Special Hearings — Armed Forces Hearings — 1997-10-07

MEMBER OF DELEGATION: I would think that this particular question is related to an earlier question which had been raised, the question of our position, both as a party and as an army, towards the Geneva protocols.  We had a very, very insensitive regime that has oppressed our people for centuries and humanitarian considerations were not really very, very operative and I had said earlier on that some of these questions did arise in our interaction with the International Committee of the Red Cross, for instance, an organisation with which some of us had interacted with even in our prison days, but you had a situation wherein the opposite number was the White regime which was totally insensitive and, hence, its policies were condemned as a crime against humanity.
 So, you wanted somebody to tango with and there was none on the other side, but as a political party, we, as the PAC, were not necessarily opposed to those international standards, because the very, very concept of just war, a peoples' war, is based on the fact that if you are standing on a just premise, fighting against a very powerful side, it is when you take correct decisions which can enjoy overwhelming support that your strength will rise from one point to yet a higher point.  Therefore, the acceptance or otherwise of the views, particularly of the constituency from which we derived support, would be very, very decisive.
 Let me indicate here that there was a time when there was an indiscriminate type of situation, vis a vis, the police, including municipal police.  At some stage we moved to a position where we did not go on with an indiscriminate attitude towards them, because we could realise that there were some rumblings even within their ranks and later on, with discussions that we had even with organisations like Popcru, etcetera, we were very, very discriminating at a later stage, vis a vis, African policemen, but at the, some stage, as we had indicated, round about 86 or 87, at (indistinct) police station we went on full-scale in attacking, etcetera.
 So, that aspect that it cannot be said it is this and this forever and ever, unaffected by developments, a developing type of situation.  So, now, I wanted that aspect to be taken into consideration, but this type of struggle we were engaging in was to change their relation of forces that from nobodies we become somebodies and we move on up to a stage where we would have equal strength and the regime had actually come to realise in the 1980s and early, well, it was the end of the 80s that, a situation was developing wherein they were getting into a no-win situation militarily speaking, a stale mate.  In spite of the fact that we had hardly got liberated zones, that is, that we could say at all times we control this area, etcetera, etcetera. 
 So, it is to change the relation of forces and we would have to continue evaluating our positions.  Does this help our struggle?  Does this help enlarge the support?  Does this help even in isolating the other side, both nationally and internationally?  So, that now, we would take some of those aspects into consideration, but it does not mean that a position taken at one particular time is a fixed position which would remain forever and ever.  It would have to be evaluated from time to time.

CHAIRPERSON: Brigadier Fichler.

MR GOOSEN: Does the Apla, sorry.

BRIG FICHLER: I think to be specific on this question so that we minimise, also, follow-up questions on this one specifically, I think it is better I make a contribution.  The fact of the matter is that we did not consider any international humanitarian law.  At no stage did, in our camps, educate our forces about international humanitarian law.  The first time I understood what international humanitarian law is, is when I integrated into the SANDF and that is when I got the meaning of what international humanitarian law is and what I discovered, also, when I integrated into the SANDF is that, equally, the former SADF did not even know what international humanitarian law was.
 So, you have forces here that were engaged in conflict without knowing what international humanitarian law was.  So, this is, basically, the situation that existed and I would request you not to make a follow-up questions on international humanitarian law, because we did not have it and we did not even educate our forces on it.

MEMBER OF DELEGATION: Well, my final word on this is that it is through history that we were forced to declare war against the system, against the State, against the regime, the former regime and the objective and the aim of that war was, basically, to preserve peace, to restore order, to ensure harmony, to ensure (indistinct) among the people and the law, the revolutionary law or liberation law or whatever you can call it, must be understood that we wanted to preserve humanity by fighting and destroying the factors or the system that was, basically, trying to destroy the humankind.  So, basically, this is the broad approach in terms of whether you call it humanitarian law or law for the revolutionaries or the reactionaries, but the thrust was to ensure that in the final analysis, we live in harmony as fellow, as fellowmen in Azania or South Africa.  Thank you.

MR GOOSEN: Thank you.  Mr (indistinct), I am afraid I have to follow it up.  I would be shirking my responsibility if I did not.  For the very simple reason that it is a fundamental precept of the moral and legal order that governs international relations and international law, but the fact that you are prosecuting a just struggle does not entitle you to engage in unjust acts and that is a fundamental principle of international law.  Indeed, the Geneva Protocol, protocol one adopted in 1977, long before 1990 and long before you may have had interaction with the Red Cross, was specifically drafted and enacted to cater for wars of national liberation recognising wars of national liberation as a particular form of international armed conflict and making provision for the protection of guerrillas who prosecute wars of national liberation.
 Would you not regard it as a fundamental failure of leadership that the Apla high command and the PAC leadership did not, in fact, bother to establish what international law was and did not educate its members about the conduct of operations in accordance with international law?