Startling revelations and powerful evidence of grand corruption implicating politicians from PW Botha to Jacob Zuma, global banks and corporations was presented at The People's Tribunal on Saturday and Sunday.
Overseen by an esteemed panel including former Constitutional Court Justice Zac Yacoob, the Tribunal has been set up by civil society groups to hear evidence on corruption, capture and economic crime over the last 40 years in South Africa.
The Tribunal has, thus far, heard evidence of covert networks of politicians, state companies and corporations involved in the systemic violation of the United Nations' weapons embargo on South Africa during apartheid.
Standing as a witness, author of "Apartheid Guns and Money" Hennie van Vuuren emphasised the importance of bringing this evidence to light is in recognising the actors that contributed to the gross violation of human rights during apartheid. Beyond the pursuit of justice, he said, the goal is also to recognise how these crimes are connected.
Apartheid's murderous military machine
At the heart of the arms machine, he said, was South African state-owned arms company Armscor which bought (and sold) weapons from abroad in contravention of a compulsory U.N. embargo on trading arms with the country.
Almost all military expenditure, which amounted to approximately 28% of the country's budget at the time or half a trillion rand in today's value, passed through the company, he said.
But to oil this military machine -- which was created in response to the "appetite for the apartheid government's involvement in conflict locally and on the continent" -- the company needed to circumvent the compulsory global sanctions. In come the French.
Die Groot Krokodil's deathly French Kiss
Realising weapons couldn't be procured from Pretoria, then-Prime Minister PW Botha ('Die Groot Krokodil') took business abroad. For some a city of love, South Africa's government made Paris, France, its city of bloodlust.
The South African embassy in Paris housed what was called the tegniese raad (technical council) from which Armscor would strike it's deals, which van Vuuren said was not known until they began researching years ago.
"This was there base... from which they'd go around Europe doing deals, in some instances liaising with partners in Africa (like Zaire)... and perhaps even China," he said.
Even leading figures in the anti-apartheid movement who tried to expose these links had no idea what was happening in Paris. Documentary evidence, van Vuuren said, showed how French intelligence would have regular meetings with Armscor officials on a regular basis in the 1970s and 1980s. That heads of intelligence from France and South Africa were meeting suggests politicians in the upper echelons of France's government were well aware of sanctions being broken, he said.
Central to this relationship, he added, was French arms company Thompson CSF -- today Thales -- which documentary evidence showed met with PW Botha's minister of defence to co-develop sophisticated missile technology for use in apartheid South Africa's warmongering locally and abroad.
Demonstrating just how far into the present dodgy relations continued, Van Vuuren highlighted that the same company, Thales, is implicated in paying bribes to now President Jacob Zuma through his financial adviser (and now convicted fraudster) Schabir Shaik.
"These are the 783 counts of corruption, fraud and money laundering [Zuma] currently faces today," he said.
The two faces of the international community
The story of the apartheid government's circumvention of sanctions, however, was more than just a French love affair with the Broederbond.
More than 50 countries were involved in sanctions-busting in one way or another, he said. Most notably, every single country on the United Nation's Security Council -- those very nations tasked with policing the sanctions that were imposed -- were all involved to some extent, he said.
Others included many countries across Europe and, notably, Israel. Armscor, he said, created offices in Tel Aviv which was "active in ensuring the relationship with Israel in the procurement and co-development of weapons could take place with a large contingent of officials based there".
Many of these nations, he said, voiced public opposition to apartheid while secretly adding fuel to the fire.
How to bankroll a bloody regime
Another key player, this time a bank, was Kredietbank in Belgium and its Luxembourg subsidiary.
Professor Bonita Meyersfeld, an academic and former director of the Centre for Applied Legal Studies at Wits, reiterated the bank's role in aiding Armscor: firstly, through creating shell companies to help erase the trail of money and, secondly, in creating access to bank accounts.
Through accounts managed by the bank, money to purchase arms could be transferred from Pretoria to the ultimate recipients without raising any alarms. More simply, by setting up fake companies and chanelling money through them, the apartheid regime was able to oil its military machine without let or hindrance.
"Countries such as Belgium, France, Portugal and others were able to utilise private entities to enter into engagements with banks that very elegantly set up these shelf companies," she said.
"There'd be hundreds of these across the world where a corporate actor in the Global North would take funds, channel them through shelf companies and money would land up in SA which then went to Armscor (and vice versa)".
"These are not just AK47s -- an image incalcated in films -- but parts of machine guns, helipcopters, parts used to maintain and facilitate this crime against humanity," she said.
Like a spy novel, though, they occurred in the back rooms of the very embassies that stood against apartheid, she said.
Why does this matter today?
In detailing the secret flow of money for arms, Meyersfeld said the purpose is to shine a light on the fact that there remains an urgent need to create a global body to regulate the conduct of banks.
"The reality is there is no international entity that can hold banks to account for their compliance or their non-compliance with standards around international banking, and more importantly for the participation in criminal activity," she said.
Despite the "accountability vacuum," one option she said was to use the OECD National Contact Point (NCP) which hears complaints from individuals who claim corporations are guilty of human rights violations. OECD countries adhering to guidelines on multinational corporations are required to setup NCPs which provide a mediation and conciliation platform for resolving issues involving those companies, she said.
While no silver bullet, this would be one currently available option for "some semblance of accountability" in relation to Kredietbank, she said. Reputation damage, she said, could ultimately result in operations closing or at the least spark efforts at reparations in the absence of a global entity with real teeth.
Insisting on the necessity of global institutions or mechanisms to ensure justice, Meyersfeld said corporations had gotten off scot-free for too long.
"They may not hold the gun to the mineworker at the mine, but they are the ones providing the funds to do this," she said.
When they do, she added, corporate social responsibility projects in response are not enough:
"Corporates can be the agent of harm and the agent of good. But you can't bomb an economy, then build a school".
Source: Marc Davies - Huffington Post
Showing posts with label Armscor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Armscor. Show all posts
Monday, February 5, 2018
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Axed Armscor CEO challenges his dismissal
Axed Armscor CEO Sipho Thomo is challenging his dismissal, the chairperson of Parliament's portfolio committee on defence said on Tuesday. Mnyamezeli Booi announced to MPs that a planned briefing by Armscor chairperson Popo Molefe on the reasons for firing Thomo had been cancelled because he was challenging the board's decision to relieve him of his duties on January 7.
Molefe was to have delivered a report from the board on Thomo's disciplinary hearing, setting out the "accusations and charges" against him, Booi said. "The CEO now is not happy, he wants to challenge that report. Thomo is going to take up the issue and go to court or appeal." He said it was not clear whether Thomo was appealing the outcome of the disciplinary hearing or had filed a law suit. "I didn't go into the detail, it was something about appealing," he said.
Neither Thomo nor Armscor could immediately be reached for clarification. DA defence spokesperson David Maynier quipped that Thomo "is doing a Maroga", a reference to the R85-million lawsuit filed by the fired CEO of Eskom. Thomo was fired after ignoring repeated calls by the Armscor board to step down, ending a stormy decade at the helm of the state's arms-procurement entity.
In a letter to Booi, Molefe said the board had pressed Thomo to settle their dispute amicably, right up to his disciplinary hearing in December, but he refused. "Before the hearing the board gave Mr Thomo several opportunities to settle amicably. In all instances he showed no keenness, insisting persistently that there was nothing wrong with his conduct and claimed that he was innocent."
Thomo survived a misconduct inquiry a few years ago but was finally sacked in the wake of his awkward disclosure to Parliament last year that the cost of South Africa's contract to buy eight Airbus A400M heavy-lift planes had sky-rocketed to an "estimated" R47-billion. The government subsequently cancelled the deal. Business Day on Tuesday reported that in addition to other charges put to Thomo at this disciplinary hearing, Molefe accused him of bypassing the board on renegotiating an industrial participation deal with European aircraft manufacturer Augusta Westland.
