From: mark@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african,sanet.talk.politics,apc.reg.safrica
Subject: Re: Figures on Violence - Controversy Grows
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:08:52 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

gavan@elc.mth.uct.ac.za (Gavan Tredoux) writes:
> shaze@cs.ubc.ca (Scott Hazelhurst) writes:
> : gavan@elc.mth.uct.ac.za (Gavan Tredoux) writes:
> : >The South African Institute of Race Relations is about to release
> : >a damning indictment of coverage of violence in South Africa
> : >by organizations like the (self-dubbed) "Human Rights Comission",
> : >the "International Comission of Jurists", who visited recently
> : >and delivered a report on violence, and the "Community Agency for
> : >Social Enquiry".
> : 
> : >The report, by Dr Anthea Jeffery, a SAIRR researcher, finds consistent
> : >bias, shoddy methodology, reporting of unsubstantiated rumours, 
> : >omission of significant categories of violence, misclassification
> : >of incidents, and more. Moreover it turns out that the ICJ were
> : >invited and SELECTED by the HRC, and that they didn't even CONSULT
> : >or question the SAIRR on violence figures. Telling. The figures from
> : >CASE, used by Mandela at the UN, are sharply criticised.
> : 
> : Here goes Gavan again trying to palm off the Transvaal Branch
> : of the Inkatha Institute (for some reason they have the initials
> : SAIRR) as the *objective*, *neutral* research body. The fact that
> : you like them (i.e. they agree with you) doesn't make the SAIRR
> : any better than the HRC. I am quite happy to accept that the HRC
> : is biased in favour of the ANC, but it is clear to me that SAIRR
> : has similar, if not more pronounced, bias in favour of other groups.
> 
> What is or is not clear to *you* Scott is of little interest. As far
> as bias and shoddy research are concerned, the SAIRR have analysis
> and figures to back them up. If you have *any* evidence of pro-Inkatha
> bias why don't you post it for us? Ahem, I've asked you for this before
> but you didn't post it then either. Telling. Perhaps you might regale us
> with *your* reading of SAIRR figures on violence? Oops, does that denote?

Getting personal again I see GAVAN.
Perhaps we should look at the response of the parties accused by the
SAIRR:  

"The HRC said in a statement that the SAIRR's 'recent vendetta' against 
it had given the commission cause to ponder on the differences between
the two organisations for the institute to take 'such a gratuitous and
vituperous swipe at the HRC.
"The Black Sash said in a statement it regretted 'the intemperate attacks'
by the SAIRR representatives on recent HRC, Amnesty, International, and
International Commission of Jurists reports.
"'In the present situation of conflict and tension we do not believe it
is helpful to ascribe motives and strategies to others, nor to use
emotive language such as 'disinformation scandal'' it said.
"Both organisations were responding to hard-hitting criticisms by the 
SAIRR and its director, Mr John Kane-Berman.
"The HRC said: 'To go beyond the discussion of differences between HRC 
and SAIRR in perceptions and definitions would be to descend to the 
level of a mud-slinging exercise, something we have no wish to do.'
"However it wanted to state it did regularly report and certainly
deplored the death and injuries of policemen and IFP officials and
supporters.
"The HRC said it had never used the term 'third force'.  The HRC said
the SAIRR often dislayed an ambivalence 'which is puzzling', and 
sometimes seemed to spend considerable energy on projects selected
'more in defence of the apartheid state' than on exposing it."
[Cape Times, 8 September 1992]

I guess that thats what GAVAN and the SAIRR have in common.

> Anyone who is seriously interested in, and informed about 
> violence in this country should look at the SAIRR analysis very closely.
> Particularly since the ANC has made extensive use of HRC and CASE figures.

Particularly? - only if you have an agenda would you PARTICULARLY do it
for this reason GAVAN.

[rest of the GAVAN's personal remarks deleted]

If you read the following interview with John Kane-Berman you will see 
that he is as slippery, but more sophisticated that GAVAN:

[The first few questions centred around an assertion by the
interviewer that John Kane-Berman was perceived to have shifted
from a "radical labour reporter in the seventies" to someone
of "conservative views" through his association with Chief
Buthelezi.  He denied this and claimed a consistency in his
position between the seventies and now, and cited a shift in
"the ground under us" for this perception.]

NN:  You dispute the Human Rights Commission's (HRC)
     analysis of the violence as a conflict between the
     forces of liberation and pro-apartheid agents and their
     surrogates.  What then are the causes?

