US-Africa Summit & SADC Summit briefing with Deputy Minister in attendance

Meeting report

United States (US)-Africa Summit (4-6 August 2014)
The Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) delegation comprised of Deputy Minister Luwellyn Landers, Ms Maud Dlomo, Acting Deputy Director General: Africa Multilateral, Mr Ben Joubert, Director, and Mr Arnold Lyle, Deputy Director, amongst others. Deputy Minister Landers and Mr Joubert gave the briefing.

Deputy Minister Landers stated that the US was a strategic partner for SA. Trade, investment relations and peace featured prominently at discussions. Matters of importance to Africa was the renewal of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). A highlight of the Summit was President Zuma’s address to the US National Press Club. During the interaction President Zuma answered 18 questions off the cuff.

The Summit was the first of its sort. It was an endorsement of the Africa Rising. He emphasised that coordination with the African Union was important.

Mr Joubert continued, saying one of the key engagements was an AGOA Ministerial Forum on 4 August 2014 as well as the President Zuma address to the US National Press Club. AGOA was coming to an end and needed to be renewed with the US Congress needing to approve its renewal. 

On the 5 August 2014 President Zuma had a meeting in his hotel with US Vice President Joseph Biden and also met with members of the US Congress. Later that evening President Zuma also attended a White House dinner.

On the 6 August a US-Africa Leaders Summit was held under the chairmanship of US President Obama. Amongst the key objectives for Africa were economic growth, trade and investment as well as peace and security good governance and development. Some of the main outcomes of the Summit for trade and investment was to secure commitment from the US Administration to work with Congress to renew the AGOA in a timely manner. A further outcome on support for peace and security, good governance and democracy was President Obama accepting the notion of African led-solutions to African problems and committing $110m over three years towards the African Peacekeeping Rapid Response Partnership.   

On the same day a Spousal Summit took place hosted by First Lady Obama. The Spousal Summit focussed on girls’ education.

On the way forward the African Union and the Africa Ambassadors Group in Washington were to co-ordinate follow-up actions to ensure focussed implementation of the commitments made by the US.

Discussion
Mr B Radebe (ANC) agreed with the DIRCO that the Summit had been successful in that it had highlighted African issues. However a weakness of the Summit was that certain democratically elected leaders of African countries had not been invited to the Summit. One such leader was President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.
The work of the SA government on the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) was appreciated. SA had to continue to be a partner of AGOA and should also be a beneficiary thereof. He noted that many industries used SA as a base to gain access into Africa. One such company was the motor vehicle manufacturer Ford. SA thus had to be a beneficiary of AGOA. In the past the US government had labelled the ANC as a terrorist organisation but the American masses had supported the liberation struggle in SA and had insisted that sanctions be imposed against the then Apartheid SA government. 

Mr M Lekota (COPE) called for a point of order on the comments made by Mr Radebe. He noted that only questions of clarity were supposed to be asked by members.

The Chairperson stated that Mr Radebe was merely commenting on US-Africa relationships. Members were allowed to make observations and comments. 

Mr Radebe thanked the Chairperson for protecting him. He asked why the Young African Leadership Initiative had been renamed the Mandela Fellowship and if the Mandela family had been consulted. He said that outside countries needed to support African countries. The Grand Inga Dam Project was a project that needed support.

Deputy Minister Landers noted the point about certain African leaders being excluded from the Summit. He did not know whether SA had addressed this or taken a stance on the issue as he had not been present at the Summit. None of his officials had attended. The Summit was after all President Obama’s show. He was not sure whether President Zuma had raised the issue. He shared the concern raised about the Young African Leadership Initiative. Youth from SA were taken to the US to study. Some of them were near the completion of their studies so could not be brought back to SA to complete these studies. Referring to the youth, he asked who was going to turn down an opportunity to study at Harvard.

Mr Joubert acknowledged the fact that certain African leaders had been excluded from the Summit. The SA President and the Minister had to make the decision whether to attend even though certain African leaders had been excluded. SA had $17bn worth of exports to the US. There were also 340 000 tourists from the US that visited SA. Looking at SA’s goals, the leadership decided to attend the Summit as there was value in attending.
A great deal of work still needed to be done on AGOA. He would check on whether permission had been obtained for the use of the Mandela name.

