From: gavan@elc.mth.uct.ac.za (Gavan Tredoux)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african,sanet.talk.politics
Subject: Third force rides again
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:56:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucthpx.1992Oct12.235606.21680
Organization: University of Cape Town
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

mark@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
 
: 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."

George Ellis is well worth taking seriously, but this is a silly claim.
Disinformation is by definition deliberate, an attempt to use
information to decieve. Accusing Kane-Berman of this because he 
DISAGREES with George about the merits of the "third-force" stuff is
idle. The burden rests on Ellis to provide evidence of *bad faith* on
Kane-Berman's part. This he doesn't do.

: 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.

The SAIRR has plenty of dissent in its ranks, which is more interesting when
its public. I'm not a member or a researcher with them, so my concern
is rather whether FACTUALLY Jeffery's research is in error. That is why
I started this thread, and I've yet to see anything resembling an informed
criticism in any detail. I don't have the 23 page critique, but I'd
find it most interesting. My own reading of Jeffery suggests strongly
that all her chief conclusions - backed by strong factual evidence of
HRC etc bias (which Ellis makes no attempt to deny and seems prepared to
accept wholeheartedly) - are sound. The onus is on those who doubt this
to provide some kind of argument. That's argument I welcome.

The rest of this about something else entirely, ie the "third force" stuff.

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

Much as I respect George Ellis, this is simply nonsense. Analysing
the attacks reveals that most take place near hostels, the attackers
are invariably Zulu and there is strong evidence that the trains conflict
is simply an extension of the ANC/IFP Xhosa/Zulu conflict. The Goldstone
Commission found precisely this - how Ellis manages to ignore this crucial
finding here beats me. But then he's not involved in SAIRR tracking of
violence at all.

: 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.

Hmm, that leaves the article pretty much worthless in assessing the value
of the "third force" then. After, we all cry out for evidence here
rather than kite-flying.
 
: 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 refer back to Goldstone. One crucial point made convincingly by Jeffery
is that all these claims are pretty much worthless (given there obvious
utility) until tested in some way, eg under cross-examination. This is
Goldstone's task, and he finds no evidence to date to back the "third
force" phantom. 
 
: ... 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.

Yet you don't provide any of this evidence. And there has been ample 
oppurtunity since the notion was first floated. Moreover, you provide no
workable definition of "third force" except to say that they're based
in the army and police. One would like to know who they work for, if they
work in a cabal, or as individuals. Whether there is anational plan
is local opportunism, and how much violence they're responsible for - 
all of it, a part or what. You need all these ingredients to convert this
superstition into a workable theory that can be tested.
 
: "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.

This is something of a cosmological blunder, and misunderstands the SAIRR
categorization. When attacks are not attributable, that means *sufficient*
evidence for certain classification doesn't exist. Ellis would know that if
he had examined the methodology employed closely. However, the overwhelming 
majority of the violence occurs in *known contexts*. Moreover *aggressors*
are much harder to identify than *victims*. From the context it is almost
invariably possible to *infer* very plausible *explanations* of the
conflict - just not who precisely was victim and agressor. This is how
Goldstone manages to conclude that the train violence is simply a spillover
of the broader township conflict, in all probability.

What is clear about the "third force" theory is that it is a *lack* of an
explanation. It says "someone else is responsible" without ever
saying anything substantial about that someone, beyond the nebulous
claim that they are army/police/state linked, which says precisely nothing
until motives and organization are revealed, and *proportion* of culpability
determined.

Gavan Tredoux
UCT
Xref: sparky soc.culture.african:5240 sanet.talk.politics:75