Great article Michelle. Well done.

Michelle - if you really want your article to make a difference you are going to have be more specific. As I understand it you are complaining that ANZ is lending money to companies which, among other activities, make parts which are being used by quite differnt make cluster bombs. What countries are we talking about? Can you name any of the cluster bomb makers(which would seem more to the point)? What sort of parts are in question? Are they being made specifically to order, or are they parts that could be used in anything but happen to get into cluster bombs? You must know these companies but are reluctant to name then. Why? Fear of defamation actions? (If so, you should say.) Those are a just a few of the more obvious questions.

Curmudgeon - the info you require is in the report referenced in the article. Click the link. The report states that ANZ finances two US-based companies, L-3 Communications (US$99m) and Lockheed Martin (US$36.5m) which have both been producing cluster bombs and their parts.

Dear Michelle,

Thank you for that. Depleted uranium and landmines should also be focused on.

I will do my best to circulate your article.

Quite an interesting article. I think the crucial info re 'references' was buried but I understand that the ANZ aren't going to suddenly come out and admit that some of their investments are for cluster bombs.

I'm no friend of the banking sector but this article might have been stronger by quoting what others have found about ANZ's lack of ethical investments. Banks are not known as being all sweetness and light. That is, if they think there's a buck in it, their snouts are well and truly in the trough and if we dug deep enough in to other banks investment strategies, who knows what we'll find?

Thankyou M Fahy, I take your point. However, that still doesn't excuse Michelle from giving basic facts about the report in her article. All its requires is a paragraph or two, including an explicit mention of the report, who produced it, and why she thinks its trustworthy etc etc, all up high where it can be seen. Also, she has to say, in a paragraph or two, what the report says. Otherwise you have to read the report to gain an idea of what on earth is going on, or to access just how much ANZ is to blame for anything.
No, article was poorly done. Michelle, less hand wringing, more facts.

Michelle, being the messenger is all too often a thankless task but, anyway, take a bow! Great article.

I bank with the ANZ and I am horrified to learn that this bank is using my money (such as it is) to fund American arms manufacturers. It shows a total lack of ethics and morality.

I will close my account and move elsewhere. But where? Probably the other banks are doing the same thing, eg, putting profits before people.

The irony is that the ANZ has advertising which suggests that it cares about people. Contributing to blowing the limbs off children really suggests the opposite to me. Obviously, ANZ caring is only about extracting money from people to re-invest.

All Banks should be forced to show where their funds go.

http://www.dangerouscreation.com

The treaty is in response to particular design limitations of the weapon, isn't it?

The problem as far as civilians were concerned being that an excessive proportion of the early designs of cluster bombs failed to explode as designed. However the new designs are far more reliable. Could new designs also have a 'fail-safe' so that after being armed in the air bomblets would automatically explode at a set time after after hitting the ground?

Apart from the cheapness of the individual bomblets, is there is any difference at all with other munitions? There are unexploded larger bombs, mortars and shells being used to devastating effect in booby traps against the allies in Afghanistan for example.

At the risk of provoking an intemperate hue and cry, there is a unique strategic advantage for Australia in having the weapon because it is a small nation in population with a far smaller army than its neighbours. Australia could easily be over-run and relies too heavily on the nuclear umbrella of the US.

However we have a small but well-trained air force, which makes such technology as cluster bombs attractive where used against a numerically superior invader. It should not be forgotten that the few aircraft at our disposal need to be conserved and protected. In a previous emergency, all aircraft were rapidly moved to Southern States to reduce risk. In WW2 there was the 'Brisbane Line'.

One of the alternatives is smaller battlefield nuclear weapons. Would they be opposed equally if available?

Also, might it be more reasonable (than eschewing weapons of strategic advantage to a small higher technology country) to put more limits on the enthusiasm of government, the LNP in particular, to commiting troops and 'advisors' through improving the transparency of decisions?

None of this should be taken as support for particular weapons, however Australia needs to first give priority to its own defence and an alternative is to apply say cluster bombs solely for its own defence and as a final resort to being over-run during invasion.

As well, Australia should implement compulsory military service along Swiss lines.

http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/switzerland/switzerland_military.html

Dear David G,

Investigate the policies of Bendigo bank.

My Dear Michelle Fahy,

All bombs are equal but some are more equal. Is that what you say?

Think again!

There is lots of money to be made in the arms industry.Many people's super is unwittingly tied up with it.

Look on the bright side.It keeps the pop down,maims children and it's OK so long as the bombs aren't clustering over your home.Out of sight ,out of mind.

This isn't the first time and australian finance company has been involved in financing cluster munitions. I remember some months ago now reading an article stating that Australian Super had amended some of their rules to allow them to invest in cluster munitions as well. It doesn't matter whether the investments or lending is direct or indirect. Anybody with a rudimentary understanding of how business structures work can tell you that you can set up shelf companies or holding companies with the sole purpose to disburse loan or investment funds. An indirect interest in cluster munitions equates to a direct interest with just a few obstacles thrown in the way.

Curmudgeon, your fixation on presentation and style puzzles me. Ms Fahy is talking about how money is spent on our behalf, for good or evil, by individuals in private and public institutions. The issue that seems to appear most important to you is a matter of style and presentation, of the structure and aesthetics of her essay.
Do you have no money in savings accounts or, pension funds, no stock holdings or mortgage obligations and therefore no need for concern about where your tax dollars are spent or invested?.

I am more interested in ethics than aesthetics. Cluster munitions are indiscriminate in their effect on civilians, for generations after they are used.
The 2006 war in Lebanon is an example. see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_bomb
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War
The latter notes that

"Both sides used cluster bombs during the conflict. … Israel used advanced cluster munitions produced by Israel Military Industries, and large numbers of older cluster bombs, some produced in the 1970s, purchased from aging American stockpiles."
According to recent reports, about half the affected areas in Lebanon have been cleared. The meaning of this, in human terms, from a Lebanese farmer’s point of view, is reported at
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5847741,00.html

Curmudgeon, The Convention on Cluster Munitions, signed but not yet ratified by Australia, offers a hope of outlawing investment in the manufacture of these evil creations. I will be happy to see this opportunity realized, although I expect others, and perhaps you, believe there should be no such government interference in individual or corporate investment choices.

A very comprehensive report by Human Rights Watch, "Fulfilling the Ban", available at
http://www.hrw.org/node/90721
states that
“ …legislation should … prohibit a state party from directly running its own production facilities or from indirectly supporting production by investing in it through national pension funds. If a state party so chooses, it could elaborate on what activities are direct and indirect in national policies rather than in the legislation itself.

Curmudgeon, where do you stand on this issue?

Sir Vivor - no, in fact the points I made are vital. They go to the heart of making a difference. If Michelle expects to reach to anyone beyond a limited audience she should ensure her article meets minimum standards. That is, it should be understandable without extensive study. Failure on small points do not matter, but the large failures should be pointed out now.
Don't quote Wikipedia. If you must cite anything, cite the sources it uses. In any case your citations miss the point entirely. I'm sure that cluster bombs, like all other bombs, are a problem. The real question is are we going to concern outselves with the financiers of those who make parts for those who make cluster bombs, as opposed to financing any other part of the armaments industry

Curmudgeon, I wonder if you read beyond my Wikipedia quotes, as they were just two of the references I cited.

As for whether I should have cited Wikipedia, you are welcome to your opinion, but you might graciously remember that not all your readers are as well-informed on this particular topic as you may be. While Wikipedia rarely provides the final word on any individual subject, it generally provides an acceptable range of fact, opinion and references on any given topic, for anyone who wishes to learn more.

After all, we have 350 words at a time to focus and support our comment, and most readers are happy to read even fewer, if they make a succinct point about the topic at hand (as opposed to a critique on how the point is expressed).


So as to keep this post short and simple, I repeat the last paragraphs of my previous post, for your consideration.

A very comprehensive report by Human Rights Watch, "Fulfilling the Ban", available at

http://www.hrw.org/node/90721
states that

“ …legislation should … prohibit a state party from directly running its own production facilities or from indirectly supporting production by investing in it through national pension funds. If a state party so chooses, it could elaborate on what activities are direct and indirect in national policies rather than in the legislation itself.

Curmudgeon, where do you stand on this issue?
Are you in favour of banning investment in cluster munitions, or are you against such a ban?

A simple "in favour of" or "against" will do, but of course you are free to prevaricate if you wish.

Dear, Dear Michelle Fahy,

I wish you would understand that if we, you and I, earned salaries sufficient for our needs only, there would be no savings, banks would not exist and explosives of any kind could not be produced.

Also, on a lean diet, no grease would lodge in our brains to prevent us from thinking clearly.

What we see around us is obesity, eating and drinking over our natural dietary requirements, and getting all on the table without any physical exertion and, having eaten, still have wealth to spare.

But we need bombs, bombs to blow out of our heads the accumulated grease that prevent us from being concerned about no one but our blind selves

Well then, Curmudgeon, I see you have made the honourable choice and declined to prevaricate further. But what do you make of Skeptic's odd letter?

I can't imagine that Skeptic would be happy to learn that his bank was going to fund the manufacture of explosives to be used on the house next door to him (ignoring any border disputes he may engaged in, regarding overhanging vegetation or bikie parties into the early morning, and also discounting the possibility of collateral damage).

And yet Skeptic offers no intelligent reply to the question: Should Australian savings be funnelled into cluster bomb manufacture?

Do you suppose he is engaging in esoteric satire for its own sake, or is this a symptom of denial, regarding a real ethical issue?

Perhaps he has savings and shares in ANZ, and this is how he copes.

Interesting to note that the French have outlawed investment in cluster munitions.

More information is available at www.amnesty.fr and www.handicap-international.fr

If you read French, then the minutes of the relevant session of the French National Assembly are available at www.assemblee-nationale.fr If you search the term BASM, it will deliver good results from their equivalent of Hansard. If your French is better than mine, you may well enjoy following the debate.

The following site provides interesting information. The stories are linked to the search returns.

http://www.banktrack.org/show/pages/search

search: cluster munitions

news 12 items

Top financial institutions invest over US$43 billion in producers of cluster bombs
Geneva, Switzerland, 14 Apr 2010 | Netwerk Vlaanderen/ IKV PaxChristi

ANZ Pressured to End Loans to Munitions Maker
Cambodia, 02 Dec 2009 | Zsombor Peter, the Cambodia Daily

Top financial institutions still invest US$20 billion in cluster bombs
London, 29 Oct 2009 | Netwerk Vlaanderen

BankTrack members unveil bank secrets
Brussels, 25 Jun 2009 | CRBM

Banks shun harmful investments
Brussels, 11 Jun 2008 | Netwerk Vlaanderen

Too Risky for Business
Brussels, 06 Nov 2007 | Netwerk Vlaanderen

AXA disinvests from landmines and cluster munitions
Brussels, 18 Jul 2007 | Netwerk Vlaanderen

Sixty-eight banks fuelling cluster munition producers with billions of dollars
Brussels, 01 Mar 2007 | Netwerk Vlaanderen

Banks continue to invest in cluster munitions
Brussels, Belgium, 18 Sep 2006 | Netwerk Vlaanderen

KBC throws eleven cluster bomb producers out of its portfolio
Brussels, Belgium, 02 May 2006 | Netwerk Vlaanderen

ING and AXA invest in the modernisation of white phosphorus weapons
Brussels, Belgium, 13 Mar 2006 | Netwerk Vlaanderen

Demining team begin their work at AXA
Brussels, 18 Oct 2005 | Netwerk Vlaanderen


Copyright ©2008 BankTrack, created by EasyMIND

The page below is also from Banktrack. The content speaks for itself, but merits a visit. Australia is conspicuous by its absence from the Hall of Fame.

http://www.banktrack.org/show/dodgydeals/cluster_munitions_producers

investment funds
Merrill Lynch
General corporate finance: Textron - April 2006

For a direct and more elaborate overview of the investors in clustermunition see the report: Worldwide investments in cluster munitions producers; A shared responsibility, by Netwerk Vlaanderen & IKV PAX Christi - Updated April 2010:

Download Full Report
http://www.banktrack.org/download/update_april_2010_worldwide_investments_in_cluster_munitions_a_shared_responsibility_/2010_april_update_cluster_munitions_report.pdf

Download Hall of Shame
http://www.banktrack.org/download/summary_table_hall_of_shame_/summary_table_hall_of_shame.pdf

Download Hall of Fame and Runners Up
http://www.banktrack.org/download/summary_table_hall_of_fame_and_runners_up_/summary_table_hall_of_fame_en_runners_up.pdf

"what must happen
Financial institutions should develop policies that exclude all financial links with companies involved in producing cluster munitions. Because any investment facilitates production, no exceptions should be made for third-party financial services, for funds that follow an index or for civilian project financing for a company also involved in cluster munitions. Policies should not be narrowed to refusing project financing for cluster munitions.

Financial institutions should apply their disinvestment policy to all activities: commercial banking, investment banking and asset management."

Thanks for this article Michelle. I find it astonishing that this is not front page news. ANZ is one of the big banks in Australia yet it is literally getting away with murder. I will spread this far and wide. Well done to the Uniting Church JIM unit for exposing this.