FROM DEFENCE TO DEVELOPMENT This page intentionally left blank FROM DEFENCE TO DEVELOPMENT Redirecting Military Resources in South Africa Jacklyn Cock and Penny Mckenzie for The Group for Environmental Monitoring David Philip Cape Town International Development Research Centre Ottawa, Canada First published in 1998 in Africa by David Philip Publishers (Pty) Ltd, 208 Werdmuller Centre, Claremont 7700, South Africa First published in 1998 in the rest of the world by the International Development Research Centre, PO Box 8500, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1E 3H9 ISBN 86486 415 9 (David Philip) ISBN 0 88936 853 8 (IDRC) Compilation © 1998 Jacklyn Cock and Penny Mckenzie The contributors claim copyright on their individual chapters All rights reserved. Printed in South Africa by National Book Printers, Drukkery Street, Goodwood, Western Cape Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Cock, Jacklyn From defence to development: redirecting military resources in South Africa Includes bibliographical references ISBN 0-88936-853-8 1. Militarism South Africa. 2. South Africa Military policy. 3. South Africa National security. 4. Sustainable development South Africa. I. Mckenzie, Penny. II. International Development Research Centre (Canada). III. Title. IV. Title: Redirecting military resources in South Africa. UA856.5C621998 355.6 0968 C98-980043-1 CONTENTS Foreword Thenjiwe Mtintso vii Acknowledgements vii List of contributors xi 1. Introduction Jacklyn Cock 1 2. Guns or Butter? Growth, Development and Security Gavin Cawthra 25 3. The 1996 Defence White Paper: An Agenda for State Demilitarisation? Laurie Nathan 41 4. Reclaiming the Land: A Case Study of Riemvasmaak Penny Mckenzie 60 5. Weapons testing: Its impact on people and the Environment Penny Mckenzie 85 6. South Africs arms industry: Prospects for Conversion Peter Batchelor 97 7. Light weapons proliferation: The link between security and development Jacklyn Cock 122 8. Still killing: Land-mines in Southern Africa Alex Vines 148 9. Apartheis nuclear arsenal: Deviation from development David Fig 163 10. After the war: Demobilisation in South Africa Tsepe Motumi and Penny Mckenzie 181 11. Demobilisation and reintegration in society: Human resources conversion Rocky Williams 208 12. Militarised youth: Political pawns or social agents? Monique Marks and Penny Mckenzie 222 References 235 Index 244 5 WEAPONS TESTING Its Impact on People and the Environment Penny Mckenzie Weapons testing has had a negative impact on people and the environment. Three of the most controversial weapons testing sites in South Africa are De Hoop and Rooi Els in the Western Cape, and St Lucia in KwaZulu-Natal. These sites have a number of common features. First, they are located in ecologically sensitive areas. Second, they were established in a shroud of secrecy and in an authoritarian manner. Third, communities were adversely affected by their establishment. Finally, there is evidence of negative environmental impact resulting from weapons testing. At St Lucia and De Hoop the testing ranges are located in nature reserves; at Rooi Els the range is in an ecologically unique area. St Lucia is one of the oldest reserves in South Africa. It is also the largest crocodile breeding ground south of Uganda, a major waterbird breeding ground and a wetland of international importance in terms of the Ramsar Convention (Endangered Wildlife, 1991:26). The De Hoop Nature Reserve is the second oldest reserve in the Western Cape. Its most important floral feature is its relatively unspoilt fynbos. It was described by Cape Nature Conservation as one of the most diverse, if not the most, [floral habitats] in terms of the biota on this planet (Cape Nature Conservation submission to the Hey Committee). It has the second most productive population of the endangered Cape mountain zebra, and is an important breeding colony of the declining Cape vulture and the Damara tern, South Africa s rarest sea bird (African Wildlife, 1983a:33). The De Hoop lake is classified as a wetland of international importance in terms of the Ramsar Convention (African Wildlife, 1983a:35). The coast off the reserve is also an important breeding ground for the southern right whale (Hey, 1983). Although Rooi Els is not a nature reserve, it is located in the Kogelberg area, at the heart of South Africa s fynbos region. Only the Kruger National Park, which is 66 times larger, has more plant species than the Kogelberg area. There are several high-yielding water catchments in the range, including the Buffels River catchment area. Rooi Els and neighbouring coastal villages rely on a dam situated on land known as Portion 186 of the farm Hangklip for their water supply. This is the land leased to Somchem for weapons testing by the Caledon Divisional Council (later known as the Over berg Regional Services Council). Although these are three unique and ecologically sensitive areas, the apartheid state decided to establish weapons testing ranges on them. This was done in an undemocratic manner in the name of national security . Ironically, the very security of the