By Christopher McMichael
Last week, a fully armed contingent of South African National Defence Force (SANDF) soldiers were enrolled to perform guard duties at the new Khayelitsha district hospital. The reason for the deployment of combat-ready troops in a civilian environment? To patrol a silent protest by 50 members of the Khayelitsha Development Forum. As constitutional law expert Pierre De Vos has pointed out, such an action may violate constitutional restrictions which reserve the internal usage of the SANDF for exceptional circumstances.
Not only does the deployment of the SANDF to quell internal protest bear disturbing continuities with the apartheid government’s practices but it is also paralleled by efforts to re-militarise the SAPS. In a country in which only twenty years ago the police were the internal extension of the then South African Defence Force using unrestricted counter-insurgency operations and the notorious death squads associated with the CCB and Vlakplaas throughout cities and townships, maintaining a clear and strict demarcation between the police service and the military force is essential to the protection of democracy.
However, the Khayelitsha incident is by no means unique. Joint operations between the police and military are becoming increasingly more commonplace. Prior to his suspension, Bheki Cele insisted that the need to ensure mutual respect between members of the South African Police Service and the South African National Defence Force, who are on a regular basis involved in joint operations, was one of the reasons behind the reintroduction of military ranks within the SAPS. In turn, the SANDF lists such ‘interoperable’ dual operations with the SAPS and other government departments as one of its key areas of focus.
While there is growing evidence that ‘interoperable’ missions are being used to quash increasingly heated community protests, the primary site of joint operations are the intensive security measures which accompany major sporting and political events. At the recent COP17 conference in Durban, the military joined the police in creating a ring of steel around the International Convention Centre, while the World Cup was marked by the largest internal deployment of the SANDF since 1994. Preparations for that event included joint training missions between SAPS elite units, SANDF special forces and SOCOM, the US special command, which among its other ‘sensitive’ missions co-ordinated last year’s execution of Osama Bin Laden. In turn, the SAPS’s much publicised World Cup procurement drive included several items that have been developed and tested in contemporary war zones. These included Israeli-made water cannons, designed for ‘crowd control’ in Gaza, and bomb disposal suits used in Iraq. Fortunately for civilian airspace, complaints from the Civil Aviation Authority prevented efforts to buy Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) similar to the drones causing substantive civilian casualties in Northern Pakistan and Afghanistan. While SAPS management claimed that such equipment is a necessary augmentation of the ‘war on crime’, the origins of much of this technology raise an unsettling question: how far they are willing to pursue this logic of combat?
The public discussion about signs of re-militarisation in South Africa has understandably focused on its disturbing resonances with the dark corners of our recent past. However, this has been accompanied by the importation of international practices and security systems which blur the distinction between civilian policing and urban warfare. For example, SAPS units such as “The Special Task Force” and the new “Tactical Response Team” echo the elite forces used by law enforcement departments throughout the world. These units receive paramilitary training and access to much heavier caliber weaponry and firepower than ordinary police officers. Such elite units can serve legitimate purposes, such as confronting heavily armed criminals who can and sometimes do endanger members of the general public. But the experience of many foreign countries demonstrates that police elites like these they can quickly become forces of internal repression. As evidenced in last year’s clampdowns on the Occupy movement and current ‘pacifications’ in Rio de Janeiro slums, paramilitary police can rapidly be targeted against the public. Indeed, the Gauteng Tactical Response Team has already been implicated in several instances of torture and brutality.
Since the killing of Andries Tatane in Ficksburg last year, the SAPS has promised to modernise its crowd control techniques. This seems an impressive development but much of its new policy is based on training missions conducted with the French police which has in recent years been associated with serious allegations of brutality, excessive use of force and the systemic harassment of North African minorities. Hardly a progressive model to emulate.
There is a further irony in the adoption of Israeli manufactured crowd dispersal equipment due to the obvious parallels between the present occupation of Palestine and apartheid. Through Israel’s booming homeland security industry, equipment tested in Gaza’s open-air bantustans is being imported into domestic policing throughout the world. At the same time, the SANDF appears committed to an increasing presence within the country. Along with taking over border security from the police it is also currently building a urban warfare training ground outside Johannesburg.
These are only a few examples of the increasingly blurred lines between the military and police. The internal use of the military, whether for big events or to intimidate protesters, is accompanied by the militarisation of the police and the increased usage of combat-ready security technology. This is not an exclusively domestic process, but is sustained through transnational policing connection and the wares on sale throughout global security and arms markets. Indeed, Minister of Police Nathi Mthethwa proudly highlighted this influence during the announcement of changes to the ranking system: “Police forces around the world are referred to as the Force and their ranks are accordingly linked to such designations.”
