Is Australia An Arms Dealer Exporting Death or Industrial Growth?

Australia has turned a corner in respect of it its involvement in the war industry to profit rather than prevent warfare.  This decision changes how the world views Australia, its allies and influencers behind closed doors.  When we are living in times where wars are happening in the Middle East, the war on terror has targeted Muslims as a group and Australia’s position in the largest Muslim region in the world.  Are politicians in truth protecting Australians from terrorism or contributing to the conditions of violence with an endless war mentality as only profit will generate?

War can never bring peace.  Only peace brings peace. We can believe rhetoric but until we decide to solve problems and use neutral language as peace makers we will only add to the fear, anxiety and sorrow of violence used as a solution when it perpetuates hostility and distrust.

In my view we have to de-escalate the war mindset by teaching peace education and empowerment to young children so that they learn not to see enemies but challenges to be resolved. They learn conflict resolution to ensure they do not blame others but take responsibility for their part of conflict and come to learn that the other may well feel the same.  This is to stand in the other’s shoes.  Empathy is critical in respect of feeling for the other and imagining how they may feel (civilians having bombs dropping on their homes, communities, cities) and seeing their world collapse.  If children are exposed to violence continually as fun, on television and as normalised. They may witness it at home in domestic violence situations. If they shutdown their feeling centre/emotional intelligence then this disconnection is what enables bullying behaviours to express.  The psychopath, narcissistic personality disorder arises from objectification, desensitisation and emotional disconnection and abuse happens. Abuse is a result of emotional dysfunction.

If we want civil society to be nonviolent, to not bully or harm others then we have to look at behaviours and attitudes promulgated in governance and defence and ask does this solve the problem or de-stabilise peace in our region and around the world?  I know from my training that to remain neutral and to invest in peace building is where a wise agreement is implemented.  We need to learn to know our neighbours, find middle ground, step across lines of control or some may say love thy neighbour. This last idea would be anathema to many. Yet it is where the real healing is.

In the peace area we know that the negative behaviours are coming from fear (unresolved pain) and that is where focus must go in order to address the fears and release them. It is to de-escalate the fears through dialogue, conflict mapping, peace building and conflict resolution to empower the parties come to the table to discuss what they fear and broker solutions that are not negotiated but actually resolve the underlying conflict which expresses in real needs and concerns.

The issues we are experiencing today are very complex and their are webs of government/business relationships that change the national priority to serve profitable interests given the mantra of ensuring Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  This is seen as ensuring underlying prosperity and personal wealth. This narrative is weakening with climate change and an eye for an eye exacerbating conflict.  The refusal to look into the war mind set as a dysfunction and the denial that killing is not heroism but murder in a context of civilian casualties.  More and more calls are for war crimes tribunals to be held as would be expected in criminal court matters.  The public are realising that covert operations/deep state are engaged nt he very terrorism they say they are defending against. Various conspiracy theories come to light and this impacts the public’s trust in its leadership and the various corporations seeking to influence the public as part of corporation social responsibility being seen to do something for the community as part of winning hearts and minds as a strategy not a real concern.  The issue of corporate/government corruption, trade deals, trans pacific partnerships to sue governments who break contracts shows the increasing power of multinational companies who operate globally and have no national interest or sense of duty of care for the public.  Industry penetration in respect of buying politicians through donations, or religious groups ensuring their person is in power are ways of undermining the democratic process which was supposed to represent the public.  The longer this is left unaddressed the more vulnerable the public become as public assets become private and their say over how their tax dollars are spent diminishes into private coffers.  The idea of ruling elites and proleteriats where the working class are there to ensure the elite are served as labour rather than leaders. The cutting off of entry to universities given high fees, less subsidisation, cuts to vital humanities and other areas in the public interest are reflective of industry needs supplanting public needs. The voice of the public is muted by standard letters, no action in disputation, cuts to legal aid and a disrespect for the public.  It is evident in changes to legislation where business needs are reflected. this is the case in social security that has changed from ensuring the welfare of people not working for a range of reasons to job seekers where they are expected to work and if they don’t they are isolated, demonised as ‘bludgers’ and seen as less.  This mentality has come from the protestant work ethic which infiltrated the public mind as the reason for life itself.

