I continue to remain amused at how some self-proclaimed “experts” on Executive Outcomes continue to regurgitate their story that the company fell victim to South Africa’s laws on military assistance.
It seems this gem of disinformation was initially fed to a journalist working under control of South Africa’s Military Intelligence Division (MID), that paragon of truth (I know because I spent time there), and was subsequently picked up by numerous other “experts” who spun the lie enough times for it to become a “fact” in their feeble minds.
Members of the foreign media were equally keen to grasp at these mistruths. Whether it was because of a lack of integrity or to also earn money on side, only they can tell.
At the time that EO was operating, numerous other “Executive Outcomes” also appeared on the scene, all posers and some actually being run by MID, all in an attempt to smear the real EO and the many good men who worked in that company. It was this more than anything else that led to my comment to the media that EO would welcome legislation regarding companies operating in the military field.
EO was subsequently invited to attend South African government meetings on the planned legislation and numerous inputs given by the company were eventually contained in what became the Bill that was finally passed.
In their attempts to earn their extramural salaries from MID and the other services, they had to continually perpetuate the lie. Even the UN, that shining light of competency and integrity, jumped onto the bandwagon although I suspect their agenda had more to do with covering up their incompetence than anything else.
To this, they had to add that EO was paid in mineral concessions; something that even today remains laughable. But, these mistruths were quickly swallowed by a gullible readership. Despite having challenged numerous journalists, and even the UN, to produce evidence to substantiate their claims - even today they cannot do so because it is difficult to prove a lie – especially one of such gargantuan proportions.
These lies, along with numerous others, have even made their way into “intellectual papers” and are contained in numerous theses on PMCs and Executive Outcomes. This really does bring into question the validity and standard of many “intellectual” works.
But the great shining lie was the so-called “fact” that EO was closed due to SA government legislation. The story in short claims that EO never had a government licence to operate and was therefore, by implication, operating illegally.
The bad news for these habitual liars (intelligence whores would be a more appropriate title for them) is that EO did indeed have a permit to operate.
This may come as a shock to many but it was issued on 24 October 1997 and the permit number was 6-97-00006. To those who continue to make these false claims, a copy of the original permit is shown below.
I hope that those who continue to write about EO will have the courage and journalistic integrity to rectify their previous “errors” and stop perpetuating disinformation.