Mr M Maila (ANC) felt that SA should be made a beneficiary of AGOA. He said that the Young African Leadership Initiative should be more “inclusive”. What did it mean and what criteria were used to choose young people. What were they being taught? It was encouraging that the US was capacitating the African Standby Force.

Deputy Minister Landers agreed that AGOA was important to SA and Africa.

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) felt that the purpose of the Summit had been to counter the influence of China on the African continent. The US had made a great many commitments at the Summit; the proof of actual commitment would be in the implementation of what had been committed. However he felt that placing implementation in the hands of low level ambassadors was not the route to go. Trade, peace and security commitments needed high level follow up. A forum of heads of state needed to follow up on the commitments made. The Summit had not focused on socio-economic issues. It did not cover human rights and global terrorism. It focussed mainly on trade, peace and security. He was convinced that the commitments made by the US had conditions attached to them. What were the terms and conditions?

Deputy Minister Landers said that it was a fair observation that the Summit was called to minimise the influence of China in Africa. The question was why the US had allowed China to expand in Africa in the first place. The reason was that the US had too many conditions which they wished African countries to abide by. He was not sure whether the Chinese also set conditions. The fact was that African countries grabbed the assistance offered by China spoke volumes. The point made that commitments made by the US needed to be followed up by high level heads of state and not by ambassadors would be communicated to leadership. Whether commitments had conditions attached to them, he noted that they probably had. 

Mr Joubert said that it would be great if the US could see the importance of Africa on the global scene. Involving heads of state to ensure that the Summit commitments were upheld would be communicated back to leadership.

Mr Lyle commented that on socio-economic and human rights issues, gun smuggling and human trafficking were were addressed at the Summit. He pointed out that the US invited African countries separately. The African Union as a whole was not invited. He conceded that there were conditions attached to AGOA. Constituencies in the US Congress did look at the countries in AGOA. One condition was that they had to have a favourable investment climate. There also were conditions relating to black economic empowerment .  

Ms S Kalyan (DA) referred to the Spousal Summit which focussed on girl education and asked if it had covered women empowerment and gender issues as well. She asked for details about the reauthorisation of the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) and about the renewal of  AGOA for 15 years. She asked what were the criteria used for the Mandela Fellowship Programme. If Power Africa were to have it headquarters in SA, what were the terms and conditions for SA? She asked if Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) programmes were still running in SA.

Deputy Minister Landers replied that when heads of state attended summits their spouses often accompanied them. Michelle Obama felt that the spouses could have their own summit. They dealt with issues pertaining to girl children and perhaps dealt with gender issues as well. The Mandela Washington Fellowship was the new name given to the Youth African Leadership Initiative.  

Ms M Moonsamy (EFF) was not impressed by the fact the US Vice-President Biden had met with President Zuma at his hotel. This seemed to impress DIRCO but she felt that Vice-President Biden was not doing SA a favour. She agreed that other African leaders like President Mugabe should have been invited to the Summit. It showed disrespect towards African governments and African leadership. Why were there conditions attached to the Summit? Had SA brought up why certain African leaders had been excluded? She asked if President Obama was not perpetuating conflict in Africa. She asked what the resolution of conflict in Africa was based upon. It seemed that the influence of China on the continent was part of the reason why interest was shown in Africa by the US. Yes there had been a great deal of discussion but none of the outcomes had been confirmed. She personally did not feel that President Zuma addressing the US National Press Club was such a great achievement. What could be gained by the further militarisation of Africa by the US? The question that should be asked was what the agenda of the US in Africa was. Why was Power SA establishing its headquarters in SA? The company did not have an initiative in SA so what was the benefit to SA? She asked why the commitments made still had to obtain Congress approval. Could it not have been pre-approved? Security in Africa should be dealt with by Africans. Africa did not need food security under the fallacy of US Aid. What real benefit had the Summit been to SA? She referred to the Mandela Youth Fellowship and asked why South African youth were being sponsored to study in the US. Why could the US not provide students with funding to study in SA? Why did the South African students have to attend Harvard University?

