Until now a secret, SA’s classification of potential=20 arms-buying countries reveals 30 blacklisted countries,=20 reports Stefaans Brummer
NIGERIA, Libya, Sudan, Iraq, Yemen … These are some=20 of the 30-odd countries blacklisted by South Africa’s=20 new human rights-leaning classification of arms client=20 countries. The secret list is published by the Mail Guardian today.
The classification is a substantial review of earlier=20 versions and appears designed to clear South Africa’s=20 reputation as an international arms-dealing skunk. The=20 change from an apartheid-era version revealed by the=20 M&G last December — and in Armscor’s attitude to=20 publication of the leaked document — is marked.
When we published the first list, Armscor’s initial=20 reaction was to consider interdicting the M&G. But this=20 week, confronted with news that the latest version had=20 been leaked, an Armscor spokesman’s only reaction was=20 that publishing it “may contribute to debate”.
Armscor, it can be argued, has come a long way in a=20 year of gruelling public exposure by the Cameron=20 Commission, and some soul-searching of its own.
But its ready acceptance of the publication of a=20 document that is supposed to be secret — the=20 “diplomatically embarrassing” classification of which=20 countries may and which may not receive South African=20 arms — also reflects that this time, in human rights=20 terms, there is much less to hide.
The M&G first published the 1989 version of Log 17=20 Pamphlet 19 as it was known, last December, in spite of=20 desperate attempts by Armscor and the National Defence=20 Force to keep it under wraps. When Defence Minister Joe=20 Modise heard of the impending publication, he wanted to=20 interdict the paper on Armscor’s behalf, but was=20 persuaded not to.
Modise’s decision not to act meant a later=20 comprehensive version, compiled in 1993, could be=20 released by the Cameron Commission in its investigation=20 into Armscor abuses. While that list reflected greater=20 sensitivity to human rights than the 1989 one, it still=20 had no problems in principle with arms to countries=20 like Sri Lanka, Burundi, Nigeria and Morocco, all=20 embroiled in internal conflict, and to the Christian=20 Militia in strife-torn Lebanon.
In the latest classification published today, apart=20 from the complete ban on 31 countries where instability=20 or human rights abuse means arms may be put to=20 illegitimate use, another nine countries may now=20 receive only “non-lethal” equipment. Lighter=20 restrictions have also been placed on 15 more=20
Some signs of confusion remain over where democratic=20 South Africa’s foreign policy interests lie, yet the=20 new classification contrasts sharply with control=20 arrangements in the final years of apartheid, when a=20 motley assortment of dictators, aggressors and civil=20 warriors were welcome to “buy South African”.
Judge Edwin Cameron recommended in his interim report=20 this month that country criteria be “thoroughly=20 overhauled”; that the criteria “should be based, above=20 all, on South Africa’s commitment to democracy, human=20 rights and international peace and security”; and that=20 they prevent “the export of arms to repressive and=20 authoritarian regimes”.
That overhaul, it appears from the new classification,=20 is already well under way. While the latest=20 classification, a Department of Foreign Affairs rework=20 of the earlier Log 17, has no final status, it is=20 already in use pending Cabinet’s finalisation of an=20 arms industry control regime. In “borderline” cases,=20 Modise is consulted by Armscor, the agency statutorily=20 charged with regulating exports, otherwise the document=20
The new classification was proposed to Cabinet at the=20 end of last year. Apart from reservations about the=20 list’s green light for trade with Turkey, Sri Lanka and=20 Indonesia — all three embroiled in armed internal=20 resistance campaigns — consensus was reached that the=20 rest could be implemented in the interim. The three=20 countries remained “on hold”.
In March, Cabinet appointed a committee of ministers=20 and deputy ministers, including the ANC’s Modise,=20 Ronnie Kasrils, Mac Maharaj, Kader Asmal and Aziz=20 Pahad, the National Party’s Chris Fismer and the=20 Inkatha Freedom Party’s Joe Matthews, to develop a new=20 policy for the defence industry. A final classification=20 of countries, and criteria for classification, will=20 have to wait until the committee completes its work,=20 which may take months still.
But an indication of the direction Cabinet is taking is=20 the recent example of its pro-human rights stance on=20 weapons to Turkey. When the industry increased pressure=20 for the final approval of export contracts with Turkey=20 for bombs and ammunition worth tens of millions of=20 rands, the decision was taken to put Turkey in Category=20 IV — no sales at all.
Companies like Denel, South Africa’s main weapons=20 manufacturing group, complained bitterly of money lost=20 and a figure of R2,1-billion was bandied. It is=20 understood, however, that that figure was based on a=20 potential contract for the G-5 long-range artillery=20 system, not on an actual contract that had to be=20
But where Denel may have a point is that millions had=20 been spent promoting the G-5 in Turkey. Had there been=20 certainty at the time about Turkey’s classification,=20 there would have been no loss. Said Jakkie Celliers of=20 the Institute for Defence Policy: “The lack of clarity=20 and finality, and the related uncertainty, are doing=20 the industry great harm … We are destroying it by=20
Dr Martin Navias of the King’s College Department of=20 War Studies in London, an expert on the South African=20 defence industry, this week said it appeared “the issue=20 of human rights is high on the agenda. (The new=20 classification) is very strict, stricter than that of=20 the the United Kingdom.”
He said it was clear Western concerns — and American=20 demands — had been addressed and that Armscor was=20 “reining in its actions”.
