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

MS GUMBI: Thank you Chairperson. I must say that of the three of us Mr Minty has always been the better organised one. Chairperson very, very briefly I think from what Mr Minty has said it is quite clear that South Africa has taken a leading moral position on matters of non-proliferation. There is no doubt in our mind that there will be quite a number of competitors for that position. And if South Africa is found to have acted in a manner which results in some proliferation in terms of international obligations and international standing it will be very easy to then discredit us in carrying out this policy that Mr Minty has outlined. We have several agreements on confidentiality with many countries relating to this issue.
 And Chairperson I really want to address you on the issue, when I say we have the irony of this case is really not lost on us nor on the government. As Professor Haysom said Mr Minty and many others fought very hard to expose some of the activities of the previous government. Fought very hard to ensure that the United Nations and the world community adopts certain measures against the previous government. 
 The irony of it Chairperson is that it is this government then that has to act in a manner which suggests the protection of those past transgressions. Chairperson the members of the Commission would be aware of many other instances where we have had to go through very painful negotiations on our part which were interpreted as seeking to promote or protect the activities of the previous Apartheid State but which negotiations placed certain obligations unfortunately on this government. 
 Now we are here talking about activities and programmes that were conducted by the previous government but which as a result of the peaceful transition that we have place obligations on this particular government. We have cases where we are paying civil penalties, we are paying criminal penalties for activities of the previous government. And Chairperson I have been told that part of it is that we are being punished for having had a peaceful transition in South Africa. Because legally in terms of international law if we had had a violent overthrow or a revolution we would then not necessarily become the legal successor of the previous government which means that we would not have had to pay the debts of the Apartheid government for programmes or activities that were directed at us in the past.
 We therefore stand here inheriting the sins of the past but which placed certain obligations on us to act as a responsible member of the international community. Chairperson we occupy a specific place in the international community in disarmament. 
 Part of what Mr Minty was saying was that when the non-proliferation treaty had to be extended South Africa put proposals on the table, a statement of principles which finally brought all the member states around an agreement on proliferation. When those negotiations took place in New York it was clear that there were two terms that were at loggerheads. But we put a proposal on the table which finally got a consensus agreement and a commitment to disarmament eventually. And the reason we were able to do that was because of the way in which the new government has acted in matters of non-proliferation. 
 We or the South African rather, Chairperson, would really want to continue to take a leading role in matters of non-proliferation, in matters of chemical warfare, in matters of disarmament finally. And for that reason we would not like to lightly be accused of ourselves ignoring those international obligations. We would therefore Chairperson ask the Commission to pause and reflect as you have done in the past when you think about the questions of is this a protection of past activities and to really say to you that as I have said that it is very ironic that we are here to put that case before you. 
 Finally Chairperson, whatever the decision that the Commission reaches on this matter we would plead with the Commission to give us an opportunity to reflect on that decision before the next step is taken as a government and to reflect on what steps may be taken depending on the decision that you reach. Mr Minty here would be the first one to slap us with an order and those steps Chairperson are not going to be steps that would be out of line with what the Commission decides. I mean it may just be a letter that is sent to Vienna to say well as a government this a position that we took in order to comply with our obligations and we would ask for that opportunity to reflect. Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions you want to ask? Dumisa?

MR NTSEBEZA: Thank you Chairperson. I just want to ask from the representative of government, any of the three of you on the question of the media. I think your proposal in a large measure satisfies only a section of the media, the print media. In the sense that if we are to be inclined to fall in line with your proposal and to the extent that a transcript would be made available to journalists it would assist in a large measure the print media. But the electronic media in the form of radios, certainly in the form of television would be disadvantaged by that. Would you have any ways in which you think that can be accommodated if it can be accommodated within the framework of your proposal?

MR HAYSOM: Essentially I understand your point to be that if you were to conduct an enquiry over five days you would have regular sound bites and television footage and there would be visibility. Whereas in our proposal the journalist would get too much of it in a rush. They would get a comprehensive report or a comprehensive summary. That may well be the case but I think that there are ways also of dealing if this enquiry is going to be and traverse the issues it intends to traverse it is possible to deal with the release of the document over several days for radio journalists to deal with it perhaps comprehensively and more effectively because it is done when looking at the total picture of whatever emerges rather than in a day by day basis. But I am not sure that one can go so far as to say is because people will get one full picture as opposed to bits and pieces there is prejudice, sufficient prejudice to radio and print. Certainly the fact that it is coming out in the form of a transcript does not preclude it being released in a way which gives at least some visual images and allows radio journalists to comment on it as they would normally do through commentary and interviewing people on the nature of, on the evidence submitted. And even interviewing the people who gave evidence because they will now have that evidence in front of them and they would be in a position to approach them.

MR NTSEBEZA: How would we accommodate television journalists who would like to have footage of the witnesses as they testify in respect of those sections. Let's say for instance at the end of the five day period where there be, were there a mechanism in terms of which we could capture this whole thing on video as well. I am not addressing that. I just want you to reflect on it. Now what happens at the end of the period where we say okay we are satisfied, that is the decision one has to make, we are satisfied that all of these images have nothing to do to proliferate, with proliferation. But you know if it is held in camera I would assume that there would be no television cameras, there would be no photographers and what goes to the transcript would only be recorded in the mechanical recorders. I just wanted some creative ways in which you think you can suggest as how we could accommodate the media.