CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTIONIN

SOUTH AFRICA

AD-HOC COMMITTEE RESEARCH PAPERS

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTIONIN

SOUTH AFRICA

AD-HOC COMMITTEE

RESEARCH PAPERS

Published by: Ad-Hoc Committee P.O. Box 1879 Durban 4000

PREFACEThese papers are the result of a three month research project undertaken on behalf of the Durban Ad Hoc Committee on Alternative National Service. The aim of the pro­ject was primarily to gather information which can be used in the various attempts to have the National Party government introduce an alternative non-military form of national service for conscientious non-militarists. In the course of the research it became readily apparent that there is also a need for the introduction of a viable system of alternative non-combatant military service for non-combatants.A very real problem which has emerged in the debate on alternative service is the question of how one defines a conscientious objector. It has been sugested that only those persons who object in some way or other to military service for reasons of con­science and who remain in the country (and thus accept the legal penalties), are con­scientious objectors. However, such a definition ignores the many complexities of the South African situation.An analysis of conscientious objection in our country reveals that while a person may object to military service for genuine reasons of conscience, prosecution and punish­ment are not the necessary consequences of his objection. There are a number of responses open to him and these are not dependent on the particular reasons advanced for the objection. For instance, some non-combatants have reluctantly accepted non- combatant service in a combatant unit as opposed to service in an internationally re­cognised non-combatant unit. One non-combatant actually refused to render military service when he was not granted non-combatant status. He was convicted and there­after left the country. Another non-combatant also refused to render military service when his request for a transfer to a non-combatant unit was refused. Some non-milit- arists have chosen to stand trial and accept the legal penalties; others have reluctantly agreed to render non-combatant military service — the price of a deep commitment to remain and work in South Africa; still others have refused to either render military service or subject themselves to military discipline and have therefore fled the country. Conscientious non-conscriptees have found themselves in similar positions.An insistence that the response of a person to his objection be taken into account in determining whether he is a conscientious objector or not, and the imposition of the requirements that the only response qualifying a person as a conscientious objector is that he remain in the country and face the legal consequences, give rise to the follow­ing absurdities:1. The essential requirement that the reasons for the objection are genuine reasons

of conscience, is rendered secondary to the consequences of such objection.2. The borders of definition become blurred and almost impossible to ascertain.

For example, can it honestly be said that a conscientious non-militarist who evades military discipline because he is only prepared to subject himself to the

jurisdiction of civilian courts and penalties, is any less a conscientious objector than one who does subject himself to military discipline? Where does one draw the line.

3. The conscientious objector is subjected to a ‘martyrdom’ test in order to as­certain whether he does in fact have genuine reasons of conscience for his object­ion. Thus, before a non-militarist could be accepted as a conscientious objector, he would have to accept the harshest possible consequences of his actions, namely, prosecution, conviction and subjection to military discipline.

We have developed the following definition of a conscientious objector, which we feel is more appropriate to the peculiarities of the current situation in South Africa. A con­scientious objector is anyone who is liable to render military service and who, for gen­uine reasons of conscience (whether religious, political, and/or otherwise), refuses in some way or another to render combatant military service or any form of military service arising from conscription, when called up to render such service. The essential criteria are that there be an actual objection and a refusal to render service and that the reasons for such objection and refusal are genuine reasons of conscience. The specific content of these reasons and the particular consequences of a conscientious objector’s objection, are irrelevent to the definition.

In contrast to the conscientious objector there is the draft dodger who refuses to render military service when called up, but whose refusal is not based on reasons of conscience. A war resister is a person who encourages others to refuse to be inducted into the armed forces. Thus, a person may be a conscientious objector and a war re­sister at the same time, but not a conscientious objector and a draft dodger.This definition of a conscientious objector is used throughout the papers (except where other definitions are referred to).

Durban April 1980

The Ad-Hoc Committee

CONTENTS

The incidence of Conscientious Objectors in South AfricaConscientious Objectors in Exile1. Indications of the Number of Objectors in Exile2. Reasons for Objection3. Miscellaneous Information Concerning Objectors in Exile4. Response of the Nationalist Government

Conscientious Objectors Remaining in South Africa1. Number of Objectors Remaining in South Africa

(a) Conscientious Non-combatants(b) Other Conscientious Objectors

2. Reasons for Objection3. Response of the Nationalist Government Concluding Remarks

Alternative Service and South African Conscientious ObjectorsAlternative Military Service1. Section 67(3) of the Defence Act2. Section 97(3)3. The Medical Corps4. The Civic Action Programme

Alternative National Service1. Service in the S.A. Police

(a) Allotment(b) Voluntary Application

2. Service in the S.A. Railway Police, Department of Prisons or S. A. Merchant Navy

Essential Services

Concluding Remarks

Page 9

Page 31

The State's Arguments Against the Provision of Alternative National ServiceUndermining South Africa’s DefenceThe Politics of ObjectionThe Acceptance of OppositionThe Escalating Incidence of Conscientious ObjectionThe Possibilities for Alternative National ServiceConcluding Remarks

Provision for Conscientious Objectors in Rhodesia, the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany

Rhodesia1. Liability for Service2. Duration of Service3. Active Service4. Lawful Conscientious Objection5. Unlawful Conscientious Objection6. Evaluation

United States of America1. History2. The Vietnam Era

(a) Liability for Service(b) Lawful Conscientious Objection(c) Procedure and Classification(d) Non-combatant Status(e) Alternative National Service(f) Unlawful Conscientious Objection

3. Evaluation

West Germany1. Liability for Military Service2. Lawful Conscientious Objection3. Procedure4. Non-combatant Service5. Alternative National Service6. Unlawful Conscientious Objection7. Incidence of Objection8. Evaluation

