National Assembly - 08 September 2004
WEDNESDAY, 8 SEPTEMBER 2004 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 15:00.
The Deputy Speaker 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 NOT TO HAVE PRECEDENCE
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Deputy Speaker, I move the draft resolution printed in my name on the Order Paper as follows:
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 29(8), Questions shall not have precedence today.
Agreed to.
FULL CONFIDENCE EXPRESSED IN SPEAKER
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move the draft resolution printed in my name on the Order Paper as follows:
That the House –
(1) notes –
(a) the allegations in the Sunday Times of 29 August 2004 to
the effect that the Speaker of the National Assembly abused
parliamentary travel facilities; and
(b) calls for the Speaker to recuse herself pending
finalisation of the investigation into the alleged abuse of
parliamentary travel facilities;
(2) further notes –
(a) a statement by the Directorate of Special Operations of
the National Directorate of Public Prosecutions on 2 September
2004 that: ``... based on the information at our disposal, the
DSO is not investigating the Speaker of Parliament. This we
say because the impression is that we are and since the Office
of the Speaker is the highest legislative authority in the
country, we need to place things in perspective.’’; and
(b) that Parliament initiated a forensic investigation into
allegations of the alleged abuse of parliamentary travel
facilities;
(3) believes that there is no basis for the Speaker of the National Assembly to recuse herself as she is not being investigated for any wrongdoing; and
(4) resolves to express its full confidence in the Speaker.
[Applause.]
There was no debate.
Declarations of vote:
Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to second the motion, and I would like to address you if I may.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Go ahead.
Mr D H M GIBSON: Deputy Speaker, in view of the fact that the Directorate of Special Operations of the National Directorate of Public Prosecutions has issued a statement confirming that the Speaker is not being investigated, the DA has today agreed to support a motion in Parliament stating that it is not necessary for the Speaker to recuse herself.
I gave the Speaker the advice to approach the Scorpions to request that they confirm either that she was being investigated, or that she was not. Having obtained that clearance, which is based on the information currently at the Scorpions’ disposal, it would be churlish for the DA to insist on her recusing herself.
If the situation changes because of new or further information, or if an investigation were to commence, then it would be appropriate for the Speaker to stand down.
We owe it to the people of South Africa to get to the bottom of all these allegations quickly, to charge those who are alleged to be guilty and to exonerate the innocent. Only then can we put Travelgate behind Parliament and behind us, and put the interests of South Africa first.
Mr A HARDING: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like you and this House to note our objection to this motion. Thank you.
Mr L M GREEN: Madam Deputy Speaker, the ACDP would like to support this motion. As we said at the Chief Whips meeting this morning, we want to speak in favour of this motion because of the statement of the Directorate of Special Operations, or DSO, of the National Directorate of Public Prosecutions on 2 September. They stated that they had sufficient information at their disposal and that according to that information they were not going to investigate the Speaker.
We feel that the newspapers cast aspersions, but that the facts are that the Scorpions have investigated the matter. We as a political party feel completely satisfied that they have made a statement, and therefore we want to express our full confidence in the Speaker. Thank you. [Applause.]
Dr P W A MULDER: Mevrou die Adjunkspeaker, die VF Plus steun graag die mosie wat voor die Huis dien. Ons het ook vandag ons standpunt so gestel by die Hoofswepevergadering.
Daar kom ’n tyd wanneer ’n Parlement korrek moet optree, en dít is so ’n geleentheid. Dit is baie maklik om allerhande bewerings oor die Speaker die wêreld in te stuur, maar die feite in hierdie stadium toon dat daar geen grond daarvoor is nie. Dit sal dus onverantwoordelik wees as die Parlement nie sy steun uitspreek vir die Speaker nie. Ons wil dit graag steun. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Dr P W A MULDER: Madam Deputy Speaker, the FF Plus gladly supports the motion before the House. We also put our view accordingly at today’s meeting of Chief Whips.
There comes a time when a Parliament has to act in a correct manner, and this is such an occasion. It is very easy to spread all sorts of allegations about the Speaker, but the facts at this point indicate that there are no grounds for doing so. It would therefore be irresponsible for Parliament not to express its support for the Speaker. We gladly support this motion. [Applause.]]
Mr N T GODI: Madam Deputy Speaker, I also want to give the PAC’s unqualified support for the motion. At the Chief Whips forum last week we discussed the issue, and it was actually suggested by that forum that we should get a statement from the Scorpions. Now that we have that statement, which indicates that there is no investigation against the Speaker, we think it is only fair that the matter should be laid to rest. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr A M MPONTSANE: Madam Speaker, as we said during the Chief Whips Forum, given the facts, the IFP supports the motion. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr P J NEFOLOVHODWE: Madam Deputy Speaker, the guys are disturbing me on this side. [Laughter.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There are no guys here. There are hon members. [Laughter.]
