersible and submersible vessels specially designed for cargo transport and parts, components, accessories and attachments specially designed therefor controlled under ECCN 8A620.b; test, inspection and production equipment controlled in ECCN 8B620.b, software controlled in ECCN 8D620.b and technology controlled in ECCN 8E620.b.(b)Military Export Sales. Exports that are either Foreign Military Sales (FMS) or commercial

(direct) sales of :

(1) Defense articles and/ or defense services as defined by the Arms Export Control Act and International Traffic in Arms Regulations; or(2) Items controlled under an Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) that has the numeral “6” as its third character in the Commerce Control List found in supplement no. 1 to part 774 of this chapter other than semi-submersible and submersible vessels specially designed for cargo transport and parts, components, accessories and attachments specially designed therefor controlled under ECCN 8A620.b; test, inspection and production equipment controlled in ECCN 8B620.b; software controlled in ECCN 8D620.b; and technology controlled in ECCN 8E620.b.(c)Prime Contractor. A firm that has a sales contract with a foreign entity or with the U.S. Government for military export sales.(d)United States. Includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and U.S. territories.(e) Offset Agreement. Any offset as defined above that the U.S. firm agrees to in order to

conclude a military export sales contract . This includes all offsets, whether they are “best

effort” agreements or are subject to penalty clauses .(f)Offset Transaction. Any activity for which the U.S. firm claims credit for full or partial fulfillment of the offset agreement. Activities to implement offset agreements are categorized as co-production, technology transfer, subcontracting, credit assistance, training, licensed production, investment, purchases and other. Paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(8) of this section provide examples of the categories of offset transactions.

Foreign military sales does not include offsets – they are conditions of foreign military salesConahan 85 (Frank, Working @ the GAO, “STATEMENT OF FRANK C. CONAHAN U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS”, 10/10/1985, https://www.gao.gov/assets/110/101149.pdf)Unfortunately, the concept of offsets lacks uniform definition, and a variety of terms are used by different government and business entities to describe the same phenomenon. Today, I will be

using the term "offsets" to refer to trade arrangements made as conditions of foreign

military sales . Essentially these are arrangements intended to reduce the impact of costly

weapons purchases on the buyer's balance of payments, or to provide the buyer with other

advantages .Offsets can take many forms and are usually categorized as either direct--that is, related to the weapon system being bought-- or indirect--related to other products or services. Coproduction and licensed production, which involve production of part or all of a weapon system in the purchasing country, are the major forms of direct offsets. Other forms of offsets include subcontracting in the buyer country, transferring technology, investing in the buyer country and/or purchasing and d marketing goods and services unrelated to the weapon systems being acquired.

And/Or

And/Or = Either or Both

“And/or” means either or bothDictionary.com No Date(https://www.dictionary.com/browse/and-or, “and/or”)

and/or[and-awr]Word Originconjunction(used to imply that either or both of the things mentioned may be affected or involved ):insurance covering fire and/or wind damage.

DCS

DCS = Licensed Company Foreign Buyer

Direct Commercial Sales are state-approved transfers from a licensed company to a foreign buyerFAD No Date (Federation of American Scientists is a nonprofit organization focused on international and national security through a scientific lens, “Fiscal Year 2001:"Section 655" Report,” https://fas.org/asmp/profiles/655-2001/6552001.html ) Transfers negotiated between the manufacturing company and the foreign buyer, and approved by the Department of State t hrough the issuance of an export license.

Direct Commercial Sales are transactions directly from a US company to a foreign buyerNichols, Totman, Minarich 14(Robert Nichols, Jade C. Totman, and Christine Minarich, Covington & Burling LLP September 30, 2014. Covington & Burling LLP is a century old, international law firm working in public policy, file:///home/chronos/u-cd21f07a6a193575120a2cdd9c7ff380d2da482c/MyFiles/Downloads/DCS%20Overview%20Dissertation.pdf)In a traditional DCS transaction, the U.S. Contractor and the Non-U.S. Purchaser directly

negotiate almost all contract elements and terms; the U.S. Government is largely sidelined . Hence, of all the DCS forms, traditional DCS has the most direct, significant involvement by Non-U.S. Purchasers. But by extension, the Non-U.S. Purchaser must accept a significant responsibility for contract negotiation, administration, quality control, inspection, acceptance, and auditing. In the same way, the U.S. Contractor must directly address its concerns with the Non-U.S. Purchaser—to include a lack of payment or problems with contract performance.