Page 51

Page 67

THE INCIDENCE OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION

IN SOUTH AFRICA

January 1980

THE INCIDENCE OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION IN SOUTH AFRICASince universal conscription into the armed forces was introduced in South Africa in 1967,(1) a growing number of young men liable to render military service are con­scientiously objecting to service in the South African Defence Force (SADF). This number includes conscientious non-combatants, persons serving in the military but refusing to serve in a combatant capacity, conscientious non-militarists, persons refus­ing to serve in the formal military structure but prepared to perform non-military national service, as well as conscientious non-conscriptees, persons refusing to be con­scripted into any form of compulsory national service. The reasons for their objection are as varied as the number of objectors. But they can be divided into two main cate­gories: universal objectors who object in some way to participation in the military in all circumstances, and selective objectors who object only in certain circumstances.Irrespective of the reasons for their decision conscientious objectors are separated by circumstances into two main divisions, those who have remained in South Africa, and those who have fled into exile to avoid prosecution and the stiff penalties which are provided.(2) The incidence of objection in both groups is examined below. In addition some indication is given of the reasons members of each group have provided for their decision.At best, this paper can do no more than present the general trends emerging from a study of conscientious objection in South Africa. To date, this is the first attempt at guaging the incidence of conscientious objection. Consequently, this examination suffers from a lack of empirical data, by virtue of its fresh subject matter and also as a result of certain circumstantial and physical limitations such as distance and security consciousness on the part of objectors themselves. Government sources have had to be relied on for most statistics. However, these relate only to those objectors who have remained in South Africa. Information on objectors in exile has had to be track­ed down and gleaned from both local and overseas public sources. As a result facts and figures referring to this category of objectors are not entirely accurate except where sources are listed. But it must be emphasised that the figures so quoted tend to be somewhat conservative and, therefore, not the most probable.Despite these deficiencies this paper reflects very definite trends in the development of conscientious objection in South Africa. And an appreciation of these trends is essential for the person who wishes to understand the nature and scope of the objec­tion movement in this country. However, this particular study is only the beginning.It is hoped that regular reports on this subject will be compiled at regular intervals in the future.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS IN EXILE \ 4 %

As mentioned above itis difficult if not altogether impossible to obtain an accurate figure of the number of conscientious objectors who have fled South Africa in order to avoid service in the SADF. The difficulty arises in that, firstly, objectors who are about to leave the country, do not advertise this fact. Consequently, there is little possibility of acquiring an accurate figure through reliance solely on internal sources.Secondly, conscientious objectors have fled to a relatively large number of countries. These include Lesotho, Swaziland, Botswana, Mozambique, the USA, Britain, the Netherlands, West Germany, Israel, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Lack of communication channels between objectors in a number of these countries coupled with the long distances between the latter and South Africa, ensure that tracking down information on objectors in exile is an arduous and often unrewarding task.Finally, objectors in exile are rather security conscious and with good reason.On arrival in a foreign country they usually apply immediately for political asylum. Obtaining such status has proved to be a difficult task for most objectors despite the many strongly worded condemnations of apartheid uttered by the host countries. As a result most objectors have set themselves against publicity of any kind in order to prevent any possibility of their cases being prejudiced. In addition, there is also a well-grounded fear of being the object of the Nationalist government’s covert security operations.The statistics listed below are based on a combination of public sources consisting of first-hand knowledge, Hansard and press cuttings in the case of local sources, and, in the case of foreign sources, newspaper cuttings and information volunteered by exiled objectors, themselves. Thus, although the amount of information is limited, what is available, is, nevertheless, correct. The inaccuracy of the overall pictures, as referred to above, arises solely from the paucity of information available and not from unreli­able sources.

1. Indications of the Number of Objectors in ExileIn 1978 the Minister of Defence, P.W. Botha, informed Parliament that in 1975,1976 and 1977 the number of persons who failed to report for service in the SADF was 3 314, 3 566 and 3 814 respectively.(3) The corresponding figure for 1978 was 3 123 (4). Each of these figures represents roughly 10% of the annual call-up, less deferments and exemptions.(5) Of these totals 595, 898, and 507 were convicted in 1975, 1976 and 1977 respectively.(6) And in 1978, of the abovementioned total, 1 250 gave acceptable reasons, 284 were prosecuted, and the other 1 589 cases were still under investigation when these figures were presented.(7)It may be seen from these figures that there is a large number of persons who have failed to report for military service and who cannot be accounted for. This numerical unaccountability is significant in that it represents the maximum number of conscien­tious objectors that could be in exile. Any figure extending beyond these limits

would be invalid, for the number of exiled objectors cannot exceed the total number of persons who failed to report for service in the SADF. Thus in 1975, the maximum number of persons who failed to report for such service and who are subsequently unaccounted for, is 3 314 less 594 convictions, being 2 719. The maximum number of objectors who fled into exile during 1975, could therefore, not have exceeded2 719. The corresponding figures for 1976, 1977 and 1978 are 2 668, 3 307 and 1 589 respectively. On the basis of the 1978 breakdown, it would be fair to presume that the limits of unaccountability would be more accurately reflected if they did not exceed about 50% of the given totals. Thus, a more realistic maximum for the period 1975 to 1978 would be about 5 936. In the light of available data, the number of conscientious objectors who fled into exile during this period could not exceed 5 936. This figure does not include deserters.

Flowever, the maximum figure of 5 936 is most likely not correct in the same way that most maximum figures tend not to be. Below are a number of estimates which indicate a more probable number. They are listed according to their chronological appearance.

In 1976 a local newspaper (8) reported that “ Hundreds of deserters and military train- ind dodgers are being sought by the South African Defence Force.” In particular the Rand Light Infantry Regiment had more than 15% of its total strength on the "black list” . The regiment’s sergeant-major, Warrant Officer John Keene was quoted as say­ing that many parents were “ in cahoots” with their sons and that the latter “ are encouraged by mom and dad to buck the system and are protected when they do.”WO Keene also stated that military police are so snowed under that the success rate is less than 10%. The report also mentioned that according to Colonel P.W. Prinsloo, chief disciplinary officer of the SADF, 20% of all men absent without official leave had not returned to their units.

