National Assembly - 16 April 2003
WEDNESDAY, 16 APRIL 2003 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 14:02.
The Chairperson of Committees took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.
QUESTIONS AND REPLIES - see that book.
APPOINTMENT OF INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the House, while noting the Report of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence (Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, 15 April 2003, p 304), requests the Committee to report to the House on the appointment of the Inspector General of Intelligence on or before 27 June 2003.
Agreed to.
DETERMINATION OF SALARY AND ALLOWANCES PAYABLE TO PRESIDENT OF REPUBLIC
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Mphathisihlalo, siphakamisa njengoba kubhaliwe kuleli phepha eliphathelene nomsebenzi wale Ndlu wanamhlanje egameni likaSotswebhu weQembu leNingi: [Chairperson, we move the motion which appears in the name of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party on today’s Order Paper:]
That the House resolves that - (1) in terms of section 2(1) of the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers Act, 1998 (Act No 20 of 1998), and having due regard to the criteria listed in that subsection, the salary and allowances payable to the President of the Republic be determined at seven hundred and forty- seven thousand four hundred and ninety rand and fifty cents (R747 490,50) and two hundred and forty-nine thousand one hundred and sixty- three rand and fifty cents (R249 163,50) per annum, respectively, with effect from 1 April 2003; and
(2) in terms of section 2(2) of the said Act, the amount of forty thousand rand (R40 000) per annum be determined as that portion of the remuneration of the President to which section 8(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (Act No 58 of 1962), shall apply.
Agreed to.
AMENDMENT OF RULE 105 - STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Mphathisihlalo, siyancoma ukuthi semukele njengoba kulotshiwe kuleli phepha eliphathelene nomsebenzi wale Ndlu egameni likaSotswebhu weQembu leNingi lapha eNdlini: [Chairperson, I propose that we adopt the motion as it appears in the name of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party of this House on the Order Paper:]
That -
(1) the existing Rule 105 be replaced by the following:
"Statements by members
105. (1) A member, other than the Deputy President, a Minister
or a Deputy Minister, may be recognised by the
presiding officer to make a statement on any matter
for not more than one and a half minutes.
(2) Members of each party are entitled to make a number of
statements, minority parties being given an opportunity
to participate in a manner consistent with democracy.
(3) If a member, for whatever reason, during the sequence of
proceedings, fails to utilise the opportunity to make a
statement, the party to which that member belongs
forfeits that opportunity.
(4) Members of the various parties must be recognised in the
order determined by the Rules Committee.
(5) The process in Subrule (4) must continue until statements
by members are exhausted or fourteen statements have been
made, whichever occurs first.
(6) At the conclusion of statements by members, a Minister
present may be given an opportunity to respond, for not
more than two minutes, to any statement directed to that
Minister or made in respect of that Minister's portfolio.
(7) In the absence of a Minister who may respond to a
statement as envisaged in Subrule (6), the relevant
Deputy Minister or a Minister from the same cabinet
cluster must be given an opportunity to respond on behalf
of the absent Minister.
(8) Ministerial responses must be taken in the following order
of preference: Minister as envisaged in Subrule (6), the
relevant Deputy Minister, or a Minister from the same
cluster responding on behalf of the absent Minister.
(9) A maximum of five Ministers may be given an opportunity to
respond to members' statements.
(10) Statements are taken on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and
Fridays when the Assembly sits on a Friday, unless the
Programme Committee in respect of a particular day or
days determines otherwise."; and
(2) the guidelines, as approved by the Chief Whips’ Forum and published in the Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports of 13 February 2003, continue to apply.
Mr M J ELLIS: Mr Chairman, I rise to offer the DA’s objection to this particular resolution. I do so for the reasons that I made clear at the Chief Whips’ Forum meeting of last week. Subsection 7 states that a Minister from the same Cabinet cluster must be given an opportunity to respond on behalf of an absent Minister. The DA objects to this particular part of the resolution. Agreed to (Democratic Alliance dissenting.)
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE MULTILATERAL SYSTEM OF WORLD GOVERNANCE FOR PEACE, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND THE CREATION OF A BETTER WORLD, AND THE IMPACT OF THE WAR ON IRAQ ON THIS SYSTEM
(Subject for Discussion)
Prof B TUROK: Chairperson, this morning I received an e-mail from the United States from a well-known author, Hazel Henderson, who circulated this particular e-mail to 400 newspapers in Asia, Europe, Latin America and Africa in 27 languages. I would like to read just short extracts from her letter. It is headed: ``The New Bipolar World’’.
George W Bush has created a new bipolar world: the USA versus the United Nations. As a patriotic US citizen, I have long spoken out against the misguided and unjust war in Iraq.
We are asking how the USA, once a beacon to those seeking a better world, democracy and the rule of law could have turned into a self-appointed overmilitarised global cop claiming the pre-emptive right to bomb and attack other nations it deems evil.
Ms Henderson goes on to analyse the whole Iraqi situation and to complain bitterly about the role of the US in creating a bipolar world.
I also want to refer to an article in The Sunday Independent of April 2003
- two weeks ago, in fact - by Andrew Gumbel. He says that in February George W Bush spoke about 25 000 litres of anthrax and other materials hidden by Hussein, but goes on to say that these days George Bush does not mention weapons of mass destruction at all.
I want to mention weapons of mass destruction because they are really a
focal point in what is going on in the world today. In the early 1970s in
Vietnam the US used napalm and a bomb called the Daisy Cutter'' -
daisy’’ being a flower - which devastated a large area in the forests of
Vietnam as a landing place for helicopters. It destroyed villages and the
environment. It was effectively a weapon of mass destruction.
The US now has a weapon called Moab, standing for ``massive ordinance air burst’’. It is a bomb of 21 000 lbs, the size of a truck. It is guided by an internal missile. It releases a spray of highly inflammable gas which is ignited by an explosive above ground which can destroy tanks, buildings and people within a range of up to several hundred metres. It is designed to destroy chemical and biological weapons plants 40 metres underground. It was on its way to Tikrit until Tikrit fell. It too is a weapon of mass destruction.
In Iraq recently the United States Army used bunker busters. Four of them were dropped over one building in Baghdad. The bunker buster has a uranium head which, when it splinters, can create cancer in the local population. It is a weapon of mass destruction. [Interjections.]
It seems to me, colleagues, that we need to redefine the notion of a weapon of mass destruction and indeed that of mass destruction itself.
In my view, the US military at the moment is a weapon of mass destruction no matter what they use. [Applause.] Let me say as I read from … [Interjections.]
Chair, if you don’t mind, this man is disrupting me and I really will sit down if he doesn’t keep quiet. [Interjections.]
We are not against the American people. I read to you my letter from a well- known American author. We’re not against the American people. We are not only against weapons of mass destruction, but against mass destruction in any form.
It is because of this danger of mass destruction that the United Nations system … [Interjections.]
I will have to speak louder because I have noise on my left here. This is a weapon of destruction. [Interjections.] [Applause.] The DA is performing like a weapon of destruction.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order, hon Turok! Please take your seat, hon member. Hon members, I want to appeal to you not to have running commentaries. If you want to interject, fine, enjoy yourselves, have a lively debate, but let’s give the speakers at the podium an opportunity to be heard. Please continue, hon Turok.
Prof B TUROK: After the Second World War, the three allies against Nazi Germany, namely the United States, the UK and the Soviet Union, realised that they needed a mechanism to control world aggression, and that is what the UN system was created for. So they created an alliance and an institution to prevent war. That institution recognises the sovereignty and equality of all members. It recognises the need for co-operative, transparent and orderly international relations.
In due course the UN developed a capacity for security operations for peacekeeping. In those operations they did not use forces from the great powers; they used soldiers from the medium powers because of the Cold War and the rivalry between the superpowers.
The UN mediated in Kashmir, in Palestine and in Suez, and they used military forces in Korea, Congo, Cyprus and Suez. They realised the need for co-operation in what became increasingly an interdependent world. They established a cluster of organisations which we are familiar with, namely the ILO for labour relations, the ITU for telecommunications, the WMO for meteorology, and so on. A whole range of institutions were established because of the recognition that we not only need an organisation to keep world peace and a multilateral organisation, but we also need institutions to manage an increasingly complex and technology-driven world system.
However, these events took place in the context of a balance of power due to the Cold War, and that balance of power was in itself a threat to world peace. But it was managed and the United Nations played a major role in doing that.
Interestingly enough, the Third World took a position in all this. It rejected a bipolar world. It said that we need a world which is multilateral, in which the Third World itself can have a voice. So we had the Bandung Conference, the Nonaligned Movement, the Group of 77, the OAU and others.
But in the midst of this, the United States launched counterinsurgency measures in many parts of the Third World that attacked democracy and showed an aggressive instinct which we have seen repeated in the Iraqi situation. Then there were interventions by the United States in Grenada, Lebanon, Libya, the Persian Gulf and El Salvador and later the extraordinary one in Panama.
With the collapse of the the Warsaw Pact countries, however, we saw the emergence of a unipolar world which took the place of the bipolar world of the East-West confrontation. And yet, one is seeing that it is too simple a notion that we have a unipolar world in which we are helpless.
My view is that we should not succumb to the pessimism of the notion of a unipolar world and we should not be intimidated by the US display of enormous might in Iraq, and now threatening Syria and other countries one after the other. We should not be intimidated by that because the world is far more complicated than just one great power. We talk about a superpower. The world contains China, a huge country which also has nuclear weapons and which contains so many people of the world. The world contains Japan, also a powerful country. There is India and there is Europe itself, which is trying to establish a unity which will be part of a new multilateral and complex world scene.
The struggle in the Security Council was a focus of the multilateral battles, and we were all fascinated to see what was going on in the Security Council and how the United States had difficulty in persuading the rest of the world that its cause was just, that its cause was right, and so on. But furthermore - and this is the note I want to end on, as the lights are flashing - in addition to all these powers, the voice of global civil society is now more vociferous than ever before. My son, who lives in England, is here now in Cape Town. He was a participant in the huge march in London, the largest ever.
We have seen marches of civil society around the world, and so the dominance of the United States cannot be seen as a unipolar world because there are other powers, there is civil society. We need a United Nations system which is going to reflect the plurality of all those forces so that we get a new balance of forces in the world which will stand up to US aggression and which will allow us to think in terms other than a unipolar world dominated by bombs, by enormous mass destruction throughout the world. Thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mr C W EGLIN: Mr Chairman, I am going to return to the subject for discussion, the importance of the multilateral system of world governance. In the formal sense the war on Iraq is over. Saddam Hussein has been driven from power. The task of securing peace to enable the people of Iraq to decide on their political future has only just begun.
