Amendments to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the use of Certain Conventional Weapons
Meeting Summary
The joint meeting of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Development and the Portfolio Committee on International Relations and Cooperation was briefed by Ambassador Gambi from the Department of International Relations and Cooperation on the amendment to Article 1 and the new provisions in Protocol 5 of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects (CCW). Although
The Members expressed concern that the approval of Cabinet to submit the acceptance of the amendments to the CCW was given in July 2007 but the matter was only referred to the respective Parliamentary Committees in March 2009. The absence of a member of the Executive at the proceedings was deplored. The Members felt that the Department had not adequately explained the exact nature of the amendments to the Convention and the implications and consequences of approval and acceptance. Members were concerned over the implications of acceptance of the CCW on the South African defence industry, the SADEC region and the African Union. The Department was requested to arrange a follow-up meeting with the Committees, when a detailed briefing on the matter was expected.
Meeting report
The meeting was chaired jointly by Mr T Nxesi, (ANC, Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on International Relations and Mr T Mofokeng (ANC; Freestate), Chairperson of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Development.
Mr Nxesi opened the meeting and noted that many Members were unable to attend due to Parliamentary oversight duties. The Members present did not constitute a quorum but the meeting would still serve its function as an opportunity for the Department to share information and for the joint meeting to start a discussion on how to proceed with the issues raised.
A member expressed his discontent with the fact that he only received the documentation shortly before the meeting started. He was unhappy with the fact that he had no time to peruse the documentation and to prepare for a constructive contribution to the discussion that was expected to follow.
Mr Nxesi acknowledged the Member`s concern.
Briefing by the Department of International Relations and Cooperation on Amendments to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects (CCW)
The delegation from the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) included Mr Leslie Gumbi, Ambassador, Mr Rob Wensley, Deputy Director and Mr Ernst Kgopa, Parliamentary Officer.
Mr Gumbi presented the briefing to the Committees (see attached document). The CCW was the only legally binding international arms control agreement that addressed a range of diverse conventional weapons, such as mines, booby traps, laser blinding weapons and incendiary weapons and specifically addressed weapons deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effect. These included the explosive remnants of war, like landmines, which have a debilitating effect on post-war reconstruction and socio-economic development in affected areas. For this reason the CCW enjoyed wide acclaim as an important instrument of international humanitarian law. The amendments to the CCW seeked to enforce the non-proliferation and in certain cases total ban of certain weapons like landmines as well as regulate the transfer of other weapons like laser-blinding and incendiary weapons, in line with the non-proliferation, disarmament and arms control measures which the international community adopted towards the end of the Cold War.
The briefing covered the significance and evolution of the CCW and
Discussion
Dr G Koornhof (ANC; Member of the Portfolio Committee on International Relations and Cooperation) thanked the Department for a concise presentation. He understood that the Department was requesting approval for two amendments to the Convention, i.e. Article 1 and Protocol 5 and not the ratification of the CCW as
Mr Gumbi explained that it had been assumed that the Members of the Committees had familiarised themselves with the details of the amendments, which were attached to the documentation submitted by the Department. The lack of a formal briefing on the details was an oversight by the Department, for which he apologised.
Dr Koornhof noted that the defense industry, which was represented by Aerospace Maritime Defense (AMD), was also a role player and he was unsure if or how the Department would involve them. AMD had a large network of manufacturers and companies in the in weapons-related field, which would be affected by the amendments.
Mr Gumbi replied that the Department was aware of the defense industry and its crucial role but did not make a special mention as the stakeholders were part of civil society. The parties involved in the defense industry were fully aware of the CCW and the amendments as it affected them directly as producers and transferors of weaponry. The amendments to the CCW would have a direct bearing on operations when export permits were applied for.
Dr Koornhof said that the Members have studied the explanatory notes. Protocol 5 dealt with munitions management, amongst other things.
Mr L Nzimande (ANC;
Mr Gumbi stressed that he was not requesting ratification but was urging the Committees to agree to the amendments because he felt that the issues dealt with in Article 1 (i.e. the scope of the convention) and in Protocol 5 (i.e. the ERW) far outweighed the financial burden it would place on the country. He agreed that
Mr Gumbi said that although there were a few treaties that were not reported on,
Mr K Mubu (DA) asked how many countries had signed the CCW convention. He was curious about which countries were producing these types of weapons and why they still did it even though these weapons had been outlawed. He asked what kind of sanctions was meted out against countries that manufactured or used these weapons.
