Committee Report on Solidarity Conference in Support of Palestine, Cuba and Western Sahara

Meeting report

The Chairperson stated that technical changes, such as grammar and spelling, had been effected to the Committee report on the Solidarity Conference in Support of Palestine, Cuba and Western Sahara, so there would be a slight delay in the commencement of the meeting.
 
After the delay, the Chairperson said that he wished to highlight certain issues. The first was the situation in Nigeria, where carnage had been committed by the terrorist organisation, Boko Haram. The Committee expressed its condemnation for the mass killings taking place. Nigeria was a country trying to rebuild itself.  The second conflict highlighted was taking place in the Central African Republic. The situation in the country had evolved from a rebel war against the legitimate government, to that of a religious sectarianism conflict.

The last issue was the impending conflict situation in the Ukraine. He noted that a SA exchange student was caught in the conflict area. The Department of International Relations and Co-operation (DIRCO) was trying to extend consular services to the student.  DIRCO had offices in Kiev. The Ukranian situation was a classic example of one country not interfering in the affairs of another. Ukraine was on the border of Russia and hence Russia had vested interests in the Ukraine. The current signs of military installations in the region were a worrying factor. Depending on the interests involved, it was interesting to look at differing media reports.  A CNN news broadcast had shown the presence of Russian military tanks in Crimea. It later emerged that those tanks were actually located in Russia, taking part in military exercises. It was indicative of various interests at play. The Chairperson hoped that all the situations would be resolved.

Committee report on the Solidarity Conference in Support of Palestine, Cuba and Western Sahara
The Chairperson said at the outset that he was aware that there were vested interests in the matter. There was a huge contingent of visitors attending the meeting, among them the Jewish Board of Deputies and the South African Zionist Federation. It had been a long process for the Committee on the issue and had run its course for four years. The public and organisations had been given the opportunity to contribute. At the end of September 2013, after taking inputs into consideration, the Committee had taken the decision to make recommendations to the House.  House resolutions had been accepted by political parties, with the exception of the ACDP, who dissented. The Conference was consequently organised.
He wished to make it clear that everyone had been given the opportunity to make inputs. It was an emotive issue, and he requested guests to not participate in proceedings as only Members were allowed to. Visitors were requested to maintain the decorum of Parliament and to keep opinions to themselves.
The Chairperson placed the Committee Report before the Committee, and took members through it page by page, pointing out where technical grammatical and spelling corrections had been made to it.

Ms C Dudley (ACDP) said that she wished the dissent of the ACDP to be reflected in the report, if the report captured what had taken place at the conference and were the comments and recommendations made by members.

The Chairperson asked if members wished to make any other technical changes to the report.  
The Committee had listened to the views of persons on the issues at the Conference. After the Committee had dealt with the report, it would express its views.  Issues would be discussed by the Committee. There were two things to consider. The first was for the Committee to agree that the report reflected or was a factual account of what happened at the Conference.  Once the Committee agreed that the report was a factual basis of what had taken place, the report had to be adopted. The second thing was for members to decide on what to do about issues which emanated from the report. Essentially the Committee had to have recommendations emanating from it.  Members needed to separate the two issues. If members adopted the report, it did not mean that they necessarily supported the views expressed by persons at the Conference. It meant only that they agreed that the report was a factual account of what happened at the conference.

Mr J de Goede (DA) heard what the Chairperson was saying, and wished to emphasise that the substance of the report was not being considered.

The Chairperson reiterated that there were two processes. The first was to accept that the report was an accurate record of the Conference. The second part was where recommendations would be made by Members as to whether they agreed or disagreed with substantive issues.

He noted that the Committee had in its previous meeting held a moment of silence in honour of the passing of Committee Member, Mr B Skosana (IFP).  He wished it to be reflected in the report that Mr Skosana had tendered an apology for not being able to attend the Conference.

Ms J Ngubeni-Maluleka (ANC) appreciated the fact that the Chairperson had separated the two issues. She proposed that the Report be adopted by the Committee, as it was indeed a true reflection of what transpired at the Conference.

Ms Dudley supported the proposal, but wished the ACDP’s dissent to be reflected in the Report.
 