By January 1977 it was reported that military police at Witwatersrand Command, alone, were looking for between 2 000 and 3 000 men who had failed to report for service. This figure only referred to persons who had failed to attend parades and camps.(9)

Two months later a newspaper report announced that “ about 20 South Africans are now in Holland trying to get asylum. Most are English-speaking whites who are frank about wanting to evade military service” .(10) The report went on to state that many objectors travel to Europe on tourist or student visas and on arrival “ go underground” . It also mentioned that West Germany was considering the case of an objector.In May of that year the same newspaper reported that 25 South African objectors were believed to be queueing for political asylum in the Netherlands.(11) Presumably this figure includes the 20 conscientious objectors referred to in the previous report.In December 1977 a British reporter filed an article in which he interviewed South African conscientious objectors in Botswana. According to these objectors the total number of objectors can be estimated in hundreds, most of whom have gone to Europe on the pretext of further education. The article also stated that two South African

deserters had arrived in Botswana on 3 December 1977 and that all in all at least a dozen objectors were in Botswana waiting for countries to accept them. According to the report “ the bulk of the draft dodgers who have passports and can afford tickets are flying direct to Europe.” (12)By January 1979 local newspapers were reporting that an increasing number of young South African men, who leave the country to evade service in the SADF, were being accepted into Britain. According to the reports “ scores of such young men are now working or studying in the United Kingdom.” (13)In a special investigative article published by a British based monthly magazine in March 1979, it was reported that by the end of 1978 approximately 50 South African objectors were believed to have been granted a year’s residence and work rights in Britain “ based on applications for asylum on the ground of refusal to serve in the apartheid regime’s armed forces” .(14) The article continued:

“ Some who have left are foreign citizens; others are eligible for citizenship of other countries (usually Britain, Eire or the Netherlands); some acquire another citizenship through marriage. Many draft avoiders seek work permits (and if they are professionals, can often obtain them); some register as students and some live illegally abroad. Thus those who present themselves as military refugees in various countries are only a small minority of those leaving for the same reason, to avoid conscription.” (15)

The magazine also reported that a growing number of resisters were applying for asylum in Britain, the USA, the Netherlands, Botswana, New Zealand, Canada and other countries.

In the same month a United States newspaper reported that in London there were more than 50 applications for political asylum by South African objectors. In addi­tion, an undisclosed but smaller number of South Africans have formally applied for asylum in the USA.(16)Two months later a report appeared to the effect that 25 South African conscientious objectors were known to be seeking political asylum in the Netherlands. According to the report this figure was given by Mr. Bert Rijperdt, director of Pax Christi in the Netherlands. An Amsterdam lawyer, Mr. Willem van Bennekom, who specialises in asylum cases was quoted as saying that he was representing 8 objectors but did not know whether any of his clients were included in Mr. Rijperdt’s figure. But both Rijperdt and van Bennekom estimated that there were at least 50 more conscientious objectors from South Africa in the Netherlands who would eventually apply for asylum. Rijperdt was also quoted as saying that, “ more and more South African refugees are coming to Holland since South African draft dodger, Derek Schmulow was granted permanent residence here last year.” (17)It would appear, therefore, that the number of South African objectors in the Nether­lands had increased by at least 50 since May 1977. An increase was also recorded in Britain. In October 1979 a Johannesburg newspaper (18) reported that there were

more than 100 South African objectors in Britain who are known to the Committee on South African War Resistance (COSAWR) (19) The report continued:

“ There are probably two or three times that number who have negotiated their own way into Britain. The Home Office, the government department dealing with immigration, says it is impossible to give exact figures but does not dispute that there may be as many as 300 now in the country.”

In a survey conducted by MILCOM on the five English-speaking university campuses (20) between May and October 1979, 64.6% of the students interviewed indicated that they knew of a person who has “ left South Africa in order to avoid service in the SADF, who might otherwise have remained had there been some form of alternative national service.” MILCOM also recorded a further exodus of 16 conscientious objec­tors since March 1979.(22) The total number of exiled objectors known to MILCOM is 52.It is evident from the above that the minimum number of South African conscientious objectors who have fled into exile is at least 230. However, as the reports indicate, this is far from being a realistic number. A more probable, although somewhat conservative estimate is that as at 31 December 1979 over 500 objectors had gone into exile since 1975 to avoid both service in the SADF and prosecution for failing to report for such service. This figure could be broken down as follows: in excess of 300 and 100 objec­tors in Britain and the Netherlands respectively, about 20 in the USA, the rest scattered in Lesotho, Swaziland, Botswana, Mocambique, West Germany, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.It is clear from the reports referred to that the numbers of persons mentioned therein, refer almost entirely to persons who on the basis of their convictions, are opposed to service in the SADF. It is also evident from the available data that in recent years there has been a real increase in the incidence of conscientious objectors fleeing into exile. For instance, in May 1977 there were at least 25 known objectors in the Netherlands. Two years later the total number was 75. Thus, whereas 25 objectors had arrived in the Netherlands during an unknown number of years prior to May 1977, 50 more arrived in the two years following. Similarly, in Britain the total number of known exiled objectors increased from the 50 who had gathered during theyears (at least since the beginning of 1976, if not earlier) up to the end of 1976, to more than double that amount ten months later.Admittedly, the difficulty in estimating the actual date of exile and arrival in the host country, does challenge the validity of the claim of a proportionate increase in the incidence of objectors fleeing into exile. However, when it is borne in mind that the demands of practical circumstances require objectors to travel directly to the country where asylum is to be sought, it is quite evident that this difficulty has little influence on the above calculations. Accordingly, its potential as an error factor is minimal. It is, therefore, safe to conclude that the proportionate increase in the incidence of objec­tors fleeing into exile since 1977, may be as much as 200%. However, given the pre­vailing harshness of the law and the continued existence of the widely abhorred apart­heid system, the actual number of objectors is surprisingly low.

2. Reasons for ObjectionVirtually all conscientious objectors in exile are conscientious non-militarists or non- conscriptees, although it is quite possible that one or two may be non-combatants who were refused non-combatant status.

