I move:
That Seanad Éireann welcomes the recent developments in South Africa and the release of Nelson Mandela.
Developments in South Africa: Motion.
The first point I would make is that there is universal joy at the release of Nelson Mandela and this universal joy, this delight at the release of Mandela, is nowhere more heartfelt than in Dublin, the city of which Mandela is a Freeman. His imprisonment could not have gone on indefinitely, nor could the totally repressive apartheid system, a system that has ostracised the black people of South Africa constitutionally, legally, socially and economically. There are four glaring examples, four glaring manifestations of the apartheid system still in place in South Africa.
The first is the voting system, where the Africans still have no vote in parliamentary elections. The second glaring manifestation of apartheid in South Africa at the moment is the Population Registration Act, which divides the population into four categories — the Whites, the Coloureds, the Asians and the Africans — and that is the hierarchical order of the society as well. The third glaring manifestation of apartheid in South Africa at the moment is the Land Tenure Act, where 87 per cent of the land is designated for the Whites and, coupled with this, the Group Areas Act, where black people are confined to specific areas within white areas — for example, black workers in Johannesburg commute to Soweto in the evenings. The fourth manifestation of apartheid at the moment must be the state of emergency and the general body of repressive and arbitrary laws that exist there. Obviously, this is an horrific society, an unpalatable and unacceptable society, a society that is alien to every value we hold dear in this country.
The first thing that should be said as we get to the specifics of the situation now and in the future is that it is worth pointing out in the Upper House of our Parliament that President De Klerk has emerged as a significant figure among his people, that he has emerged as something of a visionary there. It can be argued, and is argued, that he is being pushed by international pressure, by factions, etc, and obviously there is a large element of truth in that and we are delighted with that aspect of it. But he did have the courage — and it has been recognised by Mandela himself — to make a move in the right direction.
On the other side of the equation Nelson Mandela is becoming the unquestioned leader of his people, and is emerging as the unquestioned leader of the black people of South Africa. Nelson Mandela has behind him one of the great forces in society, he has people power behind him. Recently, we saw the achievements of people power. People power undid many of the régimes in Eastern Europe. The impact of people power, manipulated and led by Mahatma Gandhi, was extremely significant, so at the moment Mandela has a tremendous weapon in his hands.
I think the challenge that has to be issued to Mr. De Klerk at the moment and the challenge that our Parliament, our Government, our society must issue to Mr. De Klerk is to go on leading his people towards a non-racial society. We must exhort him to so do, we must encourage him to so do. I would be less than honest if I did not say to this House that I see a certain merit in the opinion which says that we must look at the moment at ways of indicating to the white body politic in South Africa, to the white people in South Africa as led by Mr. De Klerk, that we acknowledge what they have done in releasing Mandela and in legalising the ANC.
I am very conscious of the fact that the four essential elements of apartheid remain, that South African society remains horrific. I am totally aware of that but, having said that, I would not go so far as the British position, that we in an arbitrary way lift sanctions. However, I think the time has come when our Government and European countries must look to methods of at least indicating to Mr. De Klerk that we appreciate what he is doing. When we look at the position on his right wing, with the conservatives, with the neo-fascists, with the very large public rallies among the whites, he does need some indication of support and approval and he has to be seen to some degree to have brought home the bacon to his people. But that consideration must never be unbalanced; it must be balanced by maintaining the stick approach and by maintaining an effective method of sanctions. All I am saying is that we would need to send him some signals.
I believe that Nelson Mandela has an immense challenge facing him at the moment as well. The challenge facing Mr. Mandela and the challenge that we should be presenting to Mr. Mandela on behalf of our Parliament, on behalf of our Government, on behalf of our people and within a European context, is that his responsibility, just as it is Mr. De Klerk's responsibility, is to go on moving towards a non-racial society. It also is Mr. Mandela's responsibility to so do, but it is specifically Mr. Mandela's responsibility to lead the ANC away from violence.
