deal
Stefaans Br?mmer
CAMERON commissioner Laurie Nathan this week joined the chorus of concern over South Africa’s decision to sell arms to Rwanda, saying the government had not complied with its own criteria on exports to sensitive areas.
Water Affairs and Forestry Minister Kader Asmal, who heads the Cabinet committee responsible for arms control, countered that it had done careful checks over three months before reaching its decision last week, and that the committee was satisfied South African arms would not fall into the wrong hands.
Nathan, a member of the government-appointed commission which recommended a new arms control policy last year, said: “I accept the request for arms from the Rwandan government poses a dilemma; it is not a clear-cut case … We are talking about a government that represents a community which was subject to the most severe act of genocide since World War II.”
The Rwandan government, dominated by minority Tutsis, came to power two years ago when the rebel Rwanda Patriotic Front ousted the majority Hutu-led government blamed for the genocide of up to a million Tutsis.
While the present government was not popularly elected – and may be unlikely to win elections if its support remains mostly Tutsi-based – it has strong international support after its role in ending the genocide. But it has been accused of committing atrocities in turn. Amnesty International has cited numerous incidents in which government troops have allegedly committed serious human rights abuses, including massacres.
The Rwandan army, also dominated by minority Tutsis, is battling insurgency attempts by Hutu forces now based mostly in neighouring Zaire, while another neighbour, Burundi, is wracked by ethnic bloodletting between the Tutsi-led military government – which seized power in an internationally condemned coup earlier this year – and Hutu guerrillas.
Asmal’s National Conventional Arms Control Committee(NCACC) last year spelt out criteria for deciding on sensitive arms sales, which include respect for human rights, the security situation in the recipient country and surrounding region, the possible escalation of regional conflict, and whether weapons may be diverted or re-exported from the recipient country.
Nathan said “certain of these criteria had not been complied with”. His greatest concern was that, especially if the consignment included small arms, “the Rwandan armed forces would not be able to ensure it stays in their possession.”
He said the second Cameron report last year recommended consultation on arms exports with Parliament’s foreign affairs and defence committees, and that arms-control policy be laid down in legislation (neither of which was implemented).
Asmal said the NCACC had received assurances from the Rwandan government that it would respect sanctions against the Burundi government. It had been “independently” verified that there was a “fundamental difference” between the “legitimate” Tutsi- led government of Rwanda and its Tutsi counterpart in Burundi.
“Most importantly, we established that Rwanda has embarked on a process of reconciliation … The fundamental reason we gave the permit is that they are entitled to defend themselves.”