communities living in or near these areas was threatened through exclusion from the land. The decision to use St Lucia as a missile testing range was a secretive one. People working in the park were merely informed of the decision. Some raised objections within park structures and took the matter up with the authorities. The response was silence. Nobody was allowed to mention a word of this to anybody and we were muzzled from speaking to the press (interview with former Natal Parks Board employee, 1995). Many conservationists were afraid of the consequences of protest in an authoritarian political climate, while others were sympathetic to the notions of security and national interest propagated by the government. A newspaper editorial argued, But defence is an emotional issue in South Africa. Consequently conservationists, who might otherwise have protested more strenuously against the selection of St Lucia as the site for a range, appear to have been won over by arguments that it is vital to the nation s defence (Daily News, 15 October 1968). The decision to establish a weapons testing range at De Hoop was also made in a clandestine manner. The Cape Department of Nature and Environmental Conservation, which owned much of the land, was not informed of the proposal until one week before the announcement. The provincial opposition spokesperson for nature conservation highlighted the undemocratic nature of the proposal when he said, It would appear that Armscor had hoped to complete the deal before the matter became public, specifically to circumvent public debate. Where the relocation or siting of a missile testing range can affect landowners, involve the relocation of communities, deprive fishermen of their livelihood and hold enormous consequences for conservation, the public has a right to be informed (Cape Times, 27 May 1983). The announcement sparked enormous public outcry, which prompted the government to appoint a committee of enquiry into the environmental implications of the weapons testing range. The committee of enquiry, known as the Hey Committee, supported the establishment of the Armscor range. The testing range rear Rooi Els was similarly established without public involvement. In 1978, the Armscor subsidiary Somchem applied to the Caledon Divisional Council to hire 35 hectares of land SADF combat vehicles at Schmidtsdrift (Photo by Alan Coxen) in the Rooi Els area for the testing of sekere produkte wat vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Weermag bedoel is (certain products that are meant for the South African Army). Residents were not informed of Armscor s intention to establish the range and there was no opportunity for them to lodge objections. In 1987, the Caledon Divisional Council and Somchem signed a lease which gave Somchem the right to occupy a greater extent of the land for R25 a year for an indefinite period. The land was used to test propellants for a cannon and rockets as part of the development of South Africa s commercial space programme. The surrounding communities were unaware of the 1979 and 1987 deals which gave Somchem access to Portion 186 on a virtually permanent basis. Details of this deal only emerged from community investigations. When Somchem attempted to purchase the site for R500 in 1989, community resistance grew. The Rooi Els Local Council initiated court action in 1991 to have Somchem evicted. Communities in the three areas were adversely affected by these secret deals. At St Lucia, about 60 families were removed to make way for the range. One of the difficulties in establishing accurate information about the St Lucia removals is that no documentation is available and reconstruction of the events depends on memory. In contrast to St Lucia, where there was very little protest, activities at De Hoop were described at the time as probably the strongest protest on an environmental issue to date in South Africa (Hey, 1983). The affected communities were especially vociferous in their protests. These were white landowners, some of whom had holiday homes or farms in the area, a small group of predominantly coloured fishermen at Skipskop, and a settlement of 660 black people at Waenhuiskrans who were primarily reliant on fishing for a living. All THE MILITARY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION Penny Mckenzie One of the most serious negative environmental impacts of military activities is unexploded ordnance such as mortars and shells left after training and weapons testing. It is expensive and time-consuming to clear land and impossible to guarantee complete clearance. Unexploded ordnance poses a danger to communities who return to their land. In poor communities such as Riemvasmaak and Lohatla the danger is exacerbated because people collect the scrap metal to sell even though it is dangerous to do so. In both communities there have been serious and even fatal injuries. It is important in terms of the polluter pays principle that the military take responsibility and bear the costs for continuous clean-up, and that there is ongoing community education about the danger of unexploded ordnance.