Publication: The Citizen Issued: Date: 2007-11-21 Reporter:

R6 Billion Spent After Informal Chat : Feinstein

 

Publication 

The Citizen
Date

2007-11-21

Web Link

www.citizen.co.za

 

One of the more sensational claims made by former ANC MP Andrew Feinstein in his new book is that the decision to buy BAe Hawks was literally taken over an afternoon chat, with no proper evaluation of the product.

The ANC Today online report on the party's website slams Feinstein's claim that the decision to buy the Hawk trainer, costing nearly R6 billion, was taken at an informal - and thus not legally constituted - meeting attended by Mbeki - then Mandela's Deputy President, the late Defence Minister Joe Modise and Chippy Shaik.

Consequently, it is claimed, Mbeki left the taxpayer R6 billion poorer after this "informal meeting".

The claim by Feinstein, who was chairman (sic) *1 of the Standing Committee of Public Accounts (Scopa) when it was still an effective body shortly after Mbeki's accession to the presidency, was also recounted in the Guardian newspaper - and has been called a "conglomeration of lies *2 ," by the ANC.

In his exposé of irregularities within government and the ANC, After The Party, Feinstein said that after the informal meeting Mandela and his Cabinet were told the only option was the Hawk trainer - and the better and much cheaper Italian aircraft was simply ignored. Mbeki failed to inform the Cabinet that the air force actually wanted the much cheaper Italian MB339.

Until last week the ANC had defended the purchase of the Hawk by claiming BAe had offered to invest in SA should they win the contract, and that, as a result of a formal tender process, BAe had won the contract.

Claims that BAe had the only product that could be used to train fighter pilots for the new Gripen are new *3, and come after it has been widely reported that thousands of jobs promised by the arms deal have not materialised.

The Citizen has been shown a set of minutes of the informal meeting, which is described as a "special briefing", and marked "Secret". A mysterious second set of minutes also exist.

The two sets of minutes contradict each other - one set says both the Hawk (option B) and the Italian trainer (Option A) should both be probed further.

The other set of minutes states it was decided that Option B - the Hawk - should be recommended.

This set of minutes is signed by Chippy Shaik, brother of fraud and corruption convict Schabir Shaik.

Pierre Steyn, Secretary of Defence, does not seem to have been impressed and wrote a letter charging one set of minutes were a hoax.

In this letter, which bears a stamp showing it to be in possession of the Investigating Directorate, Serious Economic Offences, Steyn questions the "completeness and accuracy" of the second set, the one signed by Shaik.

Steyn says no decision was made at this meeting - despite what the minutes claim.

Feinstein said he had noted the ANC attack on his claim, and had asked for an opportunity to respond. He told The Citizen he had not had a response to this request. "To be honest with you I'm not really expecting a response."

Neither Feinstein nor The Citizen have been able to establish who wrote the postscript to Mbeki's newsletter.

With acknowledgement to The Citizen.


*1       Feistein was not chairman of SCOPA, but head of the ANC's SCOPA study group. Dr Gavin Woods of the IFP was chairman.


*2      Actually, any critical review of McGreal's article will find no "conglomeration of lies". There are a few unimportant errors of fact on which nothing turns.

The majority of McGreal's article is completely factual.

On the other hand the rebuttal is 95% a in fact a "conglomeration of lies".

This can be proven on an objective tests based on unchallenged documentary evidence.


*3      This is an important lie now being peddled by Mbeki.

First it was that the Hawks just had to be acquired to underpin the countertrade that the UK was offering via British Aerospace. Yet the JIT Report clearly finds that BAe effectively had no real countertrade to offer. Don't believe me, then refer to Para. 4.5.5.4 of the JIT Report.

But it gets worse.

Mbeki now claims that the Hawks had to be acquired to train the Gripen pilots.

Yet the Gripens also were not required in 1997 when the acquisition was initiated.

Why not?

Because the SAAF had in that same year taken 49 effectively new Cheetah C fighters in service and they had an initial planned lifespan of 15 years (2012) or 20 years with a comparatively inexpensive pre-planned life extension (2017).

Objectively the contention that a new fighter jet was not required in 1997 has to be true because the first Gripen has yet to be delivered and these will only be delivered between 2008 and 2015.

This is not because the Gripen cannot be delivered sooner, it certainly could. The Swedish Air Force has decided it has far too many Gripens. So the Swedish Air Force could sell barely used or unused Gripens right out of inventory or Saab could deliver directly off the production line (which both the Swedish government and Saab desperately would like to keep going.

Typically any current fighter jet could be delivered within 3 years of firm order and say 5 years from the onset of the acquisition process.

So even if the SAAF wanted to retire its Cheetah Cs in 2012, the acquisition process need only commence in 2007, that is 10 years after Modise and Mbeki forced the SAAF to accept the BAe/Saab package deal.

But there would be absolutely no reason not to give the Cheetah Cs either a 5 year or even a 10 year life extension.

They are quite capable enough and there absolutely no current or envisaged threat south of the Sahara. There don't seem to be any Cheetah Cs crashing into the ground. The reasons for this are that :
The latter two points in themselves would probably support a service extension for 5 years without any technical modifications or major overhaul.

In any case, a question that begs a coherent answer is why the Brazilian government would want to purchase our Cheetah Cs if they had no useful service life?

So the upshot of all this is that the Gripens were not required and therefore neither were the Hawks.

A new lead-in fighter trainer was definitely required sooner rather than later because the Impalas had reached the end of their service life and numerous crashes with pilot deaths has occurred.

But that is why the SAAF wanted the MB339FD - it's on the record and no one can credibly refute that.

So why did Mbeki and Modise want the BAe deal at all costs i.e. the non-costed option)?

It is clearly because BAe had offered decision-making politicians and political parties R1,3 billion worth of incentive to purchase its products.

The lame old argument offered by Arms Deal apologists that the SA government acquired the Hawk because of strategic trade relations between the UK and the RSA have finally been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever to be a lie.

Heads must roll.