Developed military forces a must if SA is to take lead in enforcing regional stability

If government hoped that the report of the probe into the arms deal would bring an end to the sordid saga of corruption allegations and racism counterallegations, they would by now have realised that they had been greatly mistaken.

In fact, the report seems to have spurred political parties and civil society associations to even greater opposition, with judicial processes now being undertaken to test the constitutionality of the deal itself.

In this mess of allegations and counter allegations, two issues seem to be continually confused. The first: was the arms deal necessary? The second: was the process mired in corruption, and what is government's culpability in this?

On the process issue, the threeagency investigative report clearly exonerates government from corruption claims. But it also states there was, to put it mildly, dubious behaviour by many individuals and by some cabinet ministers.

It is of course unfortunate some opposition parties described the report as a whitewash. Unfortunate, but no surprise. Government's behaviour with setting up the probe, and in particular its refusal to consider including the Heath investigating unit as a member of the probe, almost guaranteed that outcome.

President Thabo Mbeki's receipt of the report a few days before its tabling in Parliament further reinforced opposition misgivings about the entire investigation. And, the almost wearisome response of Justice Minister Penuell Maduna that this is a racial conspiracy does government no service.

In fact, it raises eyebrows even further , for it is often the guilty who resort to the race card when their behaviour is subject to scrutiny and criticism. Government would do itself a favour if it stopped labelling critics, and simply went out of its way to be transparent. It should deal firmly with those public servants and politicians who are found to have been involved in unscrupulous behaviour.

But what of the first issue: is the arms deal necessary? Government ministers, including Mosiuoa Lekota, Trevor Manuel, and Alec Erwin have not yet provided a coherent case for it in public. Instead, they waxed lyrical on industrial participation projects, and how many jobs can be created from them.

And this is precisely where they have been challenged. The result is the debate on the arms deal has focused on the size and worth of the industrial participation projects.

But this does not make the case for spending billions on the military. Neither does the argument that the deal emanates from a defence review tabled in and accepted by all political parties in Parliament.

Both of these issues, while important, should not be at the core of government's public engagement on the arms question. What should be, is a coherent case for why the defence force should be highly trained and adequately equipped.

And on this, government has been silent, especially in public engagements. This is all the more the pity since there is a real case to be made for developing and equipping the military. Critics, including individuals and organisations now trying to declare the arms deal unconstitutional, often wrongly assume the development of the SA National Defence Force (SANDF) is solely to defend our territorial borders.

In this view the arms deal is a simple waste of public resources, as we no longer have any enemies. Yet such complacency should be guarded against. Things can change very quickly in international relations.

However, even if we do give the critics the benefit of the doubt, there is still a need to develop the military. Peace enforcement requires a strong military as much as territorial defence does. And the former is likely to be an overriding need in the region in the future.

It has often been said economic development and the consolidation of democracy in SA is dependent on the realisation of stability in the southern Africa region. Government and Mbeki of course recognise this and have spent an enormous amount of energy putting together the African Union and the New Partnership for Africa's Development.

All these plans will, however, come to naught unless there is a regional power with the political will and institutional and military capacity to lead the charge for political stability. SA will increasingly have to be this power. It will have to behave as a hegemon, intervene more forcefully in the region and fashion both a regional stability and a collective security for all.

Let me be clear, lest I be misunderstood. I am not recommending that SA simply involve itself in military interventions. It needs to be noted such hegemonic intervention need not only entail military engagement. Indeed, hegemons often use a variety of mechanisms from military engagements to diplomatic, economic and political penalties and/or rewards to influence the behaviour of other states and thereby advance their own interests.

SA could sway the behaviour of its neighbours through political and diplomatic mechanisms like regional alliances, peace keeping operations, trade concessions, economic sanctions and aid and get them to act in ways that promote stability in the region.

And, as a result, SA would be the prime mover and architect of peace and security in the region.

The arms deal needs to be understood in this context. Development of the military and its modernisation is one prerequisite for taking this regional responsibility.

Whether the package of armaments is suitable for the task at hand is, I suppose, open for debate.

Critics, however, have fundamentally questioned the raison d'≖tre of modernising and developing the SANDF. They have often made a simplistic equation between poverty relief and arms spending as if the two need necessarily be mutually exclusive.

In the real world of southern Africa, though, poverty relief is dependent on arms spending for the latter will create the regional conditions to enable the former. We need to guard against a blind idealism that could hobble our capacity to meet our regional responsibilities, and thereby our economic, developmental and political priorities.

Habib is Director of the Centre for Civil Society, a Professor in the School of Development Studies, University of Natal, and a Research Director at the Human Sciences Research Council.

With acknowledgement to Adam Habib and Business Day.