It is currently impossible to ascertain the proportion of selective objectors to universal objectors. However, an analysis of the case studies compiled by MILCOM shows a definite trend which is supported by first-hand experience of people who personally know some of the exiled objectors.Of the 52 cases only 32 objectors’ reasons for objecting are known. Only one of these is a universal objector; the rest are selective objectors. (See table 2 in Appendix B for a detailed breakdown).Although the selection of case studies is far from being representative of either the increase in the incidence of objectors going into exile or of the whereabouts of exiles, it is fairly representative in all other respects. This, coupled with the extreme dispar­ity between selective and universal objectors in exile is at the very least indicative that there is a trend for more selective than universal objectors to flee into exile.A number of persons have suggested (23) that in this there is a marked similarity with the draft resistance movement in the USA during the Vietnam war. But it is clear from the reasons given by exiled selective objectors for their decision, that this is not the case. The essential objection of draft resisters in the Vietnam era was to the enor­mous human and economic cost incurred in maintaining United States domination over a foreign people on the other side of the Pacific in South-East Asia. Some South African objectors have expressed analagous sentiments in their refusal to form part of the SADF occupation force in Namibia, because they disagree with South African imperialism as evidenced by the colonisation of that country. But for the most part, selective objectors in South Africa are not objecting to participation in an unjust war against a foreign force. Rather, their objection lies in what they see as their co-option into the defence of apartheid. They believe that they are being ordered to maintain an unjust system in which the enemy is the very person who is exploited in that system. In short, they feel that they are being called to participate in a civil war against the poor people of South Africa. To illustrate the point being made a random selection of quotes from exiled objectors is included in Appendix C.

3. Miscellaneous Information Concerning Objectors in ExileAlthough insufficient evidence is available on which to base a comprehensive analysis of significant aspects of the incidence of conscientious objection in South Africa, such as the duration of the military service avoided and educational qualifications of objec­tors, a breakdown of the MILCOM case studies, with all its limitations, illustrates very definite trends in these areas.As illustrated in Table 1 (see Appendix A) a significant majority of the conscientious objectors in exile evaded the initial period of compulsory military service. This is true

for 31 of the 39 known cases; the other eight evaded camps.In the field of education all but one of the 46 objectors whose educational experience is known, have studied at University. This is significant in that it suggests that the vast majority of exiled objectors are persons with much needed skills which have been acquired at much financial cost to the tax-paying people of South Africa. And it is these very skills which are being lost to the country instead of being employed in service to the deprived and poverty stricken sectors of the community.

4. Response of the Nationalist GovernmentIn October 1979 a Defence Force spokesman, when confronted by a reporter with the news that hundreds of conscientious objectors had left South Africa to avoid service in the SADF, insisted that there has been no substantial increase in the incidence of conscientious objection. The spokesman was reported as saying that the majority of “ no-shows” are university students who forget to apply for deferment of their service. The spokesman also denied that there was a moral or religious crisis of conscience over fighting in the military. He was quoted as saying that, "those who refuse to do national service for political reasons are so few we can name them” .(24)

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS REMAINING IN SOUTH AFRICAA large number of conscientious objectors have chosen to remain in South Africa rather than flee into a lonely exile. No doubt an insignificant few of these are on the run, but most objectors who have remained in the country have stood trial, have been convicted and have served or are serving heavy sentences. There is also a small number of conscientious non-combatants.

Although there is far more information available on these persons than on objectors in exile, what there is, is limited. Statistics of the Pretoria government have had to be relied on, and even then there are none available for the period prior to 1973. And again, the paucity of available statistics prevents the formulation of a comprehensive analysis of the incidence of conscientious objection in the Country. Nevertheless, it does afford a clear indication of significant trends.

1. Number of Objectors remaining in South AfricaConscientious objectors who have remained in the country can be divided into two main groups. On the one hand there are the conscientious non-combatants who have been granted some measure of acceptance through the informal provision of non- combatant status by the South African military authorities;(25) on the other hand there are the conscientious non-militarists and the conscientious non-conscriptees.Each group is dealt with separately for the purpose of gaining some insight into the numbers involved in each.

a) Conscientious Non-CombatantsAs I have shown in a previous paper,(26) not all conscientious non-combatants are granted non-combatant status, and this has become increasingly evident in recent years. However, government statistics only reflect the number of non- combatants who have been granted non-combatant status. Consequently, there is an unknown number of non-combatants who are not included in the figures below. These figures, therefore, represent the minimum number of conscientious non-combatants for the particular period specified, but are definitely not the most probable estimates. In this case the particular period is 1974. Figures for other years are at present unknown.During the first six months of 1974 eleven people applied to be allotted to non- combatant positions in terms of Section 67(3). All applications were granted. The religious denomination of each applicant was as follows:

Seventh Day Adventists — 7 Jehovah’s Witnesses — 3Plymouth Brethren — 1 (27)

In the last six months of 1974 a further 27 persons applied to render non- combatant service. Presumably, no applications were refused in the light of the accompanying policy statement that no applications under that Section are refused. The denomination of each applicant was as follows:

Seventh Day Adventist — 18Plymouth Brethren — 3Jehovah’s Witnesses — 2Apostolic Faith Mission — 1Assembly of God — 1Free Churches — 1Gurumaghara — 1 (28)

Given the traditional opposition to violence or to conscription, which is preva­lent in these churches it is fair to presume that most, if not all, of these persons were universal objectors.Although the fact that 38 non-combatants were provided for in 1974 does not reflect similar figures for preceding or subsequent years, a comparison with the number of convictions of conscientious objectors in the same year and other years does indicate what those figures might be.

b) Other Conscientious ObjectorsThe statistics available for this group of objectors present a far more compre­hensive picture. They are listed in chronological order.In 1974 the Minister of Defence informed Parliament that 159 people were sentenced to detention in terms of Section 126A in 1973. All of them refused

on religious grounds to render service or to undergo training. The religious denominations of each was as follows:

Jehovah’s Witnesses — 158Religion of the Sun God — 1 (29)

During the first six months of 1974 the corresponding figure was 122 persons.All based their refusal to serve on religious grounds. The religious denominationof each was as follows:

Jehovah’s Witnesses — 120Christadelphians — 2 (30)