The issues that will be debated - the war, its causes, its legitimacy and its impact on international relationships - will continue for years. But an issue that, I believe, will not be debated, once the dust of the war has settled and the damage of the war has been repaired, is that the citizens of Iraq, and indeed the nations of the world, are better off now that the ruthless regime of Saddam Hussein has ended. [Interjections.]
Quite understandably, immediate postwar emotions are mixed. I was impressed by the comments of Mr Vusi Mona, the editor of City Press, who, in his newspaper, writes:
We may not have liked the tactics George W Bush and Tony Blair used to topple Saddam Hussein, but we should be relieved Saddam’s regime has gone.
The question now is: How are we, the antiwar movement, supposed to react to Saddam’s fall? Should we be shocked and dismayed? God forbid.
How can we pretend to be on the side of justice and freedom while sympathising with a tyrant who has fallen? Sympathy for tyranny and justice cannot be bedfellows.
The collapse of Saddam’s regime should not result in the antiwar movement losing its pride for having taken a principled stand.
We are all for world peace, but such peace can never be built on injustices suffered by Iraqis and the silence of the antiwar movement when tyrants terrorise their own citizens and threaten their neighbouring states.
This comes from somebody who is in the antiwar movement. [Interjections.] The postwar situation, to those of us who are looking with serious concern at the future world government, will have to face up to two immediate realities, stark realities. The first is that the United States is today by far the world’s military superpower and it is headed by an administration that, in the wake of 9/11, is prepared to use that military power when it deems it necessary to protect its perceived interests of national security. [Interjections.] That is the scene as far as the superpower is concerned.
The second is that multilateralism as a factor for regulating international affairs has suffered a number of damaging blows. Indeed, the question is often asked: Is multilateralism still relevant? We, the DA, believe that it still is. The question is: What can be done to redress this imbalance of power; the superpower on the one hand, and the rest of us on the other?
I want to say that if, in the wake of the traumatic events of recent weeks, we succumb to the temptation of evaluating the regulation of world affairs primarily in militaristic terms there is little that we can do. However, if we see the regulation of world affairs in holistic terms, there is much that we can and should do. The fact is that in a world in which there is more democracy, more human rights, more rule of law, more accountable government, economic growth, human development, social justice and a closing gap between the developed and underdeveloped countries of the world, military power would become less relevant, and militarism would become less of a dominant philosophy.
In promoting what I call these peace-bringing and people-orientated concepts in working to prevent war, rather than having to deal with war, multilateralism has a vital role to play. With the main objective of multilateralism clearly in place, we believe that the governments of the world should make a concerted effort to improve the effectiveness of multilateral organisations that exist on the global, continental and regional level.
Three areas, firstly, in the issue of restructuring the UN must be tackled in earnest, for the United Nations’ Security Council makes the concept of multilateralism meaningless when it consistently fails to enforce its own resolutions. Added to this, when any one of five select nations can unilaterally rock the world of the majority, you do not have multilateralism, you have a destructive form of unilateralism.
Secondly, at the continental and regional levels, the doctrine of sovereign independence has to be reconciled with the doctrine of mutual interdependence. The old doctrine was sovereign independence and it was total. I believe even in the AU the new doctrine of mutual interdependence has to find a place that has to be recognised. In the past the doctrine of sovereign independence within multilateral organisations has proved to be a recipe for doing nothing.
Thirdly, multilateral organisations must respect their responsibility for ensuring that their member states live up to their commitment to practices democracy, uphold human rights and promote sustainable development. An organisation like the Nonaligned Movement makes no contribution to the common world good, as for many years it has been giving comfort and support to the brutal and dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein, which openly defied, with the knowledge of NAM, the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
An organisation like SADC gives multilaterals a bad name when it deliberately turns a blind eye to the violations of democracy and the rule of law which are taking place under the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe. [Interjections.] But I feel, Mr Minister, that, if the AU follows the same passive, compromising practice in future, we can all say goodbye to the success of Nepad.
Mr George Soros, a financier and philanthropist, in a recent speech in which he criticised the militaristic approach of the Bush administration, made some penetrating comments both on America’s role in the world and on the lack of effective global multilateral institutions. The US only distinguishes between military supremacy on the one hand and American leadership of a global society on the other. There is a difference between supremacy and leadership. To his audience he says:
We are unquestionably the dominant power in the world today. Our dominance is not only economic and financial, but also military and technological. No other country can come even close to us.
This puts us in a position of unique responsibility. Other countries have to respond to US policy, but the United States is in the position to choose the policy to which others have to respond. We have a greater degree of discretion than anybody else in deciding what shape the world should take.
He is not talking from a situation of desire, he is talking from a situation of facts. He goes on to say:
Therefore it is not enough for the United States to preserve its supremacy over other states; it must also concern itself with the wellbeing of the world.
Then he goes on to say of global government:
The current world order is a distorted form of a global open society. It is distorted because we have global markets, but we do not have effective global institutions. As a consequence we are much better at producing private goods than taking care of public goods such as preserving peace, protecting the environment and ensuring economic stability, progress and social justice.
The DA believes that within the realities of the modern world multilateral organisations have an important part to play. But this requires that the participants in those organisations use them to take effective action and not to indulge in wordy evasions. Multilaterals, by their very nature, demand negotiation and at times even compromise.
Having said this, we believe that the South African government must resist the temptation of meekly embracing compromises based on the lowest common denominator. Rather it should raise the ante, while making clear its commitment to the principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, which are, after all, not only the foundation of the South African Constitution, but the ultimate prerequisites of sustainable economic growth and human development. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mrs I MARS: Chairperson, hon Minister and colleagues, I have childhood memories of nights and sometimes days spent in air-raid shelters. I have seen huge cities flattened and I was aware of the millions of people of all nationalities who had to mourn the loss of their loved ones, many of them systematically killed by a ruthless regime and untold numbers buried in the rubble of their formerly proud and ancient cities.
All of these victims, please note, were civilians. Now for those of us who grew up with the most vicious examples of man’s inhumanity to man, war was something we never wanted to experience again. Therefore, to the postwar youth of the time, the founding of the United Nations was a dream come true. The United Nations was created by the will of nations as a multilateral forum with the major objective of ensuring global peace and security by preventing conflicts through dialogue and negotiation between member states and to find ways of protecting the world’s ordinary citizens from ever again being subjected to the insufferable, dehumanising misery inflicted upon them by previous conflicts and wars.
This noble concept, a dream come true to many of us who as children had witnessed the devastation caused by war, translated by the will of nations into reality, was fairly successful in ensuring global peace and security. At least it made substantial progress towards this goal by authorising coalitions of member states to intervene in Korea during the fifties. It did the same for Kuwait when that country was ruthlessly invaded by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the early nineties. It also played a significant role in ending the bloodshed in the Balkan states.
Throughout these conflicts multilateralism proved to be successful in containing conflict and human suffering. But - and this must be a matter of great concern to every one of us across the globe - multilateralism failed to prevent the current war in Iraq in which the world’s only superpower engaged. We failed; global society at large failed. And even more so the multilateral system of governments which, although by no means perfect, has served the world community reasonably well over decades failed in this instance.
The failure, however, began long before the first shots were fired. In the second Gulf War, the failure had its origin in the inability of the United Nations to enforce its own resolutions that were agreed to after the end of the first Gulf War. The failure was compounded by a gleeful Saddam Hussein, who identified this internal weakness in the United Nations and used it as a cover to kick weapons inspectors out of Iraq. It was further compounded by a frustrated United States deciding to follow the route of unilateralism to get the results it desired. The failure of the United Nations to stick to its own decisions and to enforce them has greatly weakened the institution and the system of multilateralism. Herein lies the grave danger for humanity. If the United Nations does not reclaim its historic role of securing global peace and security, the possibility of other unilateral action will become infinitely greater. This will plunge our world into instability and chaos.
The virtual end of the war on Iraq presents the United Nations with the most immediate opportunity to regain its status as the guardian of multilateralism. The reconstruction of Iraq and bringing humanitarian relief to its displaced and dislocated citizens must be the United Nations’ top priority in the coming weeks. But it will have to show that it is strong enough to resist any attempt to shut it and other member states out of the picture.
Thus far the United States and the United Kingdom have publicly welcomed a postwar role for the United Nations in Iraq. However, it must be a matter of some concern that there will be a military interim administration. However, given the current social instability and the physical presence of these forces, the United Nations will have to be strong and move swiftly to alleviate human suffering and to find, together with the people of Iraq, a long-term solution for a stable democratic future.
It is not only for the United Nations to show the courage of its convictions. The rest of the world community will have to do its part. An immediate enforcement of the basic principles of multilateralism is needed. The nations of the world must demonstrate a new commitment to multilateralism. Such commitment needs to be demonstrated for all to see in words and practical deeds. The United Nations must demonstrate to all of us that it can be the guardian of multilateralism.
Whilst we need humanitarian aid in the reconstruction process, we also need to know that the United Nations can enforce the difficult decisions of its constituent members to end tyranny, terrorism, international crime, disease and other dangers facing the world of today. I thank you, Mr Chairman.
Dr A N LUTHULI: Thank you, Chair. After 9/11, President Bush’s warmongering rhetoric created global tensions. America is now viewed as a belligerent superpower willing to apply unilateral military force without United Nations approval.
The tremendous amount of international sympathy that was evident in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 tragedy has been replaced with fear and anger at the American government. Anti-Americanism is proliferating even among the administration’s closest allies, as was seen in the antiwar marches held in many of the world’s capitals.
Domestic political issues and international criticism are of peripheral consequence to the Washington administration. There are monetary shifts in the reserve funds of some foreign governments, including Iraq, which have not been welcomed by Washington. Saddam sealed his fate when he decided to switch to the euro in late 2000 and later converted his $10 billion reserve fund at the United Nations to euros; that is, from the dollar to the euro.
Other countries, namely China, Venezuela, Russia and some Opec countries, also changed or are considering the shift, suggesting that the world community may now lack faith in the Bush administration’s economic policies, and together seem poised to respond with economic retribution to a government regarded as an uncontrollable and dangerous superpower. The United States economy is intimately tied to the dollar’s rule as a reserve currency.
The Bush administration is looking for other targets, such as the ousting of Yasser Arafat in Palestine. It is suspected to have had a hand in the Venezuelan upheavals and connived to overthrow President Chavez in a military coup, and noises against Syria have been increasing precipitously in the last few days. All this is happening outside of the United Nations fold. In the case of North Korea, which poses a nuclear threat but is a member of the so-called axis of evil, Bush is more careful, prompting one to think that the only way to stop America walking all over you as a country is to develop nuclear weapons.
The question arises: How far can the US run its huge current account trade deficit or continue to wage an open-ended global war on terrorism? Could this very pursuit become the limiting factor to US pursuance of unilaterist policies? Pre-emptive strikes, no respect for national sovereignty and a refusal to sign international treaties and protocols had to become the way of doing things for Washington in these circumstances.
