In a memorandum laying out considerations and examining the options for U.S. policy should the Secretary’s meetings in Buenos Aires not produce a breakthrough in the negotiations sufficient to stem the gathering momentum towards confrontation, the then Director of the Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs notes the following:
As regards Argentina, we should continue to avoid any punitive action which would undermine our ability to talk to the GOA with any chance of success. No letters thus ought to go to the Hill claiming GOA violation of U.S. law governing use of U.S.-origin equipment. At the same time, we should continue to withhold certification of FMS eligibility and avoid any imposition of sanctions.
What US law was the Director referring to?
The Arms Export Control Act of 1976
I would think specifically the bit that requires international governments receiving weapons from the United States to use the armaments for legitimate self-defense only, and document sales … and so on.
Thank you very much, Isilder.
At one stage there, 80486 and pentium CPU’s were in that, as high technology… they considered anything new and designed by US … shouldn’t be sold to say, Russia , China, Vn, Cuba, Iran…etc.
The idea of negotiating with Argentina and yet not saying "well, we do not consider this valid self defense !!! You have no claim, and you are trying to steal land by war… " maybe that sent the signal that the USA was ambivalent on it, and saying " yeah, we just pretend to negotiate to keep the brits happy. Of course we will continue to sell our weapons … " (UK had to stock up on some weapons in a hurry … )
Thank you again, Isilder.
I think U.S. foreign policy is hard to tell from the surface.
Of course, other countries are the same.
Maybe that’s the nature of foreign policy, isn’t it?
All policies are for the good or interests of the country.