Mr P J NEFOLOVHODWE: Madam Deputy Speaker, hon members of Parliament, the matter that we are supposed to endorse is a very simple one to Azapo. When we debated the matter, it was very clear that there was no proof that anyone had done any wrong. It is also is pleasing to have a statement from the very people who are investigating, stating that they are not investigating the Speaker. Therefore, as Azapo, we believe that it is appropriate that we should support the motion, and let the matter rest.
If there are other things that come up later, we will deal with those when they come. Thank you. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Rajbally, I hope you are not one of the guys who are disturbing the hon member. [Laughter.]
Miss S RAJBALLY: Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not allow any guys to disturb me. [Laughter.]
We support the motion, and the MF feels that the Speaker is innocent until proven guilty. We believe this matter should be laid to rest and we fully support the motion. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr G T MADIKIZA: Madam Deputy Speaker, the UDM would also like to put on record its unequivocal support of the motion by the Chief Whip of the Majority Party in the light of the statement by the DSO. I thank you. Let the case rest. [Applause.]
Mr A C NEL: Madam Deputy Speaker, the ANC supports this motion. The ANC has full confidence in the Speaker and the leadership that she is providing to the National Assembly. We believe that there is no basis for the calls for her to recuse herself.
The ANC commends the Speaker for the principled leadership that she has given during the investigation initiated by Parliament into allegations of abuse of Parliament’s travel facilities. Throughout this process the Speaker, and the leadership of Parliament as a whole, have asserted a commitment to clean, open and accountable governance. They have also asserted the principles of the rule of law, namely that no one stands above the law, that investigations will be thorough and that the law will take its course.
It has also, however, been made equally clear that all citizens of South Africa, including members of Parliament, have the right to be presumed innocent, unless proved guilty, and to have their human dignity protected and respected.
We welcome the statement by the Directorate of Special Operations of the National Prosecuting Authority, the Scorpions, that they are not investigating the Speaker. It is regrettable that the Speaker and other members of this House, their families and loved ones, have had to undergo extreme pain, suffering and distress, caused by baseless allegations. It is also regrettable that sections of the media, and certain newspapers in particular, along with certain political parties, have seen fit to cast unfounded and unsubstantiated aspersions on the image of the Speaker, Parliament and members of Parliament.
In a statement the Scorpions declare:
Recent media reports are exaggerated in large measure, if not inaccurate.
They go on to caution:
The continued reference to Ministers and members of the executive by
the media, in the absence of a sound factual grounding, could
constitute defamation. We urge the media to report on these matters
responsibly, bearing in mind that the investigation has not been
concluded, and that members have the right to be presumed innocent
until proven guilty. We reject the continued and irrational calls for
the release of names of members.
The ANC expresses the hope that the investigation into the alleged abuse of travel facilities is conducted thoroughly and concluded speedily. I thank you. [Applause.]
Motion agreed to (Independent Democrats dissenting).
THE CENTRALITY OF LITERACY
(Draft Resolution)
DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the House -
1) notes that- a) in its meeting of September 1966, the World Conference of Ministers of
Education on the Eradication of Illiteracy, proclaimed September 8 as
the International Literacy Day; and
b) the Dakar Framework for Action and the Millennium Declaration both established time-bound gender equality goals to which we are committed;
2) reaffirms South Africa’s commitment to equality in education where children are offered the same chances to attend school and enjoy teaching methods, curricula and academic orientation unaffected by racial or gender bias;
3) believes that it is in the private and social interest to eliminate gender inequalities in education as this would result in improved livelihoods, healthier and better -nourished families and enhanced civic responsibility;
4) encourages that on this day everyone of us as individuals, organisations, the Government and business will renew our efforts to combat illiteracy and demonstrate our commitment to the call of education for all; and
5) calls on all South Africans, the Government, business, civil society and communities to recognise the centrality of literacy in the lives of children, especially the girl child, its importance in the lives of adults in relation to skills development and in the fight against poverty.
Agreed to.
THE ROLE OF PARLIAMENTS IN STRENGTHENING MULTILATERAL REGIMES FOR
NONPROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS AND FOR DISARMAMENT, IN THE LIGHT OF NEW
SECURITY CHALLENGES
(Subject for Discussion)
Ms F HAJAIG: Chairperson, colleagues and comrades, the subject for the debate is very important one. In the everyday problems one faces, one tends to forget the threat of security to the person and to the nation. Since May 1994, with the advent of the first democratic government, South Africa has committed itself to democracy, sustainable development, social justice and environmental protection. In keeping with this commitment, the government has extended this policy to include the promotion of global peace and security through elimination and nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Such weapons are normally classified as being nuclear, chemical or biological in composition. If used, such weapons would have a horrific effect on humans, the fauna, flora and the environment and indiscriminately devastate populations and cities in a matter of hours, as witnessed when the United States of America dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the Second World War. And, from the first Gulf War, Iraqis are still showing manifestations of abnormal cancers and diseases caused by incessant US bombings.
