Restrictions on Foreign Use of U.S. Weapons Systems
“In accordance with United States law, the U.S. Government places conditions on the use of defense articles and defense services transferred by it to foreign recipients,” a new report from the Congressional Research Service explains. “Violation of these conditions can lead to the suspension of deliveries or termination of the contracts for such defense items, among other things.”
In practice, however, no clear-cut violations have been found, so no contracts have been terminated.
“Since the major revision of U.S. arms export law in 1976, neither the President nor the Congress have actually determined that a violation did occur thus necessitating the termination of deliveries or sales or other penalties set out in section 3 of the Arms Export Control Act.”
On the other hand, the U.S. government has occasionally exercised options short of termination, including temporary suspension of weapon deliveries and refusal to allow new arms orders.
In the past, “The United States has utilized at least one such option against Argentina, Israel, Indonesia, and Turkey.” Background on each of those cases is provided in the new CRS report. A copy of the report was obtained by Secrecy News.
See U.S. Defense Articles and Services Supplied to Foreign Recipients: Restrictions on Their Use, March 6, 2012.
The clearinghouse will also neutrally mediate the assignment of auditors to audits—strengthening independence, trust, and ethical governance across the AI ecosystem.
The potential implication of these evidence gaps becomes more consequential when you look at how institutions actually make decisions day to day.
Every new institution inherits something – existing incentives, existing staff, decades of prior investment that shaped what’s possible.
This is not the first time Google has agreed to censor imagery at the behest of governments, but be warned: obfuscation at this broad level poses a direct threat to the public’s ability to monitor and scrutinize government operations.