With the war in progress and the so-called friendly fire from the American military killing their own allies, it becomes clear also why the US would not sign an agreement that would subject American soldiers to be tried at the International Court of Justice at the Hague. It is clear that America intends to keep a large and permanent military force in Iraq and perhaps establish a military base.
There is looting on a large scale in Iraq. We have seen the destruction of heritage sites, such as the national museum, which is supposed to be protected by international agreements. We’ve also seen beds and other equipment being removed from hospitals and gross environmental degradation precipitated by bombings that have occurred on a daily basis during this war. The United Nations, which was told to get lost, is now needed. It is America unilaterally that tells them what role to play, which is the role of managing food, water and medicine supplies only. The role of political administration is the sole prerogative of America.
The EU is divided, and at this stage it is unclear whether Bush wants those EU members that did not stand shoulder to shoulder with him to play any role in the rebuilding of Iraq. What kind of Middle East will emerge after all this American engineering is yet to be seen. The role of Tony Blair is that of moderating Washington. He is caught between the EU and American politics. At the moment he really looks older than he did when all this began. [Laughter.]
In conclusion, I want to emphasise that from a foreign policy perspective, the termination of numerous international treaties and disdain for international co-operation via the United Nations and other multilateral institutions have angered even the closest allies and friends of America.
Sadly, the American people are not aware of such information due to the United States mass media having been reduced to a handful of consumption, entertainment and profit-orientated conglomerates that filter the flow of information in the US. Really, in short, the American public is kept quite ignorant. We are much better off here. [Laughter.]
No matter what American propaganda may say, the war on Iraq defies international law and norms and it is a unilateral war. It is a war over the global currency and supply of oil and has nothing to do with Saddam’s old weapons of mass destruction programmes or even democracy. [Applause.]
Questions that were unanswered before remain unanswered even now. Why did America fail to garner international support to topple Saddam? If Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programme truly possessed the threat level as repeatedly purported by President Bush, why did he fail to gain a willing international coalition to multilaterally disarm Saddam? Despite over 300 unfettered UN inspections conducted by scientists Messrs Blix and ElBaradei, there has been no evidence reported of a reconstituted Iraq WMD programme. And despite Bush’s rhetoric, the CIA has not found any links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
President Bush has not provided a reason why Saddam’s seemingly dormant WMD programme poses a more imminent threat to America and the world than North Korea’s active nuclear programme. Strangely, Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, suggested that if Saddam were exiled we could avoid an Iraqi war. All this strongly suggests that the war in Iraq, which looks yet to be taken to the other Middle East states, is not about the WMD programme, but about oil. It is the oil that is the reason. We call on all countries to affirm multilateralism. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Dr B L GELDENHUYS: Chairperson, the previous speaker referred to the fact that thousands of people participated in cities all over the world to protest against America, but then, strangely enough, in neighbouring Iran, in the city of Teheran, only 700 people participated - so not everybody likes Saddam Hussein.
Dit is die vierde keer dat ons die Irakoorlog in hierdie Huis debatteer. Tog het ons nie ‘n enkele debat afgestaan aan die tragiese gebeure in die Kongo nie. Die lyding en lewensverlies wat in die Kongo afspeel, verdwerg die gebeure in Irak - hoe afgryslik laasgenoemde ookal mag wees. Sedert 1998 het meer as 3,5 miljoen mense as gevolg van die oorlog in die Kongo omgekom. Miskien het dit tyd geword om vir ‘n verandering die oorlog en die voortslepende geweld in die Kongo in hierdie Huis te debatteer. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[This is the fourth time we are debating the war in Iraq in this House. Yet we have not devoted a single debate to the tragic events in the Congo. The suffering and loss of lives in the Congo dwarf the events in Iraq - however horrible the latter may be.
Since 1998 more than 3,5 million people have died as a result of the war in the Congo. Perhaps it is time to rather debate the war and the ongoing violence in the Congo in this House.]
The emphasis in this debate is on the importance of the multilateral system for peace and the impact of the war on Iraq on this system. Multilateralism suffered a severe setback as a result of the war on Iraq, but then multilateralism does not have a good record when it comes to preventing war and promoting peace. It was not the UN that prevented a possible World War III. It was a bilateral stand-off between two superpowers, the United States and the USSR.
On questions of national security, states have often proved reticent to accept the constraints of multilateral diplomacy. National self-interest also hampers multilateralism. It was argued - and I heard it again when the previous speaker was at the podium - that the only reason the United States attacked Iraq was to seize the Iraqi oilfields. [Interjections.]
Others argued that the only reason France and Russia opposed the war was that Iraq owes each of them about US$8 billion. These allegations can easily be refuted if the United States allows the interim Iraqi government to award oil contracts instead of doing it themselves, and if France and Russia write off the Iraqi debt unconditionally. If this does not happen, multilateralism will remain a victim of national self-interest.
One of the most brutal regimes in modern history finally came to an end, and this was hailed by most countries around the world. Even President Chirac of France, who vehemently opposed the war, said that France, like all other democracies, was relieved by the fall of the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.
Unfortunately, only South Africa’s silence on the outcome of the war remains conspicuous, and hopefully the hon Minister will make an announcement in this regard. [Interjections.] An appropriate reaction would have been to announce the severing of diplomatic ties with the Hussein regime. As soon as the UN recognises the Iraqi interim government, South Africa should not hesitate to follow suit.
UN sanctions against Iraq should be lifted without delay. Sanctions thus far have had a more damaging effect on Iraq than a war could ever have had. Three hundred and sixty thousand children have so far died as a result thereof. It is suggested that lack of infrastructure, a direct result of sanctions, killed 20 to 40 people for every Iraqi who died in the first Gulf War, and the second Gulf War won’t be different. Sanctions must be lifted, and hopefully South Africa will play an active role in rebuilding Iraq.
Regarding the future of that country, the following should be done: The coalition forces must leave as soon as the country has been stabilised and all weapons of mass destruction have been discovered. [Interjections.] It must be left to the Iraqis to determine their own future, and any political dispensation will have to accommodate the majority Shia Muslim group, otherwise there will never be peace.
Just after the first Gulf War, a guy was driving in the streets of Miami with the following bumper sticker: ``Saddam Hussein still has his job. Do you?’’ Hopefully this won’t be the case now that the second Gulf War has ended. [Applause.]
Adv Z L MADASA: Chairperson, the question is: Can one right a wrong with another wrong? To me the US intervention in Iraq, with some of its allies, has once more raised this long-outstanding, legally vexing question. The security of individuals in a state is as important as the state’s security itself, if not more important. This is the case, especially if you view the state, as we ought, as the servant of the people.
A cannibalistic state living on its people is problematic and needs to be dealt with, but the question is: How? We must not fall into the trap of overemphasising the need for structural adherence at the expense of the subjects for whom the structures were created in the first place. I would argue that there may be a case in international law for unilateral intervention in cases of gross violations of human rights, provided that there is a pre-existing legal rule that regards genuine necessity in such cases to be a valid defence. Such an approach would cater for situations like South Africa during the apartheid years, Burundi and Rwanda, Iraq under Saddam Hussein and now Zimbabwe, where blatant violations of human rights take place without decisive intervention by the international community.
In this regard the ACDP would call for a reform and changes in the UN Charter to cover such cases as I have enunciated. Unilateral and unauthorised interventions are not going to help to resolve these complex matters. Instead they may precipitate more instability. Survival of the fittest is the law of the jungle. What we need for development of the poor is a peaceful world, not a jungle. Strictly speaking, it will be difficult for the US and its allies to justify the invasion of Iraq, even if there may be discoveries that vindicate their claims prior to the war. The danger, though, is that this kind of action may establish a new norm of customary international law, if followed. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr G T MADIKIZA: Chairperson, hon members, on numerous occasions we have stated our concerns about the undermining of multilaterism and the United Nations due to the actions taken by the USA and its allies against Iraq. We stated clearly that we supported the view that Iraq should disarm, but that a unilateral war would come at a high and unnecessary cost in terms of lives, economies and international relations. It was a doubtful strategy for finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction.
This principled position was taken on the basis that since 1993, as a country, we have taken a decision: Never again would we solve our problems through violent means. As South Africans, we know that negotiation is the better and more responsible route to resolving conflict. That is why the UDM proudly joined the Stop the War campaign and called for a peaceful multilateral campaign to detect and, if found, destroy the alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. This position is not informed by a choosing of sides between the US and Iraq, neither it is supportive of the wrongs that may or may not have been committed by either of these countries’ governments.
We were saddened to witness a country that has been known to be sensitive to human rights and on whose constitution our Constitution is partly modelled attempt to change the regime, as they euphemistically call it, of another country. We were shocked that they even boasted about attempting to assassinate the leaders of Iraq even before the military hostilities commenced. As South Africans, we are painfully reminded of our history, when people who wanted to liberate this country were hunted down and assassinated in other countries by the apartheid government.
The United Nations as the primary forum of multilateral international relations has suffered a terrible setback. There are those who might want to make light of this blow to the UN, but they conveniently neglect to mention that the multilateral United Nations was created to protect the weak from the powerful and to ensure that the world took the path of fair and equitable development as opposed to exploitation and war. They neglect to mention that the UN was established to promote the best interests of South Africa as much as those of every country in the world, and that its downfall would be a direct and material blow to this country’s development.
The UN must be restored to its proper place as the primary forum where international matters are resolved in a peaceful and responsible manner. I thank you.
Ms T R MODISE: Chairperson, I neither like nor dislike Saddam Hussein. I have always added and will always add my voice against any war in the world. The marchers across the globe have nothing to do with whether or not people support Saddam. The marchers are people who hate war and do not want to see war used. [Applause.]
The images of anarchy, despair and anger fill our TV screens. They are fast replacing the images of terror and helpnessness which we saw over the last few weeks. There is no order. There is hardly a ``Thank you, Baas Bush’’ placard anywhere. The calls are for water and electricity now and democracy later. Our own children, schoolchildren of eight and nine, were shown on our TV discussing the war. Expressions of despair, confusion and resentment came across so sharply that parents have stopped letting their children watch the news. In my own home my children are so angry that I have wondered whether the effects of the Iraq war have not crept into every home and household in this country and worldwide. The results would be the same. There would be fear, confusion, anger and nightmares. This might lead to unruly and resentful behaviour by our children.
These images of anarchy, these expressions of frustration and confusion, have usually given way in all other conflict situations to domestic violence and to the abuse of women, the elderly and children.