No figures are available for the last six months of 1974.In 1975, 595 of 3 314 people who failed to report when called up for military service in terms of the Defence Act, were convicted. In addition 10 reported but failed to render service. Minister of Defence, P.W. Botha, stated that, of the combined total of convicted defaulters, 150 advanced “ conscientious objection” to service as a ground for failure to report. None ‘indicated that their default was due to adherence to a religious denomination” .(31)The corresponding figures for 1976 and 1977 were 898 of 3 566 and 507 of 3 814 respectively, who were convicted for failing to report for service. In addi­tion a further 18 and 25 persons respectively who reported but failed to render service, were also convicted. Of the combined two totals 95 and 86 persons respectively, “ advanced conscientious objection to service as a ground for such failure” . In 1976 none “ indicated that their default was due to adherence to a religious denomination” , while in 1977 one person, a member of the Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk, did.(32)Botha’s reference to “ conscientious objection” as opposed to adherence to a religious denomination, as a reason advanced for failure to report, creates some confusion. In the first place “ conscientious objection” could be interpreted in a wide sense to include all conscientious objectors whether they be universal or selective, religious or not. However, the similarity in the number of convicted objectors between the 1973 and 1974 figures on the one hand and the 1975 total on the other (although the latter figure, unlike the previous two totals is supposed to refer to both religious and non-religious objectors) and the huge drop in the 1976 and 1977 figures, coupled with the relatively lenient provisions of the then existing section 126A,(33) do not support this view. Rather, these factors lend credence to the more obvious possibility that the term “ conscien­tious objection” bears the meaning used by Nationalist Party spokesmen in Parliament.(34) Under this interpretation only objectors who are members of recognised religious denominations by the tenets whereof their members may not participate in war, are accepted as conscientious objectors. In practice this means that only universal conscientious objectors form the following churches are recognised as conscientious objectors: Jehovah’s Witnesses, Religion of the Sun God and Christadelphians.

If this is the case then there is a significant number of conscientious objectors who are not included in the statistics released by the Minister of Defence.In February 1979 Minister Botha informed Parliament that in 1978 a total of3 123 men had failed to report when called up to render service in the SADF.He said that 1 250 of them had given acceptable reasons, 284 were prosecuted and another 1 589 cases were still under investigation. In addition, a further six men who had reported for service but had refused to undergo training, were prosecuted. Of the total number prosecuted 55 said they had religious objec­tions. All were Jehovah’s Witnesses. Another 55 said they had other conscien­tious objections.(35)The rise in the 1978 figures after less than 50% of the cases had been investigat­ed confirms the view that in the estimates for the period 1975 to 1977 only conscientious objectors who fell within the limited definition of the Nationalist Party, were recorded as such. Further confirmation is provided by the differen­tiation in the 1978 figures between persons who indicated that their default was due to a religious denomination and those who advanced conscientious objections as a ground for such failure. This differentiation is not evident in the statistics for 1975 and 1976 and is only slightly evident in the figures for 1977 as given above. The marked differentiation in the 1978 figures seems to indicate an acceptance by the Department of Defence of at least a slightly wider defini­tion of the term, “ conscientious objector” .It would appear, therefore, that at a conservative estimate the annual number of conscientious objectors who are convicted under Section 1 26A for either failing to report for service in the SADF or having reported for service, failing to under­go training, amounts to at least 100 and may be as much as 150 As pointed out above, this figure represents the majority but not all of the conscientious objectors who have remained in South Africa.(36)

2. Reasons for ObjectionIt is evident from the breakdown of the 1973 and 1974 figures that the majority of those conscientious objectors remaining in the country including non-combatants are Christian universal objectors, a large number of whom are pacifists. Almost all persons granted non-combatant status are Jehovah’s Witnesses or members of the traditional peace churches such as Seventh Day Adventists. But of those convicted under Section 126A the vast majority are non-conscriptees (37) and the remaining one or two are pacifist non-militarists.

Only in recent years (since about 1977) has the number of non-militarists increased, although this increase has been largely confined to pacifists. This growth in the num­ber of non-militarists remaining in the country is confirmed by the fact that in 1978, a total of 55 of the already investigated cases had conscientious objections to military service, other than those experienced by Jehovah’s Witnesses. As there is no conscrip- tivist sect other than the latter which is conceivably capable of producing 55 objectors

in one year, it is fair to conclude that most if not all of these 55 persons are conscien­tious non-militarists.

There are only two known cases of objectors who have remained in the countryand who are both non-militarist and selective conscientious objectors.(38)

3. Response of the Nationalist GovernmentSince the inception of Section 67(3) in 1976 the Nationalist Government has argued that in terms of this section, adequate provision is made for conscientious objectors by providing non-combatant status. This has been reiterated on a number of occasions.(39) As has been pointed out (40) provision for objection in terms of Section 67(3) is not enforceable in a court of law. Whether this Section’s privileges are extended to the objector or not is solely dependent on the existing administrative arrangement with the SADF. The government has accepted that such an arrangement is sufficient and renders the legislation of provisions guaranteeing non-combatant status, unnecessary.(41) In fact, the Minister of Defence has gone so far as to say that detention of all objectors other than those who are granted non-combatant status, is the best solution and the “ least of all evils.” (42) Pretoria is not prepared to intro­duce alternative national service for conscientious objectors.

CONCLUDING REMARKSIf one accepts that the analysis has a tendency towards conversatism and a consequent error bias in favour of a greater incidence of conscientious objectors, then it is quite apparent that the total number of conscientious objectors (since 1973 in the case of objectors remaining in South Africa, and 1975 in the case of objectors in exile) amounts to 1 200 at the very least and maybe as high as 1 550, if not higher. Although this is not a very large number it is nevertheless, significant when one considers that the SADF requires 3.48 (78%) men in support for reserve for every one (22%) servicemen on combat duty.(43)

It is difficult to estimate the total number of conscientious non-combatants in South Africa, as only the 1974 figures are available. But if the number has remained consis­tently as high as those figures then the total since 1974 is about 240. This is far less than the number of other objectors and represents a ratio of about one non-combatant for every six other objectors.

That there is such a high incidence of conscientious objectors who remain in South Africa is surprising when one considers the harsh price which the objectors has to pay for his convictions. Even if he has been accorded non-combatant status, he, neverthe­less, often faces hostility and victimisation from superiors and fellow soldiers.(44)One objector, who having reported, failed to render service, was compelled to endure a week or more of psychiatric observation in a military hospital prior to standing trial.

Most of these objectors who remain in the country are convicted and sentenced to up to two or three years incarceration in detention barracks. In addition, the families of large numbers of objectors are torn apart both spiritually and physically, particularly in the case of objectors who flee into exile. The latter category also has to contend with sometimes hostile and insensitive press coverage. (46)Minister of Defence, P.W. Botha, has stated that there is “ no trouble between the Defence Force and conscientious objectors.” (47) But if the above analysis of the incidence of conscientious objection in South Africa is any indication, there is conflict between objectors and the SADF, and an escalating conflict at that. And this conflict will continue to escalate as long as the Nationalist Government fails to make adequate provisions for conscientious objectors.

