On 2 February 2002 the Courier-Mail in Queensland, Australia published a
highly inaccurate and inflammatory report that Sandline had
improperly exported ammunition links without proper consents along with two
civilian helicopters which had been stored at RAAF Tindal. Sandline's
lawyers complained strongly to the newspaper and they agreed to publish a
correction to the story in the form of what was termed 'an extended
clarification'. Although this further report, written by the same
journalist and published on 7 March, corrected the original story it did so
in a manner which itself was deliberately misleading and disingenuous. The
following is the text of the clarification as published and also a letter
sent subsequently to the paper setting out Sandline's position.
7 March 2002, Mercenary ammo clips remain in Australian custody
Sean Parnell, national political reporter
Fifty thousand ammunition clips owned by the international mercenary force
Sandline remain in Australian custody, despite fears that they could have
been exported to west Africa inside two Mi-8 helicopters.
Sandline removed two Mi-8 helicopters from the Tindal RAAF base near Darwin
in 1999 after obtaining a 'civilian' classification for the cargo.
Sandline's arsenal – including two Mi-24 combat helicopters, the Mi-8s,
ammunition and assorted supplies – had been diverted to Tindal after the
mercenaries' planned Bougainville campaign was aborted by the Papua New
Guinea Government in 1997.
But Prime Minister John Howard and senior ministers only learned of the
sensitive export a month after it left the Port of Brisbane, as the Defence
Department's International Policy Division had lost involvement with the
case.
The IPD was first told of the export on October 28, 1999 three weeks after
it left Brisbane – in an e-mail from a senior RAAF officer.
The officer also said the clips – used to connect rounds of 12.7mm
ammunition for continuous fire – were removed from Sandline's ammunition
stockpile and 'went with the Mi-8s'.
The ammunition stockpile was later destroyed.
The Courier-Mail last month unsuccessfully sought to determine the fate of
the clips from government documents obtained under Freedom of Information
laws, and other sources.
At the time, Sandline denied the clips had been exported, however Defence
Minister Robert Hill refused to say if Customs regulations had been broken
and Sandline's Australian export agents were unable to verify the
whereabouts of the clips.
But after subsequent approaches from the agents, Customs official Jeff
Buckpitt has confirmed, in a letter dated February 22, that the clips remain
in storage at Tindal.
Sandline said it remained committed to following Australian export
regulations which cover the remaining items at Tindal.
8 March 2002, Letter from Sandline to Greg Chamberlin of the Courier-Mail
Dear Mr Chamberlin
Sandline notes the publication of your so-called 'extended clarification' in
yesterday's newspaper, despite a request from our lawyers following its
non-publication on Wednesday that it appears in your Saturday edition (as
did the original piece) and also that we have the opportunity to review a
draft beforehand. We have also been provided with a copy of your letter to
Michael Klug of 7 March.
What you termed an 'extended clarification' is clearly nothing other than a
further 'news' story on the subject in which the author has again employed
inaccurate words and phrasing in an attempt to further perpetuate deliberate
disinformation. It is extraordinary that it is not until one reads the
penultimate paragraph of an 11 paragraph story that it specifically refers
to the official confirmation we obtained and passed to you that the
ammunition links remain in Australia.
The headline and the opening paragraph of the article state that the links
'remain in Australian custody'. This is an outrageous choice of words. As
you well know, the items are not and never have been 'in custody'. They are
in storage, a term only used in the article's penultimate paragraph.
Custody implies detention or seizure and this is not the case – Sandline
voluntarily accepted the Australian Government's offer to store the items.
The use of the term 'custody' is, as ever with Mr Parnell's writing on the
subject, intended to sensationalise and distort, evidently with the paper's
editorial blessing. Once again, a correction and apology is called for.
The alleged 'fears' Mr Parnell reports that the links had been exported are,
if such fears exist, solely of the Courier-Mail's making as a result of the
original inaccurate report. Indeed, Mr Parnell gives no information as to
who supposedly holds these 'fears'. This is yet another example of a
deliberate misrepresentation of the facts in order to present a
sensationalised picture.
The repetition of that part of the original article which deals with when
senior government personnel learned of the export of the Mi-8 helicopters
and how they were informed adds nothing to a 'clarification' and is a thinly
disguised attempt to perpetuate the mischief created by the original report.
In the February article Mr Parnell states 'the two export agents involved
with Sandline at the time were unable to comment yesterday' and now he says
'Sandline's export agents were also unable to verify the whereabouts of the
clips'. Being unable to comment is not the same as being unable to verify
the location another example of manipulating the facts. In fact, our only
agents in Australia have confirmed to us that the whereabouts of the links
were never even discussed with them!
Nowhere does the article openly (and honestly) acknowledge that the original
2 February report had been inaccurate and would have misled your readers.
At the time of sending this email, even your written assurance of 5 March
that the 'clarification' would be appended to the electronic record of the
original article has not been kept. In order to present a factual record it
would be reasonable that the text of this email is appended alongside the
'clarification'.
The only redeeming piece in the whole article is relegated to the last
paragraph in which Mr Parnell reports that 'Sandline said it was committed
to following Australian export regulations'.
Yours
Michael Grunberg
for Sandline International