Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Golden Duck

Australia is cashing in on munitions sales to Africa

31 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Golden Duck
Quote

Australia is cashing in on munitions sales to Africa under a 'grotesque' government plan

...

Australian companies are selling munitions and military technology to war-torn African countries under a Defence Department plan that critics have branded “grotesque” and unethical.

Worldwide, defence officials approved the sale of an estimated $5 billion worth of military equipment in 2019/20 - more than the typical yearly export value of Australian wine, wool or wheat.

...

The Defence Department has also approved sales to Zimbabwe, where the government is suspected of abducting and torturing political opponents, and Eritrea, the so-called “North Korea of Africa” which has been ruled for decades by a totalitarian dictator.

Former United Nations lawyer Melissa Parke, who was also a Federal Labor minister, says Australia is trashing its reputation by selling munitions and military technology to countries accused of gross human rights violations.

“I find it hard to believe that, rather than seeing ourselves on the international stage as a good global citizen, that instead we would seek to increase the manufacture and sale of weapons that cause death, injury and destruction to people who've done us no harm,” she told SBS Dateline.

“The UN arms trade treaty was something the Australian government claimed as an achievement during its time on the UN Security Council.

“But since that time, it has increased arms exports, including to countries accused of war crimes, while decreasing transparency about those exports.”

...

Sales to countries accused of using child soldiers

The documents show Australia has also been selling military equipment to Somalia, Mali, Libya, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and South Sudan.

The US Department of State in June this year singled out the governments of these countries for allegedly recruiting child soldiers. 

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/dateline/australia-is-cashing-in-on-munitions-sales-to-africa-under-a-grotesque-government-plan#:~:text=.com.au.-,Australia is cashing in on munitions sales,under a 'grotesque' government plan&text=Worldwide%2C defence officials approved the,Australian wine%2C wool or wheat.

It's morally right to fast track the white refugees from Zim, right?

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

The real reasoning behind all these nonsense is the current inventory of high tech state of the art weaponry of past times is going to be outdated and redundant in the next decade if not years... 

~

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
Golden Duck
psyche101

It does seem rather convenient now that he lunches with Julia Bishop these days. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

So... the same government that doesn't trust its own citizens to judiciously possess lethal weapons except under EXTREMELY controlled circumstances, sells far more lethal items to nations known to be committing human rights violations?  Now, don't misunderstand me, I realize the U.S. probably sells more weapons by FAR than OZ does and with as little regard to any moral compunctions about the actions of the eventual end-users.  But at least, over here they don't yet demand that we allow them to be our Nannies.  Though I must give them credit for trying as hard as they can.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
4 hours ago, and then said:

So... the same government that doesn't trust its own citizens to judiciously possess lethal weapons except under EXTREMELY controlled circumstances, sells far more lethal items to nations known to be committing human rights violations?  Now, don't misunderstand me, I realize the U.S. probably sells more weapons by FAR than OZ does and with as little regard to any moral compunctions about the actions of the eventual end-users.  But at least, over here they don't yet demand that we allow them to be our Nannies.  Though I must give them credit for trying as hard as they can.  

Anyhoo, ignoring the usual slights from the moral machine gun nest you occupy, we’ve just discovered this and it’s the latest bit of utterly unsurprising scumminess from the “at least they’re not Labor” party, amongst the rest of the dodgy deals (with your country), text messages about billion dollar deals (with the French), looking the other way while mining companies blow up 40 thousand year old sacred sites, looking the other way while rapes occur in the halls of power, crawling up the **** of mining companies, playing “its tomorrow’s problem, let’s leave it for someone else to fix” over things like the environment, weasling out of political promises by calling thrm “none core promises”……

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
7 hours ago, and then said:

So... the same government that doesn't trust its own citizens to judiciously possess lethal weapons except under EXTREMELY controlled circumstances, sells far more lethal items to nations known to be committing human rights violations?  Now, don't misunderstand me, I realize the U.S. probably sells more weapons by FAR than OZ does and with as little regard to any moral compunctions about the actions of the eventual end-users.  But at least, over here they don't yet demand that we allow them to be our Nannies.  Though I must give them credit for trying as hard as they can.  

Read the SBS article?  There wasn't a hint of whataboutism.

Its not even about weaponry.  There is a bit of pride felt for Metal Storm and The Owen Gun.

At the risk of invoking an often comical cliche this story is prodoundly Un-Australian.  James Hardie and Alan Bond are a couple of examples of public figures that rose to folk hero status only to be eaten alive.

SBS was founded by the Fraser Government. Malcolm Fraser acted on our obligation to Vietnames Boat People after participating on the Vietnam War.

It's weird that Fraser is now our Joe DiMaggio.

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
20 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

So some in America, a country which has the largest arms export industry, are calling the Australians immoral for selling ammunition?

Or, could it be, they wanted the contract?

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
Just now, Cookie Monster said:

So some in America, a country which has the largest arms export industry, are calling the Australians immoral for selling ammunition?

Or, could it be, they wanted the contract?

What the are talking about? This has nothing to do with America, the weapons exports of any other country.

If you're so keen on preaching personal responsibility why are you flipping to whattaboutism so swiftly?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

What the are talking about? This has nothing to do with America, the weapons exports of any other country.

If you're so keen on preaching personal responsibility why are you flipping to whattaboutism so swiftly?

And what is wrong with selling ammunition?

They are going to buy it either way, may as well make a buck in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
42 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

And what is wrong with selling ammunition?

They are going to buy it either way, may as well make a buck in the process.

What's wrong with a Military Industrial Complex that fuels humanitarian crises?  It kind of rubs against the policies and history of children and refugees.  Oh yeah, there's that war crimes thing happening too.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
14 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Anyhoo, ignoring the usual slights from the moral machine gun nest you occupy,

In what way did I moralize/sermonize against any Australian citizen with my statement?  I shared an OPINION about the hypocritical actions of your current government.  I also acknowledge that mine was worse when it came to weapons sales.  The fact that the majority of Americans refuse to allow our government to treat us like children regarding firearms isn't inaccurate.  If offense was taken, it was taken far too easily, IMO.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
13 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Read the SBS article?  There wasn't a hint of whataboutism.

I didn't imply that there WAS, any.  I just reread the SBS piece and nothing I wrote is in conflict with the facts they provided.  It was an OPINION about the actions of your government and the hypocrisy, IMO, of selling weapons to nations proven to be less stable and more likely to commit atrocities versus allowing their own citizens the freedom to possess far less lethal weapons.  Trust me, I'm not staying awake nights worrying about the issue but I can't begin to count the number of times I've been ridiculed and called to defend the actions of Americans after some of them misuse firearms to kill innocents.

  I guess that whole, "sharing opinions about the actions of Americans" doesn't translate as well when it comes back around?  I mean, fair is fair.  The description of your government behaving like a nanny is a common perception amongst 2A supporters over here BUT we also recognize that a majority of your citizens are perfectly okay with that role on the issue of firearms.  To each, his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
21 minutes ago, and then said:

In what way did I moralize/sermonize against any Australian citizen with my statement?  I shared an OPINION about the hypocritical actions of your current government.  I also acknowledge that mine was worse when it came to weapons sales.  The fact that the majority of Americans refuse to allow our government to treat us like children regarding firearms isn't inaccurate.  If offense was taken, it was taken far too easily, IMO.  

Ohh come on. Your mission here seems to be to try and offend others as much as you possibly can. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
13 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Read the SBS article?  There wasn't a hint of whataboutism.

Its not even about weaponry.  There is a bit of pride felt for Metal Storm and The Owen Gun.

I don't think we read the same article.  It was all about the sale of weaponry and a lack of transparency on how such decisions are justified.  I'd heard of the Metal Storm but only in a work of fiction by Clive Cussler.  I'd never heard of O'Dwyer.  He sounds like an amazing inventor.  The fact that he turned down 100 million USD to make the weapon for the CCP makes him a hero in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
6 minutes ago, and then said:

I didn't imply that there WAS, any.  I just reread the SBS piece and nothing I wrote is in conflict with the facts they provided.  It was an OPINION about the actions of your government and the hypocrisy, IMO, of selling weapons to nations proven to be less stable and more likely to commit atrocities versus allowing their own citizens the freedom to possess far less lethal weapons.  Trust me, I'm not staying awake nights worrying about the issue but I can't begin to count the number of times I've been ridiculed and called to defend the actions of Americans after some of them misuse firearms to kill innocents.

  I guess that whole, "sharing opinions about the actions of Americans" doesn't translate as well when it comes back around?  I mean, fair is fair.  The description of your government behaving like a nanny is a common perception amongst 2A supporters over here BUT we also recognize that a majority of your citizens are perfectly okay with that role on the issue of firearms.  To each, his own.

The article in the OP is about military arms including missiles and tanks.  Aren't your 2A rights impinged to the extent that those arms aren't available to civilians?  Likewise, I'm not anxious about whether, or not, your neighbour needs a Warthog to defend his liberty.  But, it's not even what what we are discussing here.  Nor, are we even asking if this a usual practice among our allies.

This scheme may have been set-up by Pyne; but, Dutton is current Daddy Warbucks.

Unflattering' photo Peter Dutton's team wanted deleted goes viral

As Home Affairs Minister he's the one who proposed we fast-track white refugees from Zimbabwe; but, he took a pretty hard line against other groups.

If it's not hypocritical it's counter-productive.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
28 minutes ago, and then said:

I don't think we read the same article.  It was all about the sale of weaponry and a lack of transparency on how such decisions are justified.

