Special Hearings — Political Party Recalls — 1997-05-16

GEN VILJOEN: Mr Chair I will deliver the first part of my submission in Afrikaans and then I will switch over to English.  I am going to do it differently than the previous submission.  We get the impression that our language is being threatened and I was asked by my caucus to do my submission in Afrikaans.  I will answer the questions in the language they were put to me.
 Archbishop, and honourable Commissioners, I have a document from which I'm going to speak, it's not the same one that you have, it is introductory remarks, an introductory statement.  This document will be handed over to you at the end of the submission, you don't have to worry to take notes but I thought it would be better if we could communicate and talk about the process.
 During August 1996 we made a submission to you in which we tried to explain the strategic and political context to you from the perspective of our party about the past and the Commission put a number of questions to us, the document we then gave to you was the response that we made available to you.  We apologised for the fact that the previous document we sent to the Commission had some spelling mistakes in it but this one is the correct document.
 The document in front of you must therefore be read together with the 1996 document and for the benefit of you and the press, we brought some of the '96 documents with us if some of the people do not have them. The evidence or the document I'm going to put before you, I am doing it for the ethnic Afrikaner, I also do it from the perspective of hundreds of thousands of ex-soldiers and policemen who did not specifically give a mandate to me because they do not all belong to my party, but who do have an interest in the evidence I'm going to give.  People who diligently and loyally and correctly acted, I want to speak from their perspective.  
 I also speak from the perspective of a number of perpetrators, a small percentage also of my own people.  One can never forgive a perpetrator if he acted without and out of the context of his mandate.  The role I am fulfilling, and within that role, I am aware of the circumstances in which these perpetrators acted and although I can't say what they did was right, it is my policy that we must not reject these people.  If healing must be brought about it must also be brought about from the perspective of these perpetrators.
 I am also speaking from the perspective of a struggle which was political and a military problem,  These two things cannot be easily separated from each other.  I cannot separate myself from the political leaders of the past and I also expect that the political leaders of the past will not distance themselves from our role in the past.  I am willing to take the responsibility of the political aspects as well as the military or strategical aspects.
 For the benefit of convenience you have the document in front of you, I'm not going to answer those questions, it's going to take too much time, I'm sure you have read it, but you are welcome to ask us further questions when we come to that.  
 This second submission of 1997 therefore, we must add to the introductory remarks and that is then the complete submission to the Truth Commission in our role in helping you to fulfil your duties as a Commission.  
 In the first place I want to speak about the Freedom Front and its mandate.  The Freedom Front can properly ask, why are we here today?  Why are we in front of the Commission?  We were actually only launched in 1994.  This submission is specifically about the political past of South Africa.  It touches the image and the feeling of self-worth of my people and therefore the mandate that I have and the background to that mandate is that we are able to speak about the actions of the past and that we must keep up our policy today and we must also be honest about what our policy will be in the future.  Mr de Klerk in this same hall has attacked this group of whom I am the leader.  He accused us of being the bad people who acted in a bloodthirsty way and used violence for that purpose.  He spoke about the historical achievements of the National Party that demonstrate how the National Party in its submission was party orientated.  He tries to justify the party.  That's not our goal, we are saying, us the ethnic Afrikaners, the subgroup of Afrikaners whom we are speaking for, that is why we must talk from the perspective of the ethnic Afrikaners who cannot divide or separate themselves from the past.
 What you will have before you as the Commission and what you will have to judge us on is what is before you, hence I have already admitted and I would like to reiterate today that of course we considered the possibility of rebellion.  Mr de Klerk was correct, we did consider it, we did commit certain acts.  We tried not to commit human rights violations, we selected our acts and we tried to act in a justifiable manner, but there were certain acts committed, and because of that it is our objective not just to qualify ourselves for amnesty according to the Act by applying for amnesty, but it is also our contribution to ensure that you as a Commission follows the right course for the future.
 And in my discussion this morning I would like to speak about the present and the future, because that is more positive, and at the end of my submission I will try to deal with the past because the Freedom Front as a party was established then, because we as ethnic Afrikaners were in the crises when the National Party as a party, was supported by us through all the years, and when we realised that they were sidelining us without our mandate to do what they were doing, we decided to form this group and it is this group which we are representing politically today and whom we speak for.  We have come a long way in South Africa and we are not ashamed about that.  It is the group which had a historical development which also suffered in this country as a group, which together with other people in this country built up this country. It is a group with specific identities, it is a group with its own language and we are proud of that language, and if any attempt is made to take that language away from us, we will resist.  It is a group with its own system of values which we will maintain at all costs in spite of the majority which we are faced with. It is a group in essence Mr Chairperson which wants to remain what we are and would like to maintain our identity.