DCS = US Munitions List

Direct Commercial sales is limited to the US Munitions ListDOS 19 (US Department of State Bureau of Political Military Affairs, agency within the United States Department of State that bridges the Department of State with the Department of Defense, “U.S. Arms Sales and Defense Trade FACT SHEET”, 5/21/2019, https://www.state.gov/u-s-arms-sales-and-defense-trade/)DIRECT COMMERCIAL SALES (DCS)Under DCS, the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs’ Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (PM/DDTC) provides regulatory approvals for more than $136 billion per year in sales of defense equipment, services, and related manufacturing technologies controlled under the 21

categories of the U.S. Munitions List (USML). These sales are negotiated privately between foreign end-users and U.S. companies.Under U.S. law, any U.S. company or individual involved in certain activities involving items enumerated on the USML is required to receive an approved export license or other approval before providing any USML regulated item, technical data, or service to a foreign end-user.As with FMS, export licenses approved under DCS are approved following an intensive U.S. government review, and after Congressional notification, as required. Export licenses are valid up to four years. Authorizations for defense services are also required and may be for longer timeframes. They may be extended or amended as needed.DCS cases are considered to be proprietary agreements between the foreign governments or companies and the U.S. defense contractor, however certain information about cases notified to Congress is published quarterly in the Federal Register, in fulfillment of requirements in the Arms Export Control Act.

Direct Commercial Sales are negotiated contracts of items on the US Munitions ListNDIA 17 (The National Defense Industrial Organization is an educational nonprofit aimed at encouraging discourse about national security, “Foreign Military Sales vs Direct Commercial Sales,” August 18, 2017, https://www.ndia.org/policy/international/fms-vs-dcs)

DCS is regarded as a more flexible process, as the purchaser consults directly with industry about specific products and services it needs. Foreign customers leverage more negotiating power regarding the type of contract (fixed price or firm fixed price), how the contract is written, final delivery requirements, and methods of payment. However, they must carry more risk and administrative burdens. DCS has the added benefit of giving customers options to purchase more non-standard systems that are mission specific, and designed to tackle readiness challenges. In these cases, the Pentagon does not support these types of mission requirements in their stockpiles, or in their annual budget. Qualifying for an export license through DCS is based on how a product or service is categorized. The State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) executes authority in issuing export licenses to all defense

related products and services on the U.S. Munitions List (USML) , pursuant to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) grants export licenses to more commercial and “dual-use”defense products and services on the Commerce Control List (CCL), pursuant to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). Like the FMS program, DCS advances interoperability between the U.S military and its allies.Furthermore, foreign countries use FMF funding to purchase U.S. defense products and systems through both the FMS program and, on occasion, the DCS process.

DCS = CCL

Direct Commercial Sales include Commerce Control ListNDIA No Date (National Defense Industrial Assocation, association for the United States government and the defense industry. Based in Arlington, Virginia, NDIA was established in 1919 as a result of the inability of the defense industry to scale up the war effort during World War I, “Foreign Military Sales vs Direct Commercial Sales”, https://www.ndia.org/policy/international/fms-vs-dcs)DCS ProcessDCS is regarded as a more flexible process, as the purchaser consults directly with industry about specific products and services it needs. Foreign customers leverage more negotiating power regarding the type of contract (fixed price or firm fixed price), how the contract is written, final delivery requirements, and methods of payment. However, they must carry more risk and administrative burdens. DCS has the added benefit of giving customers options to purchase more non-standard systems that are mission specific, and designed to tackle readiness challenges. In these cases, the Pentagon does not support these types of mission requirements in their stockpiles, or in their annual budget.Qualifying for an export license through DCS is based on how a product or service is categorized. The State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) executes authority in issuing export licenses to all defense related products and services on the U.S. Munitions List (USML), pursuant to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) grants export licenses to

more commercial and “dual-use” defense products and services on the Commerce Control

List (CCL) , pursuant to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).Like the FMS program, DCS advances interoperability between the U.S military and its allies. Furthermore, foreign countries use FMF funding to purchase U.S. defense products and systems through both the FMS program and, on occasion, the DCS process.

Of

Of = Object of Action

“Of” means “the object of an action denoted or implied by the preceding noun” Merriam-Webster No Date (“of,” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/of)of preposition \ əv, before consonants also ə; ˈəv , ˈäv\ Definition of of (Entry 1 of 3) 1 —used as a function word to indicate a point

of reckoning north of the lake 2a —used as a function word to indicate origin or derivation a man of noble birth b —used as a function word to indicate the cause, motive, or reason died of flu c : BY plays of Shakespeare d : on the part of very kind of you e : occurring in a fish of the western Atlantic 3 —used as a function word to indicate the component material, parts, or elements or the contents throne of gold cup of water 4a —used as a function word to indicate the whole that includes the part denoted by the preceding word most of the army b —used as a function word to indicate a whole or quantity from which a part is removed or expended gave of his time 5a : relating to : ABOUT stories of her travels b : in respect to slow of speech 6a —used as a function word to indicate belonging or a possessive relationship king of England b —used as a function word to indicate relationship between a result determined by a function or operation and a basic entity (such as an independent variable) a function of x the product of two numbers 7 —used as a function word to indicate something from which a person or thing is delivered eased of her pain or with respect to which someone or something is made destitute robbed of all their belongings 8a —used as a function word to indicate a particular example belonging to the class denoted by the

preceding noun the city of Rome b —used as a function word to indicate apposition that fool of a husband 9a —used as a function word to indicate the object of an action denoted or implied by the preceding noun love of nature b —used as

a function word to indicate the application of a verb cheats him of a dollar or of an adjective fond of candy 10 —used as a function word to indicate a characteristic or distinctive quality or possession a woman of courage 11a —used as a function word to indicate the position in time of an action or occurrence died of a Monday b : BEFORE quarter of ten 12 archaic : ON a plague of all cowards — William Shakespeare

