The Defence Department and Australian arms manufacturers appear to have no qualms about selling weapons to countries where conflict and human rights abuses are prevalent.
If there’s a profit to be made, who cares about human rights? As long as Australia becomes a leading arms exporter, it does not matter who its clients are or whether anyone suffers from the sales, even if the buyers are African countries experiencing extreme instability and violence.
Australia’s sales of military equipment to African countries such as Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Mali, Zimbabwe, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2019-20 totalled $5 billion, reported by SBS’s Dateline to be more than our yearly exports of wine, wool or wheat. This beggars belief and conceals a culture in which, in corporate and government circles, you do what you can get away with, and appeals to human rights principles will be fruitless.
Years ago in the book Human Rights, Corporate Responsibility, I placed major corporations’ attitudes to human rights along a continuum. At one end, labelled positive, some corporate leaders said their company’s values and their respect for human rights were synonymous. Half way along the continuum were companies which said they usually complied with human rights principles, but not if such compliance hindered their work. At the negative end were companies which argued that human rights and their responsibilities to shareholders were entirely separate.
The arms companies benefiting from sales to Africa are at the negative, who-cares-about-human-rights end of the continuum.
In this controversy, two major issues stand out. First, what values make Australian corporations and governments consider that involvement in arms exports is a morally sound commercial enterprise ? Second, what is the justification for weapon sales to countries involved in war and which use child soldiers, torture opponents, execute prisoners and commit other human rights abuses?
In 2008, the then defence minister Christopher Pyne said he hoped Australia could become one of the world’s top 10 arms exporters, as in previous arms sales tables Australia had languished in 20th position. In most federal political circles, this “admirable” goal appeared to be taken for granted.
This political/business culture apparently admires successful arms manufacturers such as Israeli company Elbit, which is a client of Pyne, who is now a consultant. An influential supporter of the Australian Labor Party who is also an Israel-loving partisan is a registered lobbyist for the same arms manufacturer. The company makes killer drones, large weapons systems and ammunition for use against civilians. The company’s advertising says the weapons are “field tested”, which almost certainly means experiments for use against Palestinians in Gaza.
A bitter historical irony infects the promotion of Australian arms sales in Africa. It must have dawned on someone that as Africa had experienced slavery, genocide and massive exploitation of its natural resources, surely it was a highly immoral policy to perpetuate the violence by selling arms? But as decisions to grant arms sales permits to African countries are made in secret, such a question is not likely to be answered.
In the Australian Defence Department’s deliberations, it seems that Zimbabwe abducting and torturing opponents could be ignored, Burkina Faso executing prisoners must not affect commercial considerations, and Eritrea being ruled by a totalitarian dictator should not disqualify it from buying Australian arms.
If a country’s government thinks that militarism and the use of force is the way to solve conflicts, “defence” can mean almost anything — witness the Defence Department issuing corporations with 31 permits to export weapons and military technology to Africa. In a state of anomie, almost any human rights abuse can be tolerated, as shown by indifference to the conduct of Saudi Arabia and the UAE in Yemen. In a state of anomie, African countries that abuse human rights will be treated no differently from states that are considered respectful of civil liberties. Ethics should not interfere with business.
That such a culture proceeds can be explained by the second issue foreshadowed above: how arms sales to Africa are explained and justified.
A quick glance at the Defence Department’s explanation of criteria affecting judgments on which corporations obtain sales permits gives the impression that the department willingly aids corporate efforts to climb the arms sales league tables. Figures from Defence indicate that few sales requests are denied.
Then comes the lofty claim that Australian sales “will not breach human rights or other international obligations”. Given the evidence of sales to African countries at war or adept at violence against opponents, such a claim sounds hollow.
Once socialised by bureaucratic routines, words can be given different meanings. “Defence” can mean selling arms as long as there are “no risks to Australia’s national interests”. Whose interest? How defined? Who is being defended?
In Defence’s advertising, armoured vehicles, mortar systems, automatic assault rifles and drones equipped to carry lethal payloads can “defend” victims of violence in Africa. Really? In this dangerous Trump-like culture, words have Humpty Dumpty connotations and developments are ominous and secret.
To the question of whether Australia can check that arms sales do not contribute to human rights violations, the answer is “no, we can’t”, yet like the operation of a blind trust to pay a prominent politician’s legal bills, nothing should happen and no one needs to know.
Australia does not know what happens to its exported weapons after the sales are completed. The Defence explanation is another exercise in “dodge the issue if we can”. Defence says “Australian legislation does not have extra-territorial application”.
In the international competition for arms sales, African countries become clients and victims. Australian companies and governments might rub their hands at the significant contributions to the financial bottom line, but in assessments of a country’s adherence to the principles of human rights, Australia trashes its reputation and, worst of all, does not seem to care.
Contributions to Pearls and Irritations
Your contribution will fund quality independent comment and analysis in Pearls and Irritations
Contribute
