Jump to content

Talk:Civil Cooperation Bureau

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.


Visit to Australia ? Yes or no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.12.188 (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edits reverted

The following edits by Phase4 made 6 May 2007, 14:36 have been reverted:

Fair enough on Craig Williamson: he's been reinserted under the "See also" section. On Donald Acheson, the TRC spells his name Aitchison. Maybe we should do a disambig on the Acheson spelling?Phase4 23:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aitchison disambig: Good idea. Spelling on TRC records, have left it as is but is most likely a 'mis'-spelling by the transcriber. --Suidafrikaan 00:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted See also section There is no rule that I am familiar with that suggests this section must only consist of existing wikipedia articles; therefore I am re-inserting them because they provide the reader with the ability to see the CCB in a wider context.--Suidafrikaan 15:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also ("compare to")

It clutters the article – nor make sense – to have a section entitled "See also" (now changed to compare to) where one can't actually look at the topic listed, because it is a redlink. According to Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also it provides "list of internal links to other articles in the Wikipedia". But these articles don't exist! Furthermore, some of the topics listed (for instance "31 Battalion") are entirely unrelated to the CCB, they were just another Batalion in the SADF during the "Border War". At the moment it's just a mass of redlink to non-existent pages basically describing anything related to the South African Apartheid era military/police... net very useful and a function better performed by categories.

Furthermore, the Guide to layout states: "Related topics should be grouped by subject area for ease of navigation." It further adds: "Also provide a brief explanatory sentence when the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent".

I will create some sub headings and again remove unrelated links. --Deon Steyn 08:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

checkY I have clean up the See also section:
--Deon Steyn 09:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deon thanks for pointing out the 'See Also' rules. My bad.--Suidafrikaan 13:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. It takes times to stumble onto all the little Wikipedia details. I see you removed the short description of some of the links (also suggested in guidelines)? They would really help, since it's not immediately clear how some of these articles relate to the CCB. --Deon Steyn 06:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Power

Although Jeugkrag translates literally as Youth Power the official English name of the organisation was Youth for South Africa.Suidafrikaan 15:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the reference to Jeugkrag ("Youth for South Africa") and National Student Federation which can not by any stretch of the imagination be lumped with – or classified as "similar to" – the CCB (or even Third Force). A bunch of students informing on or influencing other students is completely different to violent operations conducted by trained and armed security force personnel (assassination etc.) or arms smuggling and chemical/biological weapons manufacture. --Deon Steyn 07:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Deon

Like you I was also an officer in the SADF. We have a lot of the context in our heads. Many who will be reading this article for the first time do not. To them it may seem as if murder was the only tool that the government used, which creates the impression that the brass were just a bunch of unsophisticated, boors who only knew how to use hammers to kill flies.

The "forerunners and contemporaries" section establishes that

  • There were many precedents for what the CCB was doing, not only in the military
  • The military used a wide range of well-conceived tactics (viz. NSF/JK) to pursue the SP's Total Strategy
  • Many of these were not conventional military operations.

I do agree with you about the way the original was phrased. The words "there were many other covert operations which were similar to the CCB" does make it sound as if JK et al were of the same type and magnitude as the CCB. What I am trying to get across is that the difference between the CCB and NSF/JK/IFF was one of tactics, not one of strategy. I will rephrase the original paragraph to bring this meaning out more completely.Suidafrikaan 18:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Force

Mandela first used the words third force in 1990, 4 yrs before he became president. see http://www.csvr.org.za/papers/papolv90.htm

The CCB was not the "third arm of the Third Force, alongside Vlakplaas C1 and the Special Tasks projects". That implies an official recognition of the slang term - and that the unproven allegation that there was a Third Force was true.203.80.61.102 (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

=Amendments to edits by Bsrcr and others

  • The changes to the goals are an improvement
  • The comparison to SOE is unreferenced and casts a POV light on the organisation
  • It was not a long-term project but an organisation with a hierarchy and 10 divisions as indicated in Malan's submission to the TRC

Suidafrikaan (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suidafrikaan

Thanks - you are right it was an organisation - it was also a long term project which I will provide you with a reference to - but hey "Tomatoes" "Tomatoes". I don't think it puts the SOE in a bad light - they were after all both successful - also if you look at the SOE page I referenced you will see remarkable similarities. The structures and goals were clear and also similar to those of the SOE. I am in process of using this information and appreciate your diligence. The link I provided to Gen Malans submission should not be lost as I understand most documents are not generally (excuse the pun) available to the public through the TRC website. I also think your additions ( that operated beyond the stipulations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, resulting in the assassinations of non-combatants and civilians such as sociologist David Webster and Namibian activist Anton Lubowski; the attempted killing of cleric Frank Chikane and an unsuccessful assault on ex-Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari.) about the whole organisation operating outside boundaries is unfair unreferenced and uncalled for and puts those individuals and Special Forces members who actually conformed to the letter of the law in a bad light. Yes there were bad apples - there were in the ANC too - but not every individual was bad....one only has to read the full 28 pages from Gen Malan - as he did, I am simply trying to be factual without stirring others up...(if that is possible...).