Mr De Goede made a counter proposal. He proposed that the Committee discuss substantive issues first and thereafter adopt the Report. He was wary about adopting the Report first, as it contained many issues.

Mr Ndlovu asked whether the Committee would be discussing what had taken place at the Conference.

Mr De Goede said that he was trying to separate issues ie the Report being pure minutes of the Conference and the discussion of substantive issues by the Committee.

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) said that the Chairperson had made it clear that the first order of business was to adopt the report, or not to adopt the report, as true minutes of the Conference. The second order of business was the discussion of substantive issues emanating from the report.

The Chairperson closed the issue, saying he did not wish to discuss it any further.

Ms H Mahomed (ANC) felt that the report was straightforward.  It was a reflection of proceedings at the Conference. She also felt that it could be adopted.

Prof S Mayatula (ANC), referring to Mr De Goede’s concerns, pointed out that adopting the report did not necessarily mean he was endorsing the issues that were mentioned in it.  Adopting the report meant it was a true reflection of the proceedings at the Conference.

Ms Dudley pointed out that sometimes reports contained comments and recommendations. Perhaps it should be put on record that the report was being adopted without comments and recommendations.

The Chairperson suggested that the Committee continue with its proceedings. He noted that the issue was all related to the Palestine-Israeli conflict -- not about Cuba or the Western Sahara, which the Conference was also about. The fear was around substantive issues. The report was merely minutes of the Conference. The Committee could not take decisions based on people’s perceptions.
He suggested that the Committee adopt the report as a true reflection of what transpired at the Conference. Thereafter, the Committee could deal with substantive issues.

Mr G Hill-Lewis (DA) said he found it strange that a portfolio committee of Parliament would host a conference which took a partisan view. The Conference had even been chaired by non-members of the Portfolio Committee. Was it a conference of the Committee, or of Parliament?

Ms Mahomed was surprised by the question. The meeting was taking place to adopt the report. She asked that the Chairperson take a stance, as there was no room for discussion.

Mr Ndlovu said that the questioned asked by Mr Hill-Lewis should be part of substantive discussions.

Mr Hill-Lewis responded that he was asking a question of clarity: whether or not the Committee had hosted the Conference.

The Chairperson said that there was no way of answering Mr Hill-Lewis’s question without opening up substantive issues. He noted that the Committee had submitted resolutions to the House, which were consequently adopted by the House. The resolution from the House was that Parliament pledged its solidarity with the Palestinian people. One of the further resolutions was for Parliament to bring together all sections of the SA population who supported the Palestinian cause. The idea was to strengthen the Palestinian cause. There were therefore House resolutions in this regard.

Mr Hill-Lewis said that he had the House resolutions before him but did not see what the Chairperson was referring to. He proceeded to read out what he had before him.

The Chairperson told Mr Hill-Lewis that he had the incorrect document before him.  The Committee was not going to discuss decisions that had been taken by the House.  Issues were not going to be rehashed.
There was sufficient consensus that the report could be adopted. He asked Members if there were any dissenting views on the adoption of the report.

