This thesis examines the impact of illegal U.S. arms transfers upon recipient nations' war fighting capabilities and upon the American national security. Data were gathered primarily from U.S. District Court records and interviews with U.S. governmental officials from intelligence services and the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State. An investigation of the illicit arms transfers to Iran formed the basis of conclusions reached. Additionally, policy recommendations are provided to enhance the governmental detection and investigation of illegal export violations. The viability of utilizing court documents as intelligence tools for measuring military capabilities is assessed.

This thesis aims at deepen our understanding of the Swedish arms exports, especially the relationship between the spoken words of politicians and actual policy outcome. The research question for the thesis is “To what extent do specific frames deployed by the media and politicians about the character of the importing state, the type of arms exported, the inter-state relationship and the economic interests lead to a legitimation crisis in an arms exporting nation which ends arms exports and military cooperation?” This thesis is especially looking at Swedish arms deals with Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Thailand. In a content analysis of the Swedish media and politicians, and by using theories of legitimation and framing, the thesis analyses how these frames can affect the legitimation of an arms deal, and explaining different policy outcomes. The analysis shows that the most common frame to use to frame a receiving country or an arms deal negatively is to frame the character of the importing state in negative terms and also connect the arms exports to the regime in the receiving country. On the other side, to defend an arms deal it is most common to frame it as an economic interest that are of national interest. Lastly, the thesis can show that the Swedish arms deal with Saudi Arabia created a legitimation crisis, which was not the case for the deals with Thailand and South Africa, and this can help us understand why the military cooperation agreement between Sweden and Saudi Arabia was ended.

This research addresses the subject of conventional arms transfers in the Post Cold War Era. ("Conventional arms" herein are defined as high cost, state-of-the-art weapons systems in aerospace, land vehicles, missiles and naval vessels.") The rapid and startling changes in the international political environment that took place in the late 1980's forced the U.S. and her Western Allies to reexamine their national defense budgets. The Bush Administration responded to the situation with new policy initiatives or "jolts" that aligned the annual U.S. Department of Defense's budget with Post Cold War realities. (A "jolt" is defined here as a sudden "shock" to a system that has the potential to alter radically one or more of its established structural components or behavioral patterns.) The word "jolt" is specifically used because while the policies reducing force strength and decreasing defense spending had been introduced on earlier occasions since the end of World War II, these particular jolts were driven by different circumstances than previous drawdowns. The Cold War that had dominated and shaped international affairs was over; the Post Cold War era promised to be a radical departure from the 50-year long status quo. Some phases of the policy jolts were directly related to U.S. Department of Defense operations, such as base closings and reductions in force, while others affected the U.S. defense industrial base through the weapons acquisition process. Domestic acquisition programs have important linkages to transferable weapons systems. Such linkages were so deeply embedded that despite severe reductions in weapons acquisition programs, most prime defense contractors did not conceptually redefine or reconstitute themselves although they went through a long period of mergers and acquisitions. This research explores how U.S. governmental stakeholders interpreted the utility of conventional arms transfers in managing the "aftershocks" of the policy jolts experienced by defense contractors. Their behaviors indicate that U.S. policy-making institutions, for the most part, tried to direct favorable outcomes for U.S. sales in the world market. Ultimately, the policy initiatives undertaken to assure favorable outcomes for defense corporations and their unforeseen consequences could lead to new policies or issue transformation. / Ph. D.

This thesis aims at deepen our understanding of the Swedish arms exports, especially the relationship between the spoken words of politicians and actual policy outcome. The research question for the thesis is “To what extent do specific frames deployed by the media and politicians about the character of the importing state, the type of arms exported, the inter-state relationship and the economic interests lead to a legitimation crisis in an arms exporting nation which ends arms exports and military cooperation?” This thesis is especially looking at Swedish arms deals with Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Thailand. In a content analysis of the Swedish media and politicians, and by using theories of legitimation and framing, the thesis analyses how these frames can affect the legitimation of an arms deal, and explaining different policy outcomes. The analysis shows that the most common frame to use to frame a receiving country or an arms deal negatively is to frame the character of the importing state in negative terms and also connect the arms exports to the regime in the receiving country. On the other side, to defend an arms deal it is most common to frame it as an economic interest that are of national interest. Lastly, the thesis can show that the Swedish arms deal with Saudi Arabia created a legitimation crisis, which was not the case for the deals with Thailand and South Africa, and this can help us understand why the military cooperation agreement between Sweden and Saudi Arabia was ended.

none

Ce travail étudie les changements dans les politiques d’exportation d’armement de la France et de la Suède depuis la fin de la guerre froide. Il cherche à expliquer pourquoi on assiste d’abord à un phénomène de convergence entre les deux Etats (1990-2005) puis à un phénomène de divergence (2005-2015). La thèse montre que les explications du changement ne viennent pas uniquement de facteurs internationaux (transformations économiques, diplomatiques) ou internes (évolutions de l’industrie de défense, scandales, alternances politiques), mais des rapports de force entre coalitions « pro-soutien » et « pro-contrôle » des ventes d’armes. L’intervention et l’enchaînement de mécanismes causaux faisant appel au travail politique d’acteurs du sous-système de politique publique sont nécessaires pour relier les facteurs de changement internationaux et domestiques aux réformes observées dans les politiques d’exportation d’armements. / This thesis studies the changes in French and Swedish arms export policies since the end of the Cold War. It seeks to explain why we first observe a converging trend between the two states (1990-2005) and then a diverging trend (2005-2015). The thesis shows that the explanations for policy change do not stem only from international (economic and diplomatic transformations) or domestic factors (defence industry evolutions, arms trade scandals, government political shifts), but from the power struggles between “pro-support” and “pro-control” arms export coalitions. The intervention and succession of causal mechanism requiring actors’ political work is necessary to link the international and domestic factors of change to the observed reforms in arms export policies.

In this study I examine the decisions to sign and later terminate the so called Saudi agreement, a military memorandum of understanding (MoU) between Sweden and Saudi Arabia, understood as a gateway agreement for future arms deals as well as exchange of defense technology knowledge. Comparing statements from the Social Democratic Party (SAP), who held government both in 2005 when the agreement was signed as well as in 2015 when it was terminated unilaterally by Sweden, I examine the ideological preferences of Swedish foreign policy. Could the shift in policy be explained by ideology?