The collapse of Iraq’s basic infrastracture began during the Gulf War and the sanctions on Iraq. That war is blamed for the reversal of health, education and general standards of living in Iraq. The quality of water deteriorated, radioactive levels in the soil and the atmosphere became responsible for the sharp increase in cancer and the child mortality rate, malnutrition became rife and street children problems abounded. I am sure this current war is going to increase these problems. Yes, the UN must intervene. Judging from the reconstruction programme of the US in Afghanistan, I wonder how much of an improvement we are going to see in the quality of life of Iraqis.
South Africa’s position has been very consistent. We have called for compliance with the mandatory resolutions of the UN Security Council. This we have done in the Israel-Palestinian issue. We have also insisted on it in the US-Iraq conflict. In the continent we have worked tirelessly in the region, in the SADC fora and in the OAU, and we have helped carry out the restructuring to enhance better co-ordination and compliance.
We have been consistent in our behaviour, because we believe the multilateral system of global governance to be the only viable international response to the challenges that we face today.
After the end of the Cold War it became clear that the only superpower left could either become a shepherd and use its supreme power to herd us all out of conflict and other challenges or be tempted to be the world’s policeman and dog all our steps. We began to look again at the multilateral institutions for reassurance. We looked at the UN General Assembly and the Security Council. We even looked at the European Parliament, Nato, the World Health Organisation and the World Trade Organisation.
In the different regions, religious and economic fora became very important. We were, after all, getting to know each other after the Cold War. We were, after all, wishing to go on with reforms in reconstruction and development. We were concerned with building nations and exporting - from people to people, race to race, country to country - hope and peace. We even discovered new words to bandy around - globalisation, collective and co-operative security. We convinced the world of other terms such as gender mainstreaming, gender equity and people or human security.
Some of us even took leave from this House to participate in crafting the UN resolution on women and security. We worked hard to ensure that all people, all continents and all states had a voice. We put our trust in multilateral institutions, because globally we were becoming our brothers’ keepers.
South Africa’s return to the Nonaligned Movement, the OAU and SADC was driven by the same spirit of stability, growth, development, peace, equality and democracy. As South African women, we made sure that we quickly caught up - we popularised Cedaw and all the UN charters on the rights of children, disabled people, women and so on. We took out a second insurance policy. We looked at the African charters and resolutions. Has this been all in vain?
Our TVs, newspapers and radios carry horror stories of desolation in Iraq. Little children of six have lost arms. Little girls have eyes that have seen too much. Children who have done nothing have lost their childhood and will possibly be bitter for the rest of their lives. Children are not surprised, though. They have seen the horror pictures of other children in Palestine, Israel and Kosovo. If they know where Africa is, they have heard about Sierra Leone, Liberia, the DRC, Rwanda and Burundi, where children were turned into child soldiers and wives. They will, by now, know by heart the stories of Iraq when Saddam was just a small store trader and Bush an oil salesman. Then they will be told that all Iraqi children ate well, drank clean water and did not die of radioactive environmental exposure and cancer. Then parents were forced to take their children to school. These children will have listened with big eyes to the tales of the man who became president and spread the stories of his own holiness and descent from the Prophet Mohammed.
These children will by now have heard about the US assistance to this man in the war against Kuwait. These kids will have opened their eyes very wide when they heard about the fall-out between this man and the US that led to the Gulf War. These children will conclude that their friends and relatives have died for very stupid reasons, and that adults around the world walked about and did not do much to stop this carnage. These children will find reasons to dislike the outside world and to hate the US and the UK. These children will have ample reason to plan for revenge, unless we can do something to strengthen the institutions that equate peoples and protect the helpless.
After the Second World War, when the UN was established, we thought as women that protection was at hand. We thought that we would not have wars, that there would be no Hiroshima, hunger, rape or disease. We thought that civilisation was at hand, and that we would not be forced to see our husbands, sons and fathers die, and that we would learn and teach generations and die of old age. But Rwanda, Burundi, Sierra Leone, Palestine, Kosovo, Angola, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda, Mozambique and Nigeria happened.
The creation and outlawing of weapons of mass destruction were accepted as a phase in the development of humanity. The call for lowering defence and military expenditure by the UN was welcomed by us all. Why, then, are we not all complying? Why, then, are some ordering others to destroy their weapons while they are amassing their own? Perhaps we do need to look anew at the definitions of weapons of mass destruction. We need to look at the volumes of explosive materials used and the impact of weapons when we name and define them. We need to outlaw more weapons like the scatter and cluster bombs that are used in Iraq.
We need to increase the voice of reason in the UN Security Council and ensure that the African Union Peace and Security Council will never find itself compromised in the same manner as the Security Council has been. We need to make sure that every member in the AU is equal. We need to rebuild confidence in the multilateral instruments and curb tendencies towards unilateralism. Why do we allow economic and military blackmail? Eritrea, Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda and Djibouti came out in support of the war. All of them, we know, depend on either the US or the UK for financial aid.
They may have recalled what had happened to Yemen when that country did not vote in support of the US in the Gulf War. They may have tried to avoid what has just happened closer to home when Nigeria joined Senegal and South Africa to oppose the war. Nigeria tells us that their military agreement was summarily cancelled.
Africa must guard against selling principles for money. Yes, we are poor. Yes, we need development. [Applause.] Yes, our gross national product is a pittance. And yes, we will depend on the rich countries of the North to fund our reconstruction programmes. [Applause.] But is it not better to rebuild this continent slowly on the basis of honesty, peace and justice? Is it not better to bring up our children on African values of Letsema - motho ke motho ka batho ba bangwe [a person is a person because of other people] - so that slow, less dramatic economic leaps, but also a strong respect for other people’s rights, cultures and beliefs, persist?
Is it unreasonable to want to live without fear? Is it unreasonable to want peace and dialogue? Is it unreasonable for women to want healthy bodies that bring forth healthy children? Is it wrong for children to want to live a future without the shadow of war? Thank you, Chair. [Time expired.] [Applause]
Dr P W A MULDER: Mr Chairman, after the Iraq war, we must accept that multilateralism in the world is in trouble. When the United States could not get a decision from the United Nations to invade Iraq, they did it on their own. This put a question mark over the whole system of multilateralism and international control. During the period of the so- called Cold War, the countries of the world were divided into the Eastern bloc countries, the Western countries and the Nonaligned Movement.
The United Nations, the Nonaligned Movement and the African countries played an important part in this balancing act between the East and the West blocs. The Cold War era ended with the fall of the Berlin wall and that of the Soviet Union. During the last 10 years the international world has been busy with the realignment of nations and the re-evaluation of international instruments like the United Nations. That is where we are at the moment.
South Africa must not make the mistake of trying to understand the world of the 21st century in Cold War terms. That period, with an East and West bloc, is forever gone.
Hierdie Parlement se Portefeuljekomitee oor Buitelandse Sake het die Verenigde Nasies in 1999 besoek. Die spanning tussen Amerika en die Verenigde Nasies was toe reeds duidelik. Op daardie tydstip het Amerika geweier om sy ledegeld te betaal as daar nie aan sekere vereistes voldoen word nie. Ongelukkig, en dit is die probleem, was die Verenigde Nasies grootliks afhanklik van daardie inkomste. Dit help nie jy wil die beste waghond in die wêreld wees, maar iemand anders betaal vir jou tande nie.
Dit is die probleem met ‘n wêreld waar ons net een supermoondheid het, net een polisieman. In belang van Suid-Afrika, en in belang van Afrika, moet ons hierdie situasie - en ek praat vanuit Suid-Afrika se oogpunt - koelkop benader. Ou Koue Oorlogdenke gaan tot die verkeerde besluite lei. Suid- Afrika se enigste riglyn, of dit nou oor Zimbabwe, of oor die toekomstige rol van die Verenigde Nasies en Amerika gaan, moet wees: wat is in die belang van Suid-Afrika? Niks anders durf dit wees nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[This Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs visited the United Nations in 1999. The tension between America and the United Nations was already evident. At that time America was refusing to pay its membership fees if certain conditions were not adhered to. Unfortunately, and that is the problem, the United Nations was largely dependent on that income. It serves no purpose if one wants to be the best watchdog in the world but someone else pays for one’s teeth.
This is the problem with a world where we only have one superpower, only one policeman. In the interests of South Africa, and in the interests of Africa, we should approach this situation - and I speak from South Africa’s point of view - with a level head. Former Cold War ideas will lead to the wrong decisions. South Africa’s only guideline, whether it is about Zimbabwe, or about the future role of the United Nations and America, should be: What is in the interests of South Africa? It dare not be anything else.]
What is important is that President Bush and Mr Blair said that the United Nations would play an important role in the post-Saddam period in Iraq. I think we must look at that and make sure that it happens at the end of the day. I think the United States will discover that it is often easier to make war than to keep peace in a difficult region like the Middle East.
Albert Einstein said: ``Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding’’.
Ek dank u. [I thank you.]
Mr P H K DITSHETELO: Chairperson, for now it would seem that the multilateral system of governance has been ineffective to bring about the desired effects and outcome. There have been cases that bear testimony to this claim. To name one: the continuation of hostility in the Middle East, that is between Palestine and Israel. Added to this picture, further placing the multilateral system in a questionable position, is the war in Iraq.
Much that has been said is supported by evidence that points to the inability of such systems to implement their resolve at least as far as conflict resolution is concerned. This is regarded as the first step in achieving global peace. A strong case being made is that if world treaties or protocols that are intended to guide nation states are put aside by powerful nations, how can these institutions then contribute to world peace and to sustainable development?
There are nation states possessing power and resources that are ready to inflict pain or impose their wishes on other nations that disagree with them at any given time. It is this chilling reality that makes some African or Arab leaders suspect that their countries might, in the near future, be targets of invasion or terrorism. There is no doubt that, despite all the problems that we are faced with, the world cannot afford to ignore the role of a multilateral system of governance.
The reality dictates that we acknowledge the importance of the multilateral system of world governance to effect peace, sustainable development and the creation of a better world. The danger is, if we encourage the world that is constituted of separate individual nations, we would … [Time expired.]
Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, we constantly have to remind ourselves that we belong to a much larger entity. South Africa is a part of Africa. Africa in turn is a part of the whole world, the world being all humanity. Noting this, it would be logical to say that our responsibility and interest do not stop at the borders of South Africa, even though it is our priority. We convene ourselves juristically and internationally, not only through trade, but in various other spheres. To make this possible, common values and agreements are necessary via bodies such as the OAU and the United Nations.
The war on Iraq has an impact on all states, no matter the distance or effect, be it monetary or social. The defiance of the USA and others of the UN is disappointing and makes the existence of a body such as the UN seem irrelevant. The MF, however, sees multilateral governance as crucial to global diversity from country to country.
We denounce the spoilt behaviour of the superpower, and call for unison in containing the situation. Can countries honestly watch a slaughtering of innocent people because of fear for their relations with the big boys? It is unacceptable. This matter could have been settled in a civilised manner. How is sustainable development possible if a member state goes against authority?
