For other questions I quickly arrived at a conclusion. For example, why is this governmetn ready to offer billions of dollars ($3.8 billion to be exact) to finance enterprises wishing to export arms, while it stopped financial assistance to Australian manufacturers of cars and wants to stop helping the sustainable energy industry? One quickly realises that the pejorative label of ‘social services to industry’ is used selectively and that decisions are truly based on ideology.
As for the principal question – is the selling of armaments in principle moral or not? Let’s set aside for the moment in which position of the exporting country table Australia finds itself in 10 years, or how many billions of dollars are saved from people in foreign countries dying of hunger to finance arm producers – mere details.
Tim Costello, from World Vision Australia, wrote that there is only one aim of producing arms, and that is to kill someone with. Naturally, this is a bit of a simplification, as some arms exist that are purely defensive, and even offensive arms can be decided to be used only in defensive situations, however I really don’t want to piddle, as the general principle of armaments is as described by Costello. We know how many millions of people have died from their use over the years, and are still doing their deadly business up to today.
I detest violence, of any type, and armaments, wars and the injustices that cause them no less. Does this mean that the country should not have armaments and armed forces? If there were no threat, or the potential of any threat, or if noe one else had armed forces or armaments, I would say no.
However we all know this is just a dream, even if one that you could spend your life working hard to achieve. In truth, we know that armies have been trying to build empires for thousands of years by attacking their neighbours, who from their part use their own armies to confront these attacks.
It does not seem to me we’re at a point where this threat has disappeared. On the contrary.
Therefore, I think it is legitimate for a country to have a military force, and to have arms capable enough to defeat the enemy. To be clear, the objective can not be other than to be victorious. To be a loser is unthinkable.
If you accept this (and I know not everyone does), the consequence is that armaments need to be bought from somewhere. Should there be a rule saying that arms can only be bought into, and cannot be sold out of, this country Australia?
It has been said that those exporting armaments are exporting death and profiting from killing, which is a tragic truth. Nevertheless, once you accept the need to have armed forces and armaments, you’ve already accepted to be ready to use them with the potential to cause death. It is true one could limit where this is allowed to happen, however there will in fact be circumstances where death will happen.
If we as a country are already participating in the armaments industry as buyers, I don’t see a worse situation when participating as sellers. In fact, this is already happening, and what is being proposed is that this sale increases.
With all this, I do not want to give the impression I’m comfortable with the value system of this government, or with the details of its strategy, but only commenting upon the narrow question of whether it’s morally acceptable to sell arms. From my perspective, yes.
------------------------------
Mistoqsijiet oħra malajr wasalt għal konklużjonijiet fuqhom. Per eżempju, għaliex dan il-gvern lest li joffri biljuni ta’ dollari ($3.8 biljun biex inkun eżatt) biex jiffinanzja kumpanniji li jixtiequ jesportaw l-armamenti, waqt li waqqaf għajnuniet finanzjarji lill-manifatturi Awstraljani tal-karrozzi u ma jridx jgħin iktar lill-industrija tal-enerġija sostenibbli? Malajr tinduna li t-tabella peġorattiva ta’ ‘għajnuna soċjali lil intrapriżi’ tintuża b’mod selettiva u d-deċiżjonijiet tassew isiru abbażi ta’ ideoloġija.
Issa niġi għall-mistoqsija prinċipali – il-prinċipju tal-bejgħ tal-armamenti huwa morali jew le? Ejja nwarrbu għall-mument f’liema pożizzjoni tal-gradwatorja tal-esportaturi tispiċċa l-Awstralja għaxar snin oħra, jew kemm biljuni ta’ dollari se jiġu ffrankati min-nies f’pajjiżi barranin li qed imutu bil-ġuħ biex jintefqu fuq il-produtturi tal-armamenti – dettalji biss.
