The Australian Battle Memorial is pursuing a brand new sponsorship deal from arms producer Lockheed Martin regardless of being inundated with letters from veterans, historians and retired employees saying such preparations are “degrading to the reminiscence of our warfare lifeless”.
Greater than 300 Australians wrote to the memorial urging it to not renew its deal with Lockheed Martin, as a result of firm’s involvement in nuclear weapons and surging share value following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The deal expired earlier this month. Those that have complained have claimed corporations that revenue from battle ought to have “no place” in what must be a solemn memorial to the nation’s warfare lifeless.
The AWM confirmed to the Guardian that the present sponsorship deal, which funded a podcast on veterans’ experiences, had concluded. However director Matt Anderson mentioned the memorial was presently engaged in “ongoing discussions with Lockheed Martin Australia about future alternatives”.
“The Memorial will proceed to debate choices for additional assist,” Anderson mentioned.
The place has infuriated critics, who say the memorial has ignored the pleas of tons of of Australians who voiced their opposition by means of a marketing campaign organised by the Medical Affiliation for Prevention of Battle (MAPW).
Greater than 300 individuals wrote to the AWM director and council, citing Lockheed’s involvement within the manufacturing of nuclear weapons, and its sale of arms to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, amongst different issues.
Lots of the letter-writers had been veterans, or households of veterans, and added their very own messages of non-public opposition.
Dr Sue Wareham, the affiliation’s president, mentioned the memorial responded to the letters with a standardised reply, which averted the important thing problems with Lockheed Martin’s controversial historical past and its enterprise mannequin, which is predicated on an “absolute want for wars and instability with a view to survive”.
“The AWM has nearly ignored each argument and private plea that tons of of Australians have raised with them in opposition to their coverage of accepting weapons firm funding,” she mentioned.
In response to the affiliation’s criticism, the AWM mentioned: “The Australian Battle Memorial values the assist of company companions. The extra funding obtained by means of company sponsorship and donations has assisted the Memorial to develop exhibitions and applications that might not in any other case have been delivered with out third occasion funding assist.”
Polling commissioned by MAPW and performed by Ipsos urged opposition to such offers was broadly held.
The polling requested respondents whether or not they agreed with the assertion that “the warfare memorial shouldn't settle for cash from corporations that revenue from the sale of weapons”.
Greater than half (59%) of the nationally consultant pattern both agreed or strongly agreed.
Electronic mail: join our day by day morning briefing e-newsletter App: obtain the free app and by no means miss the largest tales, or get our weekend version for a curated collection of the week's greatest tales Social: comply with us on YouTube, Fb, Instagram, Twitter or TikTok Podcast: take heed to our day by day episodes on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or search "Full Story" in your favorite appFast Information
The right way to get the newest information from Guardian Australia
Present
Lockheed Martin’s share value had elevated through the latest Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the Afghanistan warfare was additionally extremely profitable for the corporate, which manufactured the Black Hawk helicopters used extensively through the battle.
The AWM has additionally accepted funding from different arms producers, together with Boeing, Thales and BAE.
The strategy has been criticised by former leaders of the memorial, together with the previous director Brendon Kelson, who died final month, and long-serving principal historian Prof Peter Stanley.
Post a Comment