Arms

Arms = Defense Articles + Dual Use

Arms include all defense and dual-use material used by armed forcesFisas et al 2 (Vicenç Fisas, Daniel Luz, Rebeca Pérez, Maria Prandi, Raül Romeva, Josep Maria Royo, and Maria Truñó make up the Alert Unit of the School of Peace Culture. Fisas holds a doctorate in Peace Studies from Bradford University and is the author of more than 30 books on peace, defence, disarmament and conflict alternatives), 1-1-2002, “Alert 2002: Report of Human Rights, Armed Conflicts and Arms Transfers,” Escola de Cultura de Pau, https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/0D3DF61C54B7E3B3C1256DBE0049D212-spc-alert-2002.pdfThe study 2002 Alert: Report on Human Rights, Armed Conflict and Arms Transfers done by the Càtedra UNESCO sobre Pau i Drets Humans/Escola de Cultura de Pau, belonging to the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, consists of an analysis of the States and territories throughout the world and is based on a series of indicators linked to the Code of

Conduct on Arms Exports, [Fn 1] We define arms as all defence and dual use material used by the armed

forces and forces of law and order . The restrictive criteria should also be applied to transfers of personnel, training and technology, including economic and logistic support. [End Fn 1] approved by the Council for the European Union on 25 May 1998.2 The Càtedra UNESCO sobre Pau i Drets Humans has been putting out this report yearly since 1997, although under a different format and name: Report on Criteria to Authorise and Refuse Arms Exports.3

Arms = Military Weapons

Arms military weapons common to soldiers and distinct from non-military weaponsBlack’s Law Dictionary no date (Black’s Law is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States. It is the reference of choice for terms in legal briefs and court opinions and has been cited as a secondary legal authority in many U.S. Supreme Court cases), “What is ARMS?”, https://thelawdictionary.org/arms

Anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at or strike at another. Co. Litt. 1616, 162a; State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. 18. This term, as it is used in the constitution, relative to the right of citizens to bear arms, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense . The arms of the infantry soldier are

the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols, and carbine; of the artillery, the field-piece, siegegun, and mortar, with side arms. The term,

in this connection, cannot be made to cover such weapons as dirks, daggers, slung-shots, sword- canes, brass knuckles, and bowieknives. These are not military arms . English v. State, 35 Tex. 476, 14 Am. Rep. 374;

Hill v. State, 53 Ga. 472; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455, 25 Am. Rep. 556; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 170, 8 Am. Rep. 8; Aymette v. State, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 154. Arms, or coat of arms, signifies insignia, i. e., ensigns of honor, such as were formerly assumed by soldiers of fortune, and painted on their shields to distinguish them; or nearly the same as armorial bearings, (q. v.)

Arms = Munitions List

“Arms” means items specified in the US Munitions ListBoren 85, 4-24-1985, “S. 986 - A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to disallow any deduction for advertising or other promotion expenses with respect to arms sales,” https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1985-pt7/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1985-pt7-3-1.pdf

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 GENERAL RULE.-No deduction shall be allowed under this chapter for any arms sale promotion expense. "(b) ARMS SALE PROMOTION EXPENSE.-For purposes of this section- "(1) IN GENERAL.-The term 'arms sale promotion expense' means any amount otherwise allowable as a deduction under this chapter with respect to- "<A> any advertisement primarily for purposes of- "(i) promoting the sale of arms, or "(ii) informing or influencing the general public (or any segment thereof) with respect to defense expenditures, or “(B) any of the following incurred or provided primarily for purposes described in subparagraph (A)—“(i) travel expenses (including meals and lodging), “(ii) any amount attributable to goods or services of a type generally considered to constitute entertainment, amusement, or recreation or to the use of a facility in connection

with the providing of such goods or services, “(iii) gifts, or “(iv) other promotion expenses. "(2) ARMS.- The term 'arms' means any arm,

ammunition, or implement of war designated in the munitions list published pursuant to the Military Security Act of 1954.

Arms = Broadly Defined

Arms include dual-use technologies, support equipment, military services, and defense production facilitiesHoltom & Bromley 10, (Paul Holtom is director of the arms transfers program at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Mark Bromley is a researcher in the same program), 7-8-2010, “The International Arms Trade: Difficult to Define, Measure, and Control,” Arms Control Association, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2010_07-08/holtom-bromleyThe now-defunct U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) created the following comprehensive definition of the arms trade , which has been widely used by researchers : weapons of war, parts thereof, ammunition, support equipment, and other commodities designed for military use.… Dual-use equipment…when its primary mission is identified as military. The building of defense production facilities and licensing fees paid as royalties for the production of military equipment.… Military services such as training, supply operations, equipment repair, technical assistance and construction are included where data are available.[3]