The MF supports the efforts for sustainable development through multilateral governance for a better world. [Applause.]
Mnr C AUCAMP: Geagte Voorsitter, dit is wyle oom Boy Louw wat in ‘n antwoord op kritiek teen die Springbokke se vertoning in ‘n toets gesê het: ``Looks at the scoreboard’’.
In antwoord op die vlaag van kritiek teen die VSA en sy alliansievennote se inval in Irak, sê die NA ook: ``Looks at the scoreboard’’. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr C AUCAMP: Chairperson, it was the late Mr Boy Louw who said in reply to criticism of the Springboks’ performance in a test: ``Looks at the scoreboard.’’
In reply to the flurry of criticism against the USA and its alliance partners’ attack on Iraq, the NA also says: ``Looks at the scoreboard.’’]
And the scoreboard says: An Iraq and a world without Saddam Hussein are better than ones with him.
Die wêreld is verlos van ‘n diktator, ‘n onderdrukker en ‘n gewetenlose tiran. Die boodskap moet tog duidelik wees: In die globale wêreld van die 21ste eeu is daar nie meer plek vir die Saddams van hierdie wêreld nie.
‘n AGB LID: Wat van George Bush?
Mnr C AUCAMP: George Bush en Tony Blair het die wêreld, die Midde-Ooste en die mense van Irak ‘n guns bewys deur Saddam te verwyder. [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[The world is freed of a dictator, an oppressor and an unscrupulous tyrant. The message ought to be clear: In the global world of the 21st century there is no longer a place for the Saddams of this world.
An HON MEMBER: What about George Bush?
Mr C AUCAMP: George Bush and Tony Blair did the world, the Middle East and the people of Iraq a favour by removing Saddam from power. [Interjections.]]
The big outcry … [Interjections.] Will the member for Baghdad please keep quiet. The big outcry is, of course, because multilateralism has been sidelined by the US and the UK and its allies. They invaded Iraq without a resolution of the UN. A counter-question must, however, be asked. Isn’t it a fact that the principles of real multilateralism were in fact neglected by the UN itself? For 12 years Saddam has made a mockery of multilateralism and of UN resolutions, and the UN has turned a blind eye. [Interjections.]
The moral of the story is this: If you want to shout multilateralism, then there is a multilateral responsibility, as with majority rule in a country. Multilateralism can be misused in the world. It can be used as an excuse and a shelter for the Saddams, and for that matter the Mugabes, of this world. [Interjections.]
Is dit dan redelik om teenoor lande soos die VSA die troef van multilateralisme te speel? Is dit realisties om te verwag dat die enigste supermoondheid gaan sit en toekyk hoedat, onder die dekmantel van multilateralisme, lande toegelaat word om die teelaarde en die breinfabriek van die 11 Septembers van hierdie eeu te word? (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Is it then reasonable to play the trump card of multilateralism against countries such as the USA? Is it realistic to expect that the only superpower should sit back and watch as, under the guise of multilateralism, countries are allowed to become the breeding grounds and the brain factories of the September 11s of this century?]
The NA is in favour of multilateralism, but the war in Iraq was a wake-up call for a multilateral world to get its act and its house in order. Thank you. [Interjections.]
Dr Z P JORDAN: Mr Chairman, Deputy President and hon members, during the Second World War, the president of the United States met the prime minister of Britain, Winston Churchill, off the coast of Newfoundland to spell out the aims that would be pursued by the Allies during the war against Hitler.
Although these two world leaders approached the summit from different perspectives - Churchill primarily to attain US buying into the war in Europe, and Roosevelt to prepare the architecture for a postwar international order - they both agreed that the primary objective should be the destruction of the barbaric regimes of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. The upshot was that the United States was brought into the war by the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbour in December 1941.
Roosevelt and Churchill at that meeting adopted the Atlantic Charter, which, among other principles, embraced the right of all peoples to govern themselves and to determine their own form of government. By inscribing that principle into the Atlantic Charter, the two Western allies were able to secure the support of most colonial peoples in the war against Hitler’s fascism.
Colonial movements regarded the Atlantic Charter and that principle of self- determination as a vindication of their own struggle for independence and national freedom, but once the war was won, Winston Churchill prepared the ground to renege on the undertakings he had made in Newfoundland, declaring that the principle of self-government applied only to the white peoples of occupied Europe and not to the colonies. The divergent agendas of these two allies now became evident.
President Roosevelt thoroughly despised colonialism and had hoped that the postwar world would be one made up of equal states composed of free peoples all governing themselves. He therefore helped to inspire the foundation of the United Nations Organisation as a first step in that direction.
Multilateralism is essentially about the equality of all peoples. Through the United Nations this principle was established as one of the bases of international law.
Though the United Nations was established by the victors of the Second World War, its purpose was to take the power of shaping and determining the world we live in out of the hands of a few powerful states that commanded immense resources and therefore superior military force. It was based on the understanding, also, that the war that had just ended was the consequence of superior power being wielded to shape and determine the destiny of the world, and that that principle had to be set aside once and for all. President Roosevelt understood, as did the overwhelming majority of the people of the world, who had been subjected to that regime of force for the previous 200 years, that military force and superior power could not be the basis of international peace and order.
While we all fully appreciate the anger, fear and profound feelings of insecurity that the attacks of September 11, 2001 produced among the people of the United States, that terrible event cannot be sufficient reason for abrogating a system of global governance built on the principle of equality amongst nations. South Africa, the South African Government and this august House have pronounced themselves clearly on the issue of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. We have pronounced ourselves also on the character of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. No one here - and I repeat, no one here - has ever sided with Saddam Hussein, and the repeated attempts by the hon Barend Geldenhuys to suggest the contrary are either uninformed or just plain mischievous. [Interjections.]
The question that arises now that the United States and its British junior partner have demonstrated the awesome power of their smart bombs and laser- guided missiles is: Is the world a safer place today? Can little children, their mothers and their fathers now sleep more securely in their beds?
An HON MEMBER: Never!
Dr Z P JORDAN: I doubt it! What we know now is that once the only
superpower in the world has stigmatised you as a rogue state'' or as part
of anaxis of evil’’, you should expect armed invasion. Does that make
for world peace? [Interjections.] Or does it suggest that small nations,
those who are technologically unendowed, have to discover new ways of
defending their sovereignty?
The abrogation of the United Nations system and a return to unilateralism by the United States have made the world a far more dangerous place for all of us, and the question we have to ask ourselves is this: If a powerful nation such as the United States arrogates unto itself the right to change a government because it does not like it or disapproves of it, other powerful states might well emulate it. Ask yourself: Does the government of the People’s Republic of China like the government of Taiwan? No, it does not. Does that give them the right to change the government of Taiwan?
HON MEMBERS: No!
Dr Z P JORDAN: Why should they not, since other people seem to have the right to do so? Ask yourself also: Will the government of Iran like the government that might emerge in Iraq tomorrow? And if they do not, will they have the right to change the government of that country? Ask yourself also: Do many other countries that have power like their neighbours?
Mr M WATERS: What about Lesotho?
Dr Z P JORDAN: Yes, what about Lesotho indeed? [Interjections.] The difference in Lesotho, if you did not understand it, was that there was a coup in that country. There was a multilateral decision by SADC countries that we did not want military coups in this region. [Interjections.] That is why South Africa and Botswana intervened. [Applause.] If you want military coups you can have them, and let me remind you: Saddam Hussein came to power by military coup. Just remember that.
What Britain and the United States have demonstrated is that the absence of co-ordinated resistance amongst the Iraqis made their victory possible, and the reason for that is easy to fathom. Saddam Hussein’s brutal dictatorship had humiliated and demoralised Iraqi people, so much so that even an appeal to patriotism was greeted with suspicion and profound scepticism. I am certain that few, if any, Iraqis bought into the US-British propaganda that this was a war waged for their liberation. But given the 30-odd years of Ba’athist misgovernment, they distrusted their own government even more.
This experience should serve as an object lesson to us all that the best guarantor of independence, national sovereignty and the capacity to resist the blandishments, including diplomatic and military pressure, of superpowers is internal democracy that ensures the widest possible participation in government by ordinary people. Limited and qualified democracy that places power in the hands of a self-selected political elite who presume to have a monopoly on wisdom and an understanding of the national interest effectively kidnaps politics and is a source of fundamental weakness.
The peoples of Asia and Africa, for the past century, waged a war and made great sacrifices to put an end to colonial domination. Through that struggle they asserted the right of all peoples to govern themselves. Democracy, civil liberties and human rights are not privileges. They are not privileges to be withheld or dispensed at the discretion of those who wield power. These are inalienable rights for which we all struggled and if anyone has earned the right to govern themselves it is the peoples of Asia and Africa.
Therefore I would submit that it is arrant nonsense to characterise the struggle for democracy in postcolonial societies as an imperialist agenda. I will make so bold as to say that those who suppress their people and abrogate democratic governance, facilitate the antidemocratic and oppressive agenda of those who wish to dominate the world through their military force and superior technology. And the living proof of that assertion is what we have witnessed over the past three weeks in Iraq!
A return to multilateralism is not to surrender to the blandishments of bullies, rogues or dictators. It is to reassert a principle of world governance that all peoples of this world are equal and all are equal in the sight of God. Thank you. [Applause.]
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Thank you, hon Chair. Hon members, just to remind ourselves what we are talking about today: the importance of the multilateral system of world governance for peace, sustainable development and the creation of a better world, and the impact of the war on Iraq on this system. We are not talking about love or hate for Saddam.
The multilateral system provides a global forum for collective dialogue in which all member states share and exchange ideas of mutual concern to the international community. Divergent viewpoints are discussed in a transparent manner, usually leading to a compromise position being adopted by member states in a spirit of give and take in order to reach an agreement.
The belief in dialogue and discussion is one of the major strengths of the multilateral system in order to arrive at agreements that can be implemented by all parties. Thus agreements reached in this way by consensus also result in commitment by all the parties in implementing those agreements, which may be in the form of declarations, resolutions, conventions, treaties and so on. This system serves to create a rules-based global economic, social and political system which provides security, certainty and predictability.
Negotiations by states are based on the principle of sovereign equality of all states. In our interdependent world we have thousands of agreements that underpin functional co-operations in areas ranging from civil aviation to international crime. Without such agreements, there would be chaos and disorder.
South Africa and all developing countries have always emphasised the importance of multilateralism. It is also important to note that when South Africa has assumed responsibility for multilateral bodies we have always worked for the interests of those multilateral bodies, even when at times our own viewpoints may be slightly different.
