Chairperson, Minister, we are not against the principle of the Abuja Treaty, or even some of the noble objectives which are set out in that treaty. We certainly do not want to be included amongst those who want to go it alone in Africa. We see a destiny and a new beginning in Africa with the advent of a democratic South Africa. I want to tell the Minister that the trouble for us and, I understand, for his department also, if I may say so, is that the agreement starts with the end and not with the beginning. We have problems with the content, not the vision of the treaty.
The Government and his department have done a fine job with a whole raft of treaties and agreements over the past years. Today we have ratified three fine agreements. The recent EU agreement and the SADC agreement are also excellent examples in the interests of our country, region and continent. The words, the concepts and the vision in all those agreements are all real, beneficial, forward-looking and concrete. Unhappily, the Abuja Treaty does not have these merits. It is deeply flawed, and, we believe, legally flawed. Its objectives are incapable of being achieved within the timeframes set out. The treaty could have far-reaching implications, in our view, for the SADC, the GATT, the EU and the Southern African Customs Union.
Even if the Government recognises that the only merit for us entering the agreement - I have heard this argument and understand it - is to get into the debate and therefore to influence things, then I accept that as an argument. But, for us, it raises a moral problem. Does one sign agreements that one knows are flawed in the first place, simply in order to get into a debate? Now, after improper and insufficient consultation, the Government, in our view, wants to railroad this Parliament into ratifying a document it knows itself is in many respects impossible, certainly within the timeframes it purports to set out.
Africa wants a new beginning. I share that enthusiasm and vision with the Minister. We want a better future. But we will not achieve a better future if we do not lead by democratic example and if we compound the errors of the past. For us, words must have meaning. I want to say to the Minister that it is surely not beyond our wit to negotiate an arrangement without threatening the consensus of constitutional values upon which South Africa stands and which herald a new departure on a journey of hope for Africa.
South Africa runs the real risk of taking on more than it can chew. I would ask the Minister, if he would like to tell us, what the cost implications of this treaty are for South Africa.
Our colleague Mahlangu mentioned the EU. Well, from the war to the Treaty of Rome, it was 40 years of intensive negotiations, and then it took another 40 years before the thing grew. Even now they cannot find each other and there are arguments about the European Parliament. [Interjections.] For us to leap in at the end is, we think, quite wrong. [Time expired.]