A decision by the UK Government to curb arms exports to Israel has brought into question Australia's reluctance to do the same. Monika Sarder reports.
ON MONDAY 9 SEPTEMBER, Foreign Minister Penny Wong explicitly backed the UK decision to curb arms exports to Israel, stating that she welcomes the move by her UK counterpart. This follows UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s announcement last week of the suspension of around 30 of 350 licenses enabling arms to be exported to Israel after a two-month internal assessment found a clear risk that the items ‘might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law’.
Wong’s statement of support raises an important question — why has Australia not undertaken a similar assessment concerning the 66 permits enabling the export of Australian arms to Israel? After all, Australia’s definition of arms is identical to the UK’s. Both Australian and UK arms export controls utilise the Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies list (“arms list”), established under the Wassenaar Arrangement, to determine which items should be restricted.
Under the agreement over 40 participating states including Australia, the UK and the U.S. are required to control the international movement of items on the arms list and to keep a record of transfers. Within Australia, the list is incorporated into law through the Defence and Strategic Goods List (DSGL).
Furthermore, like the UK, Australia is subject to obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty and is required to deny export licences for ‘conventional arms or items’ where there is an overriding risk that the items will be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of human rights or international humanitarian law. These treaty obligations have been recognised in Australia’s domestic law through the criteria for permissions to grant DSGL export licenses.
The Government has indicated that the current criteria are sufficient to ensure our arms exports will not be used in human rights abuses and war crimes abroad.
Following questioning from Greens Senator David Shoebridge on the matter, Deputy Defence Secretary Hugh Jeffrey said:
“Each permit is decided against 12 legislative criteria. Those criteria include, as you know, Australia's international legal obligations with respect to human rights. If we have a serious concern that agreement to an export permit would involve those goods being exported contributing to the abuse of human rights, for example, in a conflict in which we had serious concerns then we'd not agree to the permit.”
Despite the existence of these legislative criteria and our international obligations, the Labor Government has not undertaken any assessment to determine whether items from the arms list being sent to Israel are being used in serious violations of international humanitarian law. This failure to undertake a relevant assessment is not only a departure from our international obligations but has enabled the Government to plead ignorance in relation to our role in potential Israeli war crimes.
Meanwhile, our most senior government representatives, including Prime Minister Albanese, have repeatedly maintained the lie that Australia does not send arms to Israel and hasn’t done so for several years. The basis for this claim is that the items from the arms list exported to Israel are “non-lethal” or “dual-use” items.
This position is no longer tenable after the UK assessment evaluated all exports to Israel on the “arms list”, regardless of “non-lethal” or “dual-use status” as having the potential to breach obligations under international law. The final list of suspensions included a range of conventional arms and dual-use components, including “important components which go into military aircraft, including fighter aircraft, helicopters and drones as well as items which facilitate ground targeting, that would be used in Gaza”.
Unless the Government’s position is that “arms” means something radically different in Australia than it does in the UK, it is time for our most senior leaders to acknowledge that Australia does, in fact, export arms to Israel. Moreover, suppose Senator Wong does support the UK decision. In that case, we must assess to determine whether items on the arms list being sent to Israel are being used to commit war crimes.
We live in a time of unprecedented global conflict which is Australia is equipping — the value of Australia’s arms exports has skyrocketed from $1.6 billion in 2013-14 to $103 billion in the last financial year. If we are to continue to grow defence exports responsibly, the rules governing our arms exports must be fit for purpose.
The legislative criteria that provide guidance in relation to arms exports are quite vague in comparison with the UK criteria and this has allowed disinformation to thrive. It is vital that politicians do not dodge accountability for their part in equipping Israel’s crimes against humanity in Gaza and the West Bank, or elsewhere in our fractured world.
Monika Sarder has 20 years of experience working as a policy analyst and data scientist across industry, health, academia and law enforcement sectors.
Related Articles
- Deception and genocide part of Israel's arsenal against 'terrorism'
- Dutton dotes on Israel during visit organised by pro-Israel lobby group
- Israel lobby ramps up scare campaigns in fear of truth
- Australian media stretches the truth on pro-Palestine movement
- U.S. backs slaughter at Nuseirat
Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.