Yep and then it went on to mention the sales may be fuelling humanitarian crises and even suggest it's in conflict with the "Get Kony" sentiment.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

Aren't your 2A rights impinged to the extent that those arms aren't available to civilians

Yes and no, with the proper licensing and permits you can own just about anything.  Often the cost of obtaining the licenses and permits on top of the cost to buy the item doesnt make it viable but not always. 

There are some private groups that do own more or less fully functional tanks, by more or less I mean the main cannon has been disabled as the government disables it before selling it or as part of the importing process but from what I understand with the proper license and permits it can be made fully functional it's just not usually worth the cost.  Occasionally fighter jets will go on auction, it's rare but it has actually happened before.  Missiles would fall under destructive devices but I'm pretty sure with the right licenses and permits they could be owned.

Essentially any weapon can be legally owned in America if you are willing to pay the price and deal with all the legal work involved with getting it, assuming you find a seller that is.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
3 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

What's wrong with a Military Industrial Complex that fuels humanitarian crises?  It kind of rubs against the policies and history of children and refugees.  Oh yeah, there's that war crimes thing happening too.

The article alleges war crimes while also confirming that there is no actual evidence, and it bases an argument against arms sales simply because various countries have dictators in charge.

I have nothing against any country trying to grow its arms exports. We dont live in an idealistic world with no conflict, conflict is part of human nature. Therefore countries need armed forces. Unless there is actual genocide going on (something the UN would implement arms sanctions over) then there is no issue. Arms sales should continue.

Dictatorship isn`t necessarily a bad thing, despite how the media want people to believe they are all of the Adolf variety. Its what an autocratic regime actually does that determines if sanctions should be applied, not hysteria over what Adolf did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
3 hours ago, and then said:

In what way did I moralize/sermonize against any Australian citizen with my statement?  I shared an OPINION about the hypocritical actions of your current government.  I also acknowledge that mine was worse when it came to weapons sales.  The fact that the majority of Americans refuse to allow our government to treat us like children regarding firearms isn't inaccurate.  If offense was taken, it was taken far too easily, IMO.  

The bit about us demanding the government be our nanny, just a wee bit judgemental and we both know what the Boss of Bosses says about being judgemental.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
27 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

The article alleges war crimes while also confirming that there is no actual evidence, and it bases an argument against arms sales simply because various countries have dictators in charge.

I have nothing against any country trying to grow its arms exports. We dont live in an idealistic world with no conflict, conflict is part of human nature. Therefore countries need armed forces. Unless there is actual genocide going on (something the UN would implement arms sanctions over) then there is no issue. Arms sales should continue.

Dictatorship isn`t necessarily a bad thing, despite how the media want people to believe they are all of the Adolf variety. Its what an autocratic regime actually does that determines if sanctions should be applied, not hysteria over what Adolf did.

Uhhh no.  This story hasn't come out in a vacuum.  The fall-out of the SAS war-crimes investigation is still-ongoing.  Child soldiers and humanitarian crises, lead to problems of refugees and children in detention.  And we have a history of splitting families that might be best avoided.

Who are you saying is a beneficent dictator in the those nations where a category 1 permit has been approved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
4 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

But, it's not even what what we are discussing here. 

You'll have to excuse me but I was trying to refer to the small arms, primarily.  Obviously, things like crew-served weapons - machine guns, mortars, artillery, aren't going to be part of the picture for ANY country's civilian population.  I guess I did a poor job explaining myself.  BTW... IF I could purchase a high-end "novelty" killing machine, that Metal Storm would be AWESOME to play with ;)   In that book plot where I first heard of it, it was being used as a shipboard air defense weapon.  I somehow got confused with the propellent.  I thought it operated like a modified rail gun rather than being the equivalent of stacked miniature explosives-driven projectiles.  Either way, I'd pay to see that thing in action :w00t:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
35 minutes ago, and then said:

You'll have to excuse me but I was trying to refer to the small arms, primarily.  Obviously, things like crew-served weapons - machine guns, mortars, artillery, aren't going to be part of the picture for ANY country's civilian population.  I guess I did a poor job explaining myself.  BTW... IF I could purchase a high-end "novelty" killing machine, that Metal Storm would be AWESOME to play with ;)   In that book plot where I first heard of it, it was being used as a shipboard air defense weapon.  I somehow got confused with the propellent.  I thought it operated like a modified rail gun rather than being the equivalent of stacked miniature explosives-driven projectiles.  Either way, I'd pay to see that thing in action :w00t:

I think I first seeing a story about on one of the local technology shows Towards 2000/Beyond 2000/Beyond Tomorrow.  One of concepts was a handgun, which felt a little impractical.  How would you re-load it?  Muzzle loading?  IF I understand it correctly, the elctric current is a new way of doing something the old way.

I'll stick to killing fish if I'm lucky.  I know how to butcher them, and I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rashore

Thread cleaned. Enough with the personal attacks folks. Discuss the OP topic, not each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.