I am aware that the ANC and the anti-apartheid movement argue that the violence aspect must be brought to the negotiating table and must be a plank on the negotiating table but, at the same time, it is imperative that international pressure should be suggesting to the ANC and to Mr. Mandela that they renounce violence and renounce the violent method as quickly as possible. Never let us forget that the Russian Revolution, which was bred on violence and was a violent revolution, has essentially undone itself and is in a state of disruption 70 years on. Never let us forget that the countries that were conceived in violence, conceived in civil strife and conceived at the barrel of a gun have had very dubious histories afterwards. It is my contention that the great challenge facing Mr. Mandela and the black leadership at the moment is to give up the gun and to rely on the tremendous force that is behind the ANC and Mr. Mandela. The tremendous force that is behind Nelson Mandela in South Africa is the 35 millions blacks who are backing him morally, politically and in every other way. With that people power I believe that Mr. Mandela can achieve change without the use of the gun. I believe it is right that our Parliament should be first and foremost in the free world in calling for the renunciation of violence in South Africa at the earliest possible date. Just as we have a responsibility to go on calling on Mr. De Klerk, just as we have a responsibility to say to Mr. De Klerk and the white ruling bodies in South Africa: it is your moral political international responsibility to give up the radical society and to concede free elections, to concede democracy, to undo apartheid; it it also the responsibility of the black leadership in South Africa to give up the violent methods and to go for true democracy. We have glaring examples on the African Continent of situations where power was received through the barrel of a gun. I would be very concerned that we keep the right kind of pressure on to ensure that true democracy is achieved in South Africa and that, in fact, the result is a truly democratic society, a truly free society, a truly egalitarian society.
That puts us in a position where we must be very even-handed in our approach. It would not be right that we go over the top in our support of violent methods or of the ANC while they hold a violent position and while they still support the use of violence. I do not believe it would be right if we went over the top in that direction. It would not be right if we were to applaud the most minuscule development from Mr. De Klerk. What I am saying to the House — and I passionately believe this — is that we must have an even-handed balanced approach, that we must today unanimously and with great enthusiasm and with great vigour welcome the release of Mr. Mandela — and that we do with great pride in Dublin where he is a Freeman, and we look forward to his visit to this city. But, as we do that today, we also must unequivocally say to Mr. De Klerk that we welcome this development and we must look for methods of recognising what he has done. We must also clearly say to Mr. Mandela and to the black people, we believe in non-violence, we believe in the achievement of freedom in a non-violent method through people power. On that basis I rest the case.
I, too, would like to welcome the release of Nelson Mandela. As a Dublin man and Irishman, but also as a member of Dublin City Council, I was very happy that Nelson Mandela was freed as we had made him a Freeman of Dublin city. I am happy to say that the Lord Mayor has issued an invitation to him to visit Dublin whenever he can. I also welcome the end of the banning of the ANC. I believe that Mr. De Klerk deserves our congratulations for making these decisions and it would be foolish of us not to see the political problems he and his party will now face both from extreme right wing groups and also from the ANC themselves, who will be a very active and vocal political party within South Africa.
There has been a very heated debate going on over the last week regarding the stand which the European Community should take in response to these measures. I am happy that the majority of our partners have agreed to keep the economic sanctions against South Africa and I am disappointed that Great Britain and Portugal have decided to take an opposing view. The reasons that sanctions were made in the first place were not to release Nelson Mandela or to lift a ban on the ANC. The reasons that sanctions were there was because of apartheid. This is the bottom line and one we cannot let other people forget, both in South Africa and in the rest of the world.
Certainly, I welcome the gestures from Mr. De Klerk, but I have to ask the starting point from which he came. We have in South Africa a system of apartheid known nowhere else in the world. I do not have to go into the details of white only neighbourhoods and the other methods used to divide the community there. The Government are using banning and banishment orders to restrict and silence opponents without having to justify their actions before the courts. Banned people may not communicate with one another in any way, be quoted in public or private, attend any political or social gathering that is a meeting of more than two people from outside the area in which they are restricted, enter any educational institution or factory without special permission. Tens of thousands of people have been arrested and detained without trial over the years. Many have been tortured and many have died in custody. These atrocities and many more are carried out almost exclusively against the black population. Apartheid reaches into every corner of South African society. We have discrimination against the black population in education, jobs, housing in every walk of life.
It is for these reasons I believe that the English and Portuguese have missed the whole point of the sanctions, as the kernel of the problem is apartheid. I am glad that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Collins, will be visiting South Africa on behalf of the Community on a fact-finding mission. I believe that we should wait until he returns from that to make a decision on what our reaction will be to the De Klerk measures. When he is there I hope he will communicate to the Government and people of South Africa that the vast majority of people in Europe are impressed by Mr. De Klerk's actions and will try and encourage Mr. De Klerk to go even further. I hope that he will emphasise to the South Africans that it is apartheid which is the kernel of the problem and when that is lifted South Africa will be welcomed back into the international community.
