It is a funny old world. We South Africans wonder why we have such a negative opinion of ourselves and our country. I suggest a lot has to do with the dominance of negative reporting. A prime example of this is the media coverage of the so-called "controversial" arms deal.

Everyone seems to ignore the fact that the vessels our navy acquired were the result of three completely separate processes, two of which were clearly devoid of any connotation of misconduct or controversy. Only one of these processes is clouded with the possibility of corruption and is therefore possibly "controversial".

The first process was the Defence Review, conducted over some 18 months of open debate in full view of the media. The review was a whole series of public debates held at several different venues throughout the country, in which everyone with an interest in defence matters could participate. At its conclusion, foreign diplomatic representatives who had followed the process closely observed that this was the most public and open debate of a country's defence requirements ever held anywhere in the world. This review established clearly the needs of the National Defence Force and the minimum force levels that should be maintained.

Based on the results of the Defence Review, the second process was initiated. In this second process the navy spent much time and energy assessing the suitability of various proposed designs for ships and submarines. Although for obvious reasons far less public than the first process, this can also be demonstrated not to have been flawed, except in the minds of some whose bids were not accepted. Anyway, those involved were not to make the final contractual decisions; they merely listed those proposals that met the operational criteria.

These acquisitions then went into the third and final process. This was the final decision, at political level, as to which of the designs would be ordered. It was in this process that accusations of corruption arose, initially - one cannot help but feel- instigated by some who had failed to get a contract, before party politics gave the accusations momentum.

It should, therefore, be clear to everyone that even if the third process was tainted by corruption, this should not reflect on the end product, the frigates and submarines. These can surely not be controversial; their reason for existence is clearly based on the unflawed Defence Review.

It is thus a great pity that our navy should be subjected to undeserved political or personal mud-slinging when they have done nothing wrong. Then we wonder why our people are negative. Or is it that the so-called "controversy" over the arms deal is being used to hide something else?

Chris Bennett
Tokai

With acknowledgements to Chris Bennett and Cape Argus.