Arms = Contested Definition in Literature

There’s no agreement in the literature about the best definition of “arms” – both narrow and broad definitions are used by institutionsCBO 92 (“Limiting Conventional Arms Exports to the Middle East,” Congressional Budget Office Study, September, Available Online at https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/102nd-congress-1991-1992/reports/1992_09_limiting.pdf, Accessed 06-12-2019, p. 79) Definition of the Term "Arms"Another matter that the data leave unclear, and that has posed obstacles to past arms embargoes and transfer limitations, is the determination of what should be counted as a weapon. A tank is clearly one, but what about the rounds of ammunition that it fires? Or the trucks carrying extra ammunition? Or the communications gear for the tank's crew? Or infantry rifles? On these points, SIPRI and ACDA differ considerably .SIPRI uses the narrowest definition , counting only hardware that falls into one of five major categories of weapon systems : aircraft, armor and artillery, guidance and radar systems, missiles, and warships. The classification is helpful where restraint options are concerned because it includes the items that can be counted and verified with greatest certainty . ACDA defines arms transfers as "weapons of war, parts thereof, ammunition, support equipment, and other commodities designed for military use." ACDA thus includes a wide range of goods and services : military construction, royalties from technology licenses when they are part of the transfer agreement, and a host of smaller or ancillary equipment such as nonarmored military vehicles, communications and electronic equipment, small arms, ammunition, parachutes, and uniforms. The ACDA data treat U.S. exports differently than those of the rest of the world. ACDA excludes construction and other services from the U.S. export level. It also leaves out dual-use equipment for U.S. exports unless it is included on the Munitions List, but counts such items for the rest of the world. (The value of the dual-use equipment is difficult to gauge, but the foreign military construction sales and "other services" reported by the Department of Defense averaged over $3 billion a year in the late 1980s—more than 10 percent of the figure ACD,A reports for total U.S. exports.) Which definition of arms is most appropriate? The answer depends on the issue at hand. The limits in this study use a narrow definition of weapons but are also intended to comprise dual- use and component trade that can contribute to the manufacturing of such major weapons . The economic analyses, however, are based on CBO estimates of what might happen to all military production.

From

From = Provenance/Source

“From” indicates source – “from the United States” means the provenance of the arms reduced must be the USGoogle Definitions No Date(search of “define:from” on Google search)

preposition: from1.indicating the point in space at which a journey, motion, or action starts."she began to walk away from him"indicating the distance between a particular place and another place used as a point of reference."the ambush occurred 50 yards from a checkpoint"2.indicating the point in time at which a particular process, event, or activity starts."the show will run from 10 to 2"3.

indicating the source or provenance of someone or something."I'm from Hartford"indicating the date at which something was created."a document dating from the thirteenth century"4.indicating the starting point of a specified range on a scale."men who ranged in age from seventeen to eighty-four"indicating one extreme in a range of conceptual variations."anything from geography to literature"5.indicating the point at which an observer is placed."you can see the island from here"6.indicating the raw material out of which something is manufactured."a varnish made from copal"7.indicating separation or removal."the party was ousted from power after sixteen years"8.indicating prevention."the story of how he was saved from death"9.indicating a cause."a child suffering from asthma"10.indicating a source of knowledge or the basis for one's judgment."information obtained from papers, books, and presentations"11.indicating a distinction."the courts view him in a different light from that of a manual worker"

“From” means “source” Merriam Webster No Date(“from,” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/from)

Definition of from1a —used as a function word to indicate a starting point of a physical movement or a starting point in measuring or reckoning or in a statement of limitscame here from the citya week from todaycost from $5 to $10b —used as a function word to indicate the starting or focal point of an activitycalled me from a pay phoneran a business from her home2 —used as a function word to indicate physical separation or an act or condition of removal, abstention, exclusion, release, subtraction, or differentiationprotection from the sunrelief from anxiety

3 —used as a function word to indicate the source , cause, agent, or basiswe conclude from thisa call from my lawyerinherited a love of music from his fatherworked hard from necessity

United States

United States

United States is the country that geographically occupies the 50 states it encompassesThe American Heritage Dictionary 00bartleby.com/61/

United States of America... A country of central and northwest North America with coastlines on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. It includes the noncontiguous states of Alaska and Hawaii

and various island territories in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean . The area now occupied

by the contiguous 48 states was originally inhabited by numerous Native American peoples and was colonized beginning in the 16th century by Spain, France, the Netherlands, and England. Great Britain eventually controlled most of the Atlantic coast and, after the French and Indian Wars (1754–1763), the Northwest Territory and Canada.

United States is one nationWords and Phrases 64Second Series, 1914, Updated 1964, Volume 4, 1905, pg. 1074.

The “United States” are for many important purposes a single nation , and in all commercial regulations we are one and the same people .

United States is the republic containing 50 states, not just the 50 states themselvesWordNet 6wordnet.princeton.edu, 2006.

