Reputation laundering: weapons companies infiltrating schools to promote education

Lockheed missile blows up a bus full of Yemeni children; in Australia Lockheed Martin gains kudos by sponsoring the National Youth Science Forum. BAE Systems sponsors underprivileged kids in Australia while being complicit in the killing of thousands of needy children in Yemen. All you see in industry marketing pitches is euphemism, with nary a mention of the word “weapons”.

The UK’s largest weapons-maker, BAE, is working inside Saudi Arabia supporting Saudi-United Arab Emirates military operations in Yemen, a war that has killed or injured tens of thousands of civilians, including thousands of children.

Meanwhile in Australia, BAE sponsors The Smith Family’s STEM education program for under-privileged children.

Flagrant hypocrisy? Welcome to the weapons business.

Then there’s Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest weapons-maker, also raking in billions from the Yemen war. A Lockheed missile blew up a bus full of Yemeni school children in 2018, killing at least 29 kids and injuring dozens more. Back in Australia, Lockheed was cultivating kudos with kids as major sponsor of the National Youth Science Forum, a registered charity.

US missile-making giant Raytheon also continues to supply the Saudi-UAE coalition, despite evidence of numerous attacks with Raytheon missiles that targeted and killed civilians, including children. No mention of that in Australia. Instead, Aussie school kids had fun hanging out with the young Australian snowboarding paralympian Raytheon hired to front the launch of its Maths Alive! STEM program.

The French company supplying Australia’s new submarines, Naval Group, is at the centre of multiple corruption scandals globally, some of which involved murder. That hasn’t stopped Naval promoting itself as a model future employer, with the help of Port Adelaide footy heroes, to 90,174 kids in 329 South Australian schools since 2017.

And let’s not forget the list of sponsors of the Australian War Memorial, Legacy, Invictus Games and Soldier On, which include numerous weapons-making corporations.

There’s a name for this cynical behaviour: reputation laundering. And nearly every weapons company is doing it.

Promoted as innovators

The world’s weapons producers have taken with gusto to promoting themselves as innovators in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM). Military industry has adopted the STEM mantra to target children and young people as future employees, usually with the willing partnership of respected educational institutions. Many, if not most, Australian universities now have joint agreements, strategic partnerships or some other form of collaboration with the weapons industry.

The sales pitch is, join us for an exciting and challenging high-tech career in science. This enthusiastic support of STEM serves two purposes: reputation laundering is one, the other is as a recruitment drive. STEM provides a socially acceptable way to promote the weapons industry to children, and parents, as a potential employer.

There’s nothing wrong with promoting STEM education, or seeking new employees. The issue is the way these companies are now targeting children as young as primary school age, with the full support of government. (eg. The MD of weapons-maker Saab Technologies is on the South Australian education board.) The problem is the spin and glamour applied to increased militarism, with pertinent information omitted from the marketing. Warfare isn’t mentioned, for starters.

There’s nothing about how the kids will use their STEM education to enhance the ‘lethality’ of their employer’s products. Or about a future where employees have eliminated the need for human involvement in the ‘kill chain’ by creating autonomous robotic devices to make those decisions. (This is not science fiction, these research and development programs are already under way.) Working on nuclear weapons isn’t discussed, either.

You won’t find the underlying arms manufacturing realities in the STEM marketing by weapons giants. In fact, you’ll be hard pressed to find the word “weapons” at all.

A world of euphemism

Instead, you’ll enter a world of euphemism: “high end technology company”, “leading systems integrator”, “security and aerospace company”, “defence technology and innovation company”. It’s also a fair bet you’re reading weapons company marketing if you see the phrase “solving complex problems”. Especially if there’s mention of working to make the world safer and more secure.

The following are a few examples of many in which multinational weapons corporations are co-opting organisations of good purpose in Australia.

BAE and The Smith Family

BAE operates inside Saudi Arabia, training Saudi pilots, maintaining Saudi’s BAE-supplied fighter jets, and supervising Saudi soldiers as they load bombs onto the planes. Indiscriminate bombing, a well-known feature of the Yemen war, has killed or injured tens of thousands of civilians, including children.

BAE has earned £15 billion from sales to the Saudis since 2015 when the Yemen war started. A BAE maintenance employee was quoted last year saying, “If we weren’t there, in 7 to 14 days there wouldn’t be a jet in the sky.”

BAE’s role in helping the Saudis prolong the world’s worst humanitarian crisis in Yemen has been pointed out more than once to The Smith Family since news broke of its sponsorship by BAE. Understandably, The Smith Family has responded defensively along the lines that critics are trying to steal an education from needy Australian children.

But what about the tens of thousands of needy children starved, maimed, and killed on the other side of the world? BAE Systems has given The Smith Family a mere $100,000 –  about 0.3% of The Smith Family’s $36.3 million in non-government fundraising income.

Cheap reputational PR for a company that has gained tens of billions of dollars in defence contracts in Australia, while facilitating war crimes elsewhere.