This focus on ‘force’ is part of an international move towards increasingly militarised policing through the perpetration of functionally endless ‘wars’ against crime, drugs or terrorism. The local media and academia often present policy brutality and state violence as a brute hangover from the recent past. The offered solution is often that this can be cured through the application of vaguely defined ‘world class’ practices, which may actually legitimate the state’s fascination with finding security and military solutions to social problems and political dissent. Rolling back militarisation requires a change of the institutional culture of the SAPS and reductions of the SANDF’s domestic entanglements rather than a quick resort to dubious ‘international benchmarks’.
Christopher McMichael is currently completing a PhD in Politics at Rhodes University, South Africa. His research focuses on the militarisation and securitisation of the 2010 FIFA World Cup. He can be contacted at mcmichaelchristopher48@gmail.com
What are “the obvious parallels between Palestine and apartheid”?
Actually there is no similarity at all but this is a favourite ANC myth.
And why do the Jews still speak Hebrew, but the “Palestinians” speak the language of the coloniser, Arabic, and not Palestinian?
The Palestinians claim descent from Ismael, son of Abraham and Hagar – they spoke an Aramaic Semite language,similar to Hebrew, not Arabic.
While I think that your concern at closer military-police cooperation is well-placed, your justification amounts to little more than lazy-association of pop-political activism. Israeli weapons are bad because Israel has dubious policies to the palestinians. French police training is to be suspected because some French police are brutal. SWAT teams are to be regarded with suspicion because some SWAT teams in Brazil and Oakland abused their powers.
While I think you are correct in the core issue that you are dealing with here, you would do well to concentrate your reasoning more precisely on the specific elements of the South African situation, rather than matching shallow emotional references to the war on terror, palestine and the occupy protests.
@lyndal beddy Some reading on (obvious) the parallels between Israel/Palestine and Apartheid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy
“And why do the Jews still speak Hebrew, but the “Palestinians” speak the language of the coloniser, Arabic, and not Palestinian?”
That would be because the State of Israel RESURRECTED Hebrew from the dead language dustbin in an effort to create a unified people with one language. The Israelis don’t speak Hebrew STILL, they speak it AGAIN.
Crikey, I’d have thought you’d have known that simple fact of history at least.
What did we expect from the people who ran quattro as a camp? The only reason they can’t declare a state of emergency is that there are still lots of ex sadf whites who could actually fight back. In ten years time this won’t be the case and then CDE lindiwe can show those counter revolutionaries who dare to demand service.
A problem displayed commonly in SA is that it is a force in the world wide political arena. Not so, I’m afraid. But, the spin off is this pre-occupation with events elsewhere, as if they matter in a country where roads are falling apart, the government has no clue about governance and the media sells the rascist line, which all average joe’s swallow hook line and sinker, thoughtlessly. Get your house in order, the rest of Africa is overtaking you, never mind the rest of the world.
It starts at home with the constitution.
Cristopher, thanks for highlighting this issue. I share your concern about the militarisation of the police and the increased use of the military in internal affairs.
There is too much historic evidence for us not to fear government violence against the people.
I am afraid the South African voter is asleep at the wheel (being bamboozled by blind loyalty and faux stories of “international spies,” “state security” and the like), all while government is slowly chiselling away at our rights.
The electorate should NEVER give up its vigilance against the state’s natural tendency to expand power (always sugar-coated for all the “right” reasons), and the risk of the state turning violent against them.
“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.” – Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
@ Foom
What are you smoking? Most Jewish boys learn Hebrew before their Bar Mitzvas (when they turn 13) and the language is an integral part of every Jewish tradition throughout the year. Far from being a ‘resurrected language,’ it is one of the few languages that has been in continuous use since ancient times.
This isn’t all that surprising. The US government is currently beefing up the police there and is consifering federalising it – a violation of state autonomy. They also use UAV’s there, along with some serious James Bond spy tech.
Land of the free? Not anymore.
This would be a more effective article if the army had actually done anything. Since they didn’t, the article has to rely on hoping that at some stage they might.
There is no particular reason not to call in the army if a large number of bodies is needed and not enough cops are available in the short run. Since no State of Emergency has been declared, the army has no right of arrest, nor has it the right to use force. Hence all they can do is stand around and guard things, which is fair enough.
I don’t trust the present police ministry with the army, granted. Vigilance, including articles like this one, is a good idea. But, frankly, the SAPS is a much bigger threat to public safety than the SANDF.
@The Creator: “But, frankly, the SAPS is a much bigger threat to public safety than the SANDF.”
That wouldn’t have anything to do with SAPS beating the SANDF outside the Union Buildings would it?
@ Richard You raise a very valid point. However I don’t see how I ignored the domestic context as you suggest. And ”shallow emotional references to the war on terror, palestine and the occupy protests”- do you really think that international moves towards the blurring of policing and military functions, the securitisation of public policy and the concurrent militirisation of public space have no impact on the South African context? The SAPS and SANDF are embedded within transnational security networks, conduct knowledge exchanges with foreigh institutions, adapt similar doctrines and so on. I would also suggest that you look at the large body of literature on how security and policing is becoming increasingly ‘debordered’ which is as guilty of ” pop-political’ references as you claim this piece to be.
