Page 164 - Conflitti Militari e Popolazioni Civili - Tomo II

666 XXXIV Congresso della CommIssIone InternazIonale dI storIa mIlItare • CIHm

war resisters had to test the system to its limits – in the end, however, most resisters were
given ‘exceptional leave to remain’ and no genuine cases were deported (COSAWR 1979b).
Nevertheless, the resisters often had to live for many years in legal limbo, working illegally
in poorly paid jobs. They were in any case a mixed lot. COSAWR attempted to portray the
image of the ‘noble resister’, leaving the country purely because of resistance to apartheid,
but many of them had other motivations. Many were gay, escaping persecution for their
sexual orientation (homosexuality was then banned in South Africa) as well as military ser-
vice. Some had personal or drug problems, some were merely seeking better opportunities.
But COSAWR took the position that any war resister was one gun less facing the liberation
movement, and along the lines of the anti-Vietnam war protesters in the US, encouraged any
form of resistance and supported all those who arrived in exile unless they were aligned with
the apartheid regime (and even then, if they were useful sources of information they might
have been supported). They were given basic support, and the committee worked closely
with British refugee organisations, both official and unofficial.
The situation was further complicated by the fact that around 1.5 million of South Africa’s
then five million population had access to or were eligible for a passport of an European
Union country (Metten & Goodison 1988). This meant that many war resisters did not need
to apply for asylum and could simply use their privileged European status to remain in Bri-
tain or elsewhere on the continent. again, CoSaWR did not discriminate. this gave rise to
the question: how many war resisters were there? It was impossible to tell. Only a small mi-
nority needed to apply for refugee status, and even though COSAWR had arrangements with
the government refugee agency, some passed by the organisation. COSWAR had records of
about 500 exiled war resisters, and estimated that the total number (worldwide) was at least
ten times that.
The non-discrimination policy was however vexed. Many countries were loath to give
political asylum or refugee status to war resisters on the grounds that they or allied countries
(within NATO for example) practiced conscription and this could open the floodgates for re-
sisters in general. COSAWR thus took a stand of ‘exceptionalism’ – it was resistance against
apartheid, recognised by the UN General Assembly as a crime against humanity, that coun-
ted. This did not stop the organisation from working quite closely with War Resisters Inter-
national (WRI), nor did it stop WRI supporting COSWAR even though COSAWR broke one
of the fundamental tenets of WRI - non-violence - by supporting the ANC’s armed struggle.
COSAWR’s campaigning work was not restricted to the UK. A semi-autonomous branch
was established in the Netherlands and the organisation spent a lot of time building an inter-
national profile and support for South African war resistance. Speaking tours were arranged
(Canada, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Sweden for example), international conferences were
attended and the United Nations was lobbied (a General Assembly resolution urging member
states to grant asylum to South African war resisters was adopted in December 1978).
It might at first seem odd that the only other COSAWR should have been in the Nether-
lands. However, many white South Africans are of Dutch ancestry and many of those have
access to Dutch citizenship. As a result, at the same time that war resisters began to arrive in
the UK, some went to Holland, where they set up a small grouping with support of one of the
main anti-apartheid movements, the Komite Zuidelike Afrika (KZA). They learned Dutch,