Mr De Goede responded that the DA had a dissenting view.
The Chairperson asked whether the DA objected to the adoption of the Report.
Mr De Goede confirmed that the DA objected to its adoption.
The Committee adopted the report, noting the objection by the DA.
The Chairperson stated that no recommendations had been made in the report.  The Committee could now deal with substantive issues.
Ms Dudley said that at the conference, the Department of International Relations and Co-operation had stated that they were working on a document for the reconstruction and development of Palestine. The Committee should have access to the document. Once in the hands of Parliament. the document and its contents could be opened up to public hearings.
The Chairperson opened up the floor for political parties to make comments and recommendations on the report.
Mr Ndlovu stated that the IFP supported a peaceful outcome to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It was not about taking sides. The IFP suggests a two-state solution, with no violence. The SA government should not vilify either side.
Ms Mahomed said that the ANC would always support dialogue and peaceful resolutions of conflict. She presented ANC recommendations on the Cuban issue. There was a reaffirmation of House resolutions for strengthening relations with Cuba. The ANC condemned the US embargo against Cuba. The ANC also called for the release of the remaining four of the imprisoned Cuba 5.
Mr E Sulliman (ANC) presented the ANC recommendation on the Western Sahara conflict. The Moroccan human rights violations in the Western Sahara were condemned by the ANC. It also condemned the Wall of Shame and media blockades. The African Union was condemned for not pushing for the decolonisation from Morocco of the Western Sahara.
Ms Ngubeni-Maluleka spoke to the ANC’s recommendations on the Palestinian conflict. The ANC reaffirmed the House resolutions on the conflict. There needed to be a sovereign State of Palestinian, next to the State of Israel. The borders between the two states should be according to what they were in June 1966. The ANC reiterated its support for a negotiated solution. It also continued to call for all sectors of the SA population to rally around the Palestinian cause. The ANC would also continue to intensify solidarity efforts for Palestine against the illegal occupation by Israel.
Mr De Goede asked for the recommendations, as presented by the political parties, to be circulated in writing to Members. He pointed out that the Committee was an oversight mechanism, and not a policy-making body. To embody inputs made by civil society into policy could be a problem.  The Committee had passed a resolution on the 6 November 2013, calling for a negotiated settlement and a two-state solution. If the Committee was adopting some of the contents of the report, then the Committee was adopting a document which was not in line with national policy.  The Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Ebrahim Ebrahim, had stated that SA’s stance was conflict prevention and conflict resolution. He pointed out that the Cape Town Declaration proposed punitive measures be put in place against Israel.  Was this the policy of the SA government? Could it be seen as the basis for the resolution that was taken in November?
The Chairperson stated that Members should not become arrogant and think that they could not be lobbied by civil society. Civil society had a right to participate in Parliamentary processes and could lobby Members of Parliament. Civil society had this right and it would be jealously guarded. Parliament listened to what civil society had to say. Depending on how Parliament decided to engage on an issue, peoples’ rights to express their views should not be undermined.  He noted that statements had been made by various political parties and it would be useful to engage on it.  Parliament, after all, influenced government policy.
Mr Hill-Lewis said that the statements read out by political parties were broadly in line with the November 2013 resolution of Parliament. He was glad that views expressed called for a peaceful resolution of the conflict, and wished to engage on the wording of the statements.
Hard copies of the statements made by political parties were circulated to Members.
Referring to the ANC recommendations on Palestine, Mr Hill-Lewis said it was not correct in the statement to say that the Conference brought together a whole section of the SA population. The persons at the Conference only had a uniform view of the issues at the Conference. There was not a balanced take on the matters under discussion at the Conference.
  
He was satisfied with point (d) made in the statement. He did however ask that the wording in points (e) and (g) be amended. He felt that partisan language was being used, and that the use of the words “illegal’ and “brutal” was emotive.

Ms Mahomed said that three political parties had made recommendations on the issues at hand. She asked the DA to also put something on paper regarding their concerns. She did not feel there was a need for the ANC to change its recommendations. The language used was not emotive, neither was it provocative.  The Conference had not been limited to attendance only by persons with a particular view. Invitations had been published and advertised and was open to all. Participation at the Conference was open to everyone.

Mr Ndlovu said that it could be that the topic of the Conference was problematic. It spoke to a Solidarity Conference in support of Palestine, Cuba and Western Sahara.  What about those persons who were not in support of those countries?  He asked why the DA and the ACDP had not made statements regarding their respective recommendations.  

The Chairperson wished to clarify certain things. The Conference was a culmination. It had to be noted that the Committee’s point of departure was SA’s official policy. There was no ambivalence in SA’s policy. It was one of solidarity and support for the peace process. He had made it clear at the Conference that solidarity for Cuba, Western Sahara and Palestine was a settled matter. It was in line with SA policy and parliamentary resolutions. In 2004, 2005 and 2013, Parliament had passed resolutions pledging its support for Palestine. He reaffirmed that SA’s stance was a settled matter.

On the issue of recommendations, Ms Dudley said that the ACDP’s view was a commitment for a Palestinian state, in peace with Israel.  The party also supported a negotiated solution. The ACDP supported the SA government’s support for Palestine, with peaceful co-existence with Israel. The inputs of the Cape Town Declaration were noted.   The DIRCO document to which she had earlier referred, should be obtained by Parliament, and inclusive hearings on the document should be held.