The current multilateral system of governance, based on the United Nations organisation and its various bodies, serves to combine the international community’s strength to maintain international peace and security and employ multilateral institutions for the promotion of economic and social wellbeing and the advancement of all peoples. It is also the system through which other major global issues, such as food security, disasters, refugees, international crime and disarmament are effectively addressed in a collective manner.
The United Nations was established, as hon members have said, after two world wars, to protect future generations from the scourge of war. Indeed, the United Nations has been effective in preventing a third world war, but at this point in time we are concerned about the erosion of this global system and security.
One of the major challenges that the world is facing is terrorism. The international community, working through the United Nations, has been able to make substantial progress. Clearly, no single country or combination of countries can successfully address this challenge without the co-operation of other countries in the world.
At a regional level, we have also seen the evolution of multilateral co- operation. On our continent we will be celebrating the 40th anniversary of the foundation of the Organisation of African Unity. It has been an instrument in accelerating the decolonialisation of the continent and has been succeeded by the African Union. We have also, through multilateral co- operation, developed the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, which has been endorsed by a number of other regional organisations as well as the United Nations.
The integration of the world’s economies and the rapid advances in science and in information and communications technology have increased and not decreased the interdependence of all states. Further, the inexorable process of globalisation also underscores the need for multilateral governance. This, in turn, requires states to cede areas of their sovereignty and to approach international challenges collectively and in the interests of all humanity. Inherent in this approach is the belief that individual short-term gains should not come at the expense of working for and achieving long-term objectives that ultimately bring benefits to all, including the more powerful. There is no doubt that we will gain from a multilateral collective approach in dealing with the many challenges that humanity faces.
One of the most significant decisions that was taken by the United Nations in recent years was the adoption by the General Assembly of the Millennium Declaration, containing a commitment by all heads of state at the Millennium Assembly in the year 2000 to reach what are known as Millennium Development Goals by 2015. These goals seek to halve the number of desperately poor people in the world by that time, and halve the figures for a range of other crucial developmental areas such as infant and maternal mortality, primary education and gender discrimination, amongst others. The significance of these goals is that, for the first time, they take a global view of poverty and its consequences and commit the global community to working together to achieve them.
Another remarkable development closely connected to the Millennium Development Goals has been the coming together of global conferences to seek linkages and complementaries in their work and not to work in isolation. Thus the World Trade Organisation Doha ministerial conference set in motion the Doha developmental agenda for global trade liberalisation. This was followed by the Monterey International Conference on Financing for Development, and also the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, which was built extensively on the progress made at the previous conferences and not only reviewed all issues related to sustainable development, but agreed on a planned action to implement the world sustainable development outcomes. An important decision taken at Monterey was to intensify the dialogue between the UN and the Bretton Woods institutions and the WTO with a view to greater co-ordination and co-operation between these bodies. It was encouraging to read, in the 13 April communiqué of the development committee, issued at the end of the spring meeting of the IMF and World Bank in Washington, that:
We met today to review progress in the work of implementing the strategies, partnership and actions agreed in Monterey and Johannesburg to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and to consider ways to enhance the voice and participation of developing and transition countries in our institutions.
The key issue here is that the developing countries, through the current multilateral organisations, are slowly but surely having their voices heard more clearly. There is much work still to be done and the current structures are still weighted in favour of the developed countries, but the dialogue is deepening and the results are being seen. The trust of the developing countries in the multilateral system has been improved and strengthened by the visible progress that is being made in these co- ordinated developments. Similarly, among the developing countries there is an increasing realisation that it is in their own interests to promote peace, security and economic and social development throughout the world. Economic growth in developing countries means larger global markets for all. Reduced poverty means greater political stability and diminished threats to global peace and security.
A key element in the development of global economic governance structures is that of rules-based equality. States draw reassurances from that fact, although in the short term it sometimes means that they expose themselves to certain risks by adopting certain measures. In fact, the global consensus on a given issue means that all states are subject to the same constraints, allowing a greater good to benefit everyone. Of course, sensitivity to the needs of the developing countries to adjust at a different rate to that expected of developed countries is a key element in all this. But at the heart, the benefits of a rules-based system are obvious to us all.
The fact that the global economy is currently skewed in favour of the developed countries can only be addressed by concerted action of all states involved throughout the international community - developing and developed. This heightens the importance of the multilateral system as the only way of dealing with fundamental inequalities.
We have also just seen this week that the World Bank has noted that the industrialised countries have not kept to their undertakings to increase overseas development assistance and lower trade barriers, resulting in developing countries not making the kind of progress everyone had hoped for. Developing countries have cut their trade barriers by 50% over the last decades, but this has not been reciprocated by developed countries. The World Bank also notes that on current trends, poverty reduction goals would probably be met in all regions except sub-Saharan Africa, where the impoverished people would increase from 350 million in 1990 to 405 million in 2015; and in the Middle East they would increase from 5 million to 8 million.
According to the World Bank, a seven-year initiative to reduce the debt of the poorest countries had so far resulted in agreement on US$40 billion for 26 countries, yet the current call by the United States to write off the debt of Iraq alone is estimated at $127 billion. This signifies in one area how devastating the potential consequences of the war in Iraq can be on the poorest countries in the world, and especially in Africa. In this situation we need to engage, as Africa, with the rest of the international community in all the multilateral fora in order to achieve our intended goals in the eradication of poverty.
The war against Iraq has led the World Bank to revise its projected global growth in trade from 2000 down from 3,6% to 2,3%. Indications from the World Bank development finance report are that industrialised countries will also be affected by the war, with their lower than expected growth rate of only 1,8%.
All this indicates how much can be achieved through multilateral agreements, but also emphasises that we need to continue to interact globally in order to make progress. Just as we need laws within our countries, in global relations we also need rules and laws. If we violate international law, it can result in anarchy and chaos, which in turn creates conditions for conflict and war. Whilst acknowledging that the multilateral system is not perfect, and the influence of the developing countries is unequal, we have to endeavour to improve it, but there’s no doubt about our commitment to multilateralism. A rules-based global system is inevitably constructed on agreements made between states and among states.
After September 11, the international community acted in unison through the United Nations and we are making important progress in working together to counter terrorism. There is therefore no need to go on a unilateral route, but we have seen these tendencies, not only about Iraq. This tendency towards unilateralism is seen through many international agreements that certain states have pulled out of, whether it’s Kyoto or the antiballistic missiles, and so on. So this is a worrying tendency.
Coming back to Iraq itself, one member said we must now cut diplomatic links with Iraq. I think the member must remember that we did not have diplomatic links with Saddam Hussein; we had diplomatic links with Iraq as a state. [Applause.]
It is also very important to take postwar Iraq back into the United Nations, because if we do not do that we face a very real danger of those Iraqis resisting the kind of government that they may get if the United Nations is not involved in the settlement of postwar Iraq. We also need to remember what the hon Pallo said, namely that this war has not given us any more peace, any more stability or any more security. Only through working together through the United Nations and other multilateral organisations can we work together and secure this world. No single country or combination of countries can secure this world on their own. Thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
NATURAL SCIENTIFIC PROFESSIONS BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The MINISTER OF ARTS, CULTURE, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Deputy Chairperson, the Bill that we propose for adoption by this Parliament represents an important milestone in the reorganisation of governance following the achievement of democracy in 1994.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!
The MINISTER OF ARTS, CULTURE, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: It has been given careful consideration by the Portfolio Committee on Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, who have contributed thoughtful proposals to strengthen the Bill and to ensure that the objectives of this piece of legislation are fully met. I would like to thank them for the way they went about this work and for the product which is before this House today.
Scientific professions represent a critical element of the workforce within a knowledge-based economy. As the impact of science and technology on society increases, there is a need to provide an effective process of monitoring and registering certain categories of practitioners so that their economic activities …
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon colleagues, I have called you to order. I insist on your coming to order. Those who wish to leave the Chamber, will you please do so quietly so that we can proceed with the business of the House. Thank you, hon members. Minister, you may proceed.
The MINISTER OF ARTS, CULTURE, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Thank you Deputy Chairperson. As the impact of science and technology on society increases, there is a need to provide an effective process of monitoring and registering certain categories of practitioners so that their economic activities can be undertaken in a fully professional manner. In addition, there is a broader need to provide scientists with an opportunity to be effectively registered and therefore be available to the South African community in order to assist in, for instance, the setting of standards for training in certain disciplines and the assessment of the quality of training that is provided within the public education system. This is a positive role already undertaken on a volunteer basis by many professionals.
The current SA Natural Scientific Professions Council suffered from a number of deficiencies in respect of governance in the context of the new South Africa. The process of appointing the council tended to be bottom-up and potentially uncreative in respect of transformation and representivity. The new mechanisms established in this Bill deal with the matter in a far more open, inclusive and transparent process. This can only enhance the status of the council and allow it to play its full role in the context of the new South Africa.
Examples of disciplines where the registration of natural scientists has proven its worth include the area of the geological sciences where consultants and practitioners undertake work that can have massive economic impact regarding the changes which relate to mineral rights and the associated requirement for Government to play a more active role. The consequences of lack of professionalism or suitable competence relating to economic geology in these cases could be catastrophic. The new legislation provides a far more flexible framework for the defining of disciplines and therefore the new Act will be much more efficiently administered.
Good governance and effective administration are key principles to which we must adhere. The Bill before you is fully within the spirit of Batho Pele and represents a considerable improvement on the current situation. It embodies the important principle that natural scientists are expected to be professional and accountable regarding how they use their science and the impact that it has on the economic performance of our country and the livelihood of our people. I urge you therefore to support this Bill which is a necessary step to normalising the regulation of these professions. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Mr V C GORE: Hon Deputy Chair and hon members, this day is indeed a momentous day for the Portfolio Committee on Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, and for the Natural Scientific Professions Bill. One may be inclined to think that science and technology, and this Bill, have been given the importance that they deserve. But, alas, we have been once again relegated to the dark recesses of Parliament, to the last 45 minutes on the last day before a very long weekend. As I look around the Chamber today I recognise very few people who sit in the portfolio committee.
This day is memorable because finally, as all of my colleagues on the committee will attest, after months of deliberations, meetings and presentations this Bill has finally come to the National Assembly. It may be surprising to an observer to the process of this Bill that this Bill is in fact not contentious. It is, in my view, a technical Bill and it should have been passed months ago. The reason for the delay in the process was due, inter alia, to changes that took place during the restructuring of DACST and the committee quite correctly insisting on adequate public hearings. The committee needs to be congratulated on promoting its responsibility of accountability and transparency. However, it is an indictment on the South African public in general and civil society in particular that there was no response, not even one, to the invitation to public hearings.