Mr Gumbi replied that sanctions were a sensitive issue in the contemporary international relations setting because one was dealing with sovereign states which had the right to become members or not. The current strategy was to persuade states to buy into the concept of the CCW and to become signatories to the Convention. Thereafter, the legal aspects of the Convention would be reviewed, followed by an assessment of whether or not the signatory states had complied. Punitive measures were then introduced if signatory states were found not to have complied. If punitive measures were introduced at an early stage, some potential signatory states could be scared off. The non-proliferation treaties had proved that the chances of success were improved when the political and moral buy-in of states were appealed to. He expected that punitive measures for non-compliance would be introduced to the Convention at a later phase.
Mr Gumbi explained that the CCW was a voluntary instrument, which was still in the process of unfolding because of the amendments. Some counties only subscribed to certain parts of conventions, either out of choice or because of realities applicable to the countries. For example, the United States of America (USA) chose not to be bound by the protocol on mines. The border between North and
Mr Nxesi reported that the Cabinet had approved the amendment for submission to Parliament on 24 July 2007. The letter written by the Minister to Parliament to confirm the approval of the Cabinet was dated 15 October 2009. The letter was received by Parliament on 18 November 2009. There appeared to be significant delays in the internal communication between the Executive in
Mr Gumbi conceded that the time elapsed between correspondence caused embarrassment to the sender as well as the receiver and created the impression that the Department was not respecting the time of the people who were tasked with reading and digesting the documentation. The Department had no control over the late arrival of mail and the systems in place for the transfer of information and bringing it to the attention of officials was not as efficient as it should be and needed to be upgraded. He gave his personal commitment to take the matter up with the Department. He was unable to comment on the time delays between communication from the Cabinet and Parliament.
Mr S Ngonyama (COPE) suggested that the African Union (AU) and SADEC were taken into consideration when making decisions of this nature.
Mr Gumbi advised that both the AU and SADEC countries supported the protocol because many African countries were profoundly affected by landmines. In
Mr Nzimande asked whether the Department had a deadline for obtaining approval for the amendments. He wanted to know why the matter was only now presented to the Committees. He wanted to know if the amendments had to be formally accepted and how the processed required would fit into the Parliamentary program.
Mr Gumbi advised that the Department was not bound by a deadline. The Department had the political goodwill to act on a matter that seeked to stabilise the region, to normalise people’s lives and to bring prosperity back to war-torn countries and communities. It was necessary to confirm the commitment to be bound by Protocol 5 and to accept the Amendment to Article 1 in writing. The international community knew
A member asked whether the delay had anything to do with
Another Member asked whether South Africa was bound by Protocol 5 or not as the statement in slide 8 of the presentation read “obtain RSA acceptance/approval of the amendment to Article1 and by Protocol V” She asked if civil society would only be engaged on the implementation of the CCW in countries directly affected (such as Angola) because it was crucial to South Africa.
Mr Gumbi replied that Protocol 5 had been signed and was in force but with the exclusion of
Responding to the question concerning the involvement of civil society, Mr Gumbi said that the Department would compile a report that spelt out how Southern African civil society was involved in the promotion of the CCW. The Institute for Strategic Studies at the
Mr Nxesi asked whether
Rev K Meshoe (ACDP) suggested that the Departments of Justice and Defense were invited to attend the follow-up briefing session as their presence would save time and facilitate the making of informed decisions by the Committee.
Mr Gumbi agreed to Mr Nxesi and Rev Meshoe’s suggestions for a further briefing and the presence of a member of the Executive. Although the Department had not achieved the recommendation of the Committees that the amendments to the CCW were accepted, the importance of
Mr Mofokeng agreed that the questions and concerns raised confirmed the need for another session with all the stakeholders present.
Mr Nxesi concluded the meeting by saying that the session had been very useful as the issues had been laid on the table. He said that when Members raised concerns, it did not mean that the session was not useful. He thanked the officials of the Department for the presentation and the Members for their participation in the discussion. He hoped that the follow-up session would be held in the near future.
The meeting was adjourned.
Audio
Documents
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.