Arms transparency can backfire

Arms transactions are shrouded in corruption and secrecy and there is no way of having a clean trade in military weaponry. That is the assumption made just about everywhere in the world.

The 13-year-long wrangle over South Africa’s strategic weapons package, known simply as the arms deal, is an example of the suspicions surrounding weapons transfers. A judicial commission of inquiry is still trying to separate fact from fiction and decide exactly what has happened.

Against this backdrop, South Africa has moved, with an amendment to the National Conventional Arms Control Act, to make its arms control regime more transparent. This involves more detailed reporting to Parliament on weapons transfers. International law requires reports to the United Nations, and domestic law requires reports to Parliament.

Originally, the act simply required that arms exports be reported in broad categories:

Category A: Sensitive major significant equipment (SMSE)

This category comprises conventional implements of war such as explosives, large calibre arms and automatic weapons, guns and missiles, bombs and grenades, tanks, fighter aircraft, attack helicopters and naval vessels that could cause severe casualties and/or major damage and destruction.

Category B: Sensitive significant equipment (SSE)

This category comprises all types of infantry hand-held and portable assault weapons and associated ammunition of a calibre smaller than 12.7mm.

Category C: Nonsensitive equipment (NSE)

This is a general category and comprises all support equipment usually employed in the direct support of combat systems or operations, but that has no inherent capability to kill or to destroy. Included are all forms of electronic equipment, radio and communication equipment; systems such as flight control, tactical observation, propulsion, missile tracking and guidance, weapon-firing sights; transport equipment for logistical support and various other miscellaneous equipment.

Category D: Nonlethal equipment (NLE)

This category is limited to purposely designed demining, mine clearing and mine detection equipment, and all nonlethal pyrotechnical and riot control products.

Category G: General services

This includes all purposely built manufacturing equipment, plants, facilities and test ranges and all services of whatever nature or form to any institution of a foreign country that has a relevance to rendering aid, advice, or assistance or training in relation to armaments as defined above.

Previously, the annual reports have simply recorded that category A weapons were sold to country X, with no indication of what the weapons were. They could have been anything from a battleship to a machine gun.

The act now lists battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, heavy weapons (such as cannons), light weapons, bombs and rockets, ammunition, fire control and warning equipment and electronic equipment (range-finders and lasers). These have all been included in the latest annual report.

The chairman of the National Conventional Arms Control Committee, former justice minister Jeff Radebe, says that the new, enhanced reporting requirements have been complied with in this latest report. The quantity sold, to whom and the rand value, also has to be reported.

Last year, contracts to the value of R79bn were authorised by the committee and export permits to the value of R3.1bn also got the nod, says Mr Radebe. The vast majority of exports have been armoured combat vehicles such as the Casspir and Mamba. No combat aircraft, attack helicopters or warships have been exported. The bulk of the rest is made up of ammunition, grenades, mortar bombs and electronic equipment.

Local defence expert Helmoed-Romer Heitman has mixed feelings about the new reporting standards. On the one hand, they are "wonderful" because they make it easier to understand the industry and also create a better understanding of South Africa’s foreign policy — "because all weapons sales are an expression of foreign policy".

"But making it a legal requirement will hurt the industry in the long term. This is because some potential customers might not want others to know what weapons they are acquiring or when. We may be shooting ourselves in the foot," Mr Heitman says.

Only the US has similar detailed reporting, while most other arms exporters do not.

He notes that exports of weapons, such as mine-protected vehicles, have been substantially reduced in recent years. However, he also notes that in South Africa, fewer and fewer new products are emerging because there is little or no investment in research and development.

Mr Heitman says that potential customers do not want to buy products that have not been properly developed and have not been put into service.

Democratic Alliance defence spokesman in the previous Parliament, David Maynier, differs: "The National Conventional Arms Control Committee’s enhanced annual and quarterly reports are a big boost for levels of transparency and accountability in the defence industry.

"However, I suspect the defence industry has the new reporting format in its cross-hairs. I would not be surprised therefore if amending legislation is introduced to reduce the levels of transparency and accountability in the defence industry."

Some potential customers might not want others to know what they are acquiring.