From: mark@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african
Subject: Re: "Selective Quotations damage Jeffery's Credibility"
Date: 12 Oct 92 12:17:08 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

In light of the recent debate over the South African
Institute of Race Relations' (SAIRR) report by Anthea
Jeffery on political violence, I enclose a letter that
appeared in this morning's Cape Times.

The author of the letter, George Ellis, is on the Regional
Executive of the SAIRR and he entered the debate a month ago
in an article which appeared in the Cape Times in which he
criticised the Jeffery report and Kane-Berman, saying:
"Kane-Berman is not only undermining the credibility of the
institute, but insofar as he claims there is no evidence for
third force activity, he himself becomes part of another
disinformation campaign."

According to the Weekly Mail, 9 October 1992, Jeffery's
report also came under fire from a group of researchers at
the SAIRR who submitted a 23-page critique of the Jeffery
report to Kane-Berman, while the national chairman of the
SAIRR (David Gevisser) has resigned in protest against
recent statements by the Institute.

------------------------------------------------------------
[Letters: Cape Times, Monday 12 October 1992]
REPLIES FAIL TO DISCREDIT MY THEORY ON THIRD FORCE
(from George Ellis, Rondebosch)

The responses to my article on third force activity have
been interesting and constructive ("Third force theory could
be correct," Cape Times, September 14).  To defend my
position, I have to answer two different kinds of comments.

Three letters have proposed different hypotheses to mine.
This is fully in accord with the spirit of public debate
that should take place on such important issues.  Two of
these proposals suggest that third force activity comes from
the radical left (the ANC and its allies) rather than the
right.  This suffers from an initial implausibility: how has
the ANC gained from the random train or bus attacks that
have taken place?

I accept that left-wing cadres are behind attacks on police
and some of the attacks on Inkatha.  However this noes not
explain the mass of township killings.

The key point that needs explanation, apart from numerous
targeted attacks on ANC supporters, is the mass of
"unmotivated" attacks that have taken place (eg on trains).
The suggestion provides no supporting evidence that the ANC
is behind the attacks.

It is true that my own article did not provide much evidence
for my position: this was simply for lack of space in the
newspaper (the printed article summarised a paper three
times as long).  There is not space to give that evidence
here either.

I simply cite two particular cases: two key witnesses -
Felix Ndimene and Colonel Hugo - have explicitly claimed
that security force elements are behind destabilisation
attacks.  I await similar evidence of ANC participation in
such attacks.

Peter du Preez ("A look at third force hypotheses," Letters,
September 22) suggests one should make more explicit
hypotheses as to who is behind these actions.  I agree.
This would have required more space than I had available.
He queries what  is meant by third force activity.  I
suggest this phrase is appropriate if (a) clandestine
destabilisation and "dirty tricks" activity is taking place,
(b) involving some senior members of the police and army
(say rank of colonel or above), and (c) using army or police
facilities and resources (perhaps funded through secret
votes).  In my view, evidence suggests this has indeed been
going on.

A different issue arises in Jill Wentzel's response ("Kane-
Berman spearheading search for truth", Letters October 1).
Just as in Kane-Berman's speeches she admits there is a
strong logic behind the third force hypothesis; but does not
explain why she (and Kane-Berman) discount the mass of
evidence supporting its existence.

It is particularly important to note that the SA Institute
of Race Relations paper by Anthea Jeffries, on which the
Kane-Berman comments are based states: "The institute found
it impossible to identify the agents of attack in 87% of
incidents".

That is precisely the point: most of these attacks are not
attributable to known sources in the SAIRR analysis.

The only plausible view I have come across is that they are
the result of destabilisation activity, as outlined in my
Cape Times article.

Anthea Jeffries is simply incorrect when she states in her
paper there is an "absence of substantiating evidence" for
this view.  How does she manage to forget Felix Ndimene,
_inter alia_?  On what basis does she deduce Captain
Mitchell acted on his own in the Trust Feed murders, when
there is evidence of higher level cover-ups in that case?
How does she explain the arrest of ANC member C Toise for
the murder of Pro Jack, when Mr Toise was in custody in
Pollsmoor prison at the time of the attack (and the police
were informed of this fact when he was arrested)?

My argument acknowledges the ANC contribution to violence,
but claims we would not be in anything like the sorry
position we are in now without substantial third force
activity (defined as above).  I do not believe any of the
answering letters provide a better case.
------------------------------------------------------------