I would like to now turn to the substance of the Bill. It seeks to establish the SA Council for Natural Scientific Professions. The council creates the framework for the accreditation and registration of 26 disciplines in the field of natural sciences so that registered persons can act in a professional capacity. It is abundantly clear that in areas such as construction of bridges and dams, and in the medical professions, it is vitally important, if not critical, to ensure that ordinary people are protected by the laying down of minimum standards and requirements, and that practitioners in these fields are accredited.
However, it is difficult to comprehend how much damage a mathematician or botanist or even a forester can do to society. The department has argued that when consulting, these professionals need to have some form of standing. They argued that accreditation through this council achieves that. The counterargument is that if consultants give incorrect or substandard information to a client, market forces dictate that the client will not employ the professional in future. The DA is concerned that the potential to become overbureaucratic will place more barriers in the way, increase costs, and negatively affect the growth and development of this sector of the economy. The DA calls on the Minister to monitor the operations of the council and to ensure that it functions in an efficient and productive manner, particularly around the issue of application fees that may become prohibitive.
In addition, the DA is extremely concerned that clause 16(3) compels the council, on the request of the director-general, to provide the department with any information regarding a registered person. The DA believes that this clause is an invasion of the rights to privacy of an individual as protected in our Constitution. The committee rejected the DA’s suggested amendment of limiting the department.
In conclusion, it is encouraging to note that the portfolio committee stood its ground when academic freedom and freedom of scientific research, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, were threatened. The portfolio committee brokered a compromise with the department which has protected this freedom of expression.
The DA has outlined its concerns with this Bill. Despite these objections, on balance, we support the Natural Scientific Professions Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr N NGCOBO: Thank you, Chairperson. Hon Minister, deputy Minister, hon members, allow me to present this Natural Scientific Professions Bill by first giving you the background as to its purpose.
The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the establishment of the SA Council for Natural Scientific Professions and for the registration of professional, candidate and certificated natural scientists, and to provide for matters connected therewith. The council will consist of no fewer than 20 and no more than 30 members appointed by the Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology. The term of office of council members will be four years, which can be extended to a second but final term upon relevant recommendations to this effect to the Minister.
The council will have powers to consider and decide on any application for registration, determine and prescribe the period of validity of such registration of a registered person, and keep a register of registered persons. It will also have powers to decide on the form of certificates and the register to be kept, maintenance of the register or issuing of certificates, and reviewing of the register and the manner in which alterations thereto may be effected. The council will also determine the charges and fees related to its administrative work on membership registration.
The establishment of the SA Council for Natural Scientific Professions comes at a crucial time when the South African science community is re- establishing itself in the global science system. Under these conditions and challenges, it became necessary and urgent not just to amend the 1993 Act in this connection, but to repeal it as a whole, so as to create a free highway along which our Government’s socioeconomic transformation processes can be pushed through. In particular, the Government wanted transparency and flexibility to be at play so that our historically disadvantaged communities’ professional needs and lack of capacity for whatever reason could be easily identified and addressed immediately, only for the sake of a better and equally equipped society in a democratic dispensation.
Along with scientists from across the developing and the developed world, the council has a duty to develop shared values and a shared idea of meaningful human life to regulate the development and peaceful use of science and technology. Without this shared sense of responsibility to protect and sustain life on earth, humankind faces dangers on an unprecedented scale of being completely obliterated from the face of the earth one day. Auschwitz in Poland, Vietnam, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan, Burundi and lately Iraq are all but warnings of worse things to come and serve as examples of the catastrophic side and human price of science and technology, if not properly directed and regulated.
Our hon President, in his June 1999 opening speech to Parliament, made an appeal to all of us, as part of the world community of nations, to make our due contribution to the construction of a new world order that will be responsive to the needs of especially the poorest of the world. This can only be possible if our economy builds on the full potential of all persons and communities across the length and breadth of our country.
The vision of such an economy, able to meet the needs of the people in a sustainable manner, is well captured in the Freedom Charter of 1955. In accordance with this vision, Government has therefore outlined broad economic strategies to transform the economy by the year 2014. These strategies include a national research and development strategy, whose driver is science and technology. This then means that the overhaul of our natural science professions’ regulatory authorities and their functioning have never been such an urgent issue as they are today in addressing challenges posed by socioeconomic transformation processes in the post-1994 era.
Since the said strategy encourages international collaboration in science and technology, and since it supports the national system of innovation, Southern Africa in particular, but also the African continent in general, can be turned into a region of excellence in science and technology and be made to focus on major themes like competitiveness, quality of life, environmental sustainability, information technology, etc, thereby bringing our African region to the forefront of modern nations of the world.
It is therefore one of the biggest challenges of our Parliament in this African century to call for greater co-operation and collaboration between our scientists and those within the fold of the African Union and Nonaligned Movement on one side and those of the developed North on the other, to work towards achieving the goal of a better Africa and world through forums like Nepad, WSSD, the Nonaligned Movement’s Centre for Science and Technology, etc. There are many such bodies that are very useful in this connection.
Through Nepad we can probably propose and work towards the establishment of an African academy of sciences where excellent scholars of Africa who have been absorbed by excellent centres of the developed world to improve technologies there can be recruited and attracted back to plough their skills into their suffering communities of the African continent. I have in mind here Makerere University in Uganda, which some decades ago developed into one of the leading institutions of academic excellence, not only in Africa, but the world over. It can still be revived in order to restore the pride of Africa in academic excellence through a Nepad-related initiative. I have also in my mind Solomon Mahlangu Freedom College, which can also be considered for such African initiatives based on African solutions.
In today’s rapidly globalising world, marked by economic integration and international competitiveness, technological innovation remains the key to economic growth and social development. We have already made strides in the export market of certain technologically advanced equipment such as the Rolls-Royce engine from Denel, road construction machinery from the CSIR, laser technology through a private company called Scientific Development Integration (Pty) Ltd, and many more.
The time for transformation has arrived in the natural scientific professions.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members in the back there, I have been trying to get your attention and I have been asking you to co- operate, but now you continue regardless of the injunction of the Chair to come to order. You will leave me with no option but to call you by name if you persist in doing that.
I think it is important for members to remain in the positions that have been assigned to them rather than aggregating or congregating in the back and continuing their own discussions.
Hon member, you may continue.
Mr N NGCOBO: Thank you, Deputy Chairperson. Apartheid systematically and purposefully destroyed black talent by restricting access to skills on a racial basis. The lack of black faces in the science sector clearly testifies to the entrenched inequalities that characterised our apartheid era. But 10 years after this era, the argument based on the legacy of apartheid begins to fade away. The Government strategy and indeed the Constitution will have no meaning unless we, the people of South Africa, especially those deployed in the state machine, unite to make it work through support and implementation of resolutions based upon these strategies.
The white empowerment strategies initiated in 1892 well demonstrated that these adopted strategies do work when and where there is a will. Needless to add, there are lessons from the apartheid strategy that worked well for the Afrikaner volk.
Indeed, the tide has turned for our scientific professions. This Bill will allow our scientists to be accorded world-class recognition by their peers continentally and globally.
Although there were some concerns, as we heard from the last hon member, on the part of one political party on the question of privacy regarding the disclosures needed for purposes of professional registration and membership of the council, the ANC feels that our Constitution and, indeed, the Bill of Rights go far enough to protect every South African citizen with regard to privacy in such disclosures. Thus, based on these facts, the ANC supports the Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Dr U ROOPNARAIN: Hon Deputy Chairperson and hon members, this Bill will pave the way for the establishment of the SA Council for Natural Scientific Professions. The professional registration of natural scientists has been in existence for approximately 20 years, so this Bill represents a milestone. However, changes in the educational sector and the qualifications authority have unlocked new challenges and opportunities for the natural science profession.
The Bill, once enacted, will allow for diverse membership that will be sensitive to the obligations that professional scientists need to fulfil. The IFP warmly welcomes this. We believe that the process of nominating members to the council allows for equity, transparency and openness. Also, the Bill is subject to the Public Finance Management Act.
One of the overall objectives of this Bill will be to promote the profession. Here, Mr Minister, I just want to say: more women, please.
Hon members, why do we need this professional registration? Essentially, for clients to demand assurance, quality and expertise. I think this is integral. It gives clients peace of mind and mandates scientists to conduct themselves with repute and professionalism and to make themselves available to the scientific community. This is formulated in the code of conduct prescribed by the Bill. It demands that members carry themselves with integrity, dignity and status.
So it is a Bill that will embrace all natural scientists, and the council will become involved in the evaluation and the accreditation of educational programmes. This will mean relevance and review.
In closing, I would like to say: Naturally the IFP supports the Bill.
Mev ANNA VAN WYK: Geagte Voorsitter, by die hantering van hierdie wetsontwerp het die portefeuljekomitee sy funksionering verbeter. Daarvoor wil ek erkenning gee aan die voorsitter en die lede van die komitee, wat begin het om stelsels en gebruike in te stel wat lank reeds in sommige ander komitees gevestig is.
Een van die faktore wat parlementslede pootjie in hul taak om as waghond vir die publiek op te tree, is die feit dat vele kritieke poste in die staat gevul word uit die geledere van politiekgerigte mense wat tot vandag toe nog nie die professionele afstand beoefen wat die beroepsamptenaar kenmerk nie. Dit ontmagtig die Parlement ook. Dit is veral vir die regerende party se lede soms moeilik om die mandaat van hul amp oor hul kamerade in die departemente te laat geld. Dan is daar ‘n soort verleë verlamming wat intree, en dit is asof amptenare voorsê aan parlementslede. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mrs ANNA VAN WYK: Hon Chairperson, while dealing with this Bill the portfolio committee has improved its functioning. I want to give acknowledgement in this regard to the chairperson and members of the committee, who have started to implement systems and customs that have already been established in other committees for a long time.
One of the factors tripping up members of Parliament in their duty as watchdog for the public is the fact that many critical posts in the state are being filled from the ranks of politically aligned people who, until today, have not been able to exercise the political distance that characterises a professional official. This also disempowers Parliament. At times it can be particularly difficult for members of the ruling party to exercise the mandate of their post over their comrades in the departments. A kind of embarrassed paralysis sets in and it would appear as if officials are dictating to members of Parliament.]
This kind of an appointment is also a consequence of stressing affirmative action at the top end of the scale instead of targeting those at the bottom end of society. Educated, relatively advantaged blacks do not need to be affirmed. They should compete with the rest. Affirmative action should be in the service of the uncompetitive, resource-poor sectors. At the moment it is not.
We need a new model for affirmative action. The present unclear approach manifests itself painfully, in the disciplines in the purview of this portfolio, in the brain drain. The very specific human resources to be deployed in service to the needy are being depleted. Obviously the expenditure of state money must be regulated.
That said, the mind by its very nature is free, and I am fundamentally opposed to the idea that a state should have intimated power over the field of pure learning. Many of the clauses hold that implied threat, even after excellent amendments such as the recognition of voluntary associations and the identification of work. If, in stringent application, the not-so-subtle objects of this Bill, regrettably encompassing the affirmation of things other than scientific excellence, are achieved, we shall pay the price.
Fortunately, practical reality can be relied on to bring balance, and the New NP will not oppose the passing of this Bill.
Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, the MF supports the amendments and provisions made in this Bill to accommodate our democracy.
It is felt that though science leads all our faculties, little effort has been made to promote its study as ambition. The MF feels that efforts should be made to take studies in science to our townships as a means of advancement.
The role of women in science should also be looked into. A few contributions have been noted, but not sufficiently. This male-dominated industry should allow leeway for a greater influx of women into the faculty.
The MF agrees that the natural scientific professions require efficient management and hopes that this Bill contributes to that.
The advancement and continuous metamorphosis that science takes globally is challenging. The MF hopes that new talent and intelligence may be tapped from the South African citizenry so that within this global faculty, we too would make our mark.
The MF supports the Bill.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon member, your speaking time has expired.
Miss S RAJBALLY: Thank you. Just in time! [Applause.]
Mr S L DITHEBE: Deputy Chairperson, I would like to take this opportunity to salute the large group of Cuban tutors who will arrive in South Africa on Sunday to build capacity among their South African counterparts in maths, science and technology teaching. This couldn’t have come at a better time. We say: Welcome, comrades! Welcome, the children of Che! Long live Cuba! Long live internationalism! Hasta la victoria siempre! [Applause.]
The Natural Scientific Professions Bill establishes the SA Council for Natural Scientific Professions, as explained by previous speakers. But perhaps before I proceed I would like to deal with the concern that was expressed by the hon Gore in terms of section 16(3) of the Bill, which refers to the right of the director-general to solicit information in respect of a particular candidate. I would like to say that this section will not be employed arbitrarily, maliciously or capriciously by the director-general. We debated this and other matters, and I want to believe that the interpretation and application of this Bill will not detract from the constitutional right of any person to privacy.
Scientists and science have a role to play in the advancement of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, and no doubt this requires huge resource mobilisation. Allow me to sketch the situation in Africa at the beginning of the 21st century, and this is the picture. Africa was the poorest region in the world, with no less than half of its total population living on less than a dollar a day. Africa also accounted for only one percent of the global gross domestic product, while the income distribution was highly skewed against the poor. Africa was the most marginalised region, accounting for only 1,7% of world trade, 2% of world exports and 0,9% of global foreign direct investment. One out of five Africans lived under armed conflict, creating doubt about the region’s future.
African economies were fragmented, structurally shallow and heavily dependent on primary-sector petroleum, mining and agriculture, with little value added. Africa was the most indebted and aid-dependent region. And Africa had the largest population infected with HIV/Aids. Some would be amazed that I quote this information, which they think is hardly linked to the Bill, but I want to contend that science and technology as practised by scientists are at the heart of the improvement of the quality of life of world populations, not least in South Africa and Africa. Parliament must therefore take all matters related to science and technology very seriously.
Staying with Africa and the role that South African scientists under the guidance of Sacnasp can play, the Nepad base document on a science and technology platform provides as follows:
To promote cross-border co-operation and connectivity by utilising knowledge currently available in existing centres of excellence on the continent;
To develop and adapt information collection and analysis capacity to support productive activities as well as for exports;
To generate a critical mass of technological expertise in targeted areas that offer high growth potential, especially in biotechnology and natural sciences;
To assimilate and adapt existing technologies to diversify manufacturing production.
It goes further to elaborate the requisite actions in pursuit of these objectives, namely:
Establish regional co-operation on product standards development and dissemination, and on geographic information systems (GIS);
Develop networks among existing centres of excellence, especially through the Internet, for cross-border staff exchanges and training programmes, and develop schemes to assist displaced African scientists and researchers;
Work with Unesco, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and other international organisations to harness biotechnology in order to develop Africa’s rich biodiversity and indigenous knowledge base by improving agricultural productivity and developing pharmaceutical products;
Expand geoscience research to enhance the exploitation of the mineral wealth of the African continent;
Establish and develop skills-based product engineering and quality control to support diversification in manufacturing.
A little more than three weeks ago, our portfolio committee approved a protocol governing South Africa’s membership of the Nonaligned Movement Centre for Science and Technology, thereby paving the way for local scientists to benefit from an exchange with their counterparts from the Nonaligned Movement countries and developing countries. The Bill undoubtedly puts South Africa on a sound footing in relation to the resolution of Africa’s seemingly intractable problems through Sacnasp and its interaction with the NAM Centre for Science and Technology.
We must invest more in research and development and promote science and technology if we are to claim this century as the African century. Through this Bill the dark clouds of despair among historically disadvantaged scientists are giving way to a new wave of hope and optimism.
Before I end my speech, I would like to deal with a few issues that were raised by the hon Van Wyk, and these issues have to do with her scepticism with regard to the involvement of the state in appointing some people to be part of this body. I would like to refer the hon Van Wyk to a presentation that was done only yesterday by a certain Mr Ball from the Commonwealth Foundation. He said that they had done research in the Commonwealth countries that established that people in the Commonwealth countries are in favour of a strong state and a strong civil society. I would like to say to her that the time has come for us to stop being cynical and sceptical about the role of the state, because the dualistic economy that we experience in South Africa today requires direct intervention by the state, and that is the developmental role that the state must play.
Let us have a look at the 1993 Act. What did it achieve? It was against the background of people nominating themselves, the same people coming forward all the time in order to be members of this body. That is why we had to come up with this new legislation, so that not only the state should have a role, but civil society as well. The ANC supports this Bill. Thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
The MINISTER OF ARTS, CULTURE, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Madam Speaker, I am glad that I’m summing up this debate in your presence. I think that the Bill that was presented to the House today is a milestone; a milestone in terms of institution-building and establishing good governance.
South Africa has suffered many horrors, but it has also been very lucky in many, many respects. Our cadre of professional people in this country have been so immersed in international standards and normative behaviour that I have no fear of ever finding the scientific system and the scientific community being abused. We have a wonderful system of internal peer review. The citation indices in international journals and the exchange of academics in terms of visits and joint research projects in our scientific institutions are absolutely of an international standard. This is why we are sought-after.
We are a member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, even though we have chosen to remain with observer status. We are participating and accepted as fully equal partners in the Fifth and Sixth Framework Programmes of the European Research Area, which is not a common happening with developing countries.
So the issues of academic freedom, the issues of independent research and the research methodologies that we apply are of such a standard that there is no way that the scientific community is going to allow any director- general or any Minister to just ride roughshod over it. I want to give this assurance because I want a sense of freedom and a sense of assurance to pervade all our institutions and our young researchers and scientists.
People go overseas because we have not created enough jobs in the scientific community. Government has recognised this and is giving money to support our research and development strategy. We are establishing huge centres of research in biotechnology, advanced manufacturing and information and communications technologies.
So let me assure you, hon colleagues and hon members: We are on a sound foundation. We are going to create and bring on board many more young black scientists, particularly women. They will be fitting into a well- established culture and order in terms of scientific professions.
What we are doing today is merely creating a welcoming environment, an enabling environment for more scientists to be registered and recognised and their qualifications verified. There is no sinister motive whatsoever. This is strengthening our science.
I thank you for supporting this Bill. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
GOOD WISHES TO MEMBERS
The SPEAKER: Hon members, as we adjourn today the Assembly goes into recess. All of us in the next few weeks need to reflect and consider how we ensure peace and security for all those who are currently the victims of war and violence in whatever part of the globe and whoever those people may be.
I want to send our particular greetings and good wishes to those amongst you who will mark Passover and Easter. The rest of us, in fact all of us, in the next few weeks will be visiting constituencies, I hope, and joining friends, I’m sure, and families as well. I wish us all some rest, some stimulation and some invigoration, and a contribution to taking the processes that we have discussed here further into the broader South Africa. But for all of us, I wish you well and, as I say: Come back, we have a very hard session ahead of us.
Thank you for the work and the co-operation everyone has shown in taking us through a very, very hard session that we have just come through.
That concludes the business for today. The House will adjourn until Tuesday 13 May.
The House adjourned at 18:43. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
TUESDAY, 15 APRIL 2003
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- Bills passed by Houses - to be submitted to President for assent:
(1) Bill passed by National Assembly on 14 April 2003:
(i) Explosives Bill [B 43D - 2002] (National Assembly - sec
75).
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
-
The progress Report on the Appointment of the Inspector General for Intelligence:
The Inspector General for Intelligence Services, Dr MF Randera was appointed by the President on 1st May 2000. As mentioned in our previous annual report, the Inspector General resigned on 27 February 2002, for private and personal reasons. The President accepted his resignation and requested parliament, through the Speaker to initiate the process of replacing the Inspector General. The Speaker referred this task to the JSCI.
The committee met with the Ministry for Intelligence Services and agreed on the need to appoint the critical staff under the CEO and finalise the administrative regulations. There was also a process of legislative amendments which was already entering the parliamentary process. The CEO asked for a period of six months, up to the end of October to finalise these regulations and appointments.
In November 2002, JSCI advertised for the post allowing two months, up to the end of January 2003, for nominations for the post. Adverts were placed in national and regional newspapers. The committee met in February 2003 to consider the applications. The Committee unanimously agreed that we did not attract enough suitable candidates for this important post. Most of the applicants were Junior Police Officers and unemployed matriculants. This left the Committee unable to shortlist any of the candidates.
The Committee decided to embark on the processes which will inform parliament and the South African public about the nature, responsibility and requirements of the post.
The IG is one of the administrative oversight mechanisms over our intelligence structures. The main functions amongst others are:
1. to monitor compliance of services with the constitution and the operational policies. 2. to review operational activities of the Services. 3. to receive and process complaints from the members of the public on the violation of policies by the Services.Once the IG is appointed he must take an oath of secrecy under a judge. He/she functions within the intelligence community but is independent in his/her decision making. This is consistent with the international best practices.
The JSCI is responsible for the public advertisement, shortlisting for interview and recommendation of a candidate to the house. The candidate must receive two thirds of National Assembly votes in order to be recommended to the President for appointment.
The requirements of the post are:
1. The candidate shall be a South African citizen; 2. The candidate should be a person of integrity with insight to intelligence; and 3. A successful candidate should undergo a security clearance.The Committee unanimously resolves to:
1. Requests Parliament to grant JSCI an extension for the appointment of the Inspector General until 31 July 2003; and 2. Appeal to the South African public, and Parliament to assist in the identification and nomination of suitable candidates to this important post. WEDNESDAY, 16 APRIL 2003
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister for Safety and Security:
Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Republic of
South Africa and the Government of the Republic of Rwanda on Police
Cooperation, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution,
1996.