 The first theme which I will discuss with you this morning Mr Chairperson, is the differentiation between the National Party, who they represent and the Freedom Front and whom we represent.  So often we ethnic Afrikaners, or more conservative Afrikaners, are seen as black sheep of the past. So much so that a finger has been pointed to us about third force activities, but there's a basic difference between the Freedom Front and the National Party, and our past and the past of the National Party.  We as the Freedom front, as I said to you, want to maintain the identity of our folk, we are fighting for the continued existence of our folk within the plurality of the New South Africa.  The National Party has a different approach. They have a hunger for power, they are searching for being in government, they are looking for a new crew of supporters who are based on the objective of taking over power.  
 The result hereof Mr Chairperson was that the ethnic Afrikaner, especially '94 and '93 and '92, felt left out.  The party in its past suddenly had this turn we saw ourselves as having other priorities apart from the Afrikaner and the others, this is the National Party. They refused to listen to us when we spoke, and felt very sensitive about us talking about Afrikaners and the Afrikaner identity because they were too afraid that their new associates and their new opponents and the new party members would get the impression that they were being racist. It was then really a problem for them in the newly born South African democracy.
 We also believe in democracy Mr Chairperson, but we also believe that democracy is not possible without the price of maintaining your own identity.  Fortunately we started the negotiating process which we participated in and it was successful, and within this negotiating process we comprehended the need of the Afrikaner much better, than in the National Party. The ANC agreed that we could accept self sufficiency within the new system, self determination and they then signed an accord and they undertook that the differences such as this, that in the future we would discuss peacefully.  
 The peace accord is what basically we all believed in a democratic South Africa and that everyone in South Africa in some or other way had to be involved in democracy and, in addition to that Afrikaner self-determination was an important point, Afrikaner self-determination was not in conflict with the idea of democracy in South Africa.  This was a very important matter which I just mentioned to 
you Mr Chairperson because it is a good demonstration of a principle which deals about equality and another two principles, firstly that before you go to battle, you first have to look at every other alternative and secondly, before you go to war, you have to consider the costs of such a war.   So this ethnic group of Afrikaners did consider violence and at that stage we regarded it as unnecessary.  We said enough is enough, somewhere the violence has to come to a stop in this country and we believe that there was an alternative which would help us to achieve what we wanted to achieve in a better way, and which we might not have been able to achieve with violence.
 Honourable Chairperson, it was not that easy.  There was so much pressure on us when we took these decisions.  The actions that we had planned had been at an advanced stage, we were actually in a position of power and within our peoples' minds, there was a willingness and a emotions were running very high around about 1994, and they were also very disappointed, most of them were very disappointed.  After all the hard work, the readiness which they were prepared to sacrifice and also the fear in so many of them, that this alternative on which we had decided together with the ANC to negotiate, was probably a bit vague and that there were risks involved that we would be disadvantaged somewhere along the way in reaching this objective.  
 Yet the alternative worked Mr Chairperson, and we achieved a certain number of votes in the national elections and that was after a four week campaign.  We also Mr Chairperson created a new vision for the Party with this new direction which we followed, a new vision for the ethnic Afrikaner which included certain constitutional protectional measures and a new comprehension of self-determination which is an internationally accepted one in contrast to apartheid, it was not apartheid but it was a well-known applicable measure which if applied in that way, could be one that could happen without any conflict or violence.
 The Afrikaner community can by means of the principle of self-determination, once again be empowered, while at this moment we feel very disempowered by things like especially the Kempton Park Constitution which was individual orientated. The active constructive work which was also in the way of the Freedom Front, we accepted it as a part of our new vision.  We said in our new vision, let us go back to the original objective of the Afrikaner and that was peaceful coexistence and especially playing a role of entrepreneurship in the New System.
 We also decided that the Afrikaner had to go back to it's old principles that we did not want to rule other people, that we would live with other people peacefully and we would distance ourselves from the National Party, that the Afrikaner would consolidate with a large group of other people and rule with other groups in a large group.  We are not power hungry, we are not striving for government of anything like that, we are striving for coexistence in a New South Africa where we could all benefit positively from what we have got.