S: (n) United States, United States of America, America, the States, US, U.S., USA, U.S.A. ( North

American republic containing 50 states - 48 conterminous states in North America plus Alaska in northwest North America and the Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific Ocean; achieved independence in 1776)

The United States includes territories and areas of jurisdictionDOD 13 Department of Defense Unclassified Dictionary – contained in Joint Publication and amended on July 16, 2013 http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary/data/u/7829.html

United States(DOD) Includes the land area, internal waters, territorial sea, and airspace of the United States, including a. United States territories; and b. Other areas over which the United States Government has complete jurisdiction and control or has exclusive authority or defense responsibility.Source: JP 1

Literature Base Context

Specific Countries = Core Controversy

Arms sales involve US exercise of leverage on a state-by-state basis – there’s no debate about global reductions within the literature or in U.S. foreign policy institutionsThrall & Dorminey 18(A. Trevor Thrall, senior fellow for the Cato’s Institute’s Defense and Foreign Policy Department, and Caroline Dorminey, policy analyst in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, “Risky Business: The Role of Arms Sales in U.S. Foreign Policy,” March 13, 2018, https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/risky-business-role-arms-sales-us-foreign-policy)

U.S. arms sales policy is out of control. Since 2002, the United States has sold more than $197 billion worth of major conventional weapons and related military support to 167 countries. In just his first year in office, President Donald Trump inked arms deals at a record pace, generating hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of potential sales.

Though the president trumpets each deal as a victory for the United States, an analysis of American arms sales since 2002 reveals that the arms trade is a risky business. The United States has repeatedly sold weapons to nations engaged in deadly conflicts, and to those with horrendous human rights records, under conditions in which it has been impossible to predict where the weapons would end up or how they would be used. On repeated occasions, American troops have fought opponents armed with American weapons.

Advocates argue that arms sales bolster American security by enhancing the military capabilities of allies, providing leverage over the behavior and policies of client nations, and boosting the American economy while strengthening the defense industrial base. We argue that the economic benefits of arms sales are dubious and that their strategic utility is far more uncertain and limited than most realize. Arms sales also create a host of negative, unintended consequences for the United States, for those buying the weapons, and for the regions into which American weapons flow.Washington’s historical faith in arms sales is seriously misplaced. The United States should revise its arms sales policy to improve the risk assessment process, to ban sales to countries where the risk of negative consequences is too high, and to limit sales to cases in which they will directly enhance American security.Introduction

What role should arms sales play in American foreign policy? Though major deals — like Trump’s $110 billion agreement with Saudi Arabia announced in 2017 or the decision to sell arms to Ukraine — provoke brief periods of discussion, there is no real debate in Washington

about the wisdom of exporting vast quantities of weapons around the globe to allies and

nonallies alike . Congress, which has the authority to cancel arms deals, has not impeded a deal since the passage of the 1976 Arms Export Control Act created the

framework for doing so. Since 9/11 the pace of sales has increased. From 2002 to 2016, the United States sold roughly $197 billion worth of weapons and related military support to 167 countries.1 In just his first year Donald Trump cut a deal worth as much as $110 billion to Saudi Arabia alone and notified Congress of 157 sales worth more than $84 billion to 42 other nations.2 Despite losing market share over the past two decades because of increasing competition, the United States still enjoyed the largest share of the global arms trade between 2012 and 2016 at 33 percent.3

Exercise of leverage over specific countries is the core of the arms sales debate – arms sales’ implications for specific bilateral relationships is key aff ground Rogin 18(Josh Rogin, columnist for the Global Opinions section of The Washington Post. He writes about foreign policy and national security. Rogin is also a political analyst for CNN. He previously worked for Bloomberg View, the Daily Beast, Foreign Policy, Congressional Quarterly, Federal Computer Week and Japan's Asahi Shimbun newspaper, “Trump has it ‘totally and completely backwards’ on Saudi arms sales,” October 16, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2018/10/16/trump-has-it-totally-and-completely-backwards-on-saudi-arms-sales/?utm_term=.d6252b8bf563)

When President Trump argues that the United States can’t halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia over the Saudis’ alleged murder of journalist and Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi, he’s giving up a key piece of leverage over Riyadh for no reason at all. What’s worse, Trump is also turning one of America’s best strategic assets into a liability, a massive unforced error that could weaken the United States worldwide.Trump has said repeatedly he doesn’t want to halt — or even threaten to halt — U.S. arms sales to the Saudi regime because (he says) it would cost U.S. jobs and hand over a sweet contract to Moscow or Beijing.

“They are ordering military equipment. Everybody in the world wanted that order. Russia wanted it, China wanted it, we wanted it. We got it,” Trump said on “60 Minutes” Sunday. “I don’t want to hurt jobs. I don’t want to lose an order like that.”Set aside that Trump’s claim of $110 billion of arms sales to Saudi Arabia as announced last year is hugely exaggerated, considering that number mostly refers to deals struck

during the Obama administration and new deals that haven’t yet materialized. The significant arms-sales relationship we do have with Saudi Arabia gives us enormous leverage over them, leverage Trump should use to pressure

King Salman to reveal what his regime knows about Khashoggi’s disappearance.Saudi Arabia’s military is already built around U.S. and British defense platforms, meaning they can’t easily switch to Russian or Chinese systems. Riyadh is especially dependent on U.S. arms right now because their bloody war in Yemen requires a constant flow of U.S. munitions, not to mention U.S. intelligence, maintenance and refueling support.