I would like to believe that this will happen; and perhaps with the changes in Eastern Europe happening so fast, it will. In case it does not happen, I would like the Minister to take up certain cases of people who are in jail for political reasons and those who have been tried and convicted on the notorious basis of common purpose. If I could take the case of the Uppington Fourteen. On Friday, 26 May 1989, 14 South Africans were sentenced to hang at the end of a trial which lasted three years, one of the largest groups of people sentenced to death at any one time. I am happy now that the South African Government have stopped hanging people, but at the same time they are still imprisoned. On the day after that there were taken to Pretoria Central Prison and they are there on death row. They joined over 60 other political activists already under sentence of death.
Since the nationwide state of emergency was declared in 1986 the apartheid régime has executed 23 political activists for their illegal involvement in offences relating to opposition to apartheid. The 14 sentenced to hang represent a strong section of the community of a township in Uppington, reportedly the most deprived African township in South Africa. It is situated in the remote north-west of the country. Among the 14 is a domestic servant in her late fifties, Evelena Debrun, mother of ten children, the youngest of whom is 12 years. Evelena is illiterate and, according to her lawyer, she is busy dying on death row. She has lost several stone and cannot take exercise because she is crippled with arthritis. Because of this her lawyer applied for bail pending the appeal court hearing this year in an attempt to get her out of jail and save her life. The judge refused on the basis that she may flee the country. This despite her cripping arthritis, her illiteracy, her age and the fact that she has ten children. Therefore, I would appeal to the Minister to take her case up.
The other members of the Uppington Fourteen include a boxer, a schoolteacher, a male nurse working in a Namibian hospital, a labourer and a former treasurer of the town council convicted of killing a policeman on the notorious basis of common purpose. The fourteen from the north-western town of Uppington were among a total of 26 who stood trial. Of the 26, 25 were found guilty of murder, with the 26th being found guilty of attempted murder. Those not receiving the death penalty were given sentences ranging from six to eight years imprisonment on community service orders. The trial arose from the death of a policeman in 1985 at the height of the political unrest that swept South Africa. The events occurred at the Uppington township of Pavello after security forces had broken up a meeting with tear gas. The mass meeting had been held to discuss community grievances including rent increases. Tear gas had never been fired in Pavello before. The meeting panicked and scattered, believing that live ammunition was being fired. Part of the crowd then gathered outside the home of a black municipal policeman. Only days before a pregnant woman had been shot by a municipal policeman in the township. The policeman fired on the crowd, severely wounding a child. He then ran from the house with his gun. Enraged, the crowd then killed him.
Almost all of those sentenced to death were convicted on the basis of common purpose. The judge deemed that by throwing stones at the house of a municipal policeman and chanting outside his house they would be considered to share in the common purpose with those directly responsible for the death. This legal ruling was applied to the trial of the Sharpeville Six and other subsequent cases. It has been discredited by the international league of communities as one of the many abuses of the legal system operating in South Africa, a system where the courts are used as part of the machinery for imposing apartheid rule.
At the beginning of July 1989 application for leave to appeal for the 26 against a conviction and by the 14 against their death sentence was turned down by the trial court judge. The trial was then petitioned on the chief justice for leave to appeal. On 8 September 1989 the chief justice granted leave to appeal against conviction for 23 of the 25 trial-less and for all to appeal against sentencing. Although granted leave to appeal, the 14 remain on death row in Pretoria Central Prison. Although the South African Government have put a stop to the death sentence, I believe that the trials of Evelena Debrun and the other people involved in this case deserve to be brought up by the Minister with the South African authorities. I hope that all those who have been convicted under common purpose will be released.
I bring these cases up to highlight the whole situation of people who are imprisoned in South Africa. I am happy with our stand on sanctions and I believe it is an honourable one. I ask the Minister to emphasise to the South African authorities these cases. When he is there I hope he will show to the South African authorities and the South African people that it is only when we get rid of apartheid that we can really bring them back into the international community.
