Pragmatism vs. idealism in the arms export

Curie Maharani ,  Singapore   |  Fri, 09/11/2009 2:49 PM  |  Opinion

The recent seizure of Indonesian arms produced by PT Pindad (SS1-V1 rifles and P2-10 pistols) by Philippine authorities surprised many Indonesians. Not because the weapons were allegedly being smuggled into Philippines to disrupt the country's forthcoming election or because Israeli weapons were found in the same ship, but because PT Pindad, in fact, has been exporting weapons for the past 10 years.

Exports are important if a nation's defense industry is to be competitive. With an export value of US$237 million between 1980 and 2007, Indonesia's defense industry is ranked 46th in the world - 12 places behind Singapore and just three places ahead of Iraq.

According to the SIPRI database, Indonesian exports aircraft only, which suggests that aviation company PT Dirgantara Indonesia (DI) is the only defense industry that exports. Data of non-aerospace product exports cannot be found in UN arms register (UNROCA), which is supposed to ensure transparency in the import and export of small arms and light weaponry (SALW). This is perhaps because the value of Pindad's exports is too small, or perhaps because Indonesia has not utilized this report mechanism.

The director of PT Pindad's admission that the company exports arms debunks the myth that the Indonesian defense industry is not competitive. As a strategic industry, PT Pindad, manufacture of land systems, weapons and ammunition, once enjoyed government subsidies and protection. Now that those privileges have been removed, PT Pindad must survive on its own, despite the low value and infrequency of contract from the government.

Pindad is not alone. Since the end of the Cold War, there has been a massive reduction in defense budgets worldwide and defense industries around the world have to sustain themselves through exports. Major acquisitions, mergers and privatization took place across the whole spectrum of the defense industry and international collaboration has become a sort of panacea for those who wish to develop new weapons that they cannot afford alone.

The export market has become a fierce battlefield for defense industries because supply outstrips demand. This is why countries have different approaches to securing lucrative arms transfer deals. Offset, transfer or technology, credit, "friendly prices" and "no strings attached" are among the bonuses used to attract buyers.

The incident in the Philippines should serve as a wakeup call for Indonesia. Indonesia has always dealt with the marginal feeling that comes with being an arms importing country, under constant peril of embargo and the political strings attached to arms transfers. Now we need to put ourselves in the position of an exporting country and resolve a totally different set of issues.

We must now make sure the transfer of arms does not undermine the national interest.

National interests mean more than just safety from foreign aggression. The danger of technology transfers, legal or not, which could undermine our industry's competitiveness, should be taken into account. Russia learned this lesson the hard way when the Su-27s they sold to the Chinese were copy-produced and will possibly be exported to Pakistan. Not only does China threaten Russian competitiveness with cheaper aircraft, by selling weapons to Pakistan they endanger Russia's strategic partner India.

We must also control the transfer and use of weapons in a way that it won't disturb regional peace, let alone lead to violations of human rights.

Arguably, end user agreements and monitoring should be inseparable parts of arms transfers. In the US, for example, the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 regulates the general standard of eligibility of a country to receive US defense articles and sets conditions for the permissible use of weaponry.

Furthermore, it sets out circumstances under which a nation may lose US foreign military financing (FMF), loans, rights to purchase and rights to have defense articles or service sales agreements due to "substantial violation". To ensure that a set of criteria are met before a transfer takes place, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Defense and the Congress are involved with the decision making process. This is not to say the US system is the best, because it is often politicized, but nevertheless, a system is in place.

We are not sure whether the issue of end user agreements has been sufficiently addressed in Indonesia. We know that the exports are initially approved by the TNI through the TNI Chief's assistance for intelligence (Asintel) and that the Ministry of Defense then makes recommendations to Pindad to export weapons. If violations are committed by the buyer, the director of Pindad said strict measures will be taken, including the cut off of supplies of spare parts.

However, the chief of the TNI said on Aug. 31 that, "as long as the requirements are fulfilled, the demands and the buyer country are clear and deals are conducted according to the checking procedure, it is no longer the TNI's business". This implies that Indonesia, as the exporting country, does not bear any responsibility whatsoever once the weapons are delivered.

Weapons are not TVs or running shoes. Small arms and light weapons are tools of deadly violence. Indeed, SALWs are more difficult to control than big ticket items like fighter jets or warships. Small weapons cause more harm than any other conventional weapons in the world - that's a no brainer. This is why a system for the international monitoring of illicit small arms and light weapons has been brought to the attention of the United Nation's General Assembly. In Indonesia, the smuggling of SALW poses a grave threat to territorial integrity by supporting separatism and transnational crime.

Where should Indonesia stand as an arms exporter? Are we going to assume our responsibility ends once the weapons are handed over to the importer, perhaps following the example of Russia and China? Or perhaps this not a question a country with such a low arms export figure should worry about? But we have to consider what could happen if the weapons we export end up being used against us.

The writer is PhD student at Cranfield University and Associate Research Fellow at Institute for Defence and Strategic Studies, RSIS, Nanyang Technological University.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.