Raytheon and Maths Alive!

Raytheon has marketed this program to children across America, the Middle East and Australia. Raytheon’s intention? To reach children at an early age and create a “healthy pipeline” from primary education, through secondary, to tertiary studies, to secure its future workforce.

The then Assistant Minister for Defence David Fawcett lent his support to the 2018 Australian launch of Maths Alive!, telling media: “I welcome the ongoing commitment by Raytheon to engage young Australians by helping them visualise what a career in science or engineering might look like.”

Lockheed Martin and National Youth Science Forum

The National Youth Science Forum was created by Rotary, which remains involved. The forum, now run by a board chaired by former senator Kate Lundy, has several programs, the flagship program being for Year 12 students interested in science.

Each year about 600 students complete the program, which exposes students to various career pathways in science. Since Lockheed started as major sponsor in 2015, students visit Lockheed Martin laboratories and speak with Lockheed staff as part of the program. (Watch a short video here from Lockheed’s website with some students.)

The National Youth Science Forum’s website does not mention Lockheed’s dominant influence as the world’s No. 1 weapons manufacturer or its significant role in producing nuclear weapons. Lockheed’s role in civil sectors is covered, however this work constitutes a minor aspect of its business. The most recent information from Stockholm International Peace Research says 88% of Lockheed’s revenue comes from arms sales.

Lockheed Martin and the Gallipoli Sponsorship Fund

This year Lockheed Martin became the first corporate partner of the Gallipoli Scholarship Fund. This partnership includes the new $120,000 Lockheed Martin Australia Bursary for the educational benefit of descendants of Australian veterans.

One of the aims of the Gallipoli Scholarship Fund is to contribute “to the future security of our nation and our national values of democracy, freedom, and the rule of law”.

Nuclear weapons will become illegal under international law in January 2021 when the new UN treaty prohibiting them comes into force. The world’s nine nuclear-armed countries haven’t signed it – nor their hangers-on, including Australia – so it won’t apply to them. But two-thirds of the world’s countries (including New Zealand) did vote to bring the treaty into being, banning the world’s worst weapons of mass destruction, and setting a new global norm.

Professor Ramesh Thakur, Director of the Centre for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament at the Australian National University, has said, “The ban treaty embodies the collective moral revulsion of the international community.”

The awkward truth is that the Gallipoli Scholarship Fund’s new corporate partner, Lockheed Martin, is one of the largest nuclear-weapons-producing companies on the planet. Lockheed is all set to provide its 12 bursaries from now through to the end of 2023.

Such are the ethical dilemmas these weapons corporations create for organisations doing good work that are in need of funding.

Morally indefensible positions

Such sponsorships might appear less self-serving if weapons companies behaved consistently, and stopped supplying weapons to war criminals. Claiming they are just doing the bidding of the US or UK governments in supplying the Saudis, as these companies have, is not a morally defensible position, particularly in the face of evidence of ongoing war crimes in Yemen.

Similarly, claims that they are committed to serving the national interest might be more believable if they ceased bribing and scamming their way into the next arms deal, or concocting endless ways to extend and inflate government contracts and invoices for their own corporate financial benefit, blatantly siphoning funds from the public purse.

Disclosure: Michelle Fahy was employed part-time by the Medical Association for Prevention of War for 10 months from May 2018 and worked on its campaign to end weapons company sponsorship of the Australian War Memorial and Questacon.

Michelle Fahy is an independent researcher/writer investigating the secretive links between the weapons industry and Australian government. Her work has appeared at Declassified Australia, Arena, Progressive International, and elsewhere. View her archive and support her mostly unpaid work at https://undueinfluence.substack.com/

Comments

16 responses to “Reputation laundering: weapons companies infiltrating schools to promote education”

  1. Cath Avatar
    Cath

    Great article Michelle,

    Thanks for putting that information on the record and exposing the hypocrisy of these companies and their subversive role in our schools.
    The hypocrisy of the Australian War Memorial having them as major sponsors is also unconscionable.
    Thank you.

  2. Doug Hewitt Avatar
    Doug Hewitt

    I also object to the prominent role which weapons manufacturers play in career’s markets for senior secondary school students. They have stalls next to the defence forces tables in the annual career exhibition in Newcastle NSW – which was cancelled this year because of COVD 19. Another example of duplicitous behaviour?

    1. Michelle Fahy Avatar

      Thanks Doug. Speaking of Newcastle, you are likely aware that former Chief Defence Scientist Alex Zelinsky is now Vice Chancellor of Newcastle Uni. The uni is promoting itself as an anchor for regional military industry. At DST, Zelinsky signed up quite a few weapons corps in formal alliances with DST, including Lockheed. A few months after he joined Newcastle Uni the uni also signed an alliance with Lockheed. The Financial Review’s education reporter did a piece (27.11.19) on this subject, “Universities break barriers in collaboration”. It does not seem to be behind the usual AFR paywall, so you may find it.

