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

UNKNOWN: Yes, actually, on these attacks, as he, has already been indicated that we were very much concerned about the killings of the African people attending the night vigils, commuting to work, the Boipatong, etcetera and so on and so forth, and we were concerned that only the African people are suffering in this regard and, of course, the oppressors were to also to feel the pinch.  I will quote the late Chairman of the PAC, John Nataipukela, that,
"... it is high time that the oppressor also bury their dead ..."
and we do emphasise the question of reprisal and self-defence that also the oppressors must also feel the pinch and must also be killed.  That was the equation and it follows from there.  Is there anybody who wants to add on that?

MEMBER OF DELEGATION: Yes, yes I just want to add, Comrade Chairman, that during this time when our people were being killed in the townships, members of Apla, those commanders who were inside the country were very angry to the extent that they thought that maybe our people will say they are not protecting them properly or successfully.  That is one of the things which made them to take this decision of mounting these operations.  They feel that, they feel guilty that if the war is being taken to the Black townships, they must also take the war to the White areas.  That was one of the reasons.  Thank you.

MR GOOSEN: Is the PAC or Apla a signatory to the Geneva protocols?

MEMBER OF DELEGATION: We would want to indicate that we have not signed the Geneva protocol.

MR GOOSEN: Could you indicate why that is the case?

MEMBER OF DELEGATION: We were really engaged in a regular type of warfare and we had wanted really to bring out, because what must be understood that there was a culture of White militarism in the country that had been entrenched for decades and it had kept our people down.  We were in the process of breaking the idea that a monopoly of military art or military skills, ability to defend ones self or ones people could be a monopoly of only one section of our population.  So, that aspect that, perhaps, White militarism in the country did lead to militarism within the African community.  We should take that into consideration.
 We, therefore, had not seriously discussed the idea of signing the Geneva protocols and we had not, at any stage, seriously tabled those. I know that, I have been one of the people who had, perhaps, had some discussions with members of the International Committee of the Red Cross and we were looking into certain aspects of it at the time when some of these activities of the 1990s took place, but up to that point we had not even said, as a military commission, to debate that issue or even, as a central committee, to take decisions on it.

MR GOOSEN: The ... (intervention).

MR MOWENDE: At this earlier hour, I think we must clarify certain things, because the perceptions that you decried earlier from our side are built upon certain things like the type of questioning that is being levelled here.  See, there are two paradigms here.  There is a paradigm of offensive and there is a paradigm of defensive and we have stated here the paradigm of the, of defensive, because we were fighting a defensive war.  We did not start the war.  Now, the type of questioning that I can see here has ignored that paraphrasing on our part, that we were actually fighting a defensive war and even the facts that we put forward here, that we were fighting a defensive war, and we proved it and established that we were fighting a defensive war, but the type of questioning here is based on the paradigm of the offensive.
 We must justify here, according to Mr Goosen, why we were on the offensive.  There is not one question that he asked where we are called upon to justify our defensive action.  I would advise him that while we will accept the position where we have got to justify our offensive, he must also maybe construct questions now, for the rest of the day, that will tilt the balance where he is asking us to justify our defensive action.  Otherwise the perception will be that we are put, we are being put on the dock here where we have got to justify, in fact, the moral obligation is being put on us here to prove or rather to justify the whole system of apartheid and its consequences and I think that is unacceptable.  Thank you.

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Goosen, I want to rule on this and I want to say that I think this is a total misinterpretation of Mr Goosen's questions, I think his questions have been fair, they have been specific.  His most recent question is a question we ask every political party.  I think this is what you must understand.  These are questions not specifically designed to ask you to justify everything you have done or have not done.  We are trying to get information.  Whether or not you were a signatory to the Geneva Convention, the protocol, is a legitimate question.  It is not meant to put you on trial and I do want to make it very, very clear that we have no agenda, none at all.  We have specific questions and many political parties, in this very room, have taken the strongest objection to the very questions that you are now taking objection to and we are simply trying to get a complete picture from your point of view.
 The main reason why we have not focused on the defensive character of your war is because you have made that very clear in your statements.  The earlier statement and this one, you have made it very clear where you are coming from.  What we are trying to understand is how this interplayed in the total conflict, because there were many other actors.  We are listening to all of them.  Please accept my absolute assurance that there is no multi-fides in anything we are trying to do here and Mr Goosen is a valuable member of our staff whom we have asked to lead the questions, but we identify ourselves totally with those questions as being a honest attempt to get to the truth, nothing more and nothing less than that.  I hope you will accept our assurances.
 I think this is not a bad note on which to adjourn and I suggest that we adjourn now until a quarter to two when we will resume with the questions.  Thank you.
HEARING ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Are we all here?  Thank you.  Dr Boraine had indicated that I would Chair the remaining section of the, these proceedings.  So, I think that is the basis on which he is not here, but he has just walked in.  So, let us proceed on that basis.

DR BORAINE: I apologise for my lateness.  Unfortunately, there was a call which I had to reply to and I have asked Mr Ntsebeza if he would take the Chair this afternoon.  I will be here for most of the time.  You know that Archbishop Tutu is out of the country which means that I am assuming his role and Mr Ntsebeza is now the Deputy-Chairperson, acting of the Commission and I have asked him if he would please take over.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Adriaan Goosen.

MR GOOSEN: Thank you very much Mr Chairperson.  Mr Chairperson, just to pick up on the point at which we finished off just before the lunch adjournment.  I am grateful to Mr Mowende that he indicated by the comments that he made that I am, in fact, acquitting myself in respect of the job which the Commission has asked me to perform today.  I accept the fact that if questions are asked and one is being effective, you are likely to be criticised for being effective.  That happened on a previous occasion which was a fairly celebrated instance and I will not go into that right now.
 I would like, though, to come back to the question about proportionality and indicate and ask what the Apla high command was intending to convey when it states that in  respect of a particular decision to carry out an attack that the only requirement there was the requirement of proportionality.  What does proportionality mean in the circumstances?