Special Hearings — Armed Forces Hearings — 1997-10-10

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson thank you very much.  Mr Maharaj I understand the perspective that principles and policies dictate
what the response would be of people on the ground as it were to particular situations.  I think one of the difficulties we've encountered here, let me say by way of introduction, one of the difficulties we've encountered, not only in this hearing but in previous hearings, is that the commanders of armed formations, whether it be the SAP generals, or whether it be the former South African defence force generals, or for that matter as we found on Monday also, the APLA commanders, that the tendency has been to accept responsibility for that which falls within the purview of policy, what is defined as policy.  And that which is perceived to be outside of policy no responsibility attaches.  
 And I raise the question in the light of the fact that if one looks at propaganda statements issued by the African National Congress in relation to the conflict in KwaZulu Natal one gets a different sense of what is being proposed in relation to that conflict, and let me put a few of those to you.  
 In the MK journal, Dawn, published in 1983, I think it's Dawn 7, 1983, in response to the killing of students at the University of Zululand, well now KwaZulu Natal, the quote is -
"Gatsha and his ilk are on the same side of the battle line as the murderers of Mxenge and countless others.  Let those who excel at swinging the two-edged sword for the enemy be warned.  The string of popular patience is overstrained and the slightest swish will snap it unlatching the sluice of popular anger.
 As for us, the combat ranks of our people's army, we remain committed to an unyielding offensive against the oppressor. We are prepared to break his barricades right to the seat of racist power and feed it to the flames of revolution.  
 To battle comrades, to battle.  
 Death to the puppets".
 And in African Communist, no.104 1986, this is the quote -
"It's no accident that in the eyes of the people Buthelezi has come to be identified with the enemy who stand on the armed struggle and sanctions he supports".
 And further on -
"He, Buthelezi, should be reminded that in the eyes of the people whose cause he is betraying he is a suitable case for treatment".

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Chairperson, Mr Goosen is doing himself an injustice.  You know that we have made in our submission very clear statement that issues like this and even bigger issues were the subject of constant debate.  They still are subjects of debate.  Now you take an article in Sishaba, written by an individual as an opinion, or Dawn, and you say the ANC does this.  You take an
article in the African Communist and you say the Communist Party does it.  Now I find that difficult, because we've explained this thing very carefully and meticulously in the past. What a political organisation our work of persuading each other and politicising our members and readership is through debate and discussion and if in that debate an opinion is expressed and then it is thrown to us as a view of the ANC against statements of the National Executive, against statements of conference which are formal policy statements, then we have a problem.  We have a problem there.
 If you said to me it was an editorial that would be a different matter.  But even so Chairperson the issue was raised in the context of responsibility for actions.  We have said this is our policy.  We accept against that policy deviations occurred, but even those deviations where they occurred in our ranks we accept responsibility.  I think I have been very clear about that.  So we accept responsibility beyond our policy.  We've accepted that mistakes occurred, violations occurred and we say yes we agree.  We will take responsibility. 
 You will see in the answer of Joel Ntzitenzshe at the last session, he says, first and foremost to characterise the journals that he was referring to, the African Communist and Dawn, to say that these were forums for debate amongst ANC members and cadres and party members, and not all the statements and articles found in 
those journals represents ANC policy, and to the extent that you could find articles which were arguing that Inkatha could be seen as a military target by the ANC you would also find articles saying that that should not be the case.  So it's the same question that has arisen.  And I thought I just need to make it clear.   Help us to show every South African that an article appearing in the African Communist is not the opinion of the Communist Party; that an article appearing in Mabuya is not the view of the ANC, it's part of debate, to distinguish between policy and individual viewpoints in a debate.  It's an important part of the culture that we have to create in this country.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Goosen.

MR GOOSEN: Mr Maharaj I accept the fact that it doesn't necessarily reflect policy, and that it might well be a forum of debate, but the essential issue is - goes to the question of responsibility and the interpretation, leave responsibility for the moment, the interpretation that may be attached to matters, to articles of this nature by people on the ground, and what that may give rise to.  We've put the question, we've put the question to commanders of the armed forces of the other armed formation in respect of the reasonableness of the actions of security force members, for example, their reasonable interpretation of what, it may not be policy, but what appeared to be policy to them.  And it
goes to that issue ...(intervention)

SATHYANDRANATH RAGUNANAN MAC MAHARAJ: Those, those security force members are not ordinary soldiers, they are generals who have been to military academy, been long in service and they should know how to read, they should know how to read.  They mustn't make these excuses to me.
 Chairperson if a general cannot distinguish between an article in a debate and a policy statement he is not fit to be a general, not in the past South Africa and not in the present one, because it means they just don't understand democracy.  What you are asking me is that they are saying we should have censored and not had debate in our ranks.  We should always be saying this opinion comrade will be misunderstood, or understood that way, but it is contrary to our policy therefore shut up, censored.  Completely antithetical to debate ...(intervention)

RONNIE KASRILS: I'd just like to make a point I was actually ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kasrils.