Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-14

INTERPRETER: To exterminate.

MR DE VOS: Thank you.  The word "annihilate" is being used by Varney throughout his report.  The military dictionary describes, I quote in Afrikaans, "opstandelinge" ... (intervention)

INTERPRETER: Insurgents.

MR DE VOS: ... as insurgents, in other words persons who are involved in insurgency.  An insurgent in Afrikaans, "insurgent," according to the same dictionary, means - I quote in Afrikaans, "A local or foreign citizen who intends to subvert the government through violence."  The English version means, "Indigenous or foreign national who aims to overthrow the government by force."  Insurgency means, "Form of rebellion in which a dissident faction commits widespread acts of terrorism, sabotage and civil disobedience, and wages irregular warfare with the aim of overthrowing the government.  In its final stages it can escalate to conventional warfare, and although it often begins internally it seldom succeeds without foreign help, support and encouragement."  Now, I must mention at this stage this wording comes from a military dictionary.
When one studies the summary of Frazer's second edition it is apparent that there is nothing unlawful mentioned under any of those 32 topics that appears in
 /this summary,
this summary, and that was in fact also what Dr Williams conceded.  It is submitted that the second edition is a proper and responsible approach to counter-revolutionary warfare.  This was actually confirmed by Dr Williams. Varney conceded during cross-examination that he has no proof that the summary of Frazer's first book was attached to the minutes of this meeting.  When it was put to him by me personally that the summary of Frazer's second edition was in fact attached he avoided giving an answer.  Now, this is very important.  We submit it is obvious why.  He knew full well that it was only the second edition that was signed by the then State President, Mr P W Botha, and he couldn't give an answer. 
Further we submit, Mr Commissioners, that Varney's attempt to bring the meeting of the 16th of January 1986 in line with the Frazer document is, with respect, similarly also a deliberate distortion of the truth.  If we return for a moment - because this whole scenario must be seen together.  This is when these bad ideas were formed, according to him, about Operation Marion, and consensus was reached, and foreseeability originated, etcetera, etcetera.  It's important, this chapter is important.  I want to return to that letter of the 17th January.  Again it's a reference to the head committee's meeting that Groenewald reports on to Pitter.  I am returning to it.
Returning now to the 17th of January 1986 memo prepared by General Groenewald to Admiral Pitter, and the so-called inferences to be drawn from it, we wish to point out the following.  
1.  In the first place Varney does not rely on the 
 /,omites pf
minutes of the head committee meeting.  He refers to an interdepartmental document prepared by Groenewald for the signature of Pitter, to be sent to the Minister of Defence.  In paragraph (n) the following is stated.  This is important.  I am going to quote in Afrikaans, Mr Interpreter.
"Problems were however experienced with the creation of a paramilitary element."
I continue in English.  Varney, however, completely changes the meaning of what Groenewald said.  He says on page 72, paragraph 12 of his report.
"Two members of the head committee objected to the creation of an ..."
and this is an important aspect,
"... offensive paramilitary unit ..."
note the word "offensive,"
"... insisting that it be authorised at the highest political level, and that Buthelezi must clarify exactly what he wanted."
Now, if we go back to the Afrikaans version it is obvious from Groenewald's letter that the word "offensive" does not form part of the contents of Groenewald's  letter.  Varney's insertion of the word "offensive" is deliberately done to create the impression that the creation of an offensive element was specifically discussed, and it was the creation of this element that drew opposition from two of its members.  This is a lie.  A second misrepresentation of the facts then follows.  In Groenewald's letter he says that the committee decided that - I am quoting in Afrikaans from the letter,
 /"The creation
"The creation of a paramilitary element must be investigated at the highest political level and cleared with the Chief Minister."
In footnote 64 - now, I must mention here specific attention should be given to the word "ondersoek," - investigate.  In footnote 64, page 33, Varney leaves out the word, "ondersoek," in English investigate.  The correct English translation of the sentence contained in Groenewald's letter will be,
"The creation of a paramilitary element must be investigated at the highest political level and cleared with the Chief Minister."
Now, if we could go back to what was said by Varney just to refresh the memory, because we're working with so many quotes, he says on head space 27 at the bottom,
"Two members of the head committee objected to the creation of an offensive paramilitary unit, insisting that it be authorised ..."
authorised, not investigated.  Firstly offensive, secondly it must be authorised,
"... at the highest political level, and that Buthelezi must clarify exactly what he wanted."
Two lies referring to the same document.
At page 72 of the report Varney again leaves out the word "investigate."  Now, it's interesting.  The first one is a reference - it appears on different pages of his report, and this is the second reference to the same
 /document.
document.  At page 72 of the report Varney again leaves out the word "investigate," confirming, in our submission, the inference that he deliberately misrepresents the true facts in an attempt to build up a case against the members of the Cabinet, the SSC and military personnel.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr de Vos, before you go on may I just draw your attention to something?  As I recall Mr Varney's evidence that reference there to two persons objecting to the offensive, as I recall it it was the objection which was raised by van Wyk and Barnard, which is a different document to the 17th of January.  And, as I recall it, it was an objection to an offensive paramilitary element.  I may be wrong, but if - is it the same document?  Can you just refer me to which document, because the name Barnard appeared in that document, and it doesn't appear on the - oh, it's on the first page.  Sorry, yes.  Okay.