PPS - in addition to the supplemental comments I provided after the expo started, this article provides a measured assessment of our arms exports and imports, and helps to provide some quantitative context.
It does NOT address nor even attempt to address the moral issues.
- “What we know about Australia’s arms exports: we’ve analysed the data” https://theconversation.com/what-we-know-about-australias-arms-exports-weve-analysed-the-data-238563
The article also included a link to the following, which is a little better, IMO, but now outdated:
- “With war raging in Gaza, how much do we know about Australia’s weapons exports? The answer: very little” https://theconversation.com/with-war-raging-in-gaza-how-much-do-we-know-about-australias-weapons-exports-the-answer-very-little-217376
A military expo is being held in my home city, and protests against it are being planned:
“Activists are out to disrupt a military expo in Melbourne. Why are they protesting and what is planned?” https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/sep/10/melbourne-protest-land-forces-international-defence-exposition
I have read reports that a large Israeli weapons manufacturer will be at the expo - and that they were awarded a $900 million subcontract (replacing the original sub-contractor) for a Korean arms manufacturer which is building a new military vehicle in my home state for the Australian Army.
So ... the begrudgingly released info that Australia had no substantive ties to that Israeli weapons manufacturer, which is accused of supplying weapons that the Israeli Defence Forces are using to commit human rights abuses/atrocities in Gaza, were ... not correct?
Are we, the voters of Australia, deliberately being gaslit, or is this the result of incompetence - or is someone (perhaps in the Australian Public Service, perhaps in Defence ... ) assuming they know better than us and it is “for our own good” that we are not being told the truth?
Forgetting about the separate problem of illegal arms trafficking (those ... “companies” tend not to attend expo’s like this one ... mostly - although the original manufacturing sources do), the problems that international weapons trade (well recorded and reported by SIPRI) cause are major - for instance, see here, here, and here.
In my opinion, it is egregiously immoral to have a commercial weapons export industry.
Weapons manufacture for defence is a different matter, but even there reality gets complicated by collaboration, allies, the choices made to support or not nations or groups who could benefit from assistance (e.g., Ukraine) ... or who to meddle with, as has been happening in a number of conflicts - particularly in Africa (e.g., see here, here, here, here, here, and here), although that is often the aforementioned illegal weapons trafficking ... and noting that some arms trade is described as “opaque”.
The issue of war powers - i.e., who gets to declare war - is challenging enough without the additional complications of weapons trading and/or military training.
To stay focused on weapons supply/trade, nations ARE responsible for what happens with the weapons they have sold or otherwise provided. That is quite clear and simple from a moral point of view, and has been emphasised as a legal principle by the ICJ with regard to Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory, which decision included a requirement that “all States and international organisations have a positive obligation not to render aid or assistance which would maintain Israel’s illegal presence in the OPT”.
Supplying weapons is part of that.
And anyone who tries to claim the obligations do not exist in Gaza is either lying/pretending to be obtuse or being amathiac. (Yes, self defence does apply, but Israel has gone far beyond self defence.)
Australia’s obligations were well set out in this media release by the Australian Centre for International Justice (ACIJ).
Recently, Australia expressed support for the UK decision to suspend thirty arms export licences to Israel. As pointed out by the Jewish Council of Australia, those are empty words if we do not back it up with action ourselves.
And having a major international arms expo on Australian territory is not consistent with our expressed sentiments, nor our international obligations (especially as ordered by the ICJ), nor the wishes of many Australians - particularly those who do not want us to be part of a genocide.
At the very least, it “looks bad” ...
PS - This “bad optics” expo also shows up two problems.
The first is the “jobs at all costs” attitude - and, true enough, jobs are needed for survival, and for mental health & wellbeing, but I consider not when it involves destroying life or committing other, slightly lesser evils ...
The second is the emphasis on the problems with glib dismissals of the necessity - in this world, as it is now - of money and thus (for most people) adequately paying jobs.
The “solution” is NOT “somewhere in the middle”. The solution is to embrace and deal with the good and bad of both positions.
PPS - not like this!
Violence might play out well amongst your buddies (US term used deliberately), but
(a) it is wrong - it is DOING what you are objecting to, and
(b) it costs broader support!!!
And citizen’s arrests? On what specific charge?
I had been planning on writing to my MPs about the topics of war, war powers, weapons trade, and peace, but these events have made that impossible.
Police conduct is almost always validly of concern at these sorts of large protests about life and death issues, and will be at this one again (see here and here - the numbers of injuries are particularly concerning). However, this protest is NOT likely to advance to cause of proper accountability for police in the form of independent investigation.
Note also that, as an asthmatic, lighting fires in PLASTIC rubbish bins is not acceptable.
Assumptions / basis
In writing this, I have assumed / started from the following:
- this blog states quite clearly that it is about political and human rights matters, including lived experience of problems, and thus I will assume readers are reasonable people who have noted the content warning in the post header;
Possible flaws
Where I can, I will try to highlight possible flaws / issues you should consider:
- there may be flawed logical arguments in the above: to find out more about such flaws and thinking generally, I recommend Brendan
Myers’ free online course “Clear and Present Thinking”;
- I could be wrong - so keep your thinking caps on, and make up your own minds for yourself.
If they are of any use or interest, the activism information links from my former news posts are available in this post.
If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below.
Note that, as with my main blog [see here], I am cutting back on aspects of my posts.
Copyright © Kayleen White 2016-2024 NO AI
I do not consent to any machine learning aka Artificial Intelligence
(AI), generative AI, large language model, machine learning, chatbot, or
other automated analysis, generative process, or replication program to
reproduce, mimic, remix, summarise, or otherwise replicate any part of
this post or other posts on this blog via any means. Typo’s may be inserrted deliberately to demonstrate this is not an AI product. Otherwise,
fair and reasonable use is accepted under Creative Commons 4.0 on an
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike basis https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.