Business and elite interests become the reason for the wars and this has to be discussed in the public interest as civilians are the primary targets.  It is not in the public interest to promote weapons manufacturers and reward them in finding more ways to kill in order to increase profits. This then translates into crowd control, surveillance of civilians who may have different views and more interventionist tactics to frighten and suppress the public.  The increasing civilian targeting and fatalities rather than warring parties evokes questions of whether the engagement is war or state sanctioned murder (as perpetrators).  When arms manufacturers have their own Minister in Government to advocate on their behalf calling it national interest, this is a sign they have influence over the tax base.

Why since 2015 does Defence Industries have a Minister, apparently he is appointed by the Governor General (Queens representative) and the Prime Minister.  this reveals a shift from materials procurement to industry advocacy, this is a significant change that the public does not know about. The Minister Ciobo was a former Minister promoting Trade so he is about expanding defence industries not procuring defence materials to supply Defence when it is needed.  This is an entirely different situation where he wants to expand supply.  The line here is a line of control which has a vested interest in expanding conflict, thus the demand for supply, it is a really serious issue for citizens around the world.  As these industries make billions and trillions they can control governments and we can end up with World War III as they think up more ways to create conflict. The fact there is no real public discussion suggests democracy is eroded.  Refer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Ciobo Interestingly, he represented the Division of Moncrieff which is a small area around the Gold Coast. This is an international city similar to Miami which is a playground for those with money and status.

The Defence Industries Minister is representing multinational companies who are termed the industrial-military-complex a group of defence contractors whom the former US President which Dwight Eisenhower warned the American public about.  This group is extremely powerful and influential.  This Minister for Defence Industries is not representing the Australian people although he can use Defence as defending Australian interests. Moreover, if Defence is no longer defending the Australian people but in collaboration with  the United States which is increasingly seen as engaging in oil wars (unrelated to the Defence of their country) and Israel (third largest arms trader) who are actioning their own agenda’s in respect of their interests (not necessarily their people’s) then can a Minister representing a industry group be justified.  particularly when increasingly the people are becoming concerned about industry access to government and diminishing accountability of said governance.    If I had a real say I would be asking for a Minister for Peace or Disarmament or Conflict Resolution to place the public interest at the forefront. It is very dangerous not only for the public around the world but given the unstable climate we face, the mental health issues that are increasing given toxic/disconnected cultures and how Public Relations can make the media appear in a way that serves special interests but not the public interest.

Refer wikipedia for an overview of the Minister of Defence.  https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/minister/christopher-pyne

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/minister/christopher-pyne/media-releases/defence-programs-achieve-results-driving-growth-defence

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/17/pyne-wants-australia-to-be-major-arms-dealer-but-vows-not-to-export-weapons-willy-nilly

Pyne wants Australia to be major arms dealer but vows not to export weapons ‘willy-nilly’

Defence minister says expanded industry could create jobs, and government’s ambition is to ‘send a lot more weapons overseas to appropriate countries’

Defence industry minister Christopher Pyne, prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and defence minister Marise Payne.
 Defence industry minister Christopher Pyne, prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and defence minister Marise Payne. Pyne says an expanded arms industry could boost investment in Australia. Photograph: Tracey Nearmy/AAP

Christopher Pyne has committed not to export weapons “willy-nilly” if Australia followed through on his ambition to become a major arms exporter, plans which were attacked as exporting death and profiting from bloodshed.

The defence industry minister said Australia could export “all sorts of arms” to increase jobs, including vessels, offshore patrol vessels, remote warfare systems, surveillance, sonar, radar and potentially frigates.

“We are doing some of that,” Pyne told the ABC. “My ambition is to enormously increase that capacity and send a lot more weapons overseas to appropriate countries and appropriate places of course.

“We simply wouldn’t do so willy-nilly. We have a particular process for that.”

But Pyne’s plans were slammed by World Vision Australia chief advocate Tim Costello, saying the government had cut humanitarian aid which saved lives while discussing the merits of becoming a major weapons manufacturer and exporter.

“The government says this is an export and investment opportunity, but we would be exporting death and profiting from bloodshed,” Costello said. “Is that what we want Australia to be known for?

“Do we really want that to be what people think of when they see the brand ‘made in Australia’?”

Costello said the Syrian war – in its seventh year – could not have lasted for more than a year without armaments profiteering. As a result, there had been more than 300,000 people killed, including thousands of children, 13.5 million people in need of humanitarian assistance, 6.3 million people internally displaced and five million people turned into refugees.

“Defence industry minister Christopher Pyne says he wants Australia to become a major arms exporter on par with Britain, France and Germany and use exports to ‘cement relationships’ with countries in volatile regions such as the Middle East.

“Is it really a good idea to sell weapons in a volatile region?

“Minister Pyne also says we would only sell weapons to ‘appropriate countries’, and would not export weapons ‘willy-nilly’, as though weapons never fall into the wrong hands.”

Pyne said an expanded arms industry could create jobs and investment in Australia given the country already had skilled workers, an advanced manufacturing base and the technological capability.

He said the expansion could add to the $50bn submarine contract awarded to French shipbuilder DCNS. Pyne said while Australia needed the French company to help with some expertise, the submarines would be built in Australia.

Pyne said by the end of the current contracts, Australia would have built 12 submarines, 12 offshore patrol vessels, nine frigates and 21 patrol vessels for the Pacific. He said current contracts are worth $200bn over a decade.

“We have completely reenergised, in a renaissance for ship-building industry in Australia, and they were decisions being made by this government,” he said.

“As part of that massive buildup of capability in the defence industry, we then need to look at exporting that capability because it brings treasure, investment and jobs to our economy here in Australia.”

Pyne said Australia could create a weapons export industry if the country overcame its reflexive response that it could not be done.

“What we have to overcome, with great respect, is that instantaneous and reflexive response that Australians sometimes have that we can’t do it here,” he said.

“We can do it here, we are a great manufacturing nation and a great export nation.”

On Monday, Malcolm Turnbull will announce plans to make it easier for defence to back up police in domestic terrorist incidents. The move comes following a review, for the first time since 2005, of domestic counter-terrorism incidents.

Pyne said the immediate responders to domestic terrorist incidents were always police but defence officers could be embedded in police forces and defence could also provide training in counter-terrorism.

The government plans to change the law that requires state and territory governments to exhaust their capacity to respond to domestic terror events before they can ask for military help.

The plan follows a coronial report into the Lindt cafe siege, which found police should have stormed the cafe as soon as Man Haron Monis began shooting.

———————————-

Another perspective on the Lindt seige suggests Man haron Monis had a grievance against Channel 7 that was unresolved.  The issue is to resolve conflict and address grievances so they do not get to a point of violence. For years I am trying to send a message to our society, if we want violence to stop we must address conflict.  Conflict resolution, dialogue, peace building (with Muslim community) and peace media to promote solutions not further violence.  This was a 7 year conflict that should have been resolved and for Channel 7 Sunrise to evaluate the messages they are sending out.  We see a lot of sensationalising and media just repeating negative rhetoric which can incite further violence.

This post never condones any violence but as a peacemaker I know conflict can be resolved when we sit down and deal with the problem, report the facts accurately in order to ascertain the grievance and points to de-escalate the conflict. Instead we call for further laws to empower suppression of civil society.  Suppression is a root cause of violence.

Mohandas Gandhi

“Nobody can hurt me without my permission.”

Archives
Categories