I believe there are great problems politically for Mr. De Klerk and for everybody, I hope that he will urge Mr. Mandela to drop his support for violence. I was very disappointed that he recently accepted that there were acceptable targets in South Africa. I believe the Minister has a very difficult job on his hands, I hope he will be able to bring about a peaceful solution to the problems of South Africa. It is a great country, it is enormously rich, I believe blacks and whites can live there peacefully and well together over the years.
I am sharing my time with Senator Brendan Ryan, with the agreement of the House. I share the unanimity, which is obviously present in this House today, at the welcome given to the release of Nelson Mandela. Indeed, I note that many Members of this House, including me, signed the welcome to Nelson Mandela which was advertised in all the national newspapers following his release.
I share the points of view which have been expressed by Senator Eoin Ryan and Senator O'Reilly. It is probably wrong that we should at this stage of the proceedings be harping too much on the past. We should be worried about what we can do in this country with our foreign policy to dismantle apartheid in the future. We all know about the horrors and evils of apartheid as it exists at the moment and as it has been practised in the past. I would just like to concentrate in the second half of my very short speech on what the future is in the foreign affairs policy of Ireland vis-á-vis South Africa.
I find it disingenuous and hypocritical for members of the Government party in this country and others to continually condemn some of the infringements of human rights in South Africa when we are guilty of infringements of human rights on our own door step. Hanging has for a long time been practised as an evil part of the régime in South Africa, and this Government have been noticeably reluctant to remove hanging from the Statute Book here. It has taken the Coalition with the Progressive Democrats to make them abolish hanging. I have been trying to get hanging off the Statute Book for seven or eight years. It has made me fairly sick to see the refusals of the Government to take it off the Statute Book while at the same time anytime anybody is hanged in South Africa Ministers and members of the Government are happy to stand up here and condemn it as a horrific violation of human rights. We cannot have it both ways and we should not have it both ways.
I stand second to none in condemnation of apartheid, but I wonder have this Government and the last Government found apartheid too easy a whipping boy, too easy a target, because apartheid stands condemned as the most iniquitous system that exists in the international world. There is a consensus about apartheid which is almost impossible to rival anywhere in the world. A lot of that is to do with the tremendous work which was done by the anti-apartheid movement. I accuse the Government of taking such a moral, high-minded attitude to apartheid not because they have any ideological or deep-rooted objections to it, but because they see an international consensus, they find that particular condemnation convenient and comfortable and they know it is safe. I would find it more consistent if the high moral attitude which the Irish Government have adopted towards sanctions in the last few days were taken towards other countries who are perpetrating régimes which certainly rival the South African régime and indeed are worse in what they do.
Has the Minister read the report of Amnesty International on what is happening in Iraq? If he has, why are we still trading with Iraq? Amnesty International very recently condemned out of hand the régime in Iraq not only because of its persecution and its genocide of its own people but also it produced instances as horrific as those produced by Senator Eoin Ryan just now about minors being condemned to death and about torture. Yet in this country we are happy to continue trading with Iraq without a word being said.
I cannot remember — I am open to correction — any protest being issued by the Government to the régime in Iraq about their internal policies. It seems to me totally inconsistent that we can on the one hand rightfully condemn South Africa, but on the other we pick and choose the other régimes in the world whom we condemn. The reason Iran and Iraq, who run much worse régimes than South Africa, are not condemned so wholeheartedly, why the Irish Government are not leading a charge in the European Community to condemn them or to introduce sanctions against them is because we trade heavily with Iraq and Iran. While we protest the appalling evils of apartheid, and so appalling are they that we introduce sanctions against them, we are silent on other régimes. Our silence is in direct proportion to the amount of trade we do with those régimes. It seems to me the answer, unfortunately, is quite simply money.
Everybody knows if they are honest, that when we talk about sanctions against South Africa, it is pretty well meaningless in terms of this country. While we led the European Community in the last six months introducing sanctions against South Africa — and the Minister for Foreign Affairs said this week they will continue because the régime is evil — we are not leading the European Community in initiative condemning other régimes which are worse. While what we are doing may be right and while we must push, should push and will push, towards an end to apartheid, with that single objective in mind, we are being totally dishonest if we do this from the comfort and security of knowing it will cost us nothing, and from the safety of being one of 11 in the international community. We should clean our own back yard first and then our condemnations would be more convincing.