Opposition parties had hoped Molefe's appearance before the committee would cast light on the financial terms accompanying the termination of Thomo's contract. His pay package included a restraint of trade agreement worth one year's salary, or R1,45-million, of which 60% was paid last year. The rest was to be paid upon termination of his contract. Opposition MPs have suggested that Thomo should not be made the sole scapegoat for problems at Armscor, but Molefe told the defence committee last year that it could not resolve its woes unless he went. He said the board had come to the conclusion that "he's taking all of us down".
Source: Mail & Guardian
Molefe was to have delivered a report from the board on Thomo's disciplinary hearing, setting out the "accusations and charges" against him, Booi said. "The CEO now is not happy, he wants to challenge that report. Thomo is going to take up the issue and go to court or appeal." He said it was not clear whether Thomo was appealing the outcome of the disciplinary hearing or had filed a law suit. "I didn't go into the detail, it was something about appealing," he said.
Neither Thomo nor Armscor could immediately be reached for clarification. DA defence spokesperson David Maynier quipped that Thomo "is doing a Maroga", a reference to the R85-million lawsuit filed by the fired CEO of Eskom. Thomo was fired after ignoring repeated calls by the Armscor board to step down, ending a stormy decade at the helm of the state's arms-procurement entity.
In a letter to Booi, Molefe said the board had pressed Thomo to settle their dispute amicably, right up to his disciplinary hearing in December, but he refused. "Before the hearing the board gave Mr Thomo several opportunities to settle amicably. In all instances he showed no keenness, insisting persistently that there was nothing wrong with his conduct and claimed that he was innocent."
Thomo survived a misconduct inquiry a few years ago but was finally sacked in the wake of his awkward disclosure to Parliament last year that the cost of South Africa's contract to buy eight Airbus A400M heavy-lift planes had sky-rocketed to an "estimated" R47-billion. The government subsequently cancelled the deal. Business Day on Tuesday reported that in addition to other charges put to Thomo at this disciplinary hearing, Molefe accused him of bypassing the board on renegotiating an industrial participation deal with European aircraft manufacturer Augusta Westland.
Opposition parties had hoped Molefe's appearance before the committee would cast light on the financial terms accompanying the termination of Thomo's contract. His pay package included a restraint of trade agreement worth one year's salary, or R1,45-million, of which 60% was paid last year. The rest was to be paid upon termination of his contract. Opposition MPs have suggested that Thomo should not be made the sole scapegoat for problems at Armscor, but Molefe told the defence committee last year that it could not resolve its woes unless he went. He said the board had come to the conclusion that "he's taking all of us down".
Source: Mail & Guardian
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Armscor asks CEO Thomo to resign
The board of Armscor has asked CEO Sipho Thomo to resign, but a stand-off is looming as he refuses to go. Board chairperson Popo Molefe told Parliament's portfolio committee on defence on Wednesday that he asked Thomo last week to quit, and gave him three days to mull the matter. Briefing the committee while Thomo was asked to leave the room, he said Armscor had come to the conclusion that "he's taking all of us down" and that the state arms-procurement utility's woes would only be resolved if he left. "We have asked him to resign ... He should have come back to me on Saturday. By Monday he has not done so," Molefe said. "We now have to look at which options are open to us."
Thomo told reporters that he had no plans to resign. "I'm not planning to resign. I have no reason to resign," he said. This comes amid the ongoing battle between the Eskom board and CEO Jacob Maroga, which prompted board chair Bobby Godsell to quit on Monday.
Godsell said he had no choice because the board could not secure the government's support for its acceptance of Maroga's earlier resignation. Molefe said the board did not need the state's backing to dismiss Thomo.
Opposition MPs welcomed the board's decision to ask Thomo to step down but asked why it had taken them so long. They suggested that it was his handling of information about the cost of the country's now cancelled deal to buy Airbus A400M heavy-lift planes that finally prompted the board to act despite long-standing tension with Thomo.
