this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
59 points (96.8% liked)

News

23311 readers
3580 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
dezmd@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
Blackbeard@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
59
US orders 'assurances' from nations receiving American weapons (www.bbc.com)
submitted 9 months ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

US President Joe Biden has said that countries receiving American weapons must adhere to international law in a memorandum issued on Thursday night.

The executive order requires foreign governments receiving military aid to provide written assurances that they are abiding by the laws of war.

The move comes after the president admitted Israel had gone "over the top" in its response in Gaza.

Israel is the largest recipient of US military financing.

In the memorandum, President Biden said that "credible and reliable written assurances" must be provided to the US by foreign governments that receive American weapons to ensure they are used in accordance with international law.

As part of this, foreign governments must also provide assurances that US humanitarian aid is being delivered to civilian populations caught in a conflict.

all 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Does that mean the US will stop providing weapons and aid to Israel? The Senate is poised to approve another package of billions in aid to Israel, I doubt this will impact that and thus largely be a hollow gesture.

Israel has already violated this, though I suppose the country could argue otherwise, as they have been, and still provide these written assurances.

I dunno. I like this, conceptually, but it seems so wildly opposed to the usual actions of the US, who consistently provides military aid, through official capacities and unofficial, to horrendous monsters on the global stage, that I have huge doubts this EO will have any teeth.

[–] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Hard to say until it happens but it might be paving the way for that to happen, from the article:

"Such remediation could include actions from refreshing the assurances to suspending any further transfers of defense articles or, as appropriate, defense services," it says.

So the executive branch does have a lot of leeway in how it distributes foreign aid allocated by congress, but not unlimited. For instance when Trump unilaterally blocked allocated aid to Ukraine during his presidency, he likely violated the law and eventually did have to release the aid allocated by congress anyways.

Setting up regulations like this beforehand could be an attempt to create a legal basis to stand on later if aid is withheld to Israel or other countries.

[–] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Yeah, it has the structure to be useful, but the timelines and protocols make me think it could be fairly limp wristed in enforcement. Israel has 45 days to provide a written assurance and should the US decide it violates that (which it hasn't in an official capacity yet) Israel has to provide a plan to remedy that, then failing that plan, these remediation actions can come into effect. I'd also imagine this would start with a modest reduction in aid before a total cut.

It doesn't seem very toothsome with how quickly war and atrocities can be committed.

I hope I'm wrong and this is the start of a way for the US to stop providing aid to monsters, but Israel is but the loudest issue relating to this right now. I doubt this will affect how the US arms right wing groups across the globe to further its hegemony.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

All 100 countries receiving US weapons must sign the assurances in the next 180 days.

Wait, what? There are 193 members of the UN. You mean to tell me the US Government is selling arms to over half the countries on Earth?

https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/how-many-countries-are-there

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I'm confused as to what you are confused about.

You mean to tell me the US Government is selling arms to over half the countries on Earth?

...yes?

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 5 points 9 months ago

Sales of U.S. military equipment to foreign governments in 2023 rose 16% to a record $238 billion, the U.S. State Department said on Monday, as countries sought to replenish stocks sent to Ukraine and prepare for major conflicts. Source

[–] protist@mander.xyz 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Most of them are buying armaments for their own militaries. US arms manufacturers almost universally have the best technology in the world, coupled with reliable support and reliable supply chains for repairs. They're in demand.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Oh, so they're not buying arms directly from the US government. Instead, the US government is giving them money to buy arms from US manufacturers.

No wonder defense companies make so much money. They are literally taking government handouts, though 100 different countries.

[–] assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Wut? The US government doesn't pay other countries to buy US weapons. Those countries typically fund those purchases from their domestic defense budget. The US government just approves or denies the exports.

Exceptions are "military aid" which is case-dependent.

Are you under the impression that the US government pays those 100 countries to buy US made weapons? Or directly sells those weapons themselves?

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Are you under the impression that the US government pays those 100 countries to buy US made weapons? Or directly sells those weapons themselves?

That's what I was wondering about. The article says plainly that all countries that receive military aid are included, then later says that includes 100 countries. It certainly reads to me like we give money to countries that then spend it in the US military industrial complex

[–] assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

Military aid packages are typically reported in USD ("10 billion in military aid") but usually involve the direct transference of equipment (logistical or frontline) to the foreign country. Usually those countries are existing allies of the US (or at least friendly) and are probably already buying NATO/US gear.

I'm relatively confident that the US doesn't typically give USD earmarked for US manufactured weapons systems.

[–] Nobody@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Good to see a step being taken in the right direction. Bibi is crystal clear that he doesn't care about words. Hopefully, we'll find out shortly that this isn't a bluff, and a ceasefire will be signed that allows humanitarian aid to flow into Gaza.

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

No. More. Weapons. Or. Money. For. Israel!

[–] ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Pretty please with a cherry on top Israel, do not use these live munitions for the purpose they are designed for! Or there'll be a finger wagging! And then perhaps we'll escalate to considering documenting the incident!

Ok back from touching grass now. If I'm being optimistic, this is the diplomatic equivalent of warning somebody that there may be a legal shit storm brewing. Getting funding pulled from UNRWA was a huge mistake, but it doesn't surprise me that Israel didn't anticipate the US getting sucked into that power vacuum.

[–] fiat_lux@kbin.social 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

In 2002 Congress passed the "American Servicemembers Protection Act" with bipartisan unanimous support which authorizes the president to "use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of a US or allied person detained or imprisoned by the International Criminal Court (ICC).” It also forbids the US Government from providing support for the ICC, cooperating with its requests, or granting military aid to any state party to the ICC, among other provisions. The Bush administration also pursued Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs), or Article 98 Agreements, in which both countries agree not to extradite current or former government officials, military personnel, or citizens of the other party to the ICC.

Just for anyone who had forgotten the legal stance the US currently takes on the ICC. This current statement is just lip service.

And Biden's 2021 stance: "the United States continues to object to the ICC’s assertions of jurisdiction over personnel of such non-States Parties as the United States…and will vigorously protect current and former United States personnel from any attempts to exercise such jurisdiction.”

Parts lifted from Harvard Human Rights Professor Kathryn Sikkink's blog

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

I think it's pretty obvious what the Biden Administration would consider a "reliable assurance" from Israel by looking at the reaction of this very Administration on the merelly bringing a case against Irael to International Court for Genocide - even merely an independent authority (which, by the way, has no punishment powers) looking into what Israel has been doing is considered a bad thing by Biden.

There is a rule about Rules, which is that they're only as good as the quality of their verification and the punishment for breaking them, so this "if they give us written assurances" with no independent verification and no clearly defined actions in case of those assurances being lies, has the strong stink of prime grade bullshit, the very same thick, intense and so strong it's almost physical aroma that constantly surrounds this Administration when it comes to the Israeli Genocide.

[–] Gazumi@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Administration cannot believe that the weapons it continues to sell to Israel are in fact being used for genocide.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

US President Joe Biden has said that countries receiving American weapons must adhere to international law

Cool, let's start with America.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 9 months ago

Just make them stop already. We have the military might to force them to stop. We shoulda used it long ago, but now is the next best option.