International awareness, including recognition by the US of the catastrophic and indiscriminate effects weapons of mass destruction can bring about, has resulted in the creation of a number of bodies and forums to regulate and establish norms and guidelines aimed at preventing the possible use of these weapons.
Before discussing the various conventions and treaties that govern the control of weapons of mass destruction, it is interesting to note that the nations that hold the world’s largest arsenals of weapons of mass destruction are the US and Russia. The US holds some 10 250 nuclear weapons compared to Russia’s 8 500. Russia holds less than 40 000 tons of chemical weapons to the US’s 24 000 tons.
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty opened for signature on 31 July 1968, to which the vast majority of states – 189 – are parties, restricted the possession of nuclear weapons to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Several states, including Israel, India and Pakistan, declined to sign that treaty.
Of course, as you know, South Africa was one of the world’s first countries to unilaterally roll back its nuclear programme and to voluntarily relinquish all its nuclear weapons. The late Minister Nzo in April 1995 made this comment in New York at the renewal of the Nonproliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference:
South Africa took the decision to destroy its nuclear weapons and to become a State party to the NPT because we saw our security being guaranteed by its provisions. It is for this reason also that South Africa has become an active sponsor of an African Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty.
The Treaty of Pelindaba has been ratified by 15 states. It actually requires at least 28 states before it can enter into force. I think in this respect the security organ of the AU and Pan-African Parliament will have to take this matter forward to ensure that all the states ratify it so that this treaty can come into being.
The late Minister Nzo, to his credit, successfully caused the conference to reach agreement on a five-year process by entrants of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and on the establishment of the full nuclear test ban
- the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Unfortunately, the US refused to sign or ratify it.
The Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It entered into force in 1997 following ratification by 65 states.
The Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention entered into force in 1975 and bans the use of biological weapons. It also prohibits the development, production and stockpiling of biological agents and toxins. There are 151 States party to the treaty. Israel has not signed it. Some African and Middle East countries have signed but not ratified it.
The control of delivery systems is of utmost importance. The Missile Technology Control Regime was established in 1987 to limit the risks of weapons of mass destruction proliferation by controlling transfer of weapons and delivery systems.
Before discussing conventional arms and small arms proliferation, which contribute particularly to the ongoing conflicts in Africa, I wish to outline the role of the UN in eliminating weapons of mass destruction.
Despite the various conventions and treaties globally, nuclear weapons problems persist. Testing continues, smuggling of nuclear materials and component manufacturing present grave security risks. A case in point is here in our own backyard. A Mr Meyer, presently in our courts, serves as an example. Changes in the global political environment should permit real advances in the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. Today’s security is no longer defined solely by military strength but includes political stability, a healthy economy and environment and respect for human rights; in other words, human security.
The UN has served a significant role in developing the world’s weapons control regime and is in a position to forge the remaining work that needs to be done. The UN is the only institution capable of serving the needs and interests of a broad range of countries, each having multifaceted disarmament goals. For the non-nuclear member states, the UN provides an opportunity for individual and regional concerns to be brought before the world community. For nuclear states, the UN has provided a forum for addressing the need to hold weapons proliferation while at the same time serving to impose on them certain international responsibilities, including progress toward disarmament.
Multilateral action to prevent the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons is essential. The UN is the only place to deal with both vertical and horizontal arms proliferation. The UN is the only international multilateral body that can perform the range of tasks necessary to rein in weapons proliferation, from the creation of norms and standards to the enforcement of international commitments.
However, one has to take into account the many challenges the UN faces and the organisation’s capacity to deal with all its challenges in the face of errant members – states that do not pay their dues. And, of course, as you know, the US is the biggest culprit.
The necessity for the reconstruction and reform the UN Security Council cannot be overstressed. The veto power of the five permanent members of the council could result in selective enforcement of treaty violations. For example, we have the US’s veto to allow ongoing Israeli aggression and the Chinese veto to prevent sanctions on North Korea.
The UN Security Council has to be enlarged in order to be representative according to different countries that are in the world, and not according to what they had decided on in 1948. The veto power needs to be debated, among other things.
With regard to the new security challenges, one has to consider the use of terror worldwide as a governmental, ideological, political and religious instrument to secure objectives by intimidation of force. The growing imbalance of wealth and power radicalises impoverished people and motivates them to pursue violent solutions. Unresolved political issues, which fundamentally divide peoples and nations, such as the conflict in Israel, Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya and others, are also incentives to resort to violence and armed conflict.
