Last week’s article by Louise Flanagan on Military Intelligence attempts to recruit future Minister of Defence Joe Modise in the early 1990s has provoked a furious row. Here, Deputy Defence Minister Ronnie Kasrils responds — as does the reporter
HAVING distinguished itself as a bastion of the free press, and for many years under siege by the apartheid regime, will the Mail & Guardian continue to be a vigilant gatekeeper for the truth? Recent form calls this into question.
Louise Flanagan’s article “How Military Intelligence tried to recruit Modise” (February 23 to 29 1996) is an example of sloppy journalism and is a discredit to your paper.
Not only does she give undue prominence to the extremely questionable views of a disgraced member of a discredited intelligence section of the old South African Defence Force, but she also does nothing to challenge the substance of those allegations.
Instead, she allows the specious and potentially libellous allegations, emanating from a Military Intelligence (MI) officer’s memorandum (drafted by Commandant Anton Nieuwoudt) in September 1992 to pass as if they amounted to fact.
For example, her statement that Nieuwoudt’s “three-page memo discusses the conflict within the ANC between the militants, headed by Chris Hani, and the moderates, headed by Modise”, blithely accepts there was “conflict” within the ANC between “militants” and “moderates”.
Terms such as “militants” and “moderates” falsely seek to polarise and negatively stereotype the debates within the ANC, which have always been commendably civil and disciplined, and entirely normal to a popular organisation.
This also applies to her statement that “MI tried to recruit Modise nearly two years before the 1994 elections, relying on the belief that Modise was willing to smash the ANC-South African Communist Party alliance in order to secure his own position under a future government”. Nowhere does she challenge the basis of the “belief”, and neither does she question the nefarious allegation that Modise “was willing to smash the ANC-SACP alliance in order to secure his own position under a future government”.
The record is clear. Modise has no prejudice against communists. On the contrary, he appointed the late Joe Slovo as his deputy in 1976, and in 1983 as chief of staff; Chris Hani as commissar in 1983, and as Slovo’s successor in 1986 when Slovo resigned to take up his post as general secretary of the SACP; and myself as MI chief in 1983.
This is the same man who chose an alleged member of the so-called “SACP faction” as his deputy minister of defence in June 1994.
Accusations of a split between the ANC and SACP had long been the stock-in-trade of apartheid’s “divide and rule” rumour mongers, and again the enduring solidarity of the liberation alliance hoists that lie on its own petard.
Instead, and without flagging the reader’s attention to the insidiousness of the aspersions in the memo, Flanagan goes on to write that Nieuwoudt noted that the so-called “moderates”, allegedly headed by Modise, “were targeted because they could be used against Hani”, and that “they were regarded as open to recruitment due to their own self-interest”. She far too uncritically accepts the smear that “they could be used against Hani”, and appears to compound it by adding, without question, that they were allegedly “open to recruitment due to their own self-interest”.
These apparent slurs are allowed to develop further in her statement: “Referring back to the period just after the memo was written, he [Nieuwoudt] commented that MI already knew then which of their sources among the MK members would be appointed as generals, brigadiers and lieutenent-colonels in the new military.” This claim is simply preposterous, and easily verifiable as such, since MK at the time of that memo (September 1992) had no ranks. MK only began its bilateral negotiations with the SADF in 1993 and only began the process of ranking its members in early 1994.
The character of distinguished MK commanders is possibly further impugned by her bald statement that: “Although there is no indication whether any of the group approached were indeed recruited, at least two now hold senior positions. Modise is the minister of defence and in June 1994 Lambert Moloi [one of the so- called ‘Modise moderates’] was promoted to major-general and made chief of the Service Brigade.”
The use of the word “although” implies that in spite of the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that any senior MK members were actually “approached” or “were indeed recruited”, her subsequent statement that “at least two now hold senior positions” could be easily construed as casting doubt over the integrity of the minister and Moloi, not to mention the other “Modise moderates”.
The effect of Flanagan’s reasoning is perverse. By conflating an alleged split in the ranks of MK with Nieuwoudt’s devious scheme to compromise the minister, she appears to pin the blame for the conspiracy on one of its intended targets: Joe Modise. Instead of attacking the conspirators, Flanagan attacks their target. This is, at best, muddle-headed and, at worst, outrageous.
It therefore ill behoves the M&G, with its fine record of fighting for the truth, to amplify the lies and smears of the apartheid regime by such seemingly ill-judged and uncritical reporting of a document that is so clearly self-serving on the part of Nieuwoudt, who, at that stage of his career, was desperate to impress his superiors.
For Flanagan to state that Modise denied he had ever attended such a meeting, “but declined to answer any further questions” is a travesty of the truth and, as such, creates the false impression that he was being evasive.
The truth is that he answered the M&G as follows: “I want to state clearly that I never attended a meeting that you referred to in your questions. It follows from that, that I have no information relating to the other questions you have raised.”
It is a sad but true reflection that a journalist who identifies uncritically with a dubious source may compromise the objectivity of his or her reporting, and may thereby run the attendant risk of losing credibility.
In this circumstance, Flanagan has lost credibility with the ANC which, in its press statement in defence of Modise, has stated: “It is strange also that the M&G would have chosen to overlook the close personal relationship between the author of the article, Louise Flanagan, and the source of the (Nieuwoudt) documents, Colonel Gerrie Hugo (former chief of MI in the Ciskei, who was charged with stealing covert funds and pleaded guilty), and the dispute Hugo has been having with the South African National Defence Force and the Ministry of Defence.”
A responsible newspaper must exercise reasonable editorial judgment in terms of its journalists’ reports. My view is the M&G failed in its responsibility in this respect. My earnest hope is the M&G will maintain the integrity it built up during the anti-apartheid period and continue to be worthy of our respect. For me that is the challenge facing your paper in our new democratic era.
Louise Flanagan replies:
The article was not “giving prominence to the extremely questionable views of a disgraced member of a discredited intelligence section of the old SADF”. It was based on court papers and illustrated the MI campaigns which were being run against the ANC in the run-up to the elections. On the basis of these papers, the SADF settled the claim.
The sections that were used from the documents were clearly indicated as such and were not the reporter’s personal opinion. Kasrils should rather direct his criticisms towards the senior officers of the old SADF who drafted the documents and ran the campaign. Instead, in his response, Kasrils has relied on a method frequently used by MI: if you don’t like the message, attack the messenger.
I find it hard to believe Kasrils misread this article so badly that he construed it as support for MI’s dirty tricks campaigns. I have written several articles trying to track down the elusive Steyn Commission report and calling for it to be made public. This government has declined to release it.
Why does the present government wish to protect officers from the old SADF who were involved in illegal campaigns against legal political organisations in the run-up to the elections?
Regarding the ANC’s statement: The military, the ANC, the M&G and the newspaper which employs me full-time (Daily Dispatch) are all fully aware of the relationship between Hugo and me, as there has been no attempt to hide this. As a result of this relationship I have not covered Hugo’s recent court case (at my own request). The stories resulting from the Nieuwoudt court documents were published the day after Hugo’s case was finalised and thus could not have had any bearing on that matter.
* Modise’s terse response to our question arrived many hours after deadline. In the hurry to include it, it was accidentally said that he had declined to answer further questions, rather than he had no information relating to these questions. The difference may be obscure to readers, but we apologise to him for the change in meaning. — The Editor