FOOTNOTES

1. Introduced in the Defence Amendment Act, No. 85 of 1967.2. In terms of Section 126A of the Defence Act, No. 44 of 1957 (hereinafter all

Sections referred to are Sections of this Act unless otherwise indicated) con­scientious objectors may be sentenced to a non-recurring sentence of 36 months detention if they fail to report without good reason for the initial service of 24 months or a camp respectively, and are bona fide members of recognised religious denominations by the tenets whereof they may not participate in war. All other objectors who fail to report for service without good reason may be sentenced to two years imprisonment or a fine of R2 000 or to both such fine and imprisonment. It does not matter whether the service required was for the initial period of 24 months of a camp. The sentence is recurring. For further details see Smail A, South African Law and the Conscientious Objector,(Cape Town, NUSAS, 1979.)

3. Hansard, 17 February 1978, Questions and Replies, Col. 181 — 1824. Hansard, 22 February 1979, Questions and Replies, Col. 157 — 158

5. In 1976 a total of 63 104 men were called up to service in the SADF. 37 518 of these applied for deferment or exemption. Of this number 32 730 were granted deferment and 3 718 received exemption. (Annual Survey of Race Relations 1977, SA IRR .) The corresponding figures for 1977 were 59 052 called up, 32 659 applications for deferment or exemption and of these 31 000 were granted deferment and 1 095 received exemption (Annual Survey of Race Relations, SA IRR .) This means that the nett call-up for 1976 and 1977 was 26 650 and 26 957 respectively.

6. Hansard, 17 February, Questions and Replies, Col. 181 — 1827. Hansard, 22 February, Questions and Replies, Col. 157 — 1588. Sunday Times, 30 May 1976 in an article entitled "Deserters and dodgers on

the run.”9. The Star, 20 January 197710. Sunday Times, 13 March 1977, in an article entitled “ SA draft dodgers in

asylum bid.”11. Sunday Times, 15 May 1977, in an article entitled “ Draft dodgers issue sparks

new row.”12. Full transcript of an article by David Martin which appeared in an edited form

in The Observer on 18 December 197713. Cape Times, 11 January 1979, article entitled "SA draft dodger accepted in

U K ” ; Natal Mercury, 11 January 1979, article entitled “ SA military dodgers in UK. growling” . Daily Dispatch, 11 January 1979, article entitled “ Britain accepts draft dodgers,”

14. New African, March 1979, in an article entitled “ Conscripts on the run.”15. This is yet another reason why it is virtually impossible to correctly estimate the

number of conscientious objectors who have fled into exile in order to evade service in the SADF.

16. Boston Gobe, 18 March 1979, in an article entitled “ Potent apartheid fighter: the white draft resister.” The 50 applications for asylum in Britain as referred to in the report are presumably the same 50 mentioned in the New African article. In an article entitled “ How young whites are refusing to defend apartheid.”Anti - apartheid News, May 1979, it was also reported that 50 objectors had been admitted to Britain. Presumably this is the same 50 referred to in the other two reports.

17. Express, 15 May 1979, in an article entitled “ Draft-dodgers flee to Holland,” Given the lapse of two years, it is unlikely that the 25 objectors referred to by Rijperdt in this report are the same 25 mentioned in the Sunday Times report of 15 May 1977 (see note 11.) However, this is not a possibility than can be ruled out. Nevertheless, there is an increase over the 1977 figures of at least 50, as pointed out by both Rijperdt and Van Bennekom.

18. Rand Daily Mail, 25 October 1979, in anaarticle entitled ” UK nod for SA dodgers.”

19. COSAWR consists of a group of South African conscientious objectors based in Britain. It aims to assist objectors who flee to Britain as well as provide an education and information programme for the exiles. Corresponding groups are the South African Military Refugee Aid Fund (SAM RAF) in the USA, and the Zuid-Afrikaansche Dienstwegeraars Project (AZDP) in the Netherlands. All these organisations are regarded as subversive by the Nationalist Government, the media, and other sections of the ruling class in South Africa.

20. University of Cape Town, University of the Witwatersrand, Rhodes University, University of Natal, (Durban) and University of Natal, (Pietermaritzburg)

21. Of a sample of 544, being a total of 351 students. Results of this survey were unpublished as at 31 December 1979. Care must be taken in this case as the extent of the overlap could be significantly large.

22. MILCOM case studies file as at 31 December 1979.23. In informal chats with the author.

24. Article prepared by Associated Press for overseas consumption, 5 October 1979.25. For details of how such provisions is franted see Smail A, Alternative Service

and South African Conscientious Objectors (unpublished papers, Durban, 1980.)26. Ibid.

27. Hansard, 13 September 1974, Questions and Replies, Col. 448 - 450.28. Ibid.29. Ibid.30. Ibid.

31. Hansard, 17 February 1978, Questions and Replies, Col. 181 - 182.32. Ibid.

33. From its introduction in 1972 until its amendment in 1978, Section 126A provided a maximum non-recurring sentence of 15 months detention for any person who refused to serve in the SADF when called up to do so. This was an improvement on the pre-1972 situation where objectors could be repeatedly convicted and sentenced to three months detention. This did in fact happen and there are recorded instances of objectors who were imprisoned for three or more years in detention barracks. With this relaxation one would expect an increase in the number of convicted objectors after 1972 as is evident from the increase in this number in the first six months of 1974.

34. See for instance Botha’s references to conscientious objectors in Hansard, 15 August 1974, Col. 802, Hansard, 29 October 1974, Col. 6855, Hansard, 28 March 1978, Col. 3318 and those of Deputy Minister of Defence, H.J. Coetzee

in Hansard, 28 March 1978, Col. 3295 and Hansard, 29 March 1978, Col. 3476.35. Hansard, 22 February 1979, Questions and Replies, Col. 157 — 158.36. Amongst the small number who have not been convicted are one or two persons

who have been told not to report for service by rather exasperated superiors.37. Most Jehovah’s Witnesses who are conscientious objectors, are non-conscriptees

— they are opposed to any form of conscription.38. These two objectors are currently in detention barracks.39. See Hansard, 28 August 1970, Col. 2851; Hansard, 24 May 1972, Col. 7969,

7970, 7972, 7988; Hansard, 15 August 1974, Col. 802; Hansard, 28 March 1978, Col. 3295, 3318.

