Interview: Andrew Feinstein’s Shadow World

Andrew Feinstein is a former South African MP and member of the African National Congress (ANC). He served as the chairman of the parliamentary public accounts committee and resigned in 2001 when the ANC refused to conduct an investigation into the notorious 1999 South African Arms Deal. He has recently published an exhaustive study of the global arms trade, titled The Shadow World. He spoke to the Spectator about the corruption he has uncovered, the damage it is doing to democracies around the globe and the way ahead.    

Why did you write this book now?

I’ve been researching it for almost five years, since my first book on a specific arms deal in South Africa. That deal, which involved around $300m in bribes, has had a very negative impact on South Africa’s young democracy. It became clear to me that the South African experience wasn’t unique: that arms deals, whether formal government-to-government deals or in the murky world of the illicit trade in weapons, are often corrupt and have a corrosive effect on democracy in the buying and selling countries. Also I realized that there has not been an accessible account of the global arms trade for over two decades, since Anthony Sampson’s ‘Arms Bazaar’ was published. I felt that this shadow world needed to be exposed in the hope that politicians might acknowledge the desperate need to clean up this industry.

Would you make any amendments to your book in light of the recent Werritty lobbying scandal in the UK?

I would include it as yet another example of practises that are all too common in the defence sector: a blurring of the lines between private and public activities, inappropriate influences on state decision-makers in the sector and the dubious role of consultants and middlemen. The most extreme example of these practises came during the George W. Bush administration in the US, particularly in relation to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney. Many important questions remain unanswered in the Werritty scandal, particularly who benefitted financially. I hope that even with Liam Fox’s resignation, real answers will be sought.

Do you accept that arms firms play a vital role in sustaining Western exports, especially in these difficult economic times?

There is no doubt that in certain countries arms firms play an important role in manufacturing and exports. However, that is no reason not to regulate the industry far more effectively than is currently the case. The practise of bribery and corruption, and the leveraging of inappropriate influence that can lead to sub-optimal decision-making that does not always reflect the national interest, should not be countenanced because of the role any company plays in its country’s economy.

In the context of the global arms trade, what effect do you think the Arab Spring will have on leaders in more volatile parts of the developing world?

The Arab Spring has revealed aspects of the hypocrisy that often underlies the trade in weapons and the unintended consequences or blowback that often results. For example, Barack Obama proclaimed that the US has ‘embraced the chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator.’ But the reality is that the US made Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak a very rich man and maintained him in power through the sale of over $21bn of weapons between 1981, when he assumed power, and his fall. President Obama failed to mention Saudi Arabia in his speech. I assume it was not because the kingdom is less despotic than Bahrain or Syria, but because the US is about to sell the Saudis, their closest Arab ally, $60bn of weapons.

In Libya, NATO forces were required to bomb the very weapons that their member states had sold to Muammar Gaddafi. And today some of those weapons have already found their way onto the black market, including surface-to-air missiles that are capable of bringing down commercial airliners.

I suppose that those leaders who can afford it will respond to the Arab Spring as the Saudis did: by promising increases in salaries and social spending, while adding to their already vast arsenals.

Is enlarging the armed forces used as a remedy for unemployment in less economically developed countries?

Not very often in my opinion. Today there are few states which combat unemployment through a bloated military. The size of the military tends to reflect perceptions of geopolitical or domestic security needs. There are some exceptions, but it is not an economically efficient way of employment creation.

What effect do you think the forthcoming International Arms Trade Treaty will have on the global trade?

It depends on the content of the final treaty. If it is weak, it will simply be an endorsement of the existing deeply flawed status quo. If, however, it contains strong anti-corruption and transparency provisions, and meaningful strictures on the export of weapons to countries where human rights abuses are common (such as Saudi Arabia and Syria), where they might intensify conflict or have negative socio-economic consequences, it could lead to positive change in the nature of the trade in arms. It will also require strong enforcement mechanisms and meaningful penalties for transgressors. The nature of the treaty will be dependent on the political will of the US, the UK and other major economies, including China and Russia. I am not optimistic, but hope that my pessimism is ill-placed.

The Shadow World, by Andrew Feinstein, is published by Hamish Hamilton.