Suidafrikaan, I hope you are ok with my contribution - I think it is valuable and the comparison of aims is necessary -

I am a beginner at editing, so thanks for your help in straightening things out editorially. I will get there in the end, necessity is the mother of invention.

I am grateful for your correction - thankyou / dankie!

BSRCR 08:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

BSRCR Thank you for your response.

  • I should clarify my remark "casting the CCB in a POV light" By comparing the CCB to SOE while calling the latter highly successful suggests that the CCB was also highly successful. Besides the fact that it is an unreferenced statement, judgements on the success of a military organisation are highly subjective regardless of the source making them. As you may have experienced, kill statistics may not be accurately estimated, recorded or communicated. Once they are reported in public there is invariably an element of propaganda involved. Second, when the actions of such a military organisation (the CCB, that is) are widely deeemed to be in gross violation of human rights, the notion of success cannot be dealt with without bias towards one side or the other.
  • On re-looking at it I think you are quite right that the intro is unfair to special forces members who responded to legal orders and acted within the prescripts of the 4th Geneva Convention. The article needs a formulation that is both brief and balanced. Perhaps we can work on something together, bearing in mind that many known operations targeted civilians and non-combatants and therefore fall outside of the 4th convention.
  • The Malan citation: I think it is preserved in footnote 12. If not i'd be happy to put it back.
  • Lastly perhaps we should discuss large revisions on this page before making them so that we can avoid this.Suidafrikaan (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suidafrikaan,

Thats fine - I will consider large edits carefully first, but in the interests of free speech I don't want to feel that I have to run them through a censor - .

I will communicate with you on what I think are important aditions or large amendments.

Keep up the good work of independence - its not easy I am sure!


BSRCR 09:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Suidafrikaan,

I would like to suggest we exclude the following in the intro:-

".....such as sociologist David Webster and Namibian activist Anton Lubowski; the attempted killing of cleric Frank Chikane and an unsuccessful assault on ex-Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari."

My reasoning is that these are not the full list of alleged assassinations or actions outside the 4th Geneva Convention, are covered elsewhere in the page, cast a poor light (on an already "damaged and discredited") subject and I don't feel fully appropriate as part of the introduction.

What do you think ?

BSRCR 09:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Geneva convetion changes

I agree. I would suggest the following:

change 1

Simplify the introduction:

The South African Civil Cooperation Bureau (CCB) was a covert, special forces organisation[1] during the apartheid era.

change 2

Remove the following because it is already in the establishment section (but retain footnote 2 as per change 3),

that had the Minister of Defence Gen Magnus Malan's authority and establishment aims [2], similar to those of the British Special Operations Executive SOE, to

* Infiltrate and penetrate the enemy; and * Gather Information;

* Disrupt the enemy.

change 3

Since these are clearly contentious, replace the following…

No assassinations were approved however rogue individuals operating within possibly under the guise of the CCB and other covert units operated beyond the stipulations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, resulting in the assassinations of non-combatants and civilians such as sociologist David Webster and Namibian activist Anton Lubowski; the attempted killing of cleric Frank Chikane and an unsuccessful assault on ex-Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari.

… with this under the Truth and Reconciliation Commission heading, using your footnote 2 as mentioned in change 2

In testifying before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission General Malan submitted that no assassinations were approved , implying that some individuals had operated outside of their mandate.

change 4

To accomodate change 3, rename the heading Truth and Reconciliation Commission finding to…

Truth and Reconciliation Commission

--Suidafrikaan (talk) 10:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented change 4, tidied up the intro and quoted the evidence given to the TRC by Magnus Malan.PJHaseldine (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CCB2 Changes

Suidafrikaan,

I agree with all except

1. the positioning of the aims - it really should form part of the intro - it details the reason for the existence of the organisation.

2. The exclusion ,of the similarity to the British WW2 SOE, in the introduction, would not be reasonable. The aims and even the structures were very clearly similar - just look at the equipment of the SOE on their page, poisons, exploding pens, concealed landmines, bombs and assassination devices - in an extraordinary manner.

I concur and agree with your suggestions; if you would consider my ones above - I think we are there!

I think we may have much ground to cover in the future -

Kind regards

BSRCR 10:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Suidafrikaan,

I have put suggested change 3 into place.

Kind regards


BSRCR 10:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

P Haseldine Amendments

Copied to your talk page as well Patrick.

Amendments/edits to Civil Cooperation Bureau page.

Patrick,

Thanks for completing the suggested edits to the above page so well. We were trying to framework (somehow) the right words, which you then introduced - well.