Of course, this is a moment for rejoicing. It is also a moment that deserves some reflection on the past and a fairly hard headed look towards the future. It needs to be said, first, that at least in Africa racism seems to be a particularly white phenomenon. One of the extraordinary things about Africa is the extraordinary non-racism and non-vindictiveness of many of those who have taken power in the various countries that have been liberated in the last 25 years, the extraordinary non-vindictiveness of those who are now free to speak for the first time in almost 30 years on South Africa, their willingness to make it clear that they support a non-racial society and their willingness indeed, to come into conflict with other black organisations in South Africa to insist on the fact that they must have a non-racial South Africa.
Many of those who have led the struggle against apartheid in South Africa are models to most white people about what it means to be non-racist in your language, your values and in your struggle for liberation. There are the occasional sights of brave white people and they welcome the unambiguous welcome they receive from those among the black community who are struggling for liberation. The white community — all of us — have inherited a history of the extraordinary ambivalence of western European "civilisation" towards people whose skin colours happen to be different from our own.
In terms of talking about Africa we need to be very clear, to use clear unambiguous language which does not contain even a hint of racism. That is why I and a number of my constituents were disturbed by the reported remarks of Senator Martin Cullen in this House last week. I want to read what he said onto the record and invite Senator Cullen to make it clear that the ambivalence and ambiguity is not as serious as many people suggested to me. Last week on 14 February at column 1947 of the Official Report, Senator Cullen said:
I got to know the Africans as they are in reality as opposed to our impressions of them in the hallowed halls of Parliament. Indeed, there can be a great difference between impressions and reality.
Senator Cullen owes it to Africa and to us to clarify that statement. It is the sort of language that is often used by people to signal certain views. I do not believe Senator Cullen meant what many people interpreted. He owes the House a clear and unambiguous explanation.
While it is now extremely fashionable to oppose apartheid, many of us — I would have been a minor participant — will remember the period 20 years ago when every meeting of the anti-apartheid movement would have at least two Special Branch men outside the door because it was seen as being dangerously subversive and dangerously threatening to our national interests. We had a perpetual presence of those who were supposed to protect the security of the State. They have not yet got over that phenomenon because last Sunday in Cork, when I had the privilege to address a small gathering of 100 people to celebrate Nelson Mandela's release, at 3.30 p.m. when other people could find better things to do, there were two of them sitting in their car observing the celebration. May I ask the Minister to ensure that the resources of the State are better used than keeping two policemen occupied watching a celebration of the release of Nelson Mandela. They were not protecting us; they were there to make a particular view known. I will say no more; I was going to say too much.
On the issue of sanctions it needs to be said that there is very little to exceed the crass hypocrisy of western powers and, to a certain extent, ourselves, on this issue of sanctions. Let us remember, for instance, that we slapped sanctions on Poland on the occasion of the suppression of Solidarity, a position I agreed with. Nobody whinged or muttered then about the suffering of the vast majority of the citizens of Poland. We took off those sanctions, reluctantly and slowly. Long after Lech Walesa first asked the western powers to end the sanctions against Poland, they continued them. When the people who were leading the struggle for freedom in Poland asked for the release of sanctions the western powers declined to respond. Why? Because our political interests sustained it. Let us remember that there are massive bans still on the sale of all sorts of high technology to the Soviet Union.
There are so many other things. There is the extraordinary ambivalence about violence which gives lectures to a man who has spent 27 years in prison because he does not come out and say "I renounce violence" and does not say a word to the biggest power in the world which has consistently unleashed terrorism against the free democratic state of Nicaragua over the past eight years. What extraordinary hypocrisy. A lot of western hypocrisy is summed up in our attitudes to South Africa, and a lot of it is bluff. Our bluff is being called with the blossoming of freedom in Eastern Europe and in southern Africa.
What should we do for the future of South Africa? I have a very simple view on this. We should listen to those who have suffered. We should listen to those who have carried on the struggle with damn little support from most of the western world until it became extremely fashionable, until western public opinion dragged its governments kicking and struggling into opposition to South Africa. It is easy to forget what was said and done. Up to 20 years ago most of the western powers were happily arming those forces who have repressed the vast majority of South Africans. It was western public opinion which forced governments to change from the position, to say the least of it, of ambiguity and ambivalence. It was western public opinion which forced them to tighten up further, and it is western public opinion that will sustain the pressure. As far as I am concerned, I am very proud to say that I take my lead from the African National Congress. I will support opposition by this country, which is the position of those who have struggled and suffered the brunt of the repression of apartheid and free protest. Those people have asked us for certain things and we should not give them lectures. We should simply do what they ask. We should listen to them, respect them and carry out their wishes.