U.S. arms sales are not simply a financial deal or a jobs program; they represent a strategic

advantage of the United States. Countries want U.S. weapons because they are the best. That

gives us connections, influence and , yes, leverage over these countries. That’s how arms sales have always worked, until Trump

flipped the script.“The White House seems to be saying that Trump Doctrine is that the U.S. will ignore your human rights abuses, assassinations or war crimes as long as you buy things from us. He’s got it totally and completely backwards,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told me. “What’s the point of being a military superpower if we lose leverage when we do business with another country?”“What the president doesn’t realize is that this makes him look weak and small. World leaders will now know they can act with impunity so long as they are buying American weapons. That’s an insane message to send,” Murphy said. “The United States should never be boxed in because of who we sell weapons to — countries who buy U.S. weapons should feel enormous pressure to stay on our good side.”

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) made a similar point Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” with Jake Tapper.“Arm sales are important, not because of the money , but because it also provides leverage over their future behavior,” he said. “You know … they will need our spare parts. They will need our training. And those are things we can use to influence their behavior.”Congress does have a role to play in approving arms sales, and all indications are that they plan to intervene on sales to Riyadh if it is shown that the Saudi regime had a hand in Khashoggi’s death. The State Department approved a $15 billion sale of the Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) missile defense system to Saudi Arabia this month. The Pentagon said last week Saudi Arabia has signed letters of offer or acceptance of $14.5 billion worth of American helicopters, tanks, ships, weapons and training.In June, the Senate narrowly voted down a resolution to halt the sale of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of precision-guided munitions to the Saudi military out of concern they could be used to target Yemeni civilians. After the vote, Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking Democrat Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said he opposed the sale, placing it in limbo.The threat of congressional action would be more effective if the president of the United States wasn’t publicly undermining Congress’s message, said William Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy.“Trump is not even trying to use this leverage,” he said. “He’s completely given it away, and not only that, he’s announced to the world that he’s giving it away.”Through a basic misunderstanding of national security and diplomacy, the president has once again undermined U.S. interests and made the work of his own team — including

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — much more difficult. Thinking of arms sales purely in dollar terms doesn’t make any

sense .

Global Rate of Arms Sales = Core Controversy

The core controversy over Trump-era arms sales is the global rate of US sales and economic competition, not leverage over specific countries – prefer our evidence because it cites administration conventional arms transfer policyKaidanow 18(Tina Kaidanow, Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, August 8, 2018, “U.S. Arms Transfer Policy: Shaping the Way Ahead,” https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-arms-transfer-policy-shaping-way-ahead)

So, with no further ado, let me just say I think, again, as Andrew mentioned and I know that most of you are aware, in April of this past year the president issued a national security policy memorandum announcing a revised conventional

arms transfer – or, as we like to call it affectionately, a CAT – policy . The CAT Policy provides a framework under which the U.S. government and all of its agencies will review and evaluate proposed arms transfers. The new policy reflects the priorities of the president’s National Security Strategy, which are, namely, to preserve peace through strength by reforming regulations to facilitate the exports of U.S. military equipment; to strengthen partners and allies; to facilitate U.S. economic security and innovation – we’ll

talk a little bit more about that; and to uphold respect for human rights and U.S. nonproliferation objectives. In short, the new CAT Policy was designed to expand opportunities for American industry , create American jobs , and

maintain U.S. national security , ensuring that we continue to review each arms transfer thoroughly in order to ensure that it is in the national

interest of the United States.The release of the new policy was only the first step in a series of what we believe will be very practical results-focused initiatives to transform the way that the U.S. government works to support and grow our defense industrial base. Through that memorandum, the president also directed the secretary of state, in coordination with the secretaries of defense, commerce, and energy, to submit an implementation plan within 60 days. So, during the 60 days following the release of the policy, my colleagues from across the executive branch and I met with stakeholders from industry, from civil society, as well as congressional staffers to collect all of their input and hopefully closely align our implementation plan with real-world challenges. In fact, as part of this engagement, in April I met with a group of scholars from the NGO and think-tank community right here at CSIS to discuss the new CAT Policy. We’re very grateful for everybody who contributed feedback to that very important process.

And subsequently, as directed by the president’s national security policy memorandum, we did indeed submit a national implementation plan on July 13 th. The plan represents an integrated strategy, one that aligns our conventional arms transfers with our national security and economic interests , and it’s built on three specific lines of effort.

First, the plan calls for prioritizing strategic and economic competition through a paradigm

shift from the current reactive posture to a more proactive posture that actively develops partnerships and capabilities reflective of U.S. strategic and economic objectives. We will use this policy tool to ensure that U.S. products can win in the competitive global marketplace .Second, the plan envisions organizing our efforts for success, ensuring that the executive branch is positioned, staffed, and resourced to best support efficient execution of the Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, and that its processes are also similarly constructed.

