Armaments for Sale

This article was published on 17 July, 2017, at http://www.georgebrowning.com.au/blog/armaments-for-sale#comments

Author: Bishop George Browning

Sometimes it is difficult to determine whether a vision or idea is simply a thought bubble that has prematurely escaped, or whether it was intended as a genuine contribution to debate. Christopher Pyne’s ‘vision’ for Australia as one of the world’s great weapons exporters is surely in that category. It is such a bizarre, alien and frankly such a loathsome idea that it must surely have just slipped out while he was not paying much attention.
 
Global arms sales now top 1$ trillion. While there has been an economic down turn in many of the indicators of human well being, there is no down turn in the industry of death. The market for death remains amongst the most resilient contributor to global ‘economic growth’. Weapons have one purpose, to maim or kill. It is in the interest of arms dealers for conflict or the threat of conflict to escalate. Little distinction is or can be made between friend and foe. Western weapons have been used in civil wars, genocides, terrorist activities and the like. The Congo has been one of the world’s most devastating civil wars in recent history. Several reports have shown the US was a major contributor of armaments to various parties involved in this deadly conflict, a conflict which caused death and destruction to more than one million civilians. Once developed and sold the manufacturer has no control over where or how the weapons are used, nor does he probably want to know.
 
Given conflict or the potential for conflict is likely to increase in coming decades, as shortages of water and food escalate, inequity grows and the effects of climate change force migration, it is inevitable that there will be a great demand for sophisticated weaponry, and that arms dealers will only have one consideration – selling to whoever has the money to buy.
 
Worse, the West has a long history of propping up corrupt and unpopular governments through the provision of armaments for the protection and exploitation of perceived Western self interests.
 
It is hard to imagine how low Australia’s moral standing might continue to slide.  The level of Australia’s overseas aid as a percentage of GDP is approximately half the standard set for developed countries.  It is pathetically mean. The Pyne thought bubble must be put in this context. He would have us further contribute to the world’s pain and distress by increasing the potential for armed combat.  Apparently it is not enough that we do not wish to contribute to the alleviation of poverty and disadvantage, no, we will consider adding to it through the provision of resources for armed conflict – for our own profit.  A very high percentage of all manufactured armaments are sold to developing countries.  For every dollar spent on armaments in one of these countries there is one less dollar available for the development of agriculture, improving education and health care, or simply building the structures of a stable civil society. Indeed many of these countries become financially beholden as a result of the arms sales, meaning that payment of interest to the West takes precedence over basic services for their people.
 
Armament manufacturers have made great profit for themselves and their share holders through the devastating conflicts in the Middle East. Military ties between the US and Saudi Arabia are well known and yet Saudi Arabia is not called to account for the contribution (moral and military) that it has given to Sunni inspired terrorism in the Middle East and throughout the world.  War was waged against Iraq and Afghanistan following 9/11 notwithstanding the majority of the hijackers were Saudi. 
 
I fully realise Christopher Pyne wants more jobs in South Australia, but why not develop factories that manufacture high tech services that improve the lives of others and thus reduce the likelihood of conflict? 
 
Finally, we clearly do have a revenue issue.  Why not collect revenue for our gas exports that is at least equivalent to that being made by other cointries far less capable of maximising the benefit of their resources.
 
Christopher I realise your portfolio is “defence procurement”, surely the very best opportunity Australia has to defend itself is by investing in the wellbeing of other nations. Surely our greatest mistake would be to engage with others simply out of our own interest; developing arms for our own profit and contributing to the industry of conflict?