Certain Conventional Weapons Convention: briefing by Department; Consideration of Agreement on Trade, Development & Cooperation

Meeting report

The Chairperson acknowledged receipt of the written absentia apologies from Mr M Manana (ANC), Mr G Koornhof (ANC) and Ms C Dudley (ACDP).

Briefing by the Department of International Relations and Co-operation (DIRCO)
Mr Leslie Gumbi, Ambassador, Department of International Relations and Co-operation briefed the Committee on the issues pertaining to the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCW).

The presentation included the background to the CCW, the significance of the CCW, South Africa’s participation in the CCW, what the amendments entailed, what had to be done and the financial implications.

The protocols of the convention of weapons that can be excessively injurious or have indiscriminate effects included non-detectable fragments of weapons, mines, booby-traps, incendiary weapons, blinding laser weapons and explosive remnants of war. Certain weapons within the CCW were classified as restricted and others as prohibited.

A total of 112 countries were party to the CCW convention framework. In terms of protocols; on non-detectable fragments, the number of states parties was 110. On mines, booby-traps and other devices the number of state parties was 94. On incendiary weapons the number of state parties was 97. On explosive remnants of war the number of state parties was 68.  To date, 74 countries had accepted the amendment to Article 1 of the framework of the CCW.
The significance of the CCW was outlined. The CCW was the only legally binding international arms control agreement that either prohibits or restricts the use of a range of diverse conventional weapons. The CCW addressed weapons deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects, which made the CCW an important instrument of international humanitarian law. The CCW attempted to regulate the transfer of specific conventional weapons, which were a non-proliferation measure as well as an arms control measure.

Mr Gumbi explained South Africa’s participation in the CCW. The instrument of accession to the CCW was deposited on the 13^th of September 1995 and South Africa became a State Party on 13 March 1996.  The major role players were the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), the Department of Defence and Military Veterans and civil society (especially in respect of landmines and Explosive Remnants of War (ERW). The late Princess Diana had done much to highlight the negative effects of landmines on the population.

The reasons for South Africa’s participation in the CCW were that the Convention contributed to creating a conductive environment for stability and prosperity, contributed to the maintenance of international peace and security and was an useful measure in limiting and alleviating the suffering caused by excessively injurious weapons.

An outline of the aims and goals of South Africa’s participation in the CCW was provided.  These aims included the promotion and protection of the interests of the country, the utilisation of CCW as a platform to advance the South African Foreign Policy objectives on disarmament and non-proliferation and arms control and the promotion of the objectives of the CCW regarding stability and post-conflict reconstruction.

The amendment entailed making the CCW applicable to conflicts of a non-international nature.  This was particularly relevant to Africa, as there had been many internal hostilities in the recent past. The addition of Protocol V (Explosive Remnants of War) mainly focused on the post-conflict remedial measures and dealt with the clearance, removal, disposal and destruction of munitions following the cessation of active hostilities; the retention and transmission of information; the protection of civilians and humanitarian missions and international co-operation and assistance.  The technical and preventative measures in the Protocol were contained in an Annexure but the implementation thereof was on a voluntary basis. The same applied to the training of military personnel, which was dealt with in a technical Annexure.

Africa was the most affected continent in terms of explosive remnants of war, i.e. landmines and unexploded cluster munitions. South Africa had consistently advocated the necessity for countries to take their international co-operation and assistance obligations seriously.  South Africa’s acceptance and approval of the amendment to Article 1 should be attained, and consent should be reached to be bound by Protocol V in order to pave the way towards ratification as envisaged in Section 231 (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Such action would constitute a significant gesture to demonstrate South Africa’s commitment to promote international peace and security, to limit and alleviate the suffering caused by war and armed conflict and to implement humanitarian and arms control policies. The recommended action would have no organisational implications to the structures or capabilities required regarding the amendment to Article 1 of the Treaty and Protocol V.  The primary goal of South Africa’s policy on disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control was to reinforce and promote South Africa as a responsible producer, possessor and trader of defence related products and advanced technologies in the nuclear, biological, chemical and missile fields, in line with the decision taken by Cabinet in August 1994.

