Could Lawfare Against the US Arms Industry Make the World Safer?
0
0
Read Time:5 Minute, 21 Second
A series of Yemeni nationals have come to the US to file lawsuits against the American arms industry contractors Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and General Dynamics for two mass murders carried out by Saudi Arabia using their weapons.
The lawsuit, filed in the district court of Washington D.C, also names Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin-Salman, US Sect. of State Antony Blinken, and Defense Sect. Lloyd Austin as complicit in the act.
WaL is grateful to Mideast Eye for their reporting on the text of the lawsuit, which stated, “weapons supplied by US companies through sales unlawfully approved by US officials, allowed Saudi Arabia and the UAE through the named Defendant officials to pursue an indiscriminate and brutal bombing campaign”.
In particular, the lawsuit names the bombing of the al-Sanabani family wedding party that killed 13 women and 16 children, as well as the bombing of a crowded funeral that killed 100 people.
“The Yemeni plaintiffs are filing the lawsuit under the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), a 1991 US law that allows victims of torture to sue for compensation from their tormenters if the accused are in the US.” Mideast Eye reports, who added that “the lawsuit names the Saudi and Emirati crown princes under the Alien Tort Statute which gives US federal courts jurisdiction over violations of international law”.
“While the U.S. Supreme Court has largely gutted the Alien Tort Statute (which holds US persons civilly liable for violations of international law), some senators are seeking to reinvigorate it,” writes Attorney Eian Katz who specializes in international law, at Just Security, a think tank which analyzes the legality of human foreign policy decisions.
The chance that the executive or legislative branches will do anything to punish their favorite weapons suppliers for crimes committed by the weapons they themselves pushed through Congress is a long shot, and in fact, it’s likely Biden, who has sold record amounts of weapons to foreign governments, and who threatened to veto a bill to officially end US support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, will shield any companies from legal backlash.
But could more lawsuits like this, or similar legal actions like sanctions and seizures become a more effective arms control method than petitioning for recourse from these companies’ national government?
Katz gives two examples; one from Europe where French weapons manufacturers Dassault Aviation, Thales, and MBDA France had complaints filed against them for possible complicity in alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Yemen, and one in the US where 13 state governments backed a complaint filed by the Mexican government against Smith & Wesson, Colt, and Glock for facilitating the trafficking of weapons to criminals in Mexico.
A quick summary
It’s difficult to summarize just how much influence the US arms industry has in Washington D.C. Perhaps the best way to do so is to reference the last US military budget which passed in the House during the committee membership of former Rep. Liz Cheney (R – WY).
She had described anything less than a 5% yearly increase in military spending as a “red line,” the same words Russia has used as the threshold for global nuclear war.
$4.4 trillion of that amount went purely to weapons acquisition and research and development from private firms. Of that amount, $2.2 trillion was hoovered up by just five companies: Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, and General Dynamics.
That $2.2 trillion alone is more than what almost any other whole nation spent on their national militaries during that 20-year time span.
Some of the highest-ranking uniformed and civilian members of America’s military over that period have worked either as lobbyists or as board members for those five companies before or after their time in government, and sometimes both before and after. These include the current Sect. of Defense Lloyd Austin (Raytheon) and his predecessor Mark Esper, former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford, and former commander of the Afghan war David Petraeus.
PICTURED: Chinese Foreign Minister Spokesperson, Wang Wenbin
Sanctions
On February 16th, 2023, Chinese trade authorities listed Lockheed Martin Corp. and a subsidiary of Raytheon under the “unreliable entities” list—the Chinese equivalent of America’s sanctioned entities list.
The judgment was made based on Lockheed Martin and Raytheon’s close partnership with the US government in the continually-enlarging arms sales to Taiwan, WaL reported at the time.
A fine was issued amounting to twice the value of all the arms sales contracts awarded to the US weapons giants related to Taiwan since 2020. The fines were expected to be paid in 15 days, or further sanctioning will take place.
These are the first such actions ever undertaken against US arms manufacturers. It means little, since they do not, and in fact, cannot legally sell weapons to China, but sanctions could make all manner of international financial exchange more difficult if it involves routing money through areas or institutions controlled by the sanctioning entity.
For those around the world seeking recourse against the US’s rampant war profiteering, legally hamstringing or attacking these firms’ ability to do business, through blocking or seizing assets belonging to their board members, or impeding and or seizing material exports like copper, steel, or computer chips, would all probably have much more success in seeing victims compensated than through petitioning the US federal government. WaL
PICTURED ABOVE: A Raytheon GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb, the kind used by Saudi Arabia to kill 100 civilians at a funeral cited in a lawsuit against the company. PC: Raytheon Technologies.
Over 700 stories were transferred here from the previous domain of World at Large. You may experience irregularities with formatting, multimedia, and source links in this piece.
0
0
