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: Sen. Murray, Patty [D-WA]
Target Audience
Population: People in Saudi Arabia and the UAE
Estimated Size: 10000000
- The bill impacts countries that are known for violating human rights, specifically naming Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
- Saudi Arabia and the UAE have been involved in conflict situations (e.g., Yemen) where US defense articles could be used, impacting local populations.
- Restrictions on arms transfers may affect regional security dynamics, influencing the wellbeing of civilians indirectly.
- The establishment of the Human Rights and Law of War Oversight Board will affect how arms deals are evaluated globally.
- Efforts to monitor and restrict defense articles could lead to human rights improvements, influencing global populations favorably.
- The bill includes sanctions and restrictions, which can lead to improved governance in countries, affecting their populations.
Reasoning
- The policy impacts individuals involved in the defense industry, potentially affecting their economic wellbeing due to shifts in US arms export practices.
- Given the focus on Saudi Arabia and the UAE, people working in defense contracting or lobbying for these countries may experience higher levels of scrutiny or changes in their work landscape.
- The increase in oversight and emphasis on human rights may affect US policymakers and professionals concerned with international relations and national security.
- NGOs and civil society organizations focusing on human rights may have increased opportunities to influence policy, which could enhance their job satisfaction and effectiveness.
- Indirect effects of the policy may include shifts in public opinion regarding US foreign policy, potentially impacting Americans engaged in diplomatic, media, and advocacy fields.
Simulated Interviews
Defense Contractor (Arlington, VA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could lead to job restructurings and potential project cancellations, as some clients are directly affected by these restrictions.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation is a step forward in holding states accountable for human rights violations; it brings hope for more ethical policies.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Human Rights Advocate (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's encouraging to see legislative measures addressing human rights concerns; this is a win for advocacy groups.
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 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Arms Manufacturer Executive (Dallas, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy presents significant challenges for our business model, potentially necessitating layoffs and re-strategizing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Diplomat (New York, NY)
Age: 41 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The restrictions might impact diplomatic dynamics, requiring careful navigation and increased dialogue with key allies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
International Relations Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is an excellent case study for understanding global arms trade ethics and its effects on international relations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
NGO Director (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislative move empowers our work in advocating for human rights worldwide, especially for women in conflict regions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Oil Industry Consultant (Houston, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Arms export restrictions could indirectly affect the regional stability and thus energy markets, impacting my consulting work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Defense Policy Advisor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These oversight measures enhance the ethical dimension of US foreign policy, aligning with long-term strategic interests.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Student Activist (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's motivating to see policy shifts that align with human rights values; it keeps our activism relevant.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $48000000 (Low: $38000000, High: $58000000)
Year 3: $46000000 (Low: $36000000, High: $56000000)
Year 5: $43000000 (Low: $33000000, High: $53000000)
Year 10: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Year 100: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill's restrictions might shift geopolitical alliances, influencing arms trade and associated revenues.
- Compliance with human rights oversight could stimulate reforms in designated countries, affecting regional stability.
- Potential diplomatic repercussions from reduced arms engagement with Saudi Arabia and the UAE should be monitored.