40. Smail A, Alternative Service and South African Conscientious Objectors.

41. Hansard, 24 May 1972, Col. 7978.42. Hansard, 28 March 1978, Col. 3318. See also Hansard, 29 March 1978, Col.

3477. As to why the government feels it is the “ best solution” and the “ least of all evils” see Smail A, The State’s Arguments against the Provision o f Alternative National Service (unpublished paper, Durban, 1980).

43. Hansard, 16 February 1979, Questions and Replies, Col. 74.44. MILCOM has recorded several incidents of this nature.45. MILCOM records.46. At least three examples of such reporting are known to MILCOM.47. Hansard, 24 May 1972, Col. 7972.

CASE STUDIES OF SOUTH AFRICAN CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS IN EXILE

Table 1 Place of Exile and Duration of Service Avoided

Year of Departure No. Last Known Place of ExileDuration of Service Avoided

a) Initial b) Camps c) Unknown

1975 1 Netherlands — — 11976 15 Britain 6 11 3 1

U.S.A. 1Botswana 1Unknown 7

1977 11 Netherlands 2 6 1 4Britain 3U.S.A. 2Botswana 2Unknown 2

1978 6 Netherlands 1 5 — 1U.S.A. 3Israel 1Unknown 1

1979 16 Netherlands 2 9 3 4Britain 4U.S.A. 1Botswana 2Lesotho 1Swaziland 1Unknown 4

Unknown 3 U.S.A. 3 - 1 2

Source: MILCOM Case Studies File as at 31 December 1979

24

CASE STUDIES OF SOUTH AFRICAN OBJECTORS IN EXILE

Table II Reasons for Objection and Educational Qualifications

Year of Departure No. Selective Universal Unknown University School Unknown

Year of Departure No.Reasons for Objection Educational Qualifications

Selective Universal Unknown University School 1 !n know!;

1975 1 1 — 1 — _

1976 15 7 — 8 13 - 2

1977 11 9 - 2 11 - -

1978 6 5 1 3 1 2

1979 16 10 1 5 14 - 2

Unknown 3 — - 3 3

Source: MILCOM Case Studies File as at 31 December 1979

REASONS GIVEN BY EXILED SOUTH AFRICAN OBJECTORS FOR THEIR DECISION-SOME QUOTES

1. Interview with a conscientious objector in Botswana in February 1977—“ If people do not have basic human and political rights, as is the case in

Namibia, they have few alternatives to seeking these rights by armed struggle. The South African government does not represent the majority of the population, nor does the army serve the majority, but only the interests of a small minority. Therefore, I sympathise with the liberation movements in Southern Africa, and refuse to serve in Vorster’s Army.”

2. From two other South African objectors in Botswana in the same month:a) “ I would not have left South Africa if I had not been called up. I am not

prepared to do active service, especially in Namibia. One knows that the security forces are basically a suppressive force and that Namibia is an illegally occupied country.”

b) “ What is really taking place in South Africa is a civil war where it’s SouthAfricans fighting South Africans and I was not going to be part of that.”

3. Extract from a joint statement issued by two objectors in Britain in March 1977:“ We see the struggle of the black people in Southern Africa as a just one, and we refuse to fight anywhere for the white minority South African government. We are proud to be regarded as traitors to apartheid and deserters from racism.”

4. From a South African objector in the USA in October 1978:“ I did not want to serve in the military any more. I’d had enough of fight­

ing a war for people I had no respect for. I could not see myself living in a country where I had to devote my life to a cause I did not believe in.”

5. Portion of a letter from a conscientious objector in the USA, written inNovember 1978:

“ I believe that I do have obligations to my fellow countrymen, I do have a social conscience. But when I was called up to do military service for two years it became more apparent to me that there is no way I can fight for a system for two years, and then return to civilian life and begin anew a fight for justice and human decency. If the South African Army was to provide alternative non-military service that did not perpetuate apartheid I would gladly serve. But I will not take a rifle and place myself in a position

where I am compelled to kill a man who someone else classifies as my enemy. My enemy is the man of violence, the man of destruction, hate, greed and bigotry — not the man who asks for his share of the country’s wealth, opportunity and potential for peace and justice. I will not place myself in a position either where I pass the rifle on to another man to do the killing.”

6. In July 1979 another objector in the USA gave as his reasons for refusing to serve in the SADF, his “ moral and political opposition to serving in a defence force which maintains the apartheid system and the status quo.”

References to Appendix C

1. Translation of an article by David de Beer in HERVORM D N ED ERLAN D ,12 February 1977.

2. Full transcript of an article by David Martin which appeared in an edited form in THE O BSER V ER , 18 February 1977.

3. Daily News, 19 March 1977, in an article entitled “ Conscripts Fighting for Political Asylum in Britain” .

4. THE ARGUS, 17 October 1978, in an article entitled “ War resister from S.A. on tour of US” .

5. Letter dated 18 November 1978 in MILCOM records.6. SUNDAY TR IBU N E, 15 July 1979, in an article entitled “ Durban Lawyer

Denies Misconduct” .