A question might be - if Magnus Malan, in Para 15 said his orders to the SADF were to "destroy the terrorists, destroy their bases etc" then followed up by "./.....and I never authorised any member of the SADF to kill political opponents...etc ...."...is this not contradictory - or in your interpretation, would a political opponent who chose to associate with activies and actions that could be termed "terrorist/terrorism" then fall into the category mentioned first.

I am busy with a comparative analysis of justifications, activities, actions and morals between several past Government initiated covert groups. Primarily the CCB, SOS and the SOE. I have also been provided with almost unlimited access to the historical archives and information on the SOE.

Thanks again for a good edit on the above page.

BSRCR 20:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PJHaseldine"

BSRCR 02:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right Bill, there do seem to be some fundamental contradictions here. Nonetheless, the TRC managed to resolve them by concluding that: "...the CCB was a creation of the SADF and an integral part of South Africa’s counter-insurgency system which, in the course of its operations, perpetrated gross violations of human rights, including killings, against both South African and non-South African citizens. The Commission finds that the activities of the CCB constituted a systematic pattern of abuse which entailed deliberate planning on the part of the leadership of the CCB and the SADF. The Commission finds these institutions and their members accountable for the aforesaid gross violations of human rights."PJHaseldine (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - and it could quite easily read.... "...the MK was a creation of the ANC/Communist Party Alliance and an integral part of South Africa’s terrorist insurgency which, in the course of its operations, perpetrated gross violations of human rights, including killings, against both South African and non-South African citizens. The Commission finds that the activities of the MK constituted a systematic pattern of abuse which entailed deliberate planning on the part of the leadership of the MK and the ANC. The Commission finds these institutions and their members accountable for the aforesaid gross violations of human rights."

on the flip side of the coin, the ANC and its leadership certainly were not the angels they are made out to be either.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.87.80 (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the TRC Report (Volume II, Chapter IV, Page 325) which gives the following overall findings in respect of The Liberation Movements:

"IN REVIEWING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS (ANC) AND THE PAN AFRICANIST CONGRESS (PAC), THE COMMISSION ENDORSED THE POSITION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW THAT THE POLICY OF APARTHEID WAS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND THAT BOTH THE ANC AND PAC WERE INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED LIBERATION MOVEMENTS CONDUCTING LEGITIMATE STRUGGLES AGAINST THE FORMER SOUTH AFRICAN GOVERNMENT AND ITS POLICY OF APARTHEID. NONETHELESS, THE COMMISSION DREW A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A 'JUST WAR' AND 'JUST MEANS' AND HAS FOUND THAT, IN TERMS OF INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS, BOTH THE ANC, ITS ORGANS THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COUNCIL (NEC), THE NATIONAL WORKING COMMITTEE (NWC), THE REVOLUTIONARY COUNCIL (RC), THE SECRETARIAT AND ITS ARMED WING UMKHONTO WESIZWE (MK), AND THE PAC AND ITS ARMED FORMATIONS POQO AND THE AZANIAN PEOPLE'S LIBERATION ARMY (APLA), COMMITTED GROSS VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE COURSE OF THEIR POLITICAL ACTIVITIES AND ARMED STRUGGLES, ACTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MORALLY AND POLITICALLY ACCOUNTABLE."

The TRC's report and findings are cited in the MK Wikipedia article.PJHaseldine (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV

The introduction to this article has become an apology for the actions of for Magnus Malan and the CCB. It stands currently as follows:

The South African Civil Cooperation Bureau (CCB) was a covert, special forces organisation[1] during the apartheid era that operated under the authority of Defence Minister General Magnus Malan. According to General Malan, the CCB's three objectives — comparable to those of the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) — were:

* to infiltrate and penetrate the enemy; * to gather Information; and * to disrupt the enemy.

In his testimony before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Malan declared that he had never issued an order or authorised an order for the assassination of anybody, and that the killing of political opponents of the government never formed part of the brief of the South African Defence Force.[2]

Why is this a problem? A simple comparison. The article on the SS, while it treats that organisation as a historical fact mentions explicitly in the third paragraph that "The SS was responsible for the vast majority of war crimes perpetrated under the Nazi regime...". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.166 (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction Looks Just Right and Factual

I have to disagree. Introduction is right and appears factually supported and correct. No different than IDF - Israeli Special Forces Units of same type.... I don't think it is possible to say that the CCB was responsible for the majority of the war related crimes either. They were too young as a unit and had not even established a proper platform. SayeretMatkal (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This POV dispute has no proven validity

The POV lodged in July last year by "unknown" has had no support - and the banner is removed BSRCR 20:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Civil Cooperation Bureau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Civil Cooperation Bureau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Civil Cooperation Bureau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Civil Cooperation Bureau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Civil_Cooperation_Bureau&oldid=1200932877"