Tim Costello, minn World Vision Australia, kiteb li hemm skop wieħed biss li jsiru l-armamenti, u dan hu biex jinqatel xi ħadd bihom. Naturalment, din kienet daqsxejn ta’ simplifikazzjoni, għax jeżistu armamenti li huma biss difensivi, u anke armamenti offensivi jista’ jiġi deċiż li jintużaw biss f’sitwazzjoni difensivi, madankollu ma rridx infettaq, għax bħala prinċipju ġenerali l-armamenti xogħolhom huwa kif iddeskrivihom Costello. Nafu kemm inqatlu miljuni ta’ nies bihom matul is-snin, u għadhom joqtlu sal-ġurnata mqaddsa tal-lum.
Jien il-vjolenza nobogħdha, ta’ kull tip, u l-armamenti, il-gwerer u l-inġustizzji li jikkawżawhom xejn inqas. Dan ifisser li l-pajjiż m’għandux ikollu l-armamenti u forzi armati? Kieku m’hemm l-ebda theddida, jew il-potenzjal ta’ theddida, jew li ħadd iktar m’għandu forzi armati jew armamenti, kieku ngħid li le.
Imma lkoll nafu li din hija biss ħolma, anke jekk waħda li wieħed jista’ jagħmel ħajtu jaħdem bla heda biex javvanza. Fil-verità, nafu li armati militari ilhom eluf ta’ snin jippruvaw jibnu imperi billi jattakkaw lill-ġirien tagħhom, li min-naħa tagħhom jużaw l-armati militari tagħhom biex jilqgħu għal dawn l-attakki.
Jien ma jidhirlix li wasalna f’punt fejn din it-theddida għebhet. Tutt’altru.
Għalhekk, naħseb li huwa leġittimu li l-pajjiż ikollu forza militari, u li jkollu armamenti ta’ stoffa li bihom ikun jista’ jegħleb lill-għadu. Biex inkunu ċari, hawn l-oġġettiv jista’ biss ikun li toħroġ rebbieħ. Li toħroġ tellief lanqas trid toħlomha.
Jekk taċċetta dan (u naf li mhux kulħadd jaċċettah), il-konsegwenza hija li l-armamenti jridu jinxtraw minn x’imkien. Għandu jkun hemm regola li tgħid li l-armamenti jridu jinxtraw biss minn barra l-pajjiż, u ma jridux iridu jinħadmu hawnhekk, fl-Awstralja?
Intqal li min jesporta l-armamenti qiegħed jesporta l-mewt u jagħmel flus mill-qtil, li hija verità traġika. Madankollu, malli taċċetta li jkollok forzi armati u armamenti, diġà tkun qiegħed tgħid li lest tużahom bil-potenzjali li tikkawża l-mewt. Veru li wieħed jista’ jagħmel limiti stretti fejn dan jitħalla jiġri, biss jibqa’ l-fatt li xi darba jkun hemm ċirkostanzi fejn din il-ħaġa se ssir.
Jekk aħna diġà parteċipi bħala pajjiż fis-suq tal-armamenti bħala xerrejja, ma narax sitwazzjoni agħar morali meta nipparteċipaw bħala bejjiegħa. Fil-fatt, dan diġà qiegħed jiġri, u li qiegħed jiġi propost li dan il-bejgħ jiżdied.
B’dan ma rridx nagħti l-impressjoni li jien komdu bl-iskala tal-valuri ta’ dan il-gvern, jew bid-dettalji tal-istrateġija tiegħu, imma biss biex nikkummenta fuq il-kwestjoni stretta jekk hux moralment aċċettabbli li jsir bejgħ ta’ armamenti. Mill-perspettiva tiegħi, iva.
1https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/28/australia-unveils-plan-to-become-one-of-worlds-top-10-arms-exporters, retrieved 13/2/2018
2http://theconversation.com/savage-budget-cuts-pull-australia-down-in-foreign-aid-rankings-58854, retrieved 13/2/2018
1https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/28/australia-unveils-plan-to-become-one-of-worlds-top-10-arms-exporters, retrieved 13/2/2018
2http://theconversation.com/savage-budget-cuts-pull-australia-down-in-foreign-aid-rankings-58854, retrieved 13/2/2018
No comments:
Post a Comment