It worries me that Terry Crawford-Browne always mentions Armscor when it is not necessary, as in his letter, Touted offsets lure us into debt trap (August 5). The article he quotes did not mention anything about defence industrial participation (DIP). It addressed national industrial participation (NIP).

I am not sure why the German Frigate Consortium did not want to comment on progress made in Nip. They are six months ahead of schedule in meeting their DIP obligations.

Armscor's direct responsibility is to manage and monitor the DIP programme on behalf of the department of defence. The NIP programme is managed by the department of trade and industry.

The DIP programme is not Armscor's "patter", as Crawford-Browne puts it, but a major responsibility of Armscor. DIP commitments to the strategic defence packages represent about 75% of all the DIP commitments managed by Armscor.

If Crawford-Browne wants facts about the spin-offs of Dip to the local defence-related industry, he must ask for them from Armscor.

He does not want to deal with facts, but like a broken record plods over the same ground. He jumped long ago to a conclusion that offsets do not work. That makes him insensitive to new information.

With acknowledgements to Minah Sindane-Bloem and the Business Day.