ALTERNATIVE SERVICE AND SOUTH AFRICAN

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS

January 1980

ALTERNATIVE SERVICE AND SOUTH AFRICAN CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORSStrictly speaking the only form of national service that is both compulsory and provi­ded for in South Africa, is service in the South African Defence Force (SADF). All White South African male citizens between the ages of seventeen and sixty-five, both included, are liable to render service in the SADF, (1) other than certain categories of people such as Members of Parliament.(2) In addition, certain white persons who are not citizens are required to serve in the SADF.(3) South African law and administra­tive practice does not require any form of compulsory national service outside of service in the SADF. Compulsory national service in South Africa is thus no more than military service. This equation of national service with military service has been repeatedly insisted on by the Nationalist Government. (4)Among the countries which conscript young men into the armed forces, there are some which provide some forms of alternative service for conscientious objectors.(5) Through legal provision conscientious objectors who are recognised as such, have been granted the right to render forms of service other than combatant service. This right is enforceable in a court of law. Without this characteristic of enforceability, alterna­tive national service can not exist and all conscripts whether they are conscientious objectors or not, would be liable to render military service. For enforceability of a legal right is a sine qua non for the very existence of such right. And if performance of alternative service is not legally recognised as a right it is no more than a wished for status which may or may not be granted at administrative discretion. As such, it does not exist and is, therefore, not an alternative.Alternative forms of national service have operated either within or outside the armed forces. Where such service is provided outside of the armed forces, it offers relief to both conscientious non-combatants and conscientious non-militarists. Where it is con­fined to operation within the armed forces, it is only the conscientious non-combatant who is afforded protection.(6) In a discussion on conscientious objection, the phrase “ alternative national service” is usually employed to designate non-military service outside of the formal military structure. It bears the same meaning in any further reference in this paper. To describe alternative forms of national service operating within the armed forces (e.g. Medical Corps), I have adopted the term “ alternative military service” . When referring to both types of service, I have used the term “ alternative service” .In this paper I shall examine whether the Pretoria Government provides either alter­native national or alternative military service for conscientious objectors. And,

secondly, if such provision is made, are these alternatives adequate. In the course of this investigation, I shall also attempt to clear up a number of misconceptions which have arisen in the debate on alternative national service.

ALTERNATIVE MILITARY SERVICEIn South Africa the legal provisions referring to alternative military service are to be found in sections 67(3) and 97(3) of the Defence Act. Besides providing a detailed evaluation of these sections discussion is also offered on the South African Medical Corps and the Civic Action Programme of the SADF.

1. Section 67(3) of the Defence ActIn a number of countries where conscription is in force, provision is made for con­scientious objectors to render alternative military service. In some cases this involves service in a non-combatant unit such as the medical corps. In other cases, service is rendered in a combatant unit, but in a non-combatant capacity, e.g. chef or clerk.It has been argued by at least two writers (7) that South African legislation in the form of Section 67(3) recognises and provides relief for conscientious non-combatants. This section reads as follows:

“ The registering officer shall as far as may be practicable allot any person who to his knowledge bona fide belongs and adheres to a recognised religious denomina­tion by the tenets whereof its members may not participate in war, to a unit where such person will be able to render service in the defence of the Republic in a non-combatant capacity.”

If one considers Section 67(3) in isolation from administrative policy and practice, it is evident that although it hints at the existence of a phenomenon called conscientious objection, it does not in itself recognise or provide any relief for conscientious objec­tors. This is clear for at least three reasons:a) The decision as to who may be allotted to a non-combatant position is placed

firmly in the discretion of the registering officer. The latter may allot a person “ who to his knowledge bona fide belongs and adheres.. . ” (my emphasis). This clause requires at least two discretionary acts on the part of the registering officer. He must first know that a person belongs to a “ recognised religious denomination by the tenets whereof its members may not participate in war” . And secondly, the registering officer must decide whether that person is a bona fide member of such denomination. Presumably, the registering officer would also have to decide which religious denomination is “ recognised” and which is not and which denomination forbids its members to participate in war and which does not. The significance of this discretion is dealt with under (2) below.

b) Although phrased in the imperative (“ shall. . . .allot” ), Section 67(3) is qualified by the clause, "as far as may be practicable” (my emphasis). The registering officer must decide whether it is practicable or not to allot a person to a unit where such person will be able to render service in the defence of the Republic in a non-combatant capacity. Thus, the decision of where to allot a Section 67(3) person, is firmly entrusted to the discretion of the registering officer.The significance of the registering officer’s discretion as to who shall be allotted where, lies in the fact that this discretion has already been conferred on the registering officer in terms of Section 67(2).(8) Admittedly the courts may be petitioned to order performance under Section 67(3). But although the court may be able to determine whether allotment to non-combatant service is “ practicable” or not and which denomination is a “ recognised religious denomi­nation by the tenets whereof its members may not participate in war” . It would find it impossible to decide whether the registering officer knew that the person seeking non-combatant status was a bona fide member of the type of denomina­tion specified in Section 67(3). Moreover, the evidential burden resting on the plaintiff would be overwhelming. He would have to show on a preponderance of probability that allotment to non-combatant service is practical, that the applicant bona fide belongs and adheres to a recognised religious denomination by the tenets whereof its members may not participate in war, and that the registering officer had knowledge of this. In short, recourse to the courts will in no way assist an applicant under Section 67(3).

c) Section 67(3) does not empower the registering officer to take conscientious objection into account in deciding where to allot a person. It merely permits him to allot a person whom he knows “ bona fide belongs and adheres to a recognised religious denomination by the tenets whereof its members may not participate in war” , to non-combatant positions. It is important to note that this includes a person who is not necessarily a conscientious objector and yet “ bona fide belongs and adheres” to the type of denomination specified in most or all other ways.

Thus, whether intended or not, Section 67(3) and South African legislation in general do not recognise conscientious objection or make provision therefore. If Section 67(3) does extend the registering officer’s power it does so only fractionally. In accordance with the provisions of Section 67(2) his decision of where to allot a person must be made subject to the directions of the Minister of Defence, and with due regard to the requirements of the SADF. To this, Section 67(3) merely adds that in making this decision he may consider bona fide membership of a “ recognised religious deno­mination by the tenets whereof its members may not participate in war” and may post such members to non-combatant positions.Even if one disregards the fact that non-combatant status for conscientious objectors is not a right enforceable in a court of law, there are a number of problems which arise out of the wording of Section 67(3).

Collection Number: AG1977

END CONSCRIPTION CAMPAIGN (ECC)

PUBLISHER: Publisher:- Historical Papers Research Archive

Location:- Johannesburg

©2013

LEGAL NOTICES:

Copyright Notice: All materials on the Historical Papers website are protected by South African copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, or otherwise published in any format, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.

Disclaimer and Terms of Use: Provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein, you may download material (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal and/or educational non-commercial use only.

People using these records relating to the archives of Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, are reminded that such records sometimes contain material which is uncorroborated, inaccurate,

distorted or untrue. While these digital records are true facsimiles of paper documents and the information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrand has not independently verified their content. Consequently, the University is not responsible for any errors or

omissions and excludes any and all liability for any errors in or omissions from the information on the website or any related information on third party websites accessible from this website.

This document is part of a collection held at the Historical Papers Research Archive at The University of the

Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.