From October to late January the bulk of the South African force in Angola was made up of national servicemen. The casualties suffered, the reluctance of the government to disclose what it was doing, and the slowness of the military authorities in informing relatives about deaths and injuries combined to create a considerable amount of alarm and confusion amongst white South Africans. This was not relieved by the New Year news that the vast majority of servicemen in the "Operational Area," many of whom were due to be demobilised on 7 January, were required to serve a further month.
Justifying this unprecedented action and the extended call-up of Citizen Force men in parliament on 27 January Defence Minister Botha referred to his extensive powers under the Defence Act, and stated:
"The majority of personnel deployed in the 'Operational Area' is national servicemen. The normal service of some of them expired on January 7, 1976.
Due to considerations of time and distance and the immediate non-availability of other trained personnel, it was impossible to relieve all national servicemen before that data, and it was likewise impractical and undesirable to withdraw them before they could be replaced by trained troops.
In these circumstances I deemed it necessary in the interests of the SA Defence Force and in the public interest to extend the service liability of the national servicemen concerned from January 7 to February 6....
It was also necessary, to accomplish the further relief, withdrawal or replacement of national servicemen by trained Citizen Force units and regiments in the operational area, to call up members of some Citizen Force units and regiments for their annual training camps of 19 days, which call-up commenced in January 1976.
To accomplish this plan of deployment, the period of 19 days is totally insufficient, and it has become essential to extend their national service to 12 weeks after expiration of their 19 days periods of national service.
This extension will once again give continuity to the relieving and replacement of troops in the operational area."
In a situation where some parents and wives learned for the first time that their sons/husbands were in Angola only when informed of their death or capture, this statement did little to allay fear. Public opinion among whites was further shocked by the publication of photographs showing raw young trainees captured by the MPLA forces and displayed at the OAU Summit meeting. Thus the question began to be posed whether it was legal for the government to send national servicemen to Angola, and opposition parties have claimed that it was not, especially in the case of minors sent to the front without parental consent. It has been pointed out that the military authorities should have been circumscribed by the section 95 I(a) of the Defence Act No.44 of 1957 which stated:
"A member of the SA Defence Force may be required in time of war to perform service against an enemy anywhere in South Africa whether within or outside the Republic and may with his written consent be required to perform such service outside South Africa."
Mr Botha claimed that "everyone serving over the border in Angola is doing so on a voluntary basis," and Defence Force spokesmen then 'clarified' this statement by saying that the Minister meant that troops guarding the Ruacana and Qualqueque water installations inside Angola "were not forced to do so, but volunteered." Later, Defence Force spokesmen claimed that soldiers doing active service across the borders had been given a "volunteer form" to sign, but they refused to allow the press to examine these forms.
Apparently to overcome these problems for the future the government has now rushed through parliament an amendment to the Defence Act giving the minister power to deploy the South African Defence Force anywhere in the world. Introducing the second reading of the Bill the Defence Minister admitted that doubt existed whether the Defence Act "made sufficient provision to enable the Republic to deploy its forces, to safeguard its interests, and to protect its borders under all circumstances."
But later, winding up the third reading debate on the Bill, Mr Botha claimed that "legal opinion available to us says what we have done so far has been in accordance with existing law. We have not acted unlawfully."
He denounced opposition suggestions to the contrary as flagrant, dishonest, damaging to the Republic and a crime towards its soldiers.
Two important features of the new law attracted attention. The first was the definition of South Africa's borders for military purposes. The initial draft of the Bill defined South Africa for the purposes of the Act as "Africa south of the Equator," a definition which would include 11 independent African states, parts of a further four, together with Rhodesia and Namibia. Commenting on this the Mozambican Foreign Minister Mr Joaquim Chissano said that it would enable South African troops to pursue any freedom fighters into any country suspected of harbouring them, and added: "If it means attacking us, we shall face them."
The Progressive-Reform Party, which has 11 MPs, argued that African nations would regard this as a new threat from South Africa, and suggested that the military borders be limited to "areas adjacent to the borders of the Republic." But the Defence Minister said that such decisions (allowing South African troops to cross into other countries if deemed necessary in defence of the country) would be left to military leaders commanding forces on the border as they were best able to judge on the spur of the moment what action was necessary.
The United Party (UP), however, went further and proposed that no territorial limits be defined, enabling South African forces to be deployed anywhere in the world (and without the need for consent of individual conscripts). This proposal was accepted by the government and the new law will be couched accordingly. The government also accepted a UP amendment that it be required to report to parliament within 30 days of becoming involved in an armed conflict in terms of the clause.
The Bill extends the definition of "service in the defence of the Republic" (for which the Defence Force may at all times be deployed) to include prevention or suppression of any armed conflict outside the Republic which in the opinion of the State President (i.e. of the government) is or may be "a threat to the security of the Republic."
In the course of the debate the Defence Minister indicated that South Africa ultimately would have to have a larger standing army. This came barely two weeks after Major-General Neil Webster (Director-General (resources) of the S.A. Defence Force and the top-ranking civilian officer in the Citizen Force) had publicly called for the Permanent Force to be more than doubled so as to bring it up from 6% to 15% of the entire Defence Force. Webster said that the only way to do this was to increase pay and pensions.
The Act now allows all members of the Defence Force, and not simply those expressly designated by the Minister, to be deployed in preventing or suppressing 'terrorism', which is defined as "terroristic activities in the Republic or directed against the Republic or any authority in or inhabitants of the Republic," the Republic being defined as including Namibia.