JKB: In 1976/77 the great majority of fatalities resulted
     from security force activities.  Towards the end of
     1985 our research detected that the violence was
     beginning to change and that conflict within the black
     community was becoming the major cause of violence.
     Coercion was used to enforce boycotts and stayaways.  I
     do not use the term 'black-on-black' violence, but one
     has a situation where there are, or have been,
     incidents of conflict between the ANC and IFP, ANC and
     Labour Party (in Port Elizabeth), Azapo and the ANC,
     strikers and non-strikers, etc.  The Trust Feed case
     showed that Captain Brian Mitchell massacred 11 people
     as part of his own strategy to try and promote the IFP
     at the expense of the UDF.  Inkatha has been involved
     in massacres such as the one at Swanieville.  And there
     is conflict surrounding stayaways.  There are a whole
     lot of reasons for conflict.  Strategies that were
     adopted in the mid-1980's - to make the country
     ungovernable, to urge the youth to a no holds barred
     people's war - are amoung the major causes of this
     violence.

NN:  Doesn't your rejection of the "third force" theory
     ignore the arguement that only professional elements
     are capable of unleashing the kind of deadly force
     witnessed in the massacres?

JKB: I have never said there is no such thing as the third
     force.  The institute has said, in line with the
     Goldstone commission that no evidence of the existence
     of the third force has been uncovered.  But, we added
     that the rule of apartheid is so riddled with
     corruption, brutality and dishonesty that one should
     keep an open mind as to the possibility of a third
     force.  At the same time, one must remember that it is
     a principle of Western justice that people are entitled
     to be presumed innocent until they have been found
     guilty in a court of law.  Very serious accusations
     have been made against the State President FW de Klerk.
     He has been accused of orchestrating this violence
     personally.  Evidence has not been brought forward, let
     alone guilt proved.

NN:  But isn't De Klerk ultimately responsible for the
     instruments of investigation?  And why have the police,
     who were so ruthlessly efficient against members of the
     liberation movements, become so inept in investigating
     violence perpetrated by the right?

JKB: De Klerk does not control all the instruments of
     investigation.  He does not control the Goldstone
     Commission.  He did not control the police officer that
     was able to secure a conviction in the Trust Feed
     massacre.  I do not have sufficient information to
     judge whether police investigators have suddenly become
     inept.  But judges have mentioned that the police are
     hampered in their efforts to get information.  There
     are a number of IFP people who were prosecuted not so
     long ago.  The judge acquitted them all because he said
     he had no choice.  He was very critical of the police
     because they had not worked hard enough to find
     incriminating evidence.  But he also said the ANC had
     told the community not to co-operate with the police.
     You cannot have it both ways.  You cannot assassinate
     policemen and tell people not to co-operate, an then
     complain that they do not do their job.

NN:  Are you not concerned that after 3000 deaths and many
     incidents of violence, so few people have been
     convicted?

JKB: The security forces, the courts and society as a whole
     are tarnished by the horrifying fact that there is not
     greater success in tracking down criminals.  But I
     think that political organisations that complain about
     violence and criminals not being brought to book are
     obliged to assist police.  Having said that one has to
     bear in mind the tragic situation that has developed in
     this country regarding the serious level of mistrust of
     the police.

NN:  The HRC has identified the security forces, vigilantes,
     hit squads and right wingers as the agents of violence.
     Your comment?

JKB: The left wing is also responsible for the violence.
     There are hit squads on the right and there are hit
     squads on the left.  There are profession assassins
     that have been trained in South Africa and there are
     professional assassins that have been trained in
     countries to the north of us.  Beyond poverty, squalor
     and over-crowding, there is the so-called "lost
     generation" who have been pushed to the front line by
     adults.  They have been used as cannon fodder by adult
     organisations.  There are people that kill policemen,
     there are people that kill members of the ANC, there
     are people who kill members of the IFP.  You cannot
     categorise.  To try and reduce the violence to those
     four groups is an oversimplification, which does not
     take into account the political complexity and other
     factors which fuel the violence.

[from New Nation, 3-10 September 1992]
Xref: sparky soc.culture.african:4582 soc.culture.filipino:3234 soc.culture.taiwan:12901 soc.culture.hongkong:10495 soc.culture.indian:30470 soc.culture.vietnamese:13159