Third, the plan calls for creating conducive environments through engagement with Congress, industry, international partners, and

other stakeholders to foster the efficient operation of U.S. defense trade .What all this really ultimately means and what the initiative makes clear is that under this administration there will be no more active advocate for U.S. sales than the U.S. government itself. Thus, a top priority of my bureau – the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs at the State Department – is maintaining the United States as the security partner of choice for our many friends and allies overseas.

Trump’s conventional arms transfer policy treats economic security and national security as interchangeable, which makes the global rate of US arms sales the core topic controversy – debates should emphasize the US position in the overall global marketplace not arms transfers to specific countriesArad 18

(Shimon Arad, retired colonel of the Israeli Defense Forces, “TRUMP’S ARMS EXPORTS POLICY: DEBUNKING KEY ASSUMPTIONS,” September 28, 2018, War on the Rocks, https://warontherocks.com/2018/09/trumps-arms-exports-policy-debunking-key-assumptions/)

The Trump administration recently released its new Conventional Arms Transfer (CAT) policy designed to increase the already well-established U.S. dominance of the global arms market. Increasing arms exports is seen as an important part of the administration’s aim to strengthen America’s economy and security. Traditionally, U.S. arms exports have been used as tools of power and influence, giving it political leverage over clients.Paradoxically, however, the emphasis placed on the economic utility of arms sales by the Trump administration is increasing the bargaining power of clients, thereby reducing U.S. political sway. The leverage of client states and the U.S. arms industry is leading the administration to release advanced military capabilities earlier than it would have done otherwise and to play down human rights considerations raised by Congress.Ironically, additional economic and security steps being taken by the Trump administration may be undermining some of the intended benefits of the new CAT policy. The president’s economic protectionist agenda, including the imposition of tariffs on steel and aluminum supposedly because of national security considerations, could undermine U.S. defense sales by driving up prices or by prompting retaliation from affected arms clients.Political tensions between Washington and some its allies and partners – especially in NATO — may also be encouraging them to find ways to decrease their dependence on American-made subsystems and to increase defense industrial cooperation between them to the exclusion of the United States. This could potentially reduce future U.S. arms and subsystem sales to these countries and increase competition with them for global markets.Trump’s Conventional Arms Transfer PolicyThe first CAT policy was introduced by President Jimmy Carter on May 19, 1977. Its underlying principle was that arms transfers were to be treated with a strong presumption of denial “as an exceptional foreign policy implement” with “the burden of persuasion … on those who favor a particular sale, rather than those who oppose it.”To further this policy of self-imposed restraint, Carter instituted a ceiling on the total dollar value of American arms transfers to all but a few traditional allies. He pledged that the United States would not be the first supplier to introduce into Third World areas “newly developed, advanced weapons systems which could create a new or significantly higher combat capability.” In implementing this policy, Carter issued the so-called “leprosy letter,” instructing American diplomats abroad to refrain from assisting the U.S. arms industry in its efforts to secure foreign buyers.In April, the Trump administration launched the fifth iteration of the CAT policy, designed to increase the exports of U.S. arms as an integral part of its “America First” policy

agenda. The present version of the CAT policy prioritizes arms transfers as an important tool of American foreign policy and, in stark contrast to the vision of Carter, is predicated on a strong

assumption of approval and the active advocacy of the U.S. government and its diplomats

with foreign leaders and governments to buy American-made arms .The Trump administration presents its new arms policy as a response to the ongoing strategic competition between the great powers. Its argument is that the new CAT policy will enable Washington to preserve international peace by strengthening the military capabilities of its allies and partners, while reducing the need for American boots on the ground; maintaining its influence over the policies and actions of client states in key regions around the world; strengthening the U.S. military by increasing interoperability with allies and partners; supporting the defense industry; promoting new innovation; and maintaining American jobs. The new policy also refers to the need for an assessment of the risks that arms transfers may pose to human rights violations, to technology transfer issues and/or U.S. nonproliferation objectives.The Nervous U.S. Domination of the Arms MarketThe United States dominates the growing global arms market and according to data gathered by the authoritative Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), its lead is expanding. The United States accounted for 34 percent of total arms exports between 2013 and 2017, ranking it significantly higher than its main competitors Russia (22 percent), France (6.7 percent), Germany (5.8 percent), China (5.7 percent), and Britain (4.8 percent). In FY 2018, the value of signed arms deals continued to increase, reaching over $46 billion, exceeding the $41 billion figure of FY 2017.

Undergirding this policy is Trump’s vision that economic security is national security . The defense

and aerospace industry is America’s second-largest gross exporter. The industry contributes approximately $1 trillion annually to the U.S. economy and employs around 2,500,000 people. On average, 30 percent of the industry’s annual revenue is through arms exports, which reduces the need for domestic investment, reduces the cost-per-unit for the U.S. military, and enables an increase of investments in innovation, thereby retaining America’s technological lead.

