|
In November 1998, Cabinet announced its
preferred suppliers for the procurement of defence equipment for
the SANDF.
The arms deal has provoked acrimonious
debate in the media and in the corridors of power. The arguments
initially centered on whether the country needed such equipment
or not. There were grave doubts about the decision to allocate
enormous amounts of money to purchase equipment the country is
not likely to need, while social welfare projects are sorely
underfunded.
In recent months the dispute has focused
on the lack of transparency, the method of procurement, and
allegations of corruption. Members of the opposition in
parliament have accused certain individuals in government of
enriching themselves at taxpayers expense; of purchasing
unneccessary equipment and of trying to quash investigations
into the deals.
Why should
South Africa buy new Arms?
The South African National Defence Force
has suffered substantial budget reductions in recent years.
These cutbacks mean that less money has been spent on replacing
older equipment with modern weaponry. The outdated and
inadequate military equipment has affected the readiness of the
SANDF to deal with the challenges of the future.
The arms deals have been off-set with
counter-trade promises to build factories in South Africa and
thus alleviate the chronic unemployment crisis in this country.
The argument against
The arguments against these purchases have
been well summed up by the Anglican
Archbishop of Cape Town, Njongonkulu Ndungane, who stresses the
need for poverty relief before weapons. He argues that the
vast sums of money destined for arms manufacturers should rather
be spent on social services.
Critics also
point out that since there is no credible threat against South
African sovereignty, there is no need to spend billions on its
defence.
|