      1. poetinapaperbag Avatar
        poetinapaperbag

        That’s very good stuff Michelle .. and brave. Thanks.

  3. Chek Ling Avatar
    Chek Ling

    What a timely article. Please keep your efforts up.

    I seem to recall a certain ex-Minister who recently joined the Board of one of those war-mongering profit-maximising corporations.

    This “revolving door” tradition goes back a long way of course. Who could forget Peter Reith’s embrace of one such coroporation soon after the 2001 Federal elections that Howard won after Reith lied, during the election campaign, about children being thrown overboard from refugee boats intercepted by our gallant navy – perhaps without our now not so valiant SAS contingent.

    Howard even rewarded Reith, not too long after, with a tax-free appointment in London paying as I recall some $250,000 a year.

    When will the populace see an Integrity Commission with teeth?

    1. Michelle Fahy Avatar

      Thank you Chek Ling.
      Yes, Peter Reith resigned and within a day or two popped up at Tenix.
      Former defence minister Brendan Nelson: a few weeks after leaving as director of the War Memorial his appointment to Boeing was announced. A couple of months earlier Dr Nelson had given Boeing a positive plug during his final appearance as AWM director at Senate Estimates. He was on the Thales ‘advisory board’ while employed as AWM director – the minister knew, the public did not. (Donating his Thales fees to the AWM made that legitimate, he later said.)
      Defence Ministers from both major parties have done the same. Kim Beazley has rotated between public roles and weapons-related employment… and now he is combining the two – the WA Governorship job description having been extended to include advocacy for the state’s defence industry.

      1. Chek Ling Avatar
        Chek Ling

        Thanks Michelle.

        Just vaguely recalling what Clinton Fernandes wrote about how our governance and foreign policies are largely designed to suit the huge corporations whose operatives seem to have our Ministers and public servants in their pockets.
        The loss of helium from the oil we stole from Timor Leste is a good example – exMinisters and public servants with cosy relationships with the executives of the oil companies.
        Poor fellow, my country.

  4. Richard Barnes Avatar
    Richard Barnes

    Thanks Michelle.
    Let’s hope that in the case of the Smith Family, at least, it is an unwitting failure to join the dots – which will be rectified with the help of a little donor pressure.

    1. poetinapaperbag Avatar
      poetinapaperbag

      Not if Ita Buttrose is on the board.

      1. Michelle Fahy Avatar

        Ita isn’t 😉 … but Adrian Kloeden is… He is Chairman of the Serco Asia Pacific Advisory Board. Serco is a large contractor to various militaries internationally (UK, USA, Australia, Middle East).

        1. poetinapaperbag Avatar
          poetinapaperbag

          Must be something in the DNA that turns instinctive exploitation into artful ámorality.

  5. slorter Avatar
    slorter

    Good article
    Michelle! Will certainly spread that piece around!

  6. poetinapaperbag Avatar
    poetinapaperbag

    ..KOSHER KOALAS..
    Santa Clause killed Jesus
    On a contract from the you know whos
    When Sanhedrin made the godfather
    An offer he couldn’t refuse:

    Yes Santa wacked the saviour
    It was just IHS damn bad luck
    Now merchants all throw plastic girls
    To Baal and to Moloch
    And metal boys whose guns are toys
    That transform into trucks:

    Yes Santa Clause killed Jesus
    And the Pharisees were gay
    Still the children burn near Gehenna
    And Israel’s got all hell Tophet:

  7. Richard England Avatar

    The aim is to silence humanitarians by cultivating their financial dependence.

    1. poetinapaperbag Avatar
      poetinapaperbag

      A numinous link of language or just my rank conflations?
      The physical Active Denial System of Raytheon meets the Mental Denial System of the public.
      Artificial Intelligence meets natural ignorance.

  8. Teow Loon Ti Avatar
    Teow Loon Ti

    Ms Fahy,

    Thank you for speaking out against war and militarisation. I am familiar with the Smith Family advertisements on TV seeking donations to help poor children in Australia. The whole scenario defies logic. Why is the government spending billions of taxpayer dollars on arms which are of no use when there is no war; and of little consequence when there is a war involving the major powers? While the government buys expensive weapons to play war games, it leaves the care of poor children to charities? A real war breaking out among nuclear weaponised countries remains a hypothetical (it can only happen when countries which have a history of fighting wars on other peoples’ land provoke it) while the needs of poor children are real and immediate.

    To be able to afford sophisticated weapons, purportedly to defend ourselves, we have to be wealthy. How are we able to keep our economy healthy if we compromise our trade with our biggest trading partner by identifying it as our hypothetical enemy in a hypothetical war in the near or far future? Do we pay for more expensive weapons at the cost of creating more poor children? All that talk of defending our national integrity and values smacks of snake oil salesmanship.

    Sincerely,
    Teow Loon Ti