Prof Mayatula said that it was fact that the ANC government was biased towards Cuba, Western Sahara and Palestine. There should be no pretences that different political parties would find each other over the issues. It was best to accept reality. The ANC government had taken its stance. The majority party could debate the issue of Palestine with the DA and the ACDP in perpetuity. The ANC was unashamedly biased towards Palestine. SA supported the underdog. SA’s stance could be wrong, but it was nevertheless the stance it chose to take.

Mr Sulliman noted that it was time for the Committee to finalise the issue of recommendations. There seemed to be no problem with the recommendations regarding Western Sahara and Cuba. The sensitive issue was Palestine.

The Chairperson suggested that the issues be isolated. He felt that the use of the words “illegal” and “brutal” in the ANC recommendations were not emotive. They were factual. The fact was that Israel was occupying Palestine illegally. The same situation was taking place in Western Sahara -- the occupation by Morocco was brutal. Persons should not impart their personal emotions into it.
 
Regarding point (e), to which Mr Hill-Lewis was referring, he said that the point was actually just restating a resolution which the ANC had taken. If one spoke of internationally recognised borders in 1967, then it included East Jerusalem.

He conceded that it had been a solidarity conference, but there were people present at the Conference who did not support Palestine.  Enquiries about the Conference had been made by the Jewish Board of Deputies and the South African Zionist Federation. Both these organisations were informed that they were welcome to attend the Conference, and did attend. They attended on the basis of an open invitation. There was no denying that they were present at the Conference.

The Committee needed to make a decision on the matter. The Committee had never in the past voted on any issue.

Mr Hill-Lewis still felt that the Conference was not attended by a wide group of the SA population. Stating it as it was in the recommendation, was not correct. He asked why the Embassies of USA and Israel had not been invited. He reiterated the point that it was not good that the Conference had been chaired by a non-member of the Committee. The person who had chaired the Conference, Mr Bongani Masuku, had been convicted of hate speech.

Mr De Goede suggested that the DIRCO document referred to by Ms Dudley, should be added to the literature surrounding the issue at hand.

Ms Mahomed said that Members had a responsibility to perform the work of the Committee. The bottom line was that the Conference had been advertised, and anyone was welcome to attend. It was an open invitation. She felt that the subject should be closed. The Committee should get on with the work of the Committee.

Ms Dudley also expressed concern that the moderator of the Conference had been convicted of hate speech. The ACDP also had a problem with point (e) of the ANC recommendations on Palestine. She made suggestions regarding rewording certain portions of the ANC recommendations.  

The Chairperson asked Ms Dudley what the DIRCO document was, that she had referred to.

Ms Dudley explained that the DIRCO document looked at SA’s role in the reconstruction and development of Palestine.

The Chairperson responded that it was his understanding that DIRCO was working on a document which dealt with the matter of reconciliation between the various Palestinian factions. The SA government had taken a decision to play an active role. Perhaps the reconstruction and development of Palestine was part of the efforts.

He stressed that there was a need for the Committee to conclude, as Members were not that far apart from reaching consensus.  He personally felt he could live with Ms Dudley’s suggestion of including the word “primarily,” which would let the provision in the recommendation to read, “primarily in support of Palestine”. It was his personal view and not that of the ANC. He did not believe that stating in the recommendations that the Conference was attended by a wide section of the SA population was incorrect and therefore did not need to be changed. It was how it was stated in the resolutions.

In so far as non-members chairing events of the Committee, it was nothing new as it had happened in the past. It was, after all, not a Committee meeting that was being chaired.  Moderators were required only to facilitate debates. There was no hate speech at the Conference.   Ground rules had been laid down before the commencement of the Conference.

He asked fellow members of the ANC how they felt about the changes being suggested to its recommendations.

Ms Mahomed responded on behalf of the ANC that she did not have a problem with removal of the term ”wide section” in the recommendations, provided that the following was added: “Cuba, Western Sahara and Palestine”.

The Chairperson said that there seemed to be agreement. He asked for a proposal for the adoption of the recommendations, with the agreed changes.

Ms Dudley stated that she still took exception to points (e) and (g) of the ANC’s recommendations.

The Chairperson responded that the points (e) and (g) were part of resolutions that had already been taken. He placed the ANC recommendations before the Committee for consideration.

Mr De Goede stated that the DA expressed