Congress Should Mandate Human Rights Vetting For Partner Forces: The Case For Closing The Section 127E Loophole
Congress Should Mandate Human Rights Vetting For Partner Forces: The Case For Closing The Section 127E Loophole
Op-Ed / United States 1 minutes

Congress Should Mandate Human Rights Vetting For Partner Forces: The Case For Closing The Section 127E Loophole

In July 2022, Representative Sara Jacobs and Senator Chris Van Hollen proposed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2023 that would have required human rights vetting for assistance provided by US special operations forces under Section 127e of Title 10, US Code. While the Department of Defense Leahy law effectively requires human rights vetting of other kinds of DoD assistance to foreign security forces, DoD has unilaterally determined that these strictures do not apply to assistance provided under 127e. The proposed amendment, which was intended to close this loophole, did not make it into the final version of the NDAA. Understanding this failure could help guide future legislative attempts to require human rights vetting of this DoD authority.

“127 echo,” as it’s referred to within DoD, authorizes the secretary of defense, with the concurrence of the relevant chief of mission, to spend up to $100 million each fiscal year “to provide support to foreign forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals engaged in supporting or facilitating authorized ongoing military operations by United States special operations forces to combat terrorism.” Under the proposed Jacobs-Van Hollen amendment, support under 127e would have been prohibited from going to units of foreign security forces if, after vetting, there is credible information that the intended recipient unit committed a gross violation of human rights.

The Jacobs-Van Hollen amendment passed in the House version of the NDAA. Yet after weeks of deliberations in the Senate, the amendment did not make it out of conference (in full or in part) and into the recently concluded NDAA. Opponents of the amendment argued that the bill’s sponsors did not identify a specific problem that would require Congress to mandate human rights vetting of the assistance provided under 127e. That perspective, coupled with objections by both legislators and DoD that human rights vetting would restrain the counterterrorism operations of US special operations forces, felled the amendment.

The full article can be read on the Irregular Warfare' website.

Subscribe to Crisis Group’s Email Updates

Receive the best source of conflict analysis right in your inbox.