@ The Creator. I think you have misread my intentions. I never said that there is anything illegtimate about the army being deployed in the wake of natural disasters. What I was questioning is the usage of the military for explcitly political functions such as crowd control. And while you are right in saying that the SAPS is a greater threat to public safety it also seems that joint operations with SANDF may futher encourage a mindset of ‘ war’ against the public.
Correction: ” foreign institutions”.
I feel similarly to The Creator. If both SANDF and SAPS behaved in a credible and honourable manner, it shouldn’t matter too much who works where, with whom. The SAPS has lost credibility on all counts. The killing of Andries Tatane finally sent its ethos down the drain and I am delighted only that no white cops were involved in that killing; the furore would not have died so quickly…it should not have died at all; the Tatane killing was a cowardly act and made clear that the type of person accepted into the SAPS is not effectively screened.
The SANDF has not (yet) blotted its copybook to the same degree, but then has not been used as actively. Which is a shame, because we’ve plenty of poachers and criminals who are out of control and the SANDF could be used to guard all sorts of sensitive installations and businesses.
Foom
Jews have always preserved Hebrew everywhere they have fled in exile.
The “Palestinians” speak Arabic because they are Arabs, not the original Ismaelites(Palestinians) of the Bible. Israel had been conquered by the Romans at the time of Christ, 2000 years ago. Then a few hundred years later the Arabs conquered the Romans (who had by then, after a few hundred years of persecuting Christians, become what they called Roman Christians).
Then the Ottoman Turks overthrew the Arabs and ran an Empire for 800 years, where Christian and Jew and Arab were all subjects of Turkey.
The Turkish Empire was farmed out, as was the British Empire, by the UN (actually the USA and Britain) after the 2nd World War. India was split between Muslim (Pakistan and Bangladesh) and Hindu (India). The Turkish Empire was split between Arab (99 percent) and Jew (Israel), and Christian/Arab (Lebanon).
But the revival of Arab nationalism, which is the cause of Jihad, meant they wanted EVERYTHING and the whole Arab Empire back – which includes the whole Middle East and the whole of North Africa. Which is what Jihad is about.
And history repeats itself. Footage from just about any recent service protest could have come from the 1980′s except that there are more black policement shooting black protesters with rubber bullets.
In the 1980s it was also black fighting black, ANC versus IFP, with the whites going in with tanks to stop them killing each other.
A pity no-one noticed.
They have made a film of the photo journalists of that time from the book “The Bang Bang Club”
If you have read the book, like I have, you would notice that the editors eventually had to keep blacks journalists out of the townships, because they all got killed.
Because, being black, they would have eventually worked out what was really going on?
@Lennon: “Land of the free? Not anymore.”
Quite correct. The citizens of the USA are slowly seeing their rights being eroded by big government (and being conned by politicians to allow that for all the usual “right reasons”).
“Oh, but in this instance it is OK” approaches like those from MLH and The Praetor will be their own downfall.
“What no one seemed to notice,” said a colleague of mine, a philologist, “was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.
“This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.” – Milton Mayer, in “They Thought They Were Free.”
As Leon Louw of the Free Market Foundation has pointed out ,the economies in Europe with the most economic problems are the least free, with the most state welfare and interference, and the parts of China which are going like a Boeing are the Special Economic Zones where there are no government regulations at all.
All very well, but what beats me is why South Africa, under the ANC, dismantled all its subsidisation of food, food security, and farming – in the face of the fact that NO-ONE in the developed west was so stupid, and even in China farming and food production are subsidised.
South Afrtica can’t have a sustainable “free market” in food and farming which can be flooded by subsidised crops from the USA, China and Europe!
I must admit, there are some really stupid comments in your article. Water cannons for crowd control in Gaza, this comment and the others just shows your ignorance of the situation and the use of emotional propaganda to somehow shift blame to Israel for developing policing tools. Using the terms Apartheid, Palestine, Bantustan will always bring emotions out, however when you use blatant lies in an article then how can your findings be acknowledged or taken as truth?
No crowd dispersal tools are and were never used in Gaza, However on the border between the PA governed West Bank and Israel and inside Israel proper are these tools used. The machines are not used inside the West Bank, however they are stationed near places where protests occur and on the Israeli side to either keep Palestinians from entering Israel or Israeli protesters from injuring Police or IDF personnel.
I sure hope that you do not include these lies in your theses or proposals.
Before you start your baseless accusations get the facts straight.
@FOOM, This is meant to be an intellectual forum, yet you bring wikipedia as a source for your apartheid/Israel analogy…that was your first mistake.
To put everything in prospective…Blacks in SA were SA citizens just without rights. Palestinians are not Israeli citizens, Israeli Arabs have all the rights any Israeli has.
So Better luck next time.