Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-06

WITNESS:   Yes, I agree with that and, as I said, the two papers are basically the same.  There is nothing really to distinguish between the papers, and I would argue that the suggestion that, because Fraser didn't include the reference to terrorism relating to the use of force in his second paper, that that was simply abandoned, that he suddenly changed his mind, which General Oelschig argued at the case ... [end of tape] ... [break in recording] ... is in the record.  Why are we going through it again?  I asked counsel please not to deal with issues which have been dealt with in other forums and they're sitting there in those boxes there.  Why are we going through this evidence again?

MR DE VOS: The point I'm making is not on record.  That is the whole point.  The second book, the appendix there was

MR DE VOS: /attached to

MR DE VOS: 4B attached to the State Security Council meeting's minutes of the 18th July 1985.  What Mr Varney, however, did in his submission to you was that he simply attached the first books, annexures, as of that, was the annexure attached to the minutes of the meeting of the 18th July, and that is simply not true.  Would you agree with me, Mr Varney?

WITNESS:   The paper referred in the Botha document is based on Fraser's work, and I don't believe there is any problem in going to the original Fraser document.  In actual fact, I believe the original document probably carries more weight than subsequent documents, that it was refined here and there perhaps.  If there was a reference in the second document, which said, "I refer to the use of force as terrorism.  In this paper I have revised my view and I don't see force as terrorism, I see it as something else", then perhaps you would have a point, but I think it's splitting hairs to say you agree in one paper force equals terrorism and in another paper force equals something else.  It's a pointless argument and if you look at the wider circumstances of what formed counter-revolutionary strategy you will see that acts of terror, counter-guerilla and so on and so forth form part and parcel of that strategy and certainly Fraser's work and others fed into that.

MR DE VOS: The point I'm trying to make is very simply this.  You are telling a blatant lie to this Commission by referring to paragraph 33 of the annexure which formed part of the first book, and which appendix was not part of the State Security Council document.  That is my first point.

WITNESS:   Let me deal with that question.  I refer you to paragraph 1.2 under the context on page 6 of my

MR DE VOS: /submission.

MR DE VOS: 4B submission.  Do you have it?

MR DE VOS: Yes, what about it?

WITNESS:   Third line from the bottom,

MR DE VOS: "Fraser's original document specifically related the use of force to acts of terrorism."

MR DE VOS: I'm not misleading, I'm talking about his original document, the first one.

MR DE VOS: Yes, but in your documents to this Commission you are creating the impression, and in all the documents which you have published, also the Varney Report, the very substantial report, you create the impression that this paragraph 33 had been annexed to the minutes of the State Security Council meeting of the 18th July, and I'm putting it to you that it's a lie.

WITNESS:   Well, I would dispute that contention.

MR DE VOS: I will also further put it to you that the second book written by Fraser, in fact, stops at paragraph 31.  It simply doesn't contain a paragraph 32, 33 and what follows.  What do you say about that?

WITNESS:   I don't have that before me, but I'm sure if you read it very closely you will find that all the numbers, in fact, have changed between the two books and you will find in there that Fraser's advocation of the discriminate use of force, which is what paragraph 33 is all about, is contained in a second paper, albeit under a different chapter.  Perhaps you would like us to stand down and we can sit and waste time and find that, but I can assure you it's in there.

MR DE VOS: Would the Commission bear with me for a second, please?  Mr Varney, I would like to put it to you that the whole issue on which you are relying, namely that, as it

MR DE VOS: /was put in

MR DE VOS: 4B was put in paragraph 33, namely that when the decision is made to counter terrorism, that this decision has to be taken at the highest level and that this comes from Fraser's first book and was never before the State Security Council.  Would you agree with that?

WITNESS:   Well, may I ask, how are you able to tell that both books, one or the other, were not before the State Security Council?  If one is going to split hairs on this question.  And it's a waste of time, because there is no essential difference.  Some sentences may have been left out, some paragraphs may have been changed, but there is no essential difference in thrust and in form between the two Fraser documents, and, with respect, Mr de Vos, you are splitting hairs here.

MR DE VOS: Mr Varney, I have a surprise for you.  On Friday I photostatted the original Fraser document, which I found in an archive, and if you think I don't have it, I do, and I'm putting it to you you have no basis for making this statement.  Would you like to have a look at this document?

WITNESS:   It is a waste of the Commission's time.  I can assure you that the ... (intervention)

YASMINE SOOKA: I think, Mr Varney and Mr de Vos, I think that the question that is being put to you is whether - how you actually know one or the other document is actually attached and I think in the interests of getting to some kind of sensible option on this perhaps you would make the point of what it is that you want to say to Mr Varney, so that we don't have this wrangle, because it's not really taking us anywhere.  If you're saying - if you're making a point in respect of either the first or the second document being used, I would be glad if you got to that
 /point.
4B point.

MR DE VOS: Mr Varney, would you agree that both Fraser's first book and the second book ends with summaries of everything that he has written about in his book?  Do you agree with that?

WITNESS:   I do recall that.

MR DE VOS: And the second book, the summary there ends at paragraph 32, which reads as follows:

MR DE VOS: "In the struggle against the riotous elements it is preferable that, by means of international agreement, it be made possible for Government forces to ignore national borders, internal boundaries and for police and ..."

MR DE VOS:  ... (intervention)

WITNESS:   If my learned friend is going to be putting documents to me, I believe that, just as I have made all the documents that I have quoted from available he should do the same to me.

MR DE VOS: Here is the book.  I can show it to you.  It is Fraser's second book.  Would you like to have a look at it?   And perhaps I can also show you Fraser's first book, which after paragraph 32 then continues and contains the relevant passage on which your whole argument before this Commission is based.