Thomo admitted to shocked MPs last month that the cost had rocketed from an already steep R17-billion in 2006 to an "estimated" R47-billion. Cabinet scrapped the deal last week. "That was very badly handled. We think it was the last straw that broke the camel's back," an MP told the South African Press Association.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Thomo told reporters that he had no plans to resign. "I'm not planning to resign. I have no reason to resign," he said. This comes amid the ongoing battle between the Eskom board and CEO Jacob Maroga, which prompted board chair Bobby Godsell to quit on Monday.
Godsell said he had no choice because the board could not secure the government's support for its acceptance of Maroga's earlier resignation. Molefe said the board did not need the state's backing to dismiss Thomo.
Opposition MPs welcomed the board's decision to ask Thomo to step down but asked why it had taken them so long. They suggested that it was his handling of information about the cost of the country's now cancelled deal to buy Airbus A400M heavy-lift planes that finally prompted the board to act despite long-standing tension with Thomo.
Thomo admitted to shocked MPs last month that the cost had rocketed from an already steep R17-billion in 2006 to an "estimated" R47-billion. Cabinet scrapped the deal last week. "That was very badly handled. We think it was the last straw that broke the camel's back," an MP told the South African Press Association.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Sunday, October 29, 2000
South Africa's Arms Trade: Further Progress Needed
South Africa is not living up to its own high standards with respect to arms exports, Human Rights Watch charged. In a 45-page report, "A Question of Principle: Arms Trade and Human Rights," Human Rights Watch charged the South African government with selling weapons to countries with serious human rights problems, where an influx of weaponry could significantly worsen ongoing abuses.
In a 45-page report released today, "A Question of Principle: Arms Trade and Human Rights," Human Rights Watch charged the South African government with selling weapons to countries with serious human rights problems, where an influx of weaponry could significantly worsen ongoing abuses.
Human Rights Watch noted that after 1994, South Africa announced more restrictive policies on arms transfers. But the report charges that those policies are not always being followed. In 1994, a scandal erupted involving the sale by Armscor, the apartheid-era governmental arms export agency, of weapons to Yemen for probable on-shipment to the former Yugoslavia, then under U.N. embargo.
"South Africa has come a long way in overturning apartheid's awful legacy," said Joost Hiltermann, Executive Director of the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch. "In the arms trade, the country has committed to some very good human rights principles. But these principles are not consistently applied and are now under real threat."
The Human Rights Watch report cited examples of weapons sales since 1994 to governments engaging in repression against their own people or to countries involved in their own or others' civil wars. These sales clearly violated South Africa's own stated policies. Purchasers of South African arms include Algeria, Angola, Colombia, the Republic of Congo (Brazzaville), India, Namibia, Pakistan, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.
Hiltermann noted that South Africa has a strong record in other areas involving the nexus of military policy and human rights. The South African government has taken firm position on banning antipersonnel landmines, and has been one of the world's leaders in implementing the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It has taken important steps to curb the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons in southern Africa, and passed a law on mercenaries in 1998, which prohibited South African citizens from participating in either internal or international armed conflicts. But Hiltermann urged that the South African government do more to institutionalize the important policy reforms on arms sales made since the first democratic elections in 1994. "First and foremost, South Africa should formalize in law the arms export policies that the government has declared on paper, which include a code of conduct on arms transfers," said Hiltermann. He also urged a more significant role for parliament and civil society in arms trade decisions.
Human Rights Watch called on South Africa to:
· establish a legal framework for its arms export policy;
· enhance the capacity of government officials to assess the human rights implications of arms transfers;
· increase the participation of parliament and civil society in arms trade decisions;
· make a greater commitment to full transparency in arms exports.
Source: Human Rights Watch
In a 45-page report released today, "A Question of Principle: Arms Trade and Human Rights," Human Rights Watch charged the South African government with selling weapons to countries with serious human rights problems, where an influx of weaponry could significantly worsen ongoing abuses.
Human Rights Watch noted that after 1994, South Africa announced more restrictive policies on arms transfers. But the report charges that those policies are not always being followed. In 1994, a scandal erupted involving the sale by Armscor, the apartheid-era governmental arms export agency, of weapons to Yemen for probable on-shipment to the former Yugoslavia, then under U.N. embargo.
"South Africa has come a long way in overturning apartheid's awful legacy," said Joost Hiltermann, Executive Director of the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch. "In the arms trade, the country has committed to some very good human rights principles. But these principles are not consistently applied and are now under real threat."
The Human Rights Watch report cited examples of weapons sales since 1994 to governments engaging in repression against their own people or to countries involved in their own or others' civil wars. These sales clearly violated South Africa's own stated policies. Purchasers of South African arms include Algeria, Angola, Colombia, the Republic of Congo (Brazzaville), India, Namibia, Pakistan, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.
Hiltermann noted that South Africa has a strong record in other areas involving the nexus of military policy and human rights. The South African government has taken firm position on banning antipersonnel landmines, and has been one of the world's leaders in implementing the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It has taken important steps to curb the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons in southern Africa, and passed a law on mercenaries in 1998, which prohibited South African citizens from participating in either internal or international armed conflicts. But Hiltermann urged that the South African government do more to institutionalize the important policy reforms on arms sales made since the first democratic elections in 1994. "First and foremost, South Africa should formalize in law the arms export policies that the government has declared on paper, which include a code of conduct on arms transfers," said Hiltermann. He also urged a more significant role for parliament and civil society in arms trade decisions.
Human Rights Watch called on South Africa to:
· establish a legal framework for its arms export policy;
· enhance the capacity of government officials to assess the human rights implications of arms transfers;
· increase the participation of parliament and civil society in arms trade decisions;
· make a greater commitment to full transparency in arms exports.
Source: Human Rights Watch
Thursday, June 15, 1995
Commission of Inquiry Into Alleged Arms Transactions Between Armscor and One Eli Wazan and Other Related Matters
On Sunday 18 September 1994, the Afrikaans Sunday newspaper,Rapport, reported that `a massive arsenal' of South African weapons - tens of thousands of AK 47 rifles and millions of rounds of ammunition - had been shipped from Port Elizabeth to the `terror-contaminated' Middle East. The weapons emanated from the South African National Defence Force (SANDF). The supplier was the Armaments Corporation of South Africa (Armscor), operating as the sales arm of the SANDF. The report quoted allegations that the weapons were destined for the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), for use against Israel: the report's suggestion was that the new African National Congress-led government was seeking to bolster its old ally, the PLO. This was despite the official stand of Armscor that the arms shipment had occurred within government prescriptions, and that the export was in fact destined for the government of Lebanon.
Subsequent press reports revealed that the consignment had been headed for Yemen, but had been turned away at one of that country's ports. Armscor arranged for the return of the ship to South Africa, where its cargo was unloaded at Port Elizabeth and transferred to SANDF storage. (The ownership of the shipment, and related financial matters, are currently disputed in legal proceedings between various of the parties.)
Rapport's disclosure provoked a public storm in South Africa. World media attention focused on the activities of Armscor, and on South Africa's alleged role in supplying arms to dubious purchasers. The Minister of Defence, Mr J Modise, called on Armscor to furnish a report on the events. After receiving the report, and within twelve days of the original disclosure, he requested the Minister of Justice, Mr A M Omar, to appoint an independent commission to investigate the issue.
This Commission was the result.
Source: Polity
Subsequent press reports revealed that the consignment had been headed for Yemen, but had been turned away at one of that country's ports. Armscor arranged for the return of the ship to South Africa, where its cargo was unloaded at Port Elizabeth and transferred to SANDF storage. (The ownership of the shipment, and related financial matters, are currently disputed in legal proceedings between various of the parties.)
Rapport's disclosure provoked a public storm in South Africa. World media attention focused on the activities of Armscor, and on South Africa's alleged role in supplying arms to dubious purchasers. The Minister of Defence, Mr J Modise, called on Armscor to furnish a report on the events. After receiving the report, and within twelve days of the original disclosure, he requested the Minister of Justice, Mr A M Omar, to appoint an independent commission to investigate the issue.
This Commission was the result.
Source: Polity
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)