 I am not busy politicising Mr Chairperson, but what I am doing here is giving the Commission a demonstration of how conflict-management can take place in the right way. What in you in your judgement of the past will have to consider about the conflict-management which was applied in the past is something I considered, that's why I started with the past, to take you as a Commission and show you that this is a study where we are busy applying the rules of conflict management.  We did consider violence, we considered it very carefully and at the right stage we switched to a more acceptable, and hopefully the same reachable objective which we would have reached in other ways.  
 Some persons, Mr Chairperson are cynical about this approach of ours, some people say it will not work, some say we are being led around by our noses, some are saying that this accord of yours is a fraud, think of Piet Retief, he signed an accord and he was murdered.  We are saying, and it is included in the accord, that we did this in good faith, we signed it in good faith with the ANC and we accepted in good faith what the other party also signed. The alternative for this conflict-management which we attempted to reach is a complex matter, it is not something that can be reached overnight, we have a long way to go and it takes a long process of transition and in a way we have to unravel the Old South Africa and the New South Africa to reach the position where we as the Afrikaners feel that we can continue our existence in safety.
 Of course it is also a road filled with risks.  It is a road where we will have collisions and of course many of our people after three years are very impatient because we have only thus far managed to achieve the constitutional provisions and we have nothing to show the practical implementation thereof.  
 Also Chairperson, in the ethnic Afrikaner community, there is great dissatisfaction about our language, we are not satisfied with education, we feel that our communities are disempowered in every possible way and we are simply overpowered by the position of the majority rule.  But self-determination honourable Chairperson, cannot just remain an academic thing, it cannot just remain theoretical, there are many things that which have to be done and there has to be some kind of movement in this direction. Thus far we believe that we have invested ourselves in the new vision which the Party tried to implement.  We believe that we will get our dividends which are peace, success and safety for everyone in South Africa.
 So the Freedom Front is a new party which is trying to play a new role in the lives of the Afrikaners. We are prepared to look the past squarely in the eye and stick with our mandate which is to advance the interests of the Afrikaner, not exclusively but as part and a role-player of the past of this country.  I would say an unmissable role player in the past of this country.  I will now switch to English.                   
 Mr Chairperson let me analyse what has happened around these intriguing origins of the new party for it may be relevant for the issue of reconciliation in South Africa. We met to consider alternatives to violence.  Why?  Because we have agreed in the accord in specific terms to be conflict-preventing, to negotiate rather than to make war.  What really happened here is that we both sides have adhered to the very basic rules regarding the concept of a just war, that is to explore all alternatives before you resort to violence. I myself was under immense pressure to go for war, even today I am often pressurised when my people feel frustrated as I've explained, because of the slow process and because of the process towards self determination, not really at the moment meeting the expectations that my supporters had. Some even feel or suggest that resistance should again be followed and they mentioned the possibility of the IRA model.  But I've adhered to this principle in the just theory of war.  All other possibilities must be fully explored and that is what we are busy doing.  So we talk.
 I gather that the Deputy President has announced in his presentation on Monday in this Commission, that we have reached an important stage in our negotiations on the issue of self determination.  Yes I agree with him, we are not in full agreement on all aspects of this ideal but we talk and we deal and we will reach some agreement, and if we reach a certain agreement and we want to further explore the ideas then we will do so in the future to come.  Had the National Party government Chairperson and the liberation movements done so, almost fifty years ago, even after that, the history of this country would have been totally different. 
 Now I would like to deal with our past.  In dealing with our past the public sessions of this Commission which an effort was made to come to some understanding on the whole and some of the detail of the conflict of the past, have resulted in a picture of the past which we have to deal with. We have to take note of the fact that certain sections of the population have not come forth, so we do not have a complete picture, we have unfortunately failed to address the apprehensions in order to facilitate participation of these people.  
 I have left you some clues on the perceptions of our constituency on this in the past in my presentation so far.  I have now added elucidation apropos your written questions and will hopefully do so in cross-examination.  I just want to repeat a few points on the issue of the explanations that are offered in the August 1996 document and those explanations are not excuses because I am not offering excuses, but I'm trying to give some explanations for the perception that the Afrikaner also the ethnic Afrikaner has been rather insensitive in the past on the issue on the rights of others. And I am only mentioning the points that I described in my previous August presentation.
 Firstly the unacceptability of my people to accept the option of violence taken by the ANC. 
 Secondly the complete lack of communication from both sides which has certainly contributed to the inability of both sides to solve this problem.
 Thirdly, young civilized brutality of the methods of war, and I'm referring to intimidation, arson, necklacing, etc.
 Fourthly the spirit of lawlessness and the disregard of authority as transpired from the revolution of the methods used by our opponents.
 Fifthly the revolutionary methods of warfare which to us was also totally unacceptable.  We have been used to conventional war.  To us it was an adaptation, we had to adapt all our techniques in 196O to switch over from the concept of more conventional wars to that of fighting this kind of revolutionary war.
 Then the sixth point is communist involvement and I have dealt with, at length, in my previous presentations in this regard.
 Seventh, the destruction, the anarchy that took place.  The destruction of our economy, the schools and the destruction of the educational system.  To us that made it very difficult for us to show much sensitivity.
 And then the difference in cultures, and lastly the love of freedom of my people, the ethnic Afrikaner and our great ideal for which we have sacrificed a lot over 300 years, and that is the idea to govern over ourselves. And it is tragic that eventually this power-hungry approach of our political masters of the last few decades has now caused us to lose this very treasured aspect of the Afrikaner and that is the love to be able to govern over himself.
 But allow me a remark of a general nature, on particularly the sessions with the political parties so far for the conflict of the past was essentially a political one which calls for political accountability. I'm afraid we have all done the same.  Some did it more eloquently with more vigour but it was very much the same.  We have explained our motivations, we have defended our actions, we have justified our causes.  In the difficult questions we have resorted to contextualising otherwise rather indefensible actions. We have claimed provocation of a compelling nature, we have been weighing up the relative morality of our case, causes and our actions and we have concluded that reconciliation is the answer and reparations are necessary to the extent that is possible.
 Let me be frank with you, I have not bought all these things that I said and I am not sure that we are getting anywhere.  I have for instance not bought from the ANC their assumption that there was no other option than revolutionary violence in 1961 and I have not accepted their explanations of adequate measures having been taken to protect non-combatants, given their type of warfare and I have not accepted their explanations that the fate of councillors and of what they call collaborators was only the responsibility of irate communities they have tried to serve.
 There are many more that I can add but I don't want to make a political speech on this.  I also want to criticise the National Party for basically the same reasons and particularly for claiming to have clean hands, thereby passing the blame to the operators' level. There is a strong effort to put the blame on the other party in this TRC process.  Unfortunately this has resulted in various political justifications and political footwork, also with the sessions of this Commission.  It is to my mind not of great importance to determine who is really the more guilty party in this situation because none of us can really claim clean hands.  In my analysis of the past I shall try to raise the level of consideration rather to the matters of principle and try to refrain from the gruesome detail of the lower levels, because these principles I maintain, can be applied as principles in future conflicts. To take from the past what is good and precious and to build our future  on that which is what our president Paul Kruger had said when he was in exile shortly before his death.  
 In generalising the wars or the conflicts of the past one can use guidelines of just war principles, even though these principles are more applicable for conventional types of war. At least by using them you follow certain existing criteria.  I shall deal now with two questions on this issue.
 Firstly, can either side claim their cause to be just? And secondly can the methods used by either side be regarded as just methods and acceptable applications of force?  Have the causes been just?
 According to the principles of just war, there are some criteria which have to be used in facilitating judgement. Firstly the cause must be just and the intent justifiable. Secondly the principle of proportional violence must be adhered to. The total good to be achieved must be in proportion to the evil anticipated in the application of force. Thirdly the war should be waged by a recognised authority and lastly the use of force should be the last resort.
 Those are, there might be more but those are the important ones applicable in my opinion to this conflict that we are now discussing.  The liberation movements argue very strongly on their case being a just one and that violence was the only option. It is true that they did offer the possibility of a national convention.  However some strong arguments could be, and in fact had been raised in the debates at the time of the decision of the ANC in 1961 to opt for the violent situation.  
 It is doubtful in my mind whether the last resort criteria would be satisfied with this decision of the ANC. It also has been pointed out earlier some periodic efforts to explore alternatives over three decades would have proved greater preparedness to satisfy the requirements of this principle of just war.  Even the international condemnation of apartheid was not enough reason to justify not endeavouring to break the cycle of violence somewhere along the three decades of this conflict.
 The former state of which I've been part will certainly fail this criteria for not being prepared to explore alternatives at the beginning and during the three decades of conflict.  It is often argued that this war effort on the part of the state could not be justified and that the former state was an illegitimate regime defending a crime against humanity.  I don't buy this and regard this argument in terms of just war principles as just political propaganda. (end of tape)  ..... recognised and certainly had the obligation to defend its inhabitants and to maintain stability. In addition to this there was the perceived fact of international communist expansion and subversion that recognised no borders.  The former state could probably justify the defensive action in the just war principles, it would however fail in not having sought political alternatives at the beginning and in the duration of this conflict.         
 In my opinion therefore, both sides will also fail the criteria of proportionality.  If not at the beginning, then at least along the way of the three decades.  It could have been expected of the conflicting parties to weigh up the total good against the evil of the overall damage to human values that the conflict was causing. Then this counting of the costs could have brought a sooner end to the conflict.
 In weighing up the justice of the cause on both sides, this South African conflict could also not be considered in isolation. The entire region had gone through a period of destabilisation as the three major conflict issues in the region.  That of colonialism, communist aggression and expansion, and apartheid, interacted with each other. Again without the recognition of boundaries from all sides. 
 The lessons I submit in considering the just war aspect are the following:
Firstly the last resort criteria is vital to prevent   violent actions. This should be a guideline for the future.
 Secondly the communication, talking and negotiation, are the channels to defuse conflict and should be facilitated by outsiders if required.
 And thirdly the principle of proportionality is never properly considered when the decision on violence is taken. Therefore periodical stock takings whilst the conflict develops is advisable in the application of this criteria.
Now I'd like to switch over to the justness of the methods used in war. This aspect of a just war theory must in analysing this conflict be seen in the context of the type of war or the conflict that we were involved. The destructiveness of this kind of war cannot be compared with the physical destructiveness or power of for example, conventional weapons and especially nuclear weapons. But in applying revolutionary war as a means of coercion, the destruction is more in the overall damage of human values.  The damage to the mind can be worse than the damage to the body.  This has become clear in the investigations so far by this Commission.
 So again in this kind of war the principle of proportionality in the in the means applied is of great importance.  I think neither side at the start of the conflict had foreseen so much damage to human values in the three decades, and never in the course of conflict over three decades had this position been reconsidered by either side.  Now we sit with a destroyed economy, a lost generation, a huge backlog in education and skilled human resources and a major problem of crime which is no doubt also linked to the spirit of lawlessness from the revolution and the availability of surplus unregistered arms in our country. 
 Revolutionary war Chairperson is as evil as nuclear war.  It remains at best a very doubtful form of warfare, closely linked to terrorism.  Terrorism is completely rejectable as a means of war because it is aimed at the defenceless.  It is also a crime against humanity. So the use of terrorism to fight terrorism is equally evil. The problem with these kinds of war is that it invites unconventional action from those combatting it on the basis of it takes a thief to catch a thief. When the liberation movements for example, moved the battle lines into the townships and disappeared operating without uniforms, using the human bush to hide themselves in, this invited new techniques from those combatting and those defending, those techniques such as infiltration, booby traps, and all the others that you have come across in your investigations so far.
 One of the strongest moral principles of any war according to the just war theory is that of non-combatants should be saved the ravages of war. The liberation movements in this conflict gradually relaxed this principle and at the end intentionally applied violence with little consideration of targets involved. In the just war principles it is accepted at times civilian casualties might occur but it is expected from the warring sides to try to avoid this with a great sense of responsibility.  Murder is in no way justified. The theory states that in certain circumstances even political officials in this kind of war could become legitimate targets, but this is certainly not the rule.  I'm afraid that in this principle of just war, taking care of non-combatants, we have seen the worst failures of this conflict.  
 To sum up the lessons on the justness in the means of war Chairperson, I would like to say the major failure has been the disregard of non-combatants. That is by no way secondary, that is by no way an argument that the revolutionary war, and particularly terrorism could qualify the test of a just war.  And thirdly, the real damage to human values is never correctly calculated and foreseen and it is tremendous.
 So in dealing with the past from the principles of a just war is not comforting. Again as I said, we all intend to defend our actions, but whether we like it or not, there are indefensible actions from both sides. Why then can't we agree that we all have dirty hands from whatever side you want to approach this crucible, is it necessary to rationalise and contextualise and proceed on this futile course of trying to win a ball game of the past? For what results from this is the culture of not taking political responsibility.  We fought a war that should have been avoided or terminated at a much earlier stage and we fought a dirty war. And what also results from this is that we fail to achieve the basic and constitutionally determined goal of this exercise which is reconciliation. 
 Let me conclude with a few general remarks on this issue of reconciliation. I want to start off by saying that I think that there's a general agreement that the final aim of the TRC is the promotion of national unity and reconciliation.  It is perhaps not even necessary to argue the point. From the constitutional as well as from the legislative intent is clear. Let me say that I have no doubt that we are all serious, I hope we are all serious about achieving this goal. When legislation was considered for the purpose of establishing this Commission, I have often raised my doubts about the aspects of this effort because I fear politicians use the Commission for their own purposes and we may in the end find that we have hatched a number of new devils and produce counterproductive results. In the end however, I've accepted this effort for the sake of finding the final goal of reconciliation. It was this consideration that made me change my mind in favour of cooperating with this Commission, even though I had voted against the legislation in Parliament.    
 I want to suffice with a basic submission that important as the investigative work of the Commission this may have been for the sake of arriving at a better insight of the nature of nature of the extent of the conflict of the past, there is a very wide-spread and indeed growing public fear, the way things have developed this far, we run the risk of failing in our basic mission of affecting reconciliation and national unity.  What I am suggesting is that there seems to be no clear strategy for reconciliation that permeates and coordinates the different aspects of work of this Commission.  This fear is not restricted to the Afrikaner community alone, it is much wider.  We may have been naive in assuming that once the truth has been revealed, reconciliation will follow as a matter of course.
 One of the banners that you use at your sessions suggests that truth is the way to reconciliation and I'm sure this might be true, but the problem I think is that while we have structured many of the basic aspects of the work of the Commission, we fail to provide for the concerted and even structured planning for the search of the most important ideal, which is reconciliation.  In fact I'm not sure whether we have at all consensus about what reconciliation in this society really means. In a deeply divided society it is of utmost importance to my mind to look for a specific and inclusive strategy and for all the means we can find to actively and at all times work towards this basic goal of reconciliation. This is especially true for an exercise like this, where we dissect, and analyse the trauma of the past to the point that if we have no way of reconstruction or realigning in a meaningful way, the net effect might be more divisive than uniting, causing further damage rather than healing the nation.  We have in the process opened many old wounds which, if left unattended, will cause more bleeding and leave even greater scars in our society.
 Let me put it another way, if the work of the Commission in the work so far, not enough has happened to transcend the divisions and the trauma of the past and to rise to the challenge and the level of the future.  Perhaps its present structures of the Commission have not allowed for this.  We may have facilitated a national masochism which may result in a political masochism of a destructive nature very shortly.  I'm not sure that we come out stronger and more resolute from this process.  In fact from what I have observed and from the proceedings I have the impression that the polarised components of our society have been reconfirmed and not dissolved as we hoped it would be, and in some communities like mine, a distinct result of further alienation has been achieved.
 In view of these things it is my considered opinion that we, above all need to expedite the winding up of the work of this Commission before any value flowing from the work of the past becomes neutralised by possible counterproductive results.  I suggest that this process, unless we put a limit to it, can go on indefinitely, which I think will not be conducive to the production of the concept of reconciliation.
 The research department of the Commission could recommend further investigations, selected investigations, which may be too important to cut out, but let us draw the lines together to understand the truth of the past by debating your report on this in Parliament and also if necessary in civil society.  Let us find ways of expediting the work of the Amnesty Committee and the Reparations Committee, especially the latter.
 I feel strongly Chairperson that even in the remaining structured operations of the Commission, the purpose of reconciliation should be more explicitly built into the work of the committees. A better alternative to my mind will be, an amendment to the empowering legislation to allow for a specific committee of reconciliation that would serve the purpose of ensuring that this idea would be achieve and not be neglected.  This new committee could serve in a coordination role and could also consider difficult individual and community cases, and could come up with strategies adapted to specific situations that could be implemented to bring about reconciliation in real terms.
 A final an far more far reaching for the proposal on my part for the purpose of affecting reconciliation at the different levels of society, is that once the present phase of the work of the Commission has been completed, a reconciliation committee, if it is instituted, or as an alternative, a newly established small continuation Commission of the TRC, be tasked to find ways of affecting reconciliation in real terms based on the information the research department has produced and concentrating on situations that have been exposed and that need to be attended to. This committee could also identify organs of civil and religious society that could be briefed and employed to fulfil this task on a more permanent basis in the future. True reconciliation in a deeply divided society require long-term planning and concerted effort.
 That Chairperson, concludes my presentation and this is our contribution to which we hope you will find useful in the search of your Commission on the real road to reconciliation. I am now prepared to answer questions.