Not once have the reports about this mission emphasised the heroism of our soldiers, rather selecting to deliberately project an image of a defeated force, without giving due recognition to the valour of the 200 SANDF troops who fought for nine hours against a group of 3 000, repelled the threat, killed over 700 and suffered minimal casualties. This urge for a negative slant to distort the record of history and not accord hero status to these soldiers is regrettable. Those bent on this campaign have even advanced to vulgarism by the opposition, depicting our soldiers as mercenaries who were deployed without official status in the Central African Republic.
We will, however, not allow for their memory to be tarnished and be used to score political points. We will, even if the established media refuses to hear this, continue to speak for them, as they are no longer here to represent their own honour. Failure to report the genesis of our deployment to the Central African Republic is complicit on the part of the media. To ignore all recorded facts about the AU Peace and Security Council decisions about the CAR before South Africa's involvement and to choose simply to project the coffee table talk of the opposition is collusion of the highest order in a sinister plot to undermine our policy.
Assuming that the allegations by the opposition are true, that will mean that the South African government, the AU and the United Nations, UN, went into the CAR under the guise of helping the recovery of a country that was not really experiencing effects of decades of civil wars, to support a peace deal that was not signed, to ensure the stability of a Great Lakes region whose fragile peace was never at risk, and to protect the rights of the vulnerable citizens who were not living with the threat of fear, hunger and violence. Of course, battles and military operations, particularly in foreign lands, are naturally fraught with negative aspects. So, if you are in the game of negativity, you will always have plenty to go around and plenty to twist to suit your context.
Nowhere in the world has a government ever been asked to bear its security plans so nakedly to the point of compromising its strategic defence capacity. We have seen a disturbing trend where members of this House and some remnants of the old order have leaked strategic information about our troop movements and strategic positions which were widely broadcast in the media. The question we ask is: For whose benefit was this release of information? It was certainly not for our country, as this information puts the lives of our deployed soldiers in danger. Whatever our differences, is it not possible for us to restrain the salacious love for headlines so as to protect the integrity and security of our own country? [Interjections.]
Hon members, as you would recall, during our briefing to the Joint Standing Committee on Defence, we did indicate that when the security situation deteriorated in January and after the signing of the peace deal, a UN representative - I repeat - Margaret Vogt, called on SA and the other foreign troops not to withdraw their respective deployments in that country. Recently, I was shocked to be approached by Madam Vogt, the UN representative, who expressed shock and concern that she received an e-mail from the DA's hon David Maynier who is investigating whether I, as Minister, had lied when I indicated that the UN representative had asked South Africa to remain in the Central African Republic. [Interjections.]