Armscor spokesman Krish Naidoo commented: “All parties=20 are working towards a more responsible arms export=20 policy. In keeping with the spirit of consultation,=20 democracy and transparency, at some stage the public=20 should have the opportunity to have an input into this=20 process. Now that you do have the document, its=20 publication may contribute to the debate.”
Aspects of the new classification include:
* American concerns were clearly an important factor=20 in the complete ban on arms exports to Iran, Libya,=20 Syria, Iraq, Sudan and Cuba. The Foreign Affairs=20 recommendations made it clear South African-American=20 relations could suffer if arms were exported to them.=20 The bans go against South African diplomatic=20 rapprochement with Cuba and Iran since the elections.
* There is a new openness towards stable African=20 countries compared to the 1993 list. Botswana,=20 Mauritania, the Seychelles and Zimbabwe, all partly or=20 completely restricted in 1993, are now unrestricted.
* In spite of South Africa’s new diplomatic emphasis=20 on Africa, countries on the continent tinged by war,=20 insurrection or human rights abuse are blacklisted. The=20 Angolan government, in spite of its good historic=20 relations with the ANC, may receive only non-lethal=20 equipment; Lesotho is barred completely “due to the=20 fact that the government of Lesotho has no control over=20 the Royal Lesotho Defence Force”; and Mozambique,=20 another ANC ally, can get only non-lethal weaponry=20 because of uncertainty about stability.
Nigeria, formerly approved for South African sales but=20 still a military dictatorship, is banned completely, in=20 spite of South Africa’s “constructive” policy towards a=20 settlement in that country; Gambia gets a complete ban=20 because of its military coup last July; and Burundi and=20 Rwanda, still ethnically explosive, are also completely=20 off-limits to South African exporters. Kenya gets=20 limited restriction status because “there is no press=20 freedom and ongoing ethnic suppression”.
* Both Morocco and the Saharaoui Arab Democratic=20 Republic, opponents in the fight for Western Sahara,=20 are classified with no restrictions — but pending a=20 successful outcome to the referendum on the future of=20 the contested land. It appears to be an imaginative=20 solution, where South Africa wants to offend neither=20 human rights sentiments, nor Morocco, which the old=20 government had good relations with and the new one has=20 been careful not to alienate, nor the Saharaoui, who=20 have historical ties with the ANC.
* In the Middle East, restrictions are imposed neither=20 on Israel nor on many Arab states. It seems to reflect=20 a search for new markets, while the old are not=20 alienated. It may be asked whether good foreign policy=20 does not demand a choice between potential enemies. The=20 same can be asked about India and Pakistan — both of=20 which are classified with the same Category II level of=20 restriction — in the light of the ongoing Kashmir=20 dispute between the two countries. The government is=20 clearly not ready to alienate either.
* In South and Central America, only Cuba and Haiti=20 are completely restricted. All other countries in the=20 region, including formerly banned Nicaragua, have no=20 restrictions at all. The little interest the policy=20 makers seem to have accorded this part of the world may=20 relate to the low level of arms trade between it and=20 South Africa
NOTE: The Mail & Guardian has published the full text=20 of SA’s classification of client countries for arms=20 sales on the Internet. It can be found at our World=20 Wide Web site: http://www.is.co.za/services/wmail/
The arms sales list
CATEGORY I (no restrictions):
Namibia, Botswana, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi,=20 Tanzania, Mauritius, Seychelles, Benin, Cape Verde,=20 Senegal, Togo, C=99te d’Ivoire, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau,=20 Ghana, Burkina Faso, Gabon, Eritrea, Bahrain, Egypt,=20 Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Mauritania , Morocco and the=20 Saharaoui Arab Democratic Republic (but all sales on=20 hold pending peace referendum in Western Sahara), Oman,=20 Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates,=20 Australia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia,=20 Peoples’ Republic of China, Fiji, Hong Kong, Indonesia=20 (but since put on hold), Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Macau,=20 Mongolia, Nepal, New Zealand, Pacific Ocean Islands,=20 Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea,=20 Sri Lanka (but since put on hold), Republic of China,=20 Thailand, Vietnam, United States of America, Canada,=20 Venezuela, Guyana, Surinam, French Guyana, Brazil,=20 Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Peru,=20 Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua ,=20 Honduras, El Salvador, Bahamas, Bermuda, Belize,=20 Bolivia, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Mexico,=20 Grenada, Puerto Rico, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica,=20 Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Finland,=20 Denmark, Iceland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Belgium,=20 Netherlands, Luxemburg, United Kingdom, Vatican, San=20 Marino, Malta, Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus,=20 Greece, Andorra, , Albania, Hungary, Turkey (since=20 changed to IV), Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Poland, Czech=20 Republic, Slovakia, Russian Federation, Belarus.
CATEGORY II (some restrictions):
Comores, Madagascar, Mali, Cameroon, Congo, Sao Tome=20 and Principe, Chad, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda,=20 Palestinian National Authority, India, Pakistan,=20 Bulgaria, Romania,=20
CATEGORY III, (non lethal equipment only):
Angola, Mozambique, Equatorial Guinea, Niger, Zaire,=20 Djibouti, Algeria, Lebanon, Moldova
CATEGORY IV, (no sales):
Lesotho, Liberia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Gambia,=20 Burundi, Rwanda, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanese=20 Christian Militia, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Yemen,=20 Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), North Korea, Cuba, Haiti,=20 Tadjikistan, Kirghistan, Uzbekistan, Croatia, Slovenia,=20 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,=20 Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkmenistan