Mon séjour en Afrique du Sud (Cape Town)

REFUGE OF SCOUNDRELS? Few, if any, of the hundreds of young South Africans serving in the British armed forces chose to do so because they felt a deep allegiance to the Queen. Nor would most of them have joined up in support of a particular cause, such as the war on terror. Their interest is in the profession of arms itself.

Why, then, did they not volunteer to serve in our own defence force? The SA defence ministry itself refers to a perception among young whites that they have no future in the SANDF because of affirmative action. This is actually not true. There is indeed an oversupply of senior white officers around the rank of colonel but the SANDF would prefer representivity at all levels, and its HR strategy now provides for a minimum quota of whites to be recruited at the level of junior officer and the noncommissioned ranks.

Be that as it may, perception is all and scepticism extends with more justification to the dubious institutional health of the SANDF. Its budget has been slashed in the past decade and there are serious doubts that it could perform its basic constitutional role of defending the country. For instance, the average age of the SA infantryman is over 30 (the international benchmark is 21), following a long moratorium on recruitment that was lifted only recently. The military budget is dedicated as much to welfare as in caring for what are known as the Aids battalions as it is to warfare. In the hi-tech arms such as the artillery, navy and the air force, there are severe skills shortages and heavy restrictions on the use of fuel and ammunition in exercises. Any major deployments in the foreseeable future seem set to consist of peacekeeping in boring but nevertheless difficult and dangerous circumstances.

In the light of all these factors, a decision by an aspirant young warrior to apply to Sandhurst for officer training, rather than Heidelberg or Oudtshoorn, may seem reasonable. Should he or she be discouraged by government from doing so? There is a precedent: many countries including the US forbid their citizens to serve in foreign forces. It does seem unfair and unnecessary, however, to legislate for people already serving retroactive law is almost always bad law. And there is arguably a special military relationship with Britain that has produced and can still produce benefits for both countries.

But there are subtle political sensitivities underlying the discussion. As former minister Kader Asmal first noted more than three years ago, his government was concerned about the enlistment of South Africans in foreign armies that engage in armed conflict, as in Iraq. So it's not just who they might be fighting for, but who their enemy might be. This anxiety seems to have produced the absurd concept in the draft legislation that serving in a foreign army is OK as long as you don't have to fight. But that, after all, is what armies do.

The real problem, though, is not that so many talented young South Africans want to serve in foreign armed forces: it's that they don't want to join our own. That is what the defence portfolio committee should really be applying its mind to.