In conclusion, what can Parliament do? I do not have much time, so I will quickly name but a few strategies. Firstly, mobilising public opinion towards effective arms control, stockpiling, disarmament and marketing of weapons. Secondly, monitoring and holding governments to account – through our own national arms control committee. Can it be done? Thirdly, ratifying treaties and other international, regional and continental instruments, namely AU treaties and SADC treaties and conventions. Fourthly, we need to monitor legislative and budgetary regimes that deal with arms control and fifthly, women can be a formidable force for a peaceful world. Womankind’s traditional role as the custodian of the highest human values needs to be reinforced. In armed conflicts, three-quarters of civilian casualties are women, but they are not included at the negotiating table in resolution of conflicts and are omitted from post-conflict reconstruction. Parliamentarians must bring pressure to bear on governments to involve women more actively in preventative diplomacy, conflict resolution, peace- making, post-conflict peace restoration and national reconstruction, ensuring women’s participation in decision-making and eliminating all obstacles to their participation. Peace, justice and dignity should apply equally to everyone. A better and a humane world for all! Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr J SELFE: Chairperson, ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, it has become easier and easier and cheaper and cheaper to mass-produce weapons. Moreover, with advances in technology has come the capacity to produce a single weapon capable of killing hundreds and thousands of people, often employing ghastly chemical, bacterial or nuclear materials - the so - called weapons of mass destruction.
The nineteenth and twentieth centuries were also characterised by intense rivalry between the states in Europe, Asia and America to achieve superiority in trade in the colonies and in the arms race. The arms race almost certainly contributed to the outbreak of both world wars, and it was only the very real prospect of mutually assured destruction inherent in the stockpiling of nuclear weapons during the Cold War that prevented the outbreak of a third world war. But it was precisely the fine balance of military forces in the northern hemisphere that led to the proliferation of arms elsewhere in the world.
Very often the superpowers poured arms into the developing world and specifically into the African continent to further by indirect means a strategy that they were unable to achieve directly.
In the decade following the independence of many African states, the African continent, therefore, became the playground for separatist movements, rebels groups, bands of missionaries and military dictators. As a result, too many African governments were toppled by military coups. Too many African states experienced civil wars, secession or armed rebellion.
For millions of ordinary Africans life during these times was hideous beyond the telling of it. Millions of people died or were maimed. Whole families were wiped out, whole villages were destroyed, and for millions more these conditions persist today. Even when peace has returned to regions on the continent, such as Southern Africa, one has to deal with the aftermath of armed proliferation, usually in the form of an increase in armed crime.
There was a time, not very long ago, when it was possible to buy an AK-47 in downtown Johannesburg for R40. Now, South Africa and this Parliament have played a significant role in ending wars in Africa and in limiting the proliferation of arms. South African soldiers are engaged in peacekeeping operations in the DRC and Burundi. We are at the forefront of measures designed to improve collective security through the organs of the African Union and the SA Development Community. Once these organs are operating at full efficiency, they ought to make it possible to rationalise the armies of the various member states and bring down the number of weapons that are in circulation.
South Africa is also a signatory to a number of international treaties that limit the use of certain weapons or ban them altogether. Among these treaties are the Ottawa Convention on Antipersonnel Mines; the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention; the Chemical Weapons Convention; the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons; the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; and the Pelindaba Treaty, declaring Africa to be a nuclear-free zone.
Moreover, South Africa has also passed its own legislation that regulates the way in which arms produced in South Africa may be sold and exported. The National Conventional Arms Control Act establishes a committee that must approve each and every weapons transaction, more particularly for the export market. We do not approve of the committee’s modus operandi and its reasons for exporting arms to particular states, but at least there is a control mechanism that, ex post facto, is open to public scrutiny and this goes some way towards acquiring some sort of oversight. Now all these measures contribute to improving the levels of security, domestically and throughout the continent, but one needs to ask whether the steps that we have taken go far enough - particularly in the light of new global security challenges posed by unresolved political issues, religious and ethnic extremism and global terrorism.
We also need to consider the new dimensions of security with which the developed world is very largely unfamiliar; such as hunger, poverty, drought, aids and refugees. These dimensions need to be publicised in multilateral forums and to become part of the international debate.
It is an unfortunate fact that desperate people will resort to desperate measures. Unless the root causes of insecurity are adequately addressed, no amount of treaties or laws will stop determined people from arming themselves. Just go and look at what is going on in Russia.
Multilateral action to prevent the proliferation of arms has its place, but it needs to be recognised for what it is, and that is dealing with the symptoms, rather than the cause of insecurity. We need to deal with the causes. Thank you.
Mr V B NDLOVU: Chairperson, this week’s appalling tragedy in Beslan, Russia, seen against the backdrop of the recent terrorist attacks in Madrid, Spain, and the continued waging of the “War Against Terrorism”, has brought home the need to establish an international order of security and peace.
The changing face of terrorism and warfare since the end of the certainties of the bipolar Cold War means that no nation-state is safe from attack, and that includes South Africa. The rise of terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda makes the onerous task of halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the proliferation of armaments much more urgent. From Cape Town to London to Seattle, we all live in the shadow of fear of terrorist attacks like those on September 11, 2001.
In an increasingly integrated and globalised world, the role of the nation- state becomes increasingly more difficult to define. Transnational institutions are supplanting national institutions. The information superhighway makes the gathering of military intelligence and the tracking of weapons development and movement ever more complex and sophisticated, as the Butler report in Britain on the so-called sexed-up dossier on Iraq revealed.
In common with all the great public policy challenges of our time, such as the protection of the environment and a more equitable global economy, global solutions are required for global problems. We live in a world where more than 3 billion people live on $2 a day or less, and most of them live in Africa. Yet, absurdly, military spending wastes around $800 billion a year, and on average military budgets allocate more than 10% of government resources to arms and related items.
Parliamentarians are, for international organisations, a virtual link to international public policy. All parliamentarians who believe in the peaceful settlement of conflicts bear a moral responsibility to voice the public interests of their country and, indeed, of humanity.
As the Parliament of the nation, which has an intersecting leadership role in the Nonaligned Movement, the Commonwealth, the Southern African Development Community and the African Union, we have a heavy responsibility to work together with our colleagues represented in the Inter-Parliamentary Union to mobilise action towards effective arms control.
In two weeks’ time the issue of the role of parliamentarians in strengthening multilateral regimes for the nonproliferation of weapons and for disarmament, in the light of the new security challenges, will be tabled at the Assembly of the International Parliamentary Union in Geneva, Switzerland.
South Africa has a wealth of experience in conflict resolution and, I believe, our delegates will have much to contribute to the debate on how to strengthen a multilateral framework to halt the proliferation of weapons.
In view of the vested interests of the arms industry, particularly in an election year in America and because the advocacy of disarmament is often a voice in the wilderness, I believe it is imperative that we furnish our representatives with a clear mandate at this conference.
If we are to have a meaningful impact, I believe it is vital that a mandate, drawing on our experience of conflict resolution, makes public practical recommendations and directives, rather than being long on rhetoric and discursive in nature.
More than anyone, we owe that to the many people in our country who live on the $2 breadline per day, or less. Thank you.
Mr G T MADIKIZA: Chairperson and hon members, a mere decade and a half ago South Africa was an international pariah, a warmonger in the region, an illegal arms trader and a rogue state in possession of nuclear weapons. It is perhaps easy to dismiss the relevance for South Africa of international arms reduction efforts as we have dismantled our nuclear weapons, ceased military aggression against our neighbours, and signed nonproliferation treaties, and implemented them locally.
In addition to these efforts, we’ve been assisting our neighbours, such as Mozambique, in locating and destroying weapons and mines, whilst domestically we have legislated the nonproliferation of small arms. We have achieved all of this and we are in one of the safest nonaggressive regions in the world. However, the events of the past week, in which a South African was charged with selling parts in the building of nuclear weapons, serve as a timely caution against complacency. Similarly, an academic at a South African institution has been a suspect in the anthrax letter attacks in America.
The truth is that terrorists and illegal arms traders know no borders. Such people and groups care little for our illusion of safety. In fact, they will ruthlessly exploit our complacency if we allow them to. The world is an unsafe place. Weapons perpetuate violence and conflict. Safety and peace can only be achieved through dialogue. No modern institution is better equipped to pursue or enhance such peaceful dialogue as a democratic parliament.
Therefore, we have a duty as such an institution of peaceful dialogue to interact and communicate with other parliaments and to seek to make the world a more peaceful place. As Thomas Jefferson was fond of saying: ”The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” I thank you.
Mr A HARDING: Mr Chairperson, world military spending has decreased little since the Cold War era, but the cutbacks are minute in comparison to the political transformations we have witnessed in other parts of the world.
According to the Bonn International Centre for Conversion: “To do a little less of the same is the overriding principle of governments’ policy.” We should not be altogether surprised: powerful vested interests, lack of imagination and tunnel vision are enough to ensure that as little as possible changes in the world of arms production.
The savings from small cutbacks in military programmes in the West have mostly ended up financing the unemployment benefits of redundant arms workers. In Warsaw Pact countries the massive cuts in military programmes yield no benefits as the social and economic upheavals produce only deficits. Elsewhere in the world military expenditure grows, such as in East Asia where a local arms race is under way, or in the Middle East where military expenditure shows few signs of declining.
Amongst some of the most worrisome aspects of such a weapons build-up is the widespread proliferation of small arms. At the same time, South Africa has on a number of occasions been fingered as a culprit in this area.
A measure long demanded by human rights organisations and other groups is a binding code of conduct to ensure, at the very least, that weapons are not exported to governments that fail to hold free elections, that trample human rights or engage in armed aggression.
A voluntary code of conduct was adopted by the European Union in June 1998, but it remains to be seen whether the region’s governments will live up to it or ignore it when the code proves inconvenient. Establishing effective, binding codes across the world remains a crucial step towards peace.
In strengthening the role of parliaments in multilateral forums, we first need to look at our own defence policy, aligning where necessary and giving effect to the signing and ratification of various nonproliferation treaties of which South Africa is a part. Also, South Africa, via the chairperson of peace and security of the African Union, must put the issue of disarmament high on the agenda, especially in conflict areas such as the DRC, the Sudan and Eritrea. The Pan-African Parliament and the SADC regional parliament should play an effective oversight role in monitoring hot spots on the continent and in enforcing these provisions. There should also be more engagement… [Time expired.]
Mr T S DODOVU: Ke a leboha Modulasetulo ya hlomphehang. [Thank you, honourable Chairperson.]
It gives me great pleasure indeed to participate in this important debate on the role of Parliament for the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the light of the new security challenges facing the global village.
The question of the weapons of mass destruction has occupied the global peace and security agenda in the last few years. In this regard, I will preface my speech to give it a relevant context by citing a quotation from the speech of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Kofi Annan, on the occasion of the Security Council meeting two years ago. He said: The United Nations and the rest of the international community can appoint envoys as negotiators, and spend billions of dollars on disarmament and peacekeeping missions, and on the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but none of this will solve conflict and bring about international peace if the political will and capacity do not exist.
Mohlomphehi Modulasetulo, ao ke mantswe a bohlokwa a buuwang ke e mong wa batho ba hlomphehileng haholo lefatsheng kaofela. Ntate Kofi Annan o kgothaletsa rona le lefatshe kaofela hore re tlamehile ho sebetsa ka thata le matla ho lwantshana le diqhomane tsena tse kotsi tse sa dumellwang molaong. Dibetsa tsena di kotsi haholo hobane di ka bolaya ditjhabatjhaba kaofela. (Translation of Sotho paragraph follows.)
[Honourable Chairperson, those are important words spoken by one of the most respected people in the whole world. Mr Kofi Annan urges us and the world in general to work hard against illegal explosives. These weapons are very dangerous because they kill whole nations.]
As a point of departure, it is indeed important to state that one of the profound political and strategic consequences of the ending of apartheid and the ushering in of a new democratic order in South Africa is the unflinching commitment on the part of the ANC government to halt the proliferation of armaments, especially the weapons of mass destruction.
During March 1993 former President of South Africa, F W De Klerk, informed Parliament that South Africa had embarked on the development of a limited nuclear deterrent in the years covering the 1970s and the 1980s. Indeed, with this admission Mr De Klerk put to rest the speculation over many years about the true status of South Africa’s suspected nuclear deterrent programme.
During that period, the government produced these weapons due to the international security situation around South Africa. The racially based policies exacerbated its isolation and increased the international restrictions on the supply of conventional arms against it.
It is common cause that weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons, represent one of the greatest potential threats to global security and peace, especially in the post-Cold-War era. During the occasion of the 1994 OAU Heads of States Summit, and at the opening of the 49th session of the UN General Assembly, President Mandela publicly expressed the government’s policy on the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Today South Africa occupies a unique position in the history of the nonproliferation treaty, being the first country that has willingly turned itself into a country without a nuclear weapon capability. We are proud that we have voluntarily rolled back the nuclear weapon capability by eliminating all the means to acquire nuclear weapons. A historic move indeed, hailed and applauded by the international community.
In this context, our government has unfolded the following remarkable achievements to comply with international laws and conventions on disarmament. The first one is to control the export of technology, materials and equipment used in the production of weapons of mass destruction and in other advanced systems, while also making it a criminal offence for any South African citizen to develop or assist in the development of chemical, biological as well as nuclear weapons.
The second one is the public invitation to the international community regarding full access to details of the past programmes and facilities. The third one is that South Africa is a state that is party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which concluded a comprehensive safeguard agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. We are also a member of the nuclear supply group that monitors the material, equipment and technologies used to develop or manufacture nuclear weapons.
We have acceded to the convention on the prohibition or restriction on the use of certain conventional weapons such as land mines and booby traps, which cause indiscriminate deaths and injury to civilians. As part of this commitment, South Africa has placed an indefinite moratorium on the export of land mines. South Africa has provided information on arms transfer as required by the United Nations resolution establishing the register on conventional arms.
One of the cornerstones of total transformation entails South Africa’s firm resolve to make a meaningful contribution in Africa towards the intention of the world at large to create a more peaceful place for the inhabitants of this globe. The role of Parliament is critical in ensuring that all the treaties and instruments to achieve the disarmament objectives are achieved in the current world order. Parliament can achieve this by scrutinising the operations of the responsible departments, by overseeing the implementation of legislation pertaining to the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and by making recommendations on policy formulation and implementation of all the programmes on arms control and disarmament.
The ANC government believes that the international issue surrounding the halt on the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction can only be resolved via the multilateral instruments and bodies that are capable of resolving them. There is no country in the world, regardless of its superpower status and influence, which can resolve these questions unilaterally. A multilateral approach to the resolution of this question is important.
In conclusion, we cannot equate the life of humankind with oil. Many people, particularly women and children, are still being killed every day with arms, in resistance and in wars for oil, in the name of the war to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Many more indeed suffer wounds caused by unnecessary wars. The ANC believes that the planet earth is humanity’s common home. Let us preserve it by intensifying our resolve to halt the proliferation of these weapons.
Indeed, South Africa with all its institutions - including this Parliament
- its well-developed industrial strength and a significant nuclear know- how, has a vital role to play in the world to further these objectives. Thank you very much, Chairperson. [Applause.]
Adv Z L MADASA: Chairperson, the question that we should answer is: How would arms negatively affect sustainable development? The recent Equatorial Guinea debacle, the Great Lake Region dilemma, the Darfur crisis and other flash points are a reminder that conflicts are retarding economic growth on the continent. Mercenary activity is the largest contributor to African conflicts; therefore there is an urgent need for an international arms trade treaty. Such an arms trade treaty will help to stop the flow of arms to human rights abusers. It will turn off the tap to irresponsible users and drain the pool of surplus arms.
We must also bear in mind that the right of self-defence is entrenched in the UN Charter; therefore arms per se are not the problem. Transfer of arms needs authorisation, so international co-operation is urgently needed to arrest the violators - whoever and wherever they are. National parliaments have a large role to play in the regulation of the arms trade. They can ensure that municipal laws make violations of arms embargoes a crime, that intermediaries are forced to approach governments for licensing on each deal, that weapons with an indiscriminate effect are banned, that municipal laws are tightened to reflect international customary law and, lastly, that agreements have a binding effect. Of course, all of this can only happen if Parliament is given the treaty to ratify timeously. Thank you.
Mr P H K DITSHETELO: Chairperson, Parliament has a clearly defined constitutional role to play in ensuring that the safety of the country and its citizens is guaranteed. It is through this Parliament that we can at least introduce or investigate regimes or laws that promote nonproliferation of weapons.
We all know the consequences of easy access to weapons. We live in times where weapons are no longer the exclusive domain of the SA National Defence Force and other security establishments. As a matter of fact, we have highly active private armies in the form of domestic private security companies. On our streets we also have criminals with easy access to weapons.
This poses serious security challenges in one form or the other. As Parliament, how should we react in this type of environment to address this challenge? While we are still pondering the type of action to take, we should also think about the consequences of inaction. We are, as a first step, challenged to review our existing policies in order to determine how best to deal with any identified loopholes which might facilitate a fertile environment conducive to the proliferation of weapons in this country.
The second step should be about Parliament working directly with other counterparts throughout the continent for efficient and effective sharing of ideas. [Time expired.]
Miss S RAJBALLY: Egameni lamakhosikazi. [In the name of women.] Chairperson, it makes so much sense that if the world should stop making and developing weapons there would be less bloodshed. Reality, however, exhibits the fact that terrorism and warfare is sadly the world’s answer to survival. The mindset of killing to prove a point is barbaric and inhuman. Why are we failing to learn from mistakes such as 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Sudan and so many places from which the media daily relate to us how many innocent lives have been lost.
We are so far ahead of prehistoric times, yet we continue the barbaric killing of our people. Why have we not taken to developing and utilising the only valid method to settle differences, namely that of verbal debate. We live in the age of technological advancement, but the MF feels that the technological advancement of weapons should not be on the world’s agenda.
Why not abandon this proliferation of weapons and work on measures to instil global rule by using dispute settlement and methods to make sure that it is abided to. The MF calls for the proliferation of suppressing poverty and ensuring survival. The development of all nuclear weapons should be abandoned. There is no need for it. We should rather be working earnestly on finding a vaccine for the cure of the Aids epidemic. Thank you very much, Chairperson. [Applause.]
Ms H M MPAKA: Chairperson and hon members, South Africa’s keen interest arises out of the Government of National Unity’s commitment to a policy of nonproliferation and arms control which covers all weapons of mass destruction, and which extends to our concerns about the nonproliferation of conventional weapons in order to create a better world.
In terms of this policy, democratic South Africa is a responsible possessor of advanced technologies. We, as the ANC-led government, see our nonproliferation and arms control policy as being integral to democracy, human rights, sustainable development, social justice and environmental protection. It was in this context that South Africa turned away from the edge of the nuclear weapon abyss.
In July 2003 the members of the United Nations met in New York for the first biennial meeting of states on the implementation of the UN programme of action to prevent combat and eradicate the trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects. The purpose of that week-long meeting was to report on the progress made in implementing the programme of action nationally and subregionally.
One of the important elements of that programme was to recognise that controlling the proliferation, the availability and misuse of small arms required different approaches at different levels. So, for example, while political decisions may be required to change government policy on the destruction of state-owned weapons, technical and operational expertise is required to co-ordinate the destruction of weapons.
The question then arises when to start monitoring and evaluating these control measures, which is a matter that countries across the continent must resolve. The role of Parliament is then to strengthen multilateral regimes for nonproliferation of weapons and disarmament in the light of new security challenges.
We need to monitor the implementation of the existing treaties and instruments. Are the disarmament objectives that have already been set achievable in the current world order? We are raising this question with the understanding that the proliferation of small and light weapons has increased since the end of the Cold War, as lower defence budgets have resulted in the downsizing of armed forces and the sale of surplus equipment.
It is estimated that there are 500 million small and light weapons in global circulation, exacerbating conflict, being used for committing international crime and terrorism and undermining postconflict reconstruction. All conflicts in Africa, in countries like Rwanda, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia and other militias, escalated because of the proliferation of small arms and light weapons, as well as the easy availability of these weapons. In areas after conflict, all small arms and light weapons should be destroyed after disarmament.
We would like to request the delegation to Beijing to make this appeal. As the ANC we are saying that whilst this topic could be a politically contested area of discussion, there are some key ways in which parliaments can play a role in this field.
As far as conventional arms are concerned, these arms should be well controlled and authorities should ensure that they are not stolen, becoming illegal weapons that are abused. The regulatory control of trade in conventional arms should incorporate: firstly, the registration of persons trading in these arms; secondly, authorisation to develop and manufacture them; thirdly, authorisation to market specified products; fourthly, authorisation to transfer these arms across national borders; fifthly, authorisation for their internal transfer, utilisation and destruction; and lastly, we need to have authorisation to enter into agreements to supply a particular product or service to a person registered in a foreign country.
In conclusion, the ANC is saying that governments must ensure that their security agencies are co-ordinated and alerted by the early warning systems throughout the region and nationally, because this topic is important for all humankind. Therefore, all implementation of treaties and protocols should be monitored regularly, and legislation reviewed from time to time.
Lastly, parliamentarians who believe in the peaceful settlement of conflicts should bear a moral obligation to voice the dictates of the public interest and the needs of their countries and constituencies. Thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
The House adjourned at 18:02. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORT
TABLINGS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
- The Speaker and the Chairperson
Report of the Auditor-General on the Audit Outcomes of Local Government
for the year ended 30 June 2003 [RP 123-2004].
- The Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs
Report and Financial Statements of the Bala Farms (Pty) Ltd 2003-2004,
including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements
for 2003-2004 [RP 166-2004].
- The Minister of Labour
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the Diplomacy, Intelligence,
Defence and Trade Education and Training Authority (DIDTETA) for
2003-2004, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the
Financial Statements for 2003-2004 [RP 43-2004].
(b) Report and Financial Statements of the Commission for
Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) for 2003-2004,
including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 2003-2004 [RP 83-2004].
- The Minister of Arts and Culture
Report and Financial Statements of the Market Theatre for 2003-2004,
including the Report of the Independent Auditors on the Financial
Statements for 2003-2004.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
National Assembly
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism on the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Amendment Bill [B 2 - 2004] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 7 September 2004:
The Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism, having considered the subject of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Amendment Bill [B 2 - 2004] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B 2A - 2004].
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Finance on the Public Investment Corporation Bill [B 6 - 2004] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 1 September 2004:
The Portfolio Committee on Finance, having considered the subject of the Public Investment Corporation Bill [B 6 - 2004] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B 6A - 2004].
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Public Service and Administration on the United Nations Convention against Corruption, dated 8 September 2004:
The Portfolio Committee on Public Service and Administration, having conducted an in-depth comparative analysis of the United Nations Convention against Corruption against the South African legal framework, came to the following conclusions:
-
Our legal framework is not only compliant with the provisions of the Convention, but also goes beyond its requirements.
-
The South African government will be able to implement the Convention.
The Committee, therefore, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, referred to it, recommends that the House, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approve the said Convention.
-
Request to be considered.
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs on the List of recommended Electoral Commissioners, dated 8 September 2004:
The Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs, having considered the list of recommended candidates for appointment as Electoral Commissioners, received from the panel contemplated in section 6(3) of the Electoral Commission Act, 1996, and referred to the Committee, nominates, in terms of section 6(2) of the Act, the following persons for appointment as Electoral Commissioners:
Bam, B; Mpumlwana, N F T; Tselane, T; Van der Merwe, F.
Nominations to be considered.