Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here´┐Żs how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Should war memorials be built with money from the arms industry?

By David Stephens - posted Thursday, 6 October 2011


Two new war memorials are to be built in Canberra, provided final regulatory approvals are obtained and the memorials' proponents, the Memorial(s) Development Committee (MDC), can raise $A25 million.

The memorials will commemorate the dead from World Wars I and II. They will each be 20 metres high, in two-tone grey granite, separated by 100 metres of paving, etched with commemorative inscriptions. They will sit on the shore of Lake Burley Griffin, at the foot of Anzac Parade, straddling Burley Griffin's 'land axis', a key component of Canberra's landscape plan.

The MDC argue that the new memorials are necessary because there are no existing memorials in Canberra to these two great conflicts. The Australian War Memorial, the Committee argue, commemorates all wars but not specifically the two world wars.

Advertisement

The MDC are on record (in Ken Inglis's book, Sacred places, published in 2008) that their fundraising will target the defence industry, as well as other companies. (This information does not currently appear on the MDC's website.) The defence industry has plenty of money to spare if the MDC come knocking. In Australia, combined revenue in calendar 2010 for the top 40 defence contractors, plus the top 20 small and medium-sized defence enterprises, was $A7.257 billion.

Donations may be made for the purest of motives. The defence industry worldwide, however, is renowned for its corruption, defined by Transparency International as "the abuse of entrusted power for private gains." A 2005 study quoted by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimated that corruption in the arms trade amounts to roughly 40 per cent of all corruption in global trade. The security attaching to defence contracts and the numbers of commission-seeking middlemen in the industry provide many opportunities for covert payments.

A case study is in order. In 2009, BAE Systems had the second highest global revenue of all defence suppliers, $US33.419 billion. BAE Systems Australia, a subsidiary of the UK-based parent company, is Australia's leading defence contractor, with revenue in calendar 2010 of approximately $A1.5 billion. Currently, BAE has more than 50 major defence contracts in Australia and is bidding for some twenty more.

Among BAE's hundreds of products and services are aircraft armour, ammunition and munitions of all sorts, an artillery orienting system, communications networks and related items, fighter aeroplanes, a laser aiming system, various missiles, naval gun systems, unmanned aerial vehicles and, until quite recently, cluster bombs and land mines.

BAE's corruption record is as spectacular as its revenues and its range of products. In 2004, the UK Serious Fraud Office began investigating claims of corruption regarding BAE deals with Chile, the Czech Republic, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Tanzania. In 2007, BAE, concerned by the fallout from this investigation, commissioned Lord Woolf to investigate the company's ethics. BAE executives admitted to Woolf that "the Company did not in the past pay sufficient attention to ethical standards and avoid activities that had the potential to give rise to reputational damage."

The United States also investigated. In February 2010, BAE agreed to pay £257 million ($US400 million) in criminal fines to the US Department of Justice (DoJ). US district court judge John Bates said that BAE's conduct involved "deception, duplicity and knowing violations of law, I think it's fair to say, on an enormous scale." The DoJ said that BAE "consistently failed to identify commissions paid to third parties to assist in securing the sales of defense articles." BAE "was aware that some or part of those payments would be passed on to others to influence government procurement processes" for the benefit of BAE. "The undisclosed payments were pervasive across the Company, covered numerous markets, and lasted for decades."

Advertisement

BAE never admitted to bribery. (The US charges referred, not to bribery as such, but to conspiring to make false statements to the US government about BAE's anti-bribery arrangements – the falsity of the statements was proved by the fact that bribery had taken place – and failing to keep proper accounting records about BAE's operations in Tanzania.) Senior personnel were replaced and internal systems improved. The new chairman, Dick Olver, said the company had "put a really hard line separating the past from the future" and it realised the "need to be a transparent, modern, clean company." BAE also tried to be a model corporate citizen. Its global code of conduct, issued in 2009, has a section on "company giving."

We will support, sponsor and contribute to the activities of other organisations where the activities are aligned with our own business objectives, values and ethical principles and will enhance the reputation of the company.

The company had a "particular focus … on those organisations which support the Armed Forces and their families."

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

David Stephens is a member of the Lake War Memorials Forum, which opposes the building of the new memorials. This article does not intend to imply or impute that BAE Systems Australia or individuals mentioned in the piece have been associated with the activities of BAE Systems which have led to legal action overseas. A version of this article with endnotes is at http://www.mapw.org.au/files/downloads/war%20memorials%20and%20the%20arms%20industry.pdf



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

6 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

David Stephens is secretary of Honest History. A version of this article appeared on the Honest History website but it does not necessarily reflect the views of all supporters of Honest History.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by David Stephens

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 6 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy