Special Hearings — Chemical And Biological Warfare Hearings — 1998-06-08

MR VALLY: Archbishop firstly let's quickly talk about the Act. This is the Act which Mr Minty quoted extensively, non-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction Act number 87 of 1993. The Act defines non-proliferation as meaning the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Now this is of importance to us. What we are accused of potentially doing if we have a public hearing is proliferating weapons of mass destruction. We will not be doing so, period.
 Similarly Mr Minty has quoted a number of international conventions. Most important of which is the chemical weapons convention. Having looked at those we are not in breach of any of those regulations or any of the provisions thereof. South Africa has signed, ratified and incorporated it into our domestic law. Again there is no specific section which anyone can point out to that we are in breach of by having a public hearing. 
 We are not insensitive to these issues. We have been proactive on this issue from the outset. This hearing is two years in the making. Leading up to this hearing Archbishop we have proactively approached members of government, we have negotiated various issues and we have discussed aspects to the extent of agreeing to withdraw certain documentation from this hearing and making an application which I intend making after this issue has resolved that certain documents do not go out to the media. This is documents with formulae, etc. We are not interested in the details of manufacture or formulae but we are interested in the facts of manufacture that certain things were in fact made and more important were they in fact used.  In trying to do this because the definition of non-proliferation as I have just quoted to you does not really help us, we worked on two principles. 
 One, where technical details appear that will appear others to produce the weapon concern, we agree the technical detail be withheld from the public proceedings. 
 And two, those documents which represent official exchanges between South African and foreign governments should not form part of the public proceedings. That is a test we used. And on the basis of that test we have withdrawn certain documents which we will not use at all and there are certain documents which after this issue has been resolved we will ask the panel to in terms of Section 33 exclude from public distribution.
 This we reached after a long series of negotiations. We did not do this in isolation. A long series of negotiations with Mr Minty's department and other people. Again I want to emphasise we are not averse to the concerns being raised and we are respectful of meeting those concerns. But we do not believe that a public hearing is going in any way proliferate weapons of mass destruction. 
 On the contrary we are of the opinion that the very fact that we have this kind of hearing is because secrecy breeds proliferation. There is a very important argument internationally that the more these kinds of issues are aired and aired publicly the better chance of non-proliferation. Rather than these things being kept secret.  Now I have a respect for many human rights conventions and also humanitarian conventions like the chemical weapons convention is but there is some aspects of it we do not always agree with. Now I am not saying we are in breach, understand this. 
 I just want to make one small point. If you use teargas in terms of the convention against forces outside the country you must report it. If you use teargas on your own people you do not have to report it. So what I am saying is those conventions are for the interests of states as well. They do not always interact and be responsible towards people of their own countries. Why I am saying this is I am saying that the watch dog on proliferation is not necessarily an outside agency. It is an agency like ours, a Truth Commission which is one of the building blocks of democracy in this country. And why do I say this? We are obliged in terms of our Act to advise the government of what steps should be taken to prevent the future violation of human rights. 
 And the very fact, and I say this with not total confidence because we have been slapped around by them a little as well, but the very fact of our public and transparent hearings and the conveying thereof by the media has resulted in this unique interaction with our community which I would submit has had an impact on the psyche of our country. And we need to continue with that transparency and interaction which is through the medium of direct and immediate conveying of what is happening through our processes and what we are in fact discovering. Any suggestion of an in camera hearing and then going public will raise concerns what is being concealed, what is not being concealed. 
 If we openly exclude certain things with the principles in mind that we do not want to proliferate any weapons of mass destruction or let out any formulae, we have gone much further, let out any formulae which may lead to any drug, etc or chemical compounds being manufactured by any person, we have agreed to exclude.
 We must also examine the history of our Act. There was a time when the Act was in its drafting stage there were attempts to close certain hearings to the public and there was a massive uproar by NGO's forcing parliament to change its attitude, resulting in Section 33 being included as part of our Act. Section 33 clearly says that our hearings must be public and transparent with the proviso about certain in camera hearings. 
 Now what are we talking about, why do we want this in public? We want to show and this will be possibly led through evidence and we hope we can get all the evidence forward, to put it forward but some of the evidence we want to lead is some of the things that happened under the guise of a chemical and a biological weapons programme, and I say guise. What kind of chemical and biological weapons programme produces thallium in beer, sugar with salmonella, whisky with paraquat, baboon foetuses? One can go on. This was part of our chemical and biological weapon programme. What kind of chemical and biological weapon programme is one which is involved in examining fertility rates of black women? Very sinister stuff. And this is what is going to come out we hope in the next few days of hearing. And this is very important for the community to hear in a public hearing openly and transparently.
 Just two brief issues I want to finish off with, Archbishop. The one is we live in a new era of information production and accessibility. Just playing on the internet we have got the formula of serrin, of mustard gas, of somen gas. We have got the formula of CR gas which is supposed to be a very important breakthrough for our chemical industry. There is even information here on basic rocket bomb, multiple warhead rocket bombs. This is on the internet. That is the first issue.
 The second issue is the names of the persons who are being called as witnesses are already known through the media. They have been widely reported upon and so there is no secrets there as such. 
 So we are not coming out with any information which will in any way and I say this with respect, impact on our international treaty obligations. The issue then is this and I am, you know with respect to Mr Minty he has quoted a number of the obligations and we were proactive. We in fact went to the proliferation Council, we obtained all our relevant international conventions and our obligations therein and we examined those. We talked to international human rights NGO people who are involved in this particular area to get their views and they do not feel that by holding this hearing we will be proliferating.
 I just want to conclude by saying what is the concern. The first concern is we will breach our international conventions. No proof of this and I respectfully submit we will not. 
 The second one is our hearings may be abused by witnesses to proliferate. I do not believe that this panel will not be able to stop such proliferation if it at all happens. I believe that if there is going to be any sensitivities around those issues and the panel has been sensitised they will be in a position before someone blurts out anything, to stop them. 
 And thirdly that the hearing may be disruptive. That is par for the cause. We have had a number of hearings where people exercised their rights in terms of the Act, raised objections, raised additional points, etc. That is what we are used to and there is no guarantee that those sorts of disruptions will not take place even if it is in camera. It goes with the terrain.  I am trying to see if there is any specific point Mr Chairperson that I have not covered which was covered by my colleagues.