Ben Doherty and Christopher Knaus
Exclusive: Defence department refuses to reveal the extent of exports as arms sold to UAE, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Australian companies are selling weapons and military technology to countries around the world accused of war crimes, but the Australian government has refused to say what weapons are being sent overseas and to whom.
Nearly 100 permits were issued to export weapons and military technology to the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka and the Democratic Republic of Congo over the 2018-2019 financial year. But the Australian defence department has refused to reveal how many weapons have been sold, for how much, or for what purpose.
The extent of and extreme secrecy surrounding Australia’s foreign weapons sales are revealed by documents obtained by the Guardian under freedom of information laws.
Save for their existence and confirmation of country of destination, the documents are almost entirely redacted by the government, which has argued the information is commercial-in-confidence. That decision is being challenged by the Guardian.Between June of 2018 and July 2019, Australia issued 45 weapons export permits to the United Arab Emirates, 23 to Saudi Arabia, 14 to Sri Lanka and four to the Democratic Republic of Congo.Some of the weapons permits are extraordinarily detailed. One single permit, for a weapons technology export, runs to 403 pages, and contains hundreds of items. All of these details are redacted by the defence department.
Nearly $5bn worth of declared value defence permits were issued by Australia in 2018-19, a dramatic increase on the $1.6bn approved the previous year.
The UAE’s military, whose Presidential Guard is commanded by retired Australian army major general Mike Hindmarsh, has been accused of war crimes in the brutal conflict in Yemen, where a coalition of UAE, Saudi and Yemeni government military forces are engaged in a bitter battle with Houthi rebels believed to be backed by Iran.
Saudi Arabia’s military has led the coalition fighting in the five-year conflict, which has been plagued by human rights abuses including hospitals being bombed, civilians being targeted by shelling and sniper fire, civilian populations being deliberately starved, medical supplies being blocked, rape, murder, enforced disappearances, torture, and forcing children to fight.
Australian weapons systems manufacturer Electro Optics Systems (EOS) – which supplies the Saudi military with remote weapon stations – has told the Guardian their equipment does not cross the border into Yemen.
But a report by a United Nations panel of experts, including former Australian MP and international lawyer Melissa Parke, said countries who supplied weapons to the militaries of the UAE or Saudi Arabia could be complicit in war crimes being committed in the Yemen conflict.
The Sri Lankan military has been accused of war crimes over several years and complicity in the continued disappearance, abuse and torture of Tamil citizens, democracy activists, journalists and opponents of the government.
Recently re-elected prime minister, former president Mahinda Rajapaksa, led the military at the conclusion of the country’s civil war: the 2009 operation to end the war left up to 40,000 civilians dead, according to a UN experts’ report.
The current head of the military, Shavendra Silva, led the Sri Lankan army’s 58 Division unit in 2009, which was accused of intentional and indiscriminate attacks on civilians, no-fire zones and hospitals.
The Democratic Republic of Congo has had a number of arms embargoes imposed upon it since 2003 because of a supply of weapons fuelling mass killings, human rights abuses and torture. The government’s military was previously included in sanctions banning the supply of all arms and related material, but was removed from the sanctions list in 2008. Arms embargoes still apply to non-government forces.
All exports of arms require licences from the defence department’s export controls branch. The department has previously told Senate estimates that export licences are not issued if the weapons are likely to be used in human rights abuses.
“If we assess that they would be used [to commit human rights abuses], we would not approve the permit,” Tom Hamilton, then acting deputy secretary of the defence department’s strategic policy and intelligence group, said in February.
Defence says it runs rigorous risk assessments on weapons prior to export. That process involves examining human rights, Australia’s international obligations, foreign policy, national security and regional security.
“This assessment includes consideration of whether there is an overriding risk that the exported items could be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law,” a spokeswoman said last year.
Dr Margaret Beavis, vice president of the Medical Association for Prevention of War, said it was well past time for the defence department’s “notorious secrecy” around Australian arms sales to end.
“If Australia is complying with all its legal obligations, as defence claims, what have they got to hide? This claim that they are protecting the commercial interests of weapons sellers is woefully insufficient justification for the blanket secrecy surrounding Australian weapons sales to nations accused of war crimes.”
Freedom of information expert Peter Timmins said failing to tell the Australian public which countries the government was exporting arms to was “quite remarkable”, given former defence minister Christopher Pyne was open about his intention to sell arms to Saudi Arabia.
“Having put on the public record that we intend to increase our arms sales to a country like Saudi Arabia, to then not disclose that we might have issued an export permit to enable the export of arms to Saudi Arabia seems quite remarkable,” he told the Guardian.
Timmins is concerned the spirit and intent of the FoI Act are increasingly being disregarded in favour of secrecy.
“The proper test of the act is to make information available promptly that goes to accountability, transparency, good government, or poor government as the case may be,” he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment