Chairperson, Members of Parliament, South Africa's quest for peace and stability in the region and on the continent, to a large extent, drives the agenda of the Department of Defence. An important part of the quest is our adherence to international humanitarian law, particularly the law on armed conflict.
Whilst we are committed to resolving armed conflict through peaceful means, we must also be realistic and recognise that sometimes armed interaction might take place. That being the case, it becomes necessary to regulate the use of weapons so that human suffering would be limited as far as possible.
The Bill on the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects must be seen in this context.
We live in a world where, unfortunately, we have to use our technological and scientific knowledge to create weapons that maximise human suffering over and above anything that could be deemed necessary to defeat the force opposing us. We therefore have to place a limit on what human beings can use to fight one another. In war or armed conflict it is always the case that innocent civilians get caught in the crossfire. The innocent civilians I am referring to are, more often than not, women and children, the disabled and the elderly.
The civilian population affected by hostilities thus must be protected as far as humanly possible. We must therefore regulate the use of weapons that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. The Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to be eExcessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects seeks to implement the international humanitarian law principle that the right of parties to an armed conflict does not extend to them having an unlimited choice of methods or means of warfare.
South Africa has signed and ratified this convention. The convention identifies specific categories of conventional weapons and places prohibitions or restrictions on their use. The convention further provides that each state party should take all appropriate steps, including legislative and other measures, to prevent and suppress violations of this convention on any territory under its jurisdiction or control. South Africa is therefore obliged to promulgate enabling legislation.
The main object of this Bill is to place the necessary restrictions or prohibitions on specific categories of conventional weapons, thus fulfilling South Africa's obligation under the convention. The convention requires that the restrictions or prohibitions be placed on specifically identified categories of conventional weapons. The Bill ensures that a distinction is drawn between categories of conventional weapons that are prohibited and those that are restricted.
The following conventional weapons are prohibited: nondetectable fragments and blinding laser weapons.
Use of the following weapons is restricted: mines, booby-traps and devices, as well as incendiary weapons.
The Bill includes penal sanctions to discourage violations of the convention. Any contravention of the Bill will be punishable by either a fine or imprisonment, or both. So, chaps waiting there are ready for that because they keep prisoners.
The Bill also seeks to address transgressions by South Africans acting outside the borders of our country. South African citizens who contravene the provisions of the Bill outside our borders will be deemed to have acted on South African territory. The Bill was drawn up after consultation with both the Department of Foreign Affairs and the SA Police Service. The International Committee of the Red Cross was also consulted.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs will report annually to the Secretary- General of the UN on South Africa's compliance with the obligations of the convention. I place this Bill before this House for you to consider and approve. I thank you, Chairperson.
Hon Chairperson, hon Ministers, and hon members, the passing of the Prohibition or Restriction of Certain Conventional Weapons Bill, the CCW, by Parliament today confirms that South Africa as a state party adheres to the international humanitarian laws and it also confirms that the ANC is indeed an organisation with an international outlook.
In the same vein, the agenda of our government to have a peaceful country, continent and world, is slowly coming into being and South Africa is a force to be reckoned with as a progressive pace setter, by being an example in taking decisions that other countries, especially the G77 countries are hesitant to take. Therefore, we hereby salute our country for its bravery and consistency in maintaining world peace and stability.
Hon members, today we are legislating on a convention which came into being in 1980 and South Africa, through a democratic ANC-led government, became a state party in 1995. The CCW seeks to limit the effects of armed conflicts on both combatants and noncombatants. Therefore, this legislation today will give full effect to the convention as per the requirements of Article 14 of Protocol 2. The portfolio committee underwent a trying time during the discussion of this Bill. It had to consider the research and development that the country acquired over time. We also had to consider the views of South African defence-related industries and all stakeholders. In general we are maturing and the impact of this legislation on these industries will be seen over time.
The committee also did extensive research to look at how many state parties that are signatories to the convention have legislated on this convention. We discovered that South Africa is the first to legislate and the majority of G77 countries had made both reservations and declarations to empower their defence industries to remain in the economic nest.
Countries of the north continue to participate in activities that seek to undermine world peace; an example is that of the role of America in Iraq. Saddam Hussein is no more, but we are still looking forward to the discovery of weapons of mass destruction, because all we observe at this juncture is the flexing of muscles and a display by the American fleet of their defence material in Iraq.
In my view, this suggests that America avoids participating in exercises with other countries in case they learn their defence strategies, and rather engage in violence and bullying of the weaker nations who do not toe the American line in the United Nations Security Council. If I may ask: At which point are we as citizens of the world going to respect countries' sovereignty? What lessons have we learnt from the Cold War? Israel, for instance, used cluster bombs, cluster munitions and phosphorus on Palestinian civilians who were not necessarily a military objective and was against rules of engagement in a war situation where civilian vicinities were not respected. One expects us to respect civilian vicinities and not use cluster and explosive ordnance in an engagement of war.
Much as we want to protect civilians and civilian objects, we also need to protect our military objectives from grievous bodily harm. Therefore, we need to protect our soldiers deployed in the Comoros, Darfur, Sudan and elsewhere in peacekeeping missions so that they are not in any way hit by these incendiary weapons, because they are holding the peace flag high and help the destitute.
We also welcome deployment of the Nato warship to participate in Exercise Amazolo with the South African Navy to maintain peace in the African continent and in our waters in particular, to show that nations of the world are indeed serious about keeping peace.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank colleagues in the defence portfolio committee for displaying maturity and unity when dealing with this legislation. This is a collective of individuals who are responsible for national security. Our colleagues on the other side of the floor also showed maturity. I really appreciate their participation.
Thanks to those members who sacrificed other responsibilities and sat in all meetings that carefully crafted this piece of legislation, and also to those officials who provided legal advice.
I therefore ensure that the ANC at all times supports Bills of this nature. The ANC supports the Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, it is not uncommon to see the barbaric use of certain types of conventional weapons exacerbating conflicts, causing so-called collateral civilian deaths.
Furthermore, some types of conventional weapons which are often left behind long after the conflicts have been resolved continue to be of great harm to the communities, causing them pain and injury. Places like Afghanistan and others closer to home like Angola and Mozambique are typical examples of such cases.
The Bill before the House, the Prohibition or Restriction of Certain Conventional Weapons Bill, is designed to prevent the use and/or abuse of such weapons. As a signatory to the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, referred to as CCW, South Africa is, in terms of Article 14 of Protocol 2 of this Convention, obliged to enact enabling legislation in order to give full effect to this convention.
Moreover, this Bill is in line with our Constitution, which seeks the protection of life, property and the dignity of each person. The parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Defence conducted public hearings on the Bill on 7 and 8 August.
Various stakeholders, including the International Red Cross, the AMD, which is the Aerospace, Maritime and Defence Industries Association - which protects the interests of our local defence industry - the ceasefire campaign, the South African Catholic Bishops' Conference and the Institute for Security Studies, as well as state organs such as the Department of Foreign Affairs and SA Police Service, amongst others, made submissions and inputs. They all supported the Bill in principle. However, some of them had certain reservations in terms of some of the definitions, whilst others had objections to some clauses or certain clauses which they felt might negatively impact on their activities. For example, the AMD felt that some aspects of the legislated prohibition and restriction of certain conventional weapons would unduly limit their research and development capacity and the scope of some of South Africa's defence industries, especially work done on dual use technologies.
The International Committee of the Red Cross commented that although the regulation of harmful conventional weapons was important, the non- compliance of state parties to the convention was a cause for concern and argued for the need for both a domestic and an international body to ensure the implementation of legislation.
The Institute of Security Studies, while supporting the Bill, raised some very key issues, such as the lack of a proper definition of what exactly a blinding laser weapons system was. They also felt that the Bill was not so clear on how South African citizens serving in foreign militaries that are participating in giant peacekeeping operations with elements of the armed forces of other non-signatory states may be affected by this Bill.
So, the members of the committee took serious note of the impact that the extraterritorial implications of the Bill would have on the protection of intellectual rights, as well as the rights of foreign nationals who may be involved with such prohibited conventional weapons and who may enter the jurisdiction of South Africa in terms of air, sea and land and whose respective countries are not signatories to this convention.
Time does not permit me to provide in detail the various issues that were raised by various stakeholders in relation to the Bill - they are too many. However, I assure the House that the committee took into account all the concerns of the relevant stakeholders and, to the best of our ability, effected necessary and possible legal changes or amendments to the Bill. That was done, I must add, at very short notice.
I would like to thank the Department of Defence, especially the people from the legal services department, and the legal services of Parliament and the research unit for their expertise, the various institutions which made submissions during the public hearings as well as the chairperson of our committee and my colleagues - members of the committee - for their diligence and their co-operation. This is a good piece of legislation. Therefore, the DA will support the Bill. [Applause.] Thank you.
Chairperson, I will gladly speak on behalf of the hon Sibuyana and we have duly notified you thereof. Nevertheless, the core objective of this Bill is to incorporate the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects into domestic law, as our country signed and ratified the convention.
Passing this Bill will therefore mean that we have executed our obligations in terms of the convention. Conventional weapons of war have in recent years developed to the point where they are more destructive and lethal than in the past.
Furthermore, despite sophisticated targeting systems conventional weapons still take a disproportionate toll on noncombatants such as civilians, especially when deployed indiscriminately. In terms of this law and in terms of international humanitarian law, it is therefore appropriate that the use of certain conventional weapons should be prohibited or restricted.
When the Bill was first tabled, the IFP was concerned about two major issues. The first was the effects the original Bill would have on South African forces which were deployed in international peacekeeping forces that included foreign forces that had not signed the convention and had all of the relevant weapons in their arsenals. We asked whether this meant that our force could not be deployed with such foreign forces or whether it meant that we would be breaking our own laws if they were so deployed.
Civil society has also raised this practical problem, and we are satisfied that during the consideration of this Bill the portfolio committee and the department took our concern seriously and decided that the UN or AU mandate for any peacekeeping mission would take into account the convention and the prohibitions or restrictions on certain weapons. We need therefore not fear that our forces will break our own laws.
The second concern was the extraterritorial application of the Act and jurisdiction. The IFP felt that domestic law should apply to South Africans but that it would be very difficult practically to claim jurisdiction over foreigners who committed offences in terms of the Act outside the territory of the Republic. In the end, a compromise was reached, to our satisfaction, that such persons would be tried if the offence could be tied to an intention to affect a public body, business or any other person inside South Africa.
Finally, the IFP would like to thank the chairperson and the portfolio committee, the department and civil society for continuing to contribute to a more polished and practical final Bill. The IFP will support the Bill. Thank you.
Chairperson, the ACDP notes that the Portfolio Committee on Defence initially expressed concerns about the impact of the Bill on the ability of SANDF members to protect themselves in conflict situations. We appreciate, however, that the department itself motivated the Bill to comply with our international obligations and that the public submissions were broadly supportive of the Bill.
Antipersonnel mines have a devastating impact on civilian populations, so one must support provisions that prohibit the use of such mines. The problem, however, arises in the fact that enemy forces will, in all likelihood, not adhere to these international obligations, particularly rebel forces in countries where the SANDF is carrying out peacekeeping roles. The security of our SANDF members could then be compromised.
Nevertheless, when balancing that with the good that will come in restricting the use of such weapons, one cannot but support the Bill. The ACDP trusts that member states will follow the South African example in enacting similar legislation. We will support this Bill. I thank you.
Modulasetilo le Ntlo e e tlotlegang, go tswa mo lekokong la ANC le le eteletseng puso e pele, re dira boikuelo mo Ntlong e, gore e amogele Molaotlhomo o wa Kiletso le Kganelo ya Tiriso ya Ditlhabano, Marumo, Dithuthupi le dingwe tse di ka dirang gore motho a foufale, le fa e ka nna go golafala, mme e se lesole e bile a sa amege ka gope mo dintweng.
Maikaelelo a Molaotlhomo o, ke go sireletsa ka kakaretso batho botlhe kgatlhanong le ditlamorago tsa ntwa, e bile re le Repaboliki ya Aforika Borwa, ka re dirisana mmogo le mafatshe a bodit?haba, re pateletsega go tlotla melawana ya bodit?haba e e saenetsweng. (Translation of Setswana paragraphs follows.)
[Mr M S MOATSHE: Chairperson and august House, as government led by the ANC, we appeal to this House to adopt the Prohibition or Restriction of Certain Conventional Weapons Bill, and prohibit other explosives and weapons which can cause blindness or disability of a person even though that person has not been a soldier or was not involved in any war activities.
The aim of this Bill is to protect all people in general against the consequences of war, and as the Republic of South Africa we have to live up to our diplomatic obligation as international relations laws dictate.]
The Republic is committed to accede to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Weapons Which May Be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects.
The South African citizens who may be found to have committed an offence in terms of this Act may be tried by a court of the Republic of South Africa. Again, a person who is a permanent resident, as contemplated in the Immigration Act of 2002, may be tried by a court of the Republic.
Motho mang kapa mang yo a nang le kgolagano e bile a ikwadisitse jaaka moagi wa Aforika Borwa o tla otlhaiwa ke kgotlatshekelo ya Aforika Borwa fa a ka fitlhelwa a dirisitse gongwe a tshotse dithuthupi tse di kailweng di le kotsi go batho ba e seng masole, go sa kgatheletsege gore o dirisa dibetsa tse a le kwa mafatsheng a kwa ntle ka go ithaopa le fa e le ka ditaelo tsa mafatshe ao.
Re lemoga gore go mafatshe mangwe a dibetsa tse re buang ka tsona tse di sa ilediwang, e bile di bonwa jaaka tse di se nang kgoreletso kgotsa molato - mafatshe ao e bile a sena kgolagano epe le Repaboliki ya Aforika Borwa - fela fa o le moagi wa Aforika Borwa o fitlhelwa o tshwere dibetsa tseo kwa mafatsheng ao, ga o kitla o falola. O tla di gama o sa di tlhapela.
Fa moagi wa kwa ntle ga Aforika Borwa a ka fitlhelwa a tshotse ditlhabano tse di ileditsweng, e ka nna kwa mawatleng, boemafofane gongwe mo gare ga naga ya Aforika Borwa, kgotlatshekelo ya Repaboliki e tla tsaya kgato kgatlhanonong le motho o o ntseng jalo.
Fela fa motho wa kwa ntle ga Aforika Borwa a ka etela Repaboliki a dirisitse dithuthupi gongwe dibetsa tse di ileditsweng ke Repaboliki kwa nageng ya gaabo, mme lefatshe la gaabo le sena kamano le Aforika Borwa gongwe e se karolo ya maikano a go fedisa ditlhabano tse di ntseng jalo, gona Repaboliki e tla tshwanelwa ke go busetsa motho yo o kwa nageng ya gaabo.
Re bone ka 28 Phatwe 2007 dithuthupi tse di setlhogo tseo, di gaila baagi ba ba se nang molato kwa Hyderabad, borwa jwa India. Go kailwe fa go dirisitswe sediriswa sa khemikhale se se bidiwang neogel. Ke dingwe tsa dilo tse re buang ka tsona. Go tlhokafetse batho ba e seng masole ba le 40, mme ba le 80 ba tswa dikgobalo tse di siisang mmele. Ke ka fao ANC e itirelang boikuelo gore go amogelwe Molaotlhomo o, gore go nne le kagiso mo lefatsheng ka bophara. ANC e amogela Molaotlhomo. Ke a leboga. [Legofi.] (Translation of Setswana paragraphs follows.)
[South African courts will take punitive action against anybody who has diplomatic relations and has registered as a South African citizen if they are found with explosives classified as dangerous to people who are not soldiers, regardless of whether he or she used these weapons voluntarily in a foreign country or used them with instructions from that country.
We are aware that there are countries where these weapons are not illegal and are not seen as dangerous or injurious, and some of these countries that do not even have diplomatic relations with the Republic of South Africa. But if you are a South African citizen and you are found in possession of these weapons in those countries, you will face the might of the law.
If a foreign citizen is found in possession of illegal weapons, be it at the beach or an airport, or inside South Africa, a South African court will lay a charge against the said person. But if a foreign citizen visits the Republic and is found to have illegally used explosives or weapons prohibited in South Africa, and his country of origin has no diplomatic relations with South Africa or his country is not a part of the declaration to eradicate such weapons, South Africa will have no choice but to extradite such person. On 28 August 2007, we saw these dangerous explosives killing innocent people in Hyderabad, south of India. It is said that a chemical called neogel was used. These are some of the things that we are talking about. About 40 civilians died, and 80 were seriously injured. We as the ANC therefore make an appeal that this Bill be passed, so that there can be peace in the whole world. The ANC supports this Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]]
Chairperson, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I want to focus on the prohibited and restricted conventional weapons, as contained in sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Bill. The Bill ensures that a distinction is drawn between categories of conventional weapons that are prohibited on the one hand and restricted on the other. Prohibited conventional weapons refer to nondetectable fragments and blinding laser weapons. Let us deal with this category.
Protocol I of the convention deals solely with the nondetectable fragments. It briefly states that the use of any weapon of which the primary effect is to injure by fragments which cannot be detected in the human body by X-rays is prohibited.
Protocol IV of the convention deals with the use of blinding laser weapons. Article 1 prohibits the use of laser weapons specifically designed to cause permanent blindness to the naked eye. It is clear that no country that ratifies the protocol shall transfer such weapons to any state or nonstate entity. Article 2 specifies that in the event of the use of such weapons, countries should take feasible precautions to avoid the incidence of permanent blindness. Article 3 refers to blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment. Article 4 spells out what is meant by permanent blindness, namely the irreversible or uncorrectable loss of vision which is seriously disabling with no prospect of recovery.
The second category is restricted conventional weapons, which include mines, booby-traps or other devices and incendiary weapons. This Bill describes the former as weapons which employ a mechanism or device specifically designed to detonate ammunition. It is prohibited in all circumstances to direct these weapons either in offence, defence or reprisal against the civilian population. The indiscriminate use of such weapons also includes the indiscriminate placement of those weapons. Feasible precautions must be taken to protect civilians from the effects of these weapons.
With regard to antipersonnel mines this Bill is not applicable, because they are prohibited in terms of the Antipersonnel Mines Prohibition Act, Act 36 of 2003.
Section 7 of the Bill refers to the incendiary weapons, which means weapons or munitions which are primarily designed to set fire to objects or cause burn injury to civilians through the action of flame, heat or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.
In terms of section 10 of the Bill any person in possession of any prohibited weapon or component part immediately after the commencement of the Act, must within six months notify a police official of such possession and hand it over to the South African Police Service. All weapons and component parts collected shall be forfeited to the state. In closing, the ANC supports the Bill.
Chairperson, the apartheid regime ventured into nuclear, biological and chemical weapons research in the 1980s with six nuclear weapons being assembled. However, when we were predicted to become a democracy in the 1990s these weapons were dismantled. Either way, we were the first nation to voluntarily give up the development of nuclear arms.
The MF applauds the fact that the democratic South Africa is a peace-loving nation. South Africa has a history of international agreement on weapons as a signatory to the biological weapons convention since 1975, the chemical weapons convention since 1995 and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty since 1991. This Bill is set to bring the legislation in line with the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. As a strong advocate for human rights the MF supports the Bill. Thank you
Chairperson, in my speech, I want to clarify one thing. The extraterritoriality of this Bill suggests that if you are an outsider from a different country, and you have committed those actions that are outlawed in terms of this legislation, we are not necessarily going to try you with this legislation, because it is meant for South Africans. So, the territorial question must also be clarified.
We do not want to assume to be the police of the world. What we want is that, as a country, we also do what the Geneva Convention asked us to do as a country. We also expect other countries to endorse and adopt and ratify this convention. That is the first thing I wanted to say.
I also want to stress that, in our preamble, we say that we as the Republic commit ourselves to this international humanitarian law, and particularly the law on armed conflict. We further recognise the general principle of protection of the civilian population against the effects of hostilities. We further recognise the principle of international law, that the right of the parties in an armed conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited. In other words, the Geneva Convention actually places a restriction, through this Article, that certain elements cannot be applied in this regard, even if you are using them in conventional warfare.
For us particularly, this Bill should also add or go a long way in making sure that we reduce the number of victims, since this is the month of women. We need to reduce the number of victims where we see women, because in a conflict you see them carrying babies and so on, roaming about, because they have to run away from the war-torn situations. This convention is then also an attempt to make sure that we cleanse the world of such barbaric acts.
I then also want to just highlight the issues that we are covering when we talk about these restricted weapons. We are talking here of antipersonnel mines, nondetectable fragments, mines, booby-traps and other devices and blind lasers and so on. I want to agree with the comrade who said that one of the things that we have to try to do since the definition of these terms in a material situation tends to be different, is see to it that this doesn't delay us in implementing this legislation. The only thing we have to do is to make sure that the definitions are internationally agreed to.
I then want to read an excerpt from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Report. It has to do with the disappearance of one of South Africa's citizens:
In May 1990 De Kock went to see Du Toit to discuss an order he had received to manufacture a parcel bomb which would be posted to Coetzee to kill him. De Kock required assistance and expertise of his branch and he agreed to help. De Kock's visit was to him in his personal capacity, thereafter Bosch visited J F Kok and they came to see Du Toit. He agreed they could continue working on the project. J F Kok began working on a design for the bomb but when he had to leave the office his brother J Kok took over. The bomb they made had explosives inserted into the earphones of a Walkman unit which played audio cassettes. This had been chosen for two reasons, the first being that it would not cause damage or injury to anyone else in the vicinity of the person listening, the second being that cassettes could be chosen which would attract Coetzee's interest. One was his favourite musician Neil Diamond, the other one labelled "Evidence - Hit Squads". After the first device had been completed and tried out successfully a second one was built which, according to J Kok was fetched by Bosch and Bellingan who helped with packing. Both the Kok brothers knew Coetzee was the target.
But listen:
The parcel arrived in Johannesburg and was delivered to Mlangeni on 15 February 1991. He opened the parcel in his office and left the packaging there. He took the Walkman home and when he tried it out it exploded causing fatal massive head injuries.
That was what brought to an end the life of Comrade Bheki Mlangeni.
Therefore, one of the objectives of the Bill is to rid our society of such antipersonnel devices. The convention on warfare is governed through the Geneva Protocol, which cautions us against the use of excessive force against your enemy.
As we look back at the period during which the aforementioned incident took place, it was really an unnecessary force used, bearing in mind the historical and political developments at the time on the eve of the Convention for a Democratic South Africa. Similar mine devices cost us the life of Ruth First in Mozambique and many more. Thus this Bill is in line with the ANC policy to opt for nonviolence, which means that it came as a result of the banning of the ANC in the early eighties.
As we are now part of government, and we are in power, we are also integrating into the international community. We also have to comply with the international community's law by signing, ratifying and passing this Bill into law in compliance with Article 14.
I therefore recommend that the House agrees with the ANC, as it has already indicated, to pass the Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, I want to take this opportunity to thank the chairperson of the portfolio committee, members of the portfolio committee and all parties who supported this Bill. I agree with them that some of these weapons kill people long after the conflict has ended. That is how dangerous some of them are.
I'm happy that the concerns of the defence industry were taken into account. Of course it would be impossible to satisfy the defence industry because as far as they are concerned, this Bill, to a certain extent, affects their businesses. But, unfortunately we have committed ourselves as the government and especially as the Department of Defence to peace, and we want to make sure that there is peace in the world. The only unfortunate thing that we know is that there will not always be peace in the world. When there is war we must be able to know how we limit our effort to make sure that there is peace.
I want to assure members that this convention does not affect in any way our ability to fight wars. We can fight wars and we are capable of defending our country. Many of us had agreed that this conference deals with the injurious and indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians.
I again want to thank everybody and I am also very happy, as a man of God, to hear and see that South Africans are committed to peace. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.