Deputy Minister Landers said the point was taken about the US Vice-President’s visit to President Zuma’s hotel. The fact was that President Zuma was exhausted after his trip. Hence the US Vice-President decided to visit him at his hotel. It was Ms Moonsamy’s prerogative to see the visit as being derogatory. On the exclusion of other African leaders from the Summit, he did not wish to comment as he simply did not know anything. On the role of the United Nations in Africa as a force, he felt that the United Nations Security Council had a role to play after the Second World War but now considered it to be past its sell-by date. He had attended a G7 meeting where the Uruguayan President had stated that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) promoted insecurity. In the last 10 to 30 years what had the UNSC really done? It was quiet where there was conflict. It was possible perhaps to reform the UNSC but the five member states would not be willing to relinquish their power. It was from a political point of view an issue that needed further debate, but he felt that it would be like howling to the moon. On the issue of who funded conflicts in Africa, history had shown that western democracies fund them. He noted that Power Africa had decided to establish its headquarters in SA themselves.

Mr Lekota pointed out that AGOA was to be extended in 2015. However by the time that it was renewed conditions between the US and different African countries would have changed. He noted that one of the reports coming from the US was that there were some members of Congress that attached conditions on the renewal of AGOA. The first condition was that countries who were allowed to participate in AGOA had to be at a certain level of under development. The second condition was that countries allowed to participate in AGOA should not be beholden to China.  He asked DIRCO to confirm whether there were in fact US Congress members that required the conditions to be satisfied before they gave their support to AGOA. With SA becoming part of the BRICS New Development Bank in terms of the Fortaleza Declaration, he asked if US Congress members had not raised concerns over it. He was of the view that SA had moved back to Cold War politics by being part of the Brazil, Russia, and India, China and SA (BRICS) bloc and its Development Bank – especially the link up with Russia and China. SA had thus aligned itself with the old Cold War Bloc, that is, Russia and China. He noted that the world had changed drastically.

Deputy Minister Landers noted that the US Congress had a zero tolerance approach. No help was given to non-democratic states. The US Congress had a new category and it was called, ”middle income country”. They were of the view that SA should be graduated out of AGOA. SA was however assured that it would not be excluded from AGOA. In 2015 the US Congress would vote on AGOA. He noted that developing countries had pleaded with the World Bank that it had too many conditions and the US had the power of veto. At the Fortaleza Summit the New Development Bank was a game changer. The belief was that countries which needed financing should have access to it. An interesting fact was that the US owed China $27 trillion.

Mr Lekota asked if there were US Congress members who felt that AGOA countries should not be beholden to China. Was this a fact?

Deputy Minister Landers said that he simply did not know whether it was a fact.
 
Ms C Dudley (ACDP) felt that there were benefits to SA that had come out of the Summit. The US had a choice with whom it wished to hold summits. SA had the choice of not attending the Summit and saying no to financial assistance. Someone else would have taken advantage of the friendship and the money that went along with it. The Summit was therefore a benefit to SA. She felt that the exclusion of those African countries that had been expelled from the African Union from the Summit was a good thing.

Deputy Minister Landers stated that normally at summits there were persons negotiating behind the scenes. At the end of a summit there would be a summit document. For this Summit there was, however, no summit document. It was the President Obama show.

Mr L Mpumlwana (ANC) said that the fact that some African countries were not invited had to be accepted and SA had to simply bite the bullet.

Ms D Raphuti (ANC) understood that the Spousal Summit had dealt with young girls. She asked what had been discussed at the Spousal Summit. She noted that SA was making inroads in the global sphere.

The Chairperson stated that the issue of Africa Rising was important for the leadership of Africa. The continued exploitation of African raw materials by countries including the US was not a good thing. No processing and beneficiation of raw materials was taking place in Africa. He emphasised that things needed to change. The focus for Africa for the next 50 years should be on development.  He referred to the Young African Leadership Initiative and stressed that one country could not prescribe how the leadership in Africa should be developed. The US could not tell Africa how to do things. President Zuma called for greater “inclusivity”. He asked what was meant by it. He was afraid that the Youth African Leadership Initiative would end up being the same as Bantu education where an inferior curriculum had been prescribed. Who designed the courses on offer? What universities were involved and what was the stance of the universities.  He disagreed with Ms Moonsamy. If the US National Press Club was the strongest lobby group in the US then it was an achievement for President Zuma to have addressed it. It was an opportunity to market SA and Africa.

Southern African Development Community (SADC) Summit

The briefing on the Summit on 17 and 18 August 2014 at Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe, was undertaken by Deputy Minister Landers and Ms Maud Dlomo, Acting Deputy Director General: Africa Multilateral. The theme of the Summit was, “Strategy for economic transformation: leveraging the regions diverse resources for sustainable economic and social development through beneficiation”.

