Opposition is growing on Capitol Hill and beyond to the U.S. government’s planned sale of $1.15 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia, whose U.S.-backed coalition has wreaked devastation and displacement on the Yemeni population.
Citing “multiple congressional aides,” Foreign Policy reported Wednesday that “Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut are preparing legislation, to be filed this week, opposing the U.S. package of tanks, ammunition, and machine guns to Saudi Arabia.”
According to Foreign Policy :
This comes on the heels of a letter penned last week by a bipartisan group of 64 House members, calling on the White House “to withdraw the request for congressional approval for the sale until Congress can fully debate American military support for the Saudis,” as CNN reported.
Lawmakers may have a little more breathing room to do so than they initially anticipated.
As Foreign Policy explains:
And political momentum appears to be growing. In a piece published at Common Dreams this week, Robert Naiman of Just Foreign Policy outlined “four key pieces of evidence that opposing the Saudi arms deal is not futile”:
Multiple petitions are also circulating online, to similar ends.
But as author and arms trade expert William Hartung wrote in a policy brief released Wednesday, “The tank deal is just one small portion of the tens of billions worth of U.S. arms that have been offered to Saudi Arabia since the beginning of the Obama administration.”
To be sure, he said, “[t]he salience of the deal derives from its timing, in the midst of Saudi-led intervention in Yemen that has had devastating effects on civilians in that country.”
“As long as American tanks and bombs are involved in the conflict, more lives will be lost.”
—Scott Paul, Oxfam
“The debate over the deal is about more than just tanks,” Hartung argued. “It is about whether the United States will continue to fuel the Saudi war effort without demanding, at a minimum, that the Saudis demonstrate a serious commitment to preventing civilian casualties.”
“It’s time for the Obama administration to use the best leverage it has—Saudi Arabia’s dependence on U.S. weapons and support—to wage the war in Yemen in the first place,” Hartung told Reuters on Wednesday. “Pulling back the current offer of battle tanks or freezing some of the tens of billions in weapons and services in the pipeline would send a strong signal to the Saudi leadership that they need stop their indiscriminate bombing campaign and take real steps to prevent civilian casualties.”
Indeed, as Oxfam senior humanitarian policy advisor Scott Paul said this week after returning from Yemen: “As long as American tanks and bombs are involved in the conflict, more lives will be lost. Throughout my visit, I was asked repeatedly why the U.S. is bombing Yemen. We’re technically not, but we’re supporting the Saudi-led coalition that is. I didn’t have a good answer.”
Meanwhile, the Guardian reports that in the U.K., a “concerted attempt has been mounted to water down” a draft report from the Committee of Arms Export Controls that would recommend halting that country’s arms trade with Saudi Arabia.
According to Reuters, at least nine civilians, including four children, were killed Thursday in an airstrike by the Saudi-led coalition on a residential building north of the Yemeni capital Sana’a.