If we want to do something, not only should we sustain sanctions but we could ban the import of South African coal. It is disgraceful to suggest that when half the world could supply us with coal, when a recently liberated Poland could desperately do with the trade, we buy coal from South Africa. This is a specific demand of the Irish Anti-Apartheid Movement. I invite the Minister to tell us that he personally will encourage Irish people at consumer level to ask their coal suppliers not to supply them with South African coal. That is what the African National Congress have asked us to do — not just to retain the sanctions but to increase them.
We should not be grateful to a minority who have finally recognised that they cannot hang on to power. We should be grateful to a majority who are prepared to be generous, magnanimous and non-racist in their plans for the future of South Africa. That majority is represented by the African National Congress.
Senator Ryan is reading something into my colleague Senator Cullen's words. I read this statement in full this morning and it would appear to me quite unambiguous. He has lived in Africa and knows at first hand the difficulties encountered by the people on that continent. I do not think we can read any more or less into this aspect of his statement.
I, too, would like to welcome the release of Nelson Mandela. It is a great tribute to this House that we would allow such a generous amount of time and that the Minister would allow such a generous amount of time to speak on the subject of his release and of the developments in South Africa. I would like to join with the other comments and statements praising the courage of Nelson Mandela in withstanding the incarceration of the past 27 years. He has shown how a person of great depth of character can survive such an ordeal. I was struck on his release by his dignity and modesty. There was no triumphalism about him. Moreover, he showed little of the signs of stress or trauma that one would expect from one who spent such a long period in jail. That to a great extent, explains why he has been such a source of inspiration to South Africans, both black and white, and to all who despise the apartheid system.
Prior to, and on his release, he showed dignity and graciousness in his dealings with President De Klerk. We have heard they share a mutual trust. It appears that he is a natural leader. He is the right man in the right place at the right time. The calming influence he has exerted on a potentially explosive situation is a tribute to his undoubted charisma. All of this he needs, because so much rests on his shoulders. To a great extent he has been the focus, and the cry to free Nelson Mandela was synonymous with breaking down the entire system of apartheid and all its consequent and attendant evils. We should remember that Nelson Mandela has said that no individual leader can take on the enormous task of creating unity and remaking South Africa on his own and, indeed, that any decisions will be made by the ANC leadership. This wisdom is a measure of the man.
We must also praise the courage of President De Klerk in releasing Nelson Mandela. He must be shown generosity, praise and encouragement. The ANC have said they will send a delegation to meet with him to discuss any issues of structuring the start of negotiations and try to negotiate a suspension of hostilities. We must at this juncture remove any lingering support that one might have towards any campaign of violence in South Africa. We must encourage them to proceed in that direction.
Our generosity of support should not include the diminution of sanctions. I very much support the stand of the EC Foreign Ministers, apart from two, and, in particular, our Government on this whole issue. The release of Nelson Mandela has not changed anything yet, it is merely a symbol. The state of emergency still exists, as does detention without trial and censorship. The homelands policy and various restrictive Acts are still in being and there are many more political prisoners still held.
I fully agree with the Taoiseach's remarks on the unilateral stance taken by the UK Government. It is not new for the UK Government to take a dissenting view. That decision was taken even before the latest meeting of the EC Foreign Ministers. It would be wrong to credit Mrs. Thatcher with a spirit of generosity towards the régime in South Africa. It was not a generous gesture to show solidarity with Nelson Mandela or to encourage the white South Africans to support the undoubted courage of President Klerk. It is a case of economic greed. Unfortunatley it is once again the British Government showing interest rather than principle. Britain is the principal exporter to South Africa. That country is Britain's twelfth largest customer in export terms and there are many thousands of jobs — around 70,000 — directly linked with trade with South Africa in the UK. We should consider reduction of sanctions only on the dismantling of the apartheid system in South Africa. I can only conclude by saying that if Mrs. Thatcher showed the same generosity towards the Irish situation as she is now showing towards the Boers of South Africa, perhaps we would be in a better situation in this island of ours today.
Debate adjourned.