Use of American Weapons
Track the use of American weapons. The United States should expand its monitoring capabilities of weapons to encourage a responsible use and to inform future arms sales decisions Inspired by the recommendations of CATO Institute, the DIPCR proposes that the U.S. increases its monitoring capabilities of weapons sold to foreign nations. We believe that in projecting an ethically informed foreign policy agenda, the U.S. qualifies for moral agency, and is subsequently capable of ethical reasoning beyond borders. Chris Brown argues that each state has its own “personality” which allows it to make ethical judgements, and that some are enabled to project their moral judgements onto international society. The DIPCR certainly believes that the United States has a responsibility to project its liberal judgements and values where grave humanitarian assistance is required. With that in mind, we still reject the “exceptionalist” argument that it may be permissible to arm rebels if they are fighting a just war. Whilst a rebellion may be an initial response to a just cause, it may later come to support an unjust cause, such as to gain access to natural resources. Furthermore, a rebellion could consist of multiple subjective just or unjust elements that are too difficult to separate. For example, a rebellion against a dictatorial government may be unjust, but if a certain attack by the government jeopardizes the safety of a refugee camp, then the rebels have a just right to defend it. In any case, separating the good from bad and right from wrong amongst the “fog of war” can be challenging. Hence we maintain our absolutist overarching recommendation that the U.S. does not contribute to the exacerbation of conflicts through arming rebels.