The recommended action had no financial implications, other than the servicing of the meetings of States Parties in Geneva, Switzerland.  South Africa attended the meetings as an observer.  The annual cost for conference services and documentation was approximately US$ 1 000, which was borne by DIRCO.

Discussion
Mr Ebrahim Ebrahim, Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, asked what the differences were between restricted weapons and prohibited weapons and why those distinctions were necessary.

Mr Gumbi answered that in most instances, states hid their interests behind the description of weapons.  Prohibited weapons were weapons that were not allowed to be used indefinitely.  Restricted weapons were allowed to be in use but certain conditions were applicable, such as the need to apply for permission.

Mr T Magama (ANC) wanted to know who controlled prohibited weapons and who were allowed to use weapons of that nature.

Mr Gumbi replied that the CCW was the only body created for the purpose of dealing with the question of prohibited versus restricted weapons. Much still needed to be done in terms of developing the framework and the effectiveness of the convention.

Mr S Ngonyama (COPE) asked for clarity in terms of incendiary weapons and post conflict remedial measures. He asked what was done about rebels who continued to hide excessively explosive weapons and who were not willing to cooperate in times of peace. He asked wanted to know if there was a body that could force the rebels to disclose information on the whereabouts of weapons.

Mr Gumbi answered that it used to be common practice to plough in an area where there were undetectable weapons such as landmines. The post-war remedial stage was reached by consensus between the warring parties with the aim to abandon the attacks and rebuild the disputed territories. The parties involved were bound by the agreement to provide information on where undetectable weapons were placed.  He was unable to reply to the question concerning incendiary weapons but explained that the term referred to combustible weapons.

Mr K Mubu (DA) acknowledged that most of the intra-national conflicts had occurred on the African Continent.  He wondered why first-world countries were reluctant to participate in the CCW and accede to the Convention’s resolutions.

Mr Gumbi replied that first-world countries were involved in the CCW but South Africa was seen as the shining beacon on the African continent. South Africa needed to continue to draw attention to the interests of the continent as there was no other country to play this role.  It was not desirable that the first-world countries became too involved in Africa as it was important that the relationship between Southern Africa and the Northern African countries was maintained.  Such relationships between countries often had funding implications.

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) wanted to know what the role of the private military security companies was and where these companies featured in the equation. For example, a private security company such as ADT was considered to be a small fish but there were large paramilitary security companies whose activities bordered on the mercenary and could pose a significant challenge to the security of a country.

Mr Gumbi replied that the use of private military security companies was not necessarily a futile exercise as such organisations had previously brought about a degree of stability in certain regions. Many such organisations represented the interests of big companies. The implications of these private military companies had not yet been assessed but South Africa had initiated a discussion on the matter at the United Nations.

The Chairperson encouraged the Members to think about and engage on the issue of private military security companies.  He proposed that the Committee was briefed on the role of the private military companies.

Mr Gumbi explained that countries such as Somalia were regarded as a failed state because there were no bodies that could be consulted to address the problem of piracy. During the recent talks held in Kampala, South Africa was requested to detain and prosecute the Somali pirates and to provide facilities for their incarceration. This would be a major responsibility for South Africa.  First-world countries were willing to detain and prosecute the Taliban but he felt that it was unfair to expect South Africa to deal with the Somali pirates.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Gumbi for the presentation and requested that a draft report on security companies was compiled by the Department in collaboration with other stakeholders.

Follow up on the agreements of the Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation (TDCA)
The Chairperson did not consider that there were any problems with the Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation.  A draft report on the TDCA was awaited by the Committee. He asked Ms R Magau whether there were any matters to take in to consideration, as she had chaired the previous meeting.

Ms Magau confirmed that no problems regarding the TDCA were encountered and that the Committee needed to have sight of the draft report that would be presented to Parliament. She proposed that the Committee seeked expert advice on the agreements concerning the TDCA before the final report was presented to Parliament.

The Chairperson advised that the TDCA would be discussed further during the following meeting of the Committee.

The meeting was adjourned.