Process for Case-by-Case Evaluation = Core Controversy

Arms sales are evaluated on a case-by-case basis – specific decisions about reduction, increase, or maintaining the status squo are the crux of arms sales literature – prefer our evidence because it cites Trump administration policyKaidanow 18(Tina Kaidanow, Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, August 8, 2018, “U.S. Arms Transfer Policy: Shaping the Way Ahead,” https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-arms-transfer-policy-shaping-way-ahead)

In terms of that larger policy framework, let me speak for a moment about two important global issues that we take into account on every arms sale : human rights and proliferation or nonproliferation.In terms of human rights, the CAT Policy requires that every sale be assessed for the risk that it may contribute to a gross violation of human rights. This reflects an immutable American value, so let me repeat myself: We will not provide arms where we believe they will be used to conduct a gross violation of human rights. For sure, there can be complexities in any sale. For instance, not all of our partners are as discriminating as we ourselves are when it comes to the conduct of their military operations. For that reason, the new CAT Policy requires us to work proactively

with partners to reduce civilian casualties in their military operations. We also regularly use sales as an opportunity to engage with partners to address the human rights conduct of their military. These are often imperfect situations, but we always work to reduce the chance of the misuse of U.S. arms. The same simply cannot be said for most other suppliers of military equipment around the world.In terms of proliferation, we also work to strike a balance between providing our partners with the capabilities they need to defend themselves and ensure regional stability, while limiting the proliferation of new military technologies and creating regional imbalances that can lead to an arms race. In doing so, we work within the context of the multilateral regimes to which the U.S. is a party. That does not mean that some of these regimes do not need sometimes updating. For example, the Missile Technology Control Regime, so-called MTCR, designed to prevent the proliferation of missiles, never took into account the role that unmanned aerial systems now play in both the military and

commercial realms. In reviewing each sale on a case-by-case basis , we must ensure that we are not accelerating the spread of advanced weaponry and creating opportunities for our competitors – economic and strategic – to expand the space for their own defense trade, to our ultimate military and economic detriment.

Arms sales are conducted on a case-by-case basis and are a political balancing act that requires weighing the importance of distinct economic, human rights, and security concerns – the core of topic literature on reduction of arms sales is the process of evaluationGrady 18(John Grady, a former managing editor of Navy Times, retired as director of communications for the Association of the United States Army, “Panel: Expansion of U.S. Arms Sales Tool to Expand American Influence,” August 8, 2018, https://news.usni.org/2018/08/08/panel-expansion-u-s-arms-sales-tool-expand-american-influence)

The government expects to meet industry requests to set milestones and timelines so they can plan and budget for potential sales domestically and to allies and partners, Laura Cressey, deputy director for regional security and arms transfers at the State Department said. She added new financing options for foreign partners would be available as an incentive to buy American.

“We have a bit of a balancing act here,” she said. For example, the balancing act includes mitigating the risk to the American warfighter five years down the road by selling this specific system with its unique technology to “Y” country.Case-by-case also means that approval is not guaranteed based upon past performance by a

contractor or behavior by a nation, she and several panelists said.In some parts of the State Department, it also means trying to “do more with less” to meet accelerated timelines as staffing has been left vacant or cut, she added.To Jeff Abramson, a senior fellow at the Arms Control Association, this raised “a great deal of concern” because “priorities are not being weighted” in reaching those decisions. He added arms sales should not be considered “a trade commodity; these are weapons,” not to be rushed the system.

Arms sales “are fundamentally a political act ,” Melissa Dalton, director of CSIS’ cooperative defense project, added, and the change in

policy needs to fit in with the President Donald Trump’s national security strategy. In the memo, she said it uses that standard as a guide but does not spell out how for the various federal agencies involved in arms transfers.

“What has changed” most in the international marketplace “is the United States is not alone” in offering quality military equipment, Keith Webster, president of the defense and aerospace export council at the United States Chamber of Commerce, said.He said the United States is not only competing with the Russians and the Chinese, but also with its allies such as the French, Koreans and Israelis. Thirty years ago, “we had a very strong corner on the market,” and only serious competition from the Kremlin.

Now the “consequence of denial” in a potential arms transfer over American concerns about how the system will be used or a nation’s change in behavior, as was the case with Pakistan when it pursued its nuclear weapons program, have much greater consequences domestically .Likewise, it becomes more complicated when a potential partner, such as India, buys sophisticated aircraft from France, as New Delhi did, and may do with an air defense system from Russia.Another goal in foreign arms sale is interoperability with American forces , Cressey and Kaidanow said. When

systems from other nations, even allies, are in play, that becomes a further reach.As the policy unfolds, the panelists from industry and arms control associations stressed the importance of keeping businesses and the public involved in as transparent a process as possible.Alex Gray, a special White House assistant for the defense industrial base, used the Farnborough air show this year in the United Kingdom as an example of the administration reaching out to all levels of industry and allies and partners to talk over these changes and what they can mean for them.“This is just the beginning of our engagement,” Cressey said, referring to follow-up roundtables with industry, think tanks and associations.Hardwick, in answer to a question, reminded all it was important for State, who gives the formal approval, and the Pentagon and Commerce, both also involved in the sales program, to “remember the role of the end-user” in all this. After all, it is an ally or partner looking to provide for its security needs when examining different systems from a number of countries.