Bill Overview
Title: Values in Arms Export Act of 2022
Description: This bill restricts transferring defense articles and services to countries that violate human rights, imposes such restrictions on Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and addresses related issues. The bill establishes the Human Rights and Law of War Oversight Board. The board's duties shall include (1) reviewing countries that receive U.S. defense articles for strict adherence to human rights and the law of armed conflict principles, and (2) ensuring that such principles are appropriately considered in arms transfers. The President, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the board, or Congress may designate a country (except for certain exempted countries such as NATO member countries) as a country of concern. Such a designation shall last for three years, during which the country shall be barred from receiving the defense articles that led to the designation. The bill also imposes additional restrictions on a designated country that fails to improve its adherence to human rights principles. The Department of the Treasury must impose sanctions on the appropriate government officials of a country subject to such additional restrictions. The bill designates Saudi Arabia and the UAE as countries of concern. Before certain defense articles transfers, the President must provide Congress an assessment of the risk of the defense articles being used to violate human rights. The bill also requires various government agencies to monitor and report information concerning human rights violations involving U.S. defense articles.
Sponsors: Rep. Jacobs, Sara [D-CA-53]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by arms export policy changes
Estimated Size: 3200000
- The bill targets defense articles and services, linking arms export to human rights conditions, affecting countries that receive these items.
- Approximately 63 million people live in Saudi Arabia and the UAE combined, the initial countries affected by the bill.
- Global arms trade impacts numerous countries, thus many people globally could be indirectly affected through policy adjustments and new regulations.
- The human rights stance could lead to global pressure, affecting non-US citizens residing in the countries labeled as having poor human rights records.
- The new restrictions applied could result in a shift in military capabilities and security policies among potentially implicated nations.
Reasoning
- The Values in Arms Export Act primarily targets international relations and arms transfers, but it indirectly impacts U.S. citizens, particularly those in the defense industry.
- Given the targeted restrictions on Saudi Arabia and UAE, U.S. defense contractors may experience a reduction in demand for certain arms, potentially affecting job security for some U.S. workers.
- Simulated interviews include perspectives from people working in defense, advocacy groups, general public, and those indirectly impacted economically.
- The distribution of interviews covers a spectrum of likely responses, from direct financial impacts to broader societal and ethical considerations.
Simulated Interviews
Defense contractor engineer (Virginia)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about potential job cuts if the company loses contracts with Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
- Ethically, I support enforcing human rights in foreign policies, but it’s important to consider domestic economic impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Human rights advocate (California)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill is a step in the right direction to stop the U.S. from enabling human rights violations.
- I hope it will encourage other countries to take similar actions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Defense industry project manager (Texas)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've noticed more cautious attitudes towards securing new deals.
- Our team's focus is shifting towards compliance and exploring alternative markets.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Retired military officer (Florida)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bill could strategically align U.S. values with arms exports, but may strain key alliances.
- Important financial ties might be compromised, affecting U.S. defense readiness and economics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Graduate student (New York)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation could reshape U.S. influence in international human rights advocacy.
- Interested to see if policy change prompts broader international moves.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Policy analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bill could increase bureaucratic processes, impacting timely defense assistance.
- Long-term, it might lead to necessary reforms and heightened accountability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Factory worker in defense manufacturing (Michigan)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Worried about lay-offs if contracts decline due to new restrictions.
- Company says it's looking for additional customers to mitigate risks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Defense sector human resources manager (Ohio)
Age: 59 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We've begun streamlining operations to adapt to potential downscaling.
- I might have to manage workforce reductions cautiously to minimize disruptions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Defense procurement specialist (Utah)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We are adjusting strategies to maintain profitability amid export restrictions.
- Potential opportunities may arise in other regions focusing more on compliance enhancements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
College student (Illinois)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m optimistic policies like this will steer global dialogues towards more responsible arms trading.
- Looking forward to potentially working on related initiatives in the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $80000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $70000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $70000000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring the Oversight Board has adequate infrastructure and seasoned personnel is critical for effective implementation.
- Continual country monitoring demands agile surveillance technologies and real-time data analyses.
- Balancing diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia and the UAE will require heightened strategic communications and negotiations from relevant U.S. agencies.
- Assessing risks for arms transactions must be conducted with high precision to maintain congressional and international confidence in U.S. policies.
- Monitoring sanctions impositions for compliance will require robust tracking systems and international cooperation.