The agenda of the Summit was divided into three parts:
- institutional performance to enhance implementation,
- broader regional integration
- peace, security and deepening of democracy in SADC.

The SADC Secretariat received its funding from member states and international cooperating partners. It received an unqualified audit report but there was a need to strengthen capacity to match ambitions. On SADC economic integration, the SADC Trade Protocol was entered into by the majority of members in 2001 and was being implemented and monitored. The SADC Free Trade Agreement was crucial for the establishment of the Tripartite Free Trade Agreement between SADC, the East African Community and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa. 

The Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (RISDP) was to be revised for the next 5 years 2015-2020.

On the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) the Finance Committee of SADC would assess modalities for the establishment of a region fund to assist member states in emergencies. SA had offered training for Ebola preparedness to SADC members.

Amongst the legal instruments signed at the Summit was the Draft SADC Declaration on Regional Infrastructure Development.

On peace and security there was the establishment of the Mediation Support Unit (MSU) which was part of the mediation and preventative diplomacy framework. A pool of mediators especially women were being developed.

Upcoming elections in the SADC region included Mozambique on 15 October 2014 and Botswana on 24 October 2014. DIRCO would request that five members of parliament form part of the South African contingent to be deployed as part of the SADC Election Observer Mission.

Areas of concern in the region included the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Summit endorsed the decision of the Joint SADC-ICGLR (International Conference on the Great Lakes Region) Ministerial Meeting that the voluntary surrender and disarmament by the Forces Democratiques de Liberation de Rwanda (FDLR) would be completed within 6 months.

On the Kingdom of Lesotho, SA as the current Chairperson of SADC was facilitating the implementation of the Windhoek Declaration. The Coalition Government Leaders had to provide leadership in an effort to find a lasting political solution to the current impasse.

Ms Dlomo added that the issue of certain African countries not being invited to the US-Africa Summit had been discussed at the SADC Summit.

Discussion
Mr Mokgalapa said that the Committee welcomed the use of women mediators. He asked about the domestication of the legal instruments signed and what was done about it. Some of the instruments were not domesticated. He noted that free trade areas should have been completed by March 2014 but it was not done. What was the problem? He also mentioned the infrastructure of free trade.

Ms Dlomo noted that countries did not sign instruments at summit level unless it had gone through its national processes. It was a challenge.

Mr Radebe commended the performance of SA’s defence brigades in the Democratic Republic of Congo. He was concerned about regional integration and asked about progress on the SADC Protocol. Another concern was that Ebola was now in the SADC region. What extra measures were being put in place?

Ms Dlomo said that the Trading of Services Protocol had been signed and ratified. SA had not initially signed it due to the Marikana issue that had erupted. It was just a formality that it had to be signed.

Ms Moonsamy noted that the appointment of women mediators was a step in the right direction. Most conflicts were in any case started by men. Had the question been asked as to what the causes of rebels were? Was it purely a fight over resources? Who were the initiators of these conflicts? On regional integration what efforts were being made to get past the impasse preventing integration. Africa was a youthful continent and the problem was perhaps that elders were being tasked with resolving problems of an impatient youth.

Ms Dlomo noted the point made about elders. The training and development of youth and women needed to take place. Wisdom that came with age should however not be lost. There was a trade protocol in terms of free trade. The day Africa integrated as a whole continent was what was wanted.

Mr Maila asked how SADC could congratulate Swaziland on its elections. He asked who members of its parliament were representing, the king? He stated that Doctors Without Borders had confirmed that the fight against Ebola was being lost in Liberia.

Ms Dlomo responded that a report on Ebola had been received from the Minister of Health. However the situation with Ebola changed on a daily basis.

The Chairperson said that in the wake of development for the SADC Agenda 2063, each region had to consider enabling factors. On rebel issues, he stated that the target of 2063 would not be attainable if people were peddling conflict. The standby force had to deal with conflict.

Ms Dlomo explained that there were infrastructure development projects but she wished to make a presentation to the Committee on the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) projects. She said that infrastructure development cut across various countries. DIRCO’s priority was the Beitbridge Border Post.  The movement of goods would improve. She concluded by stating that planning for SADC could not take place on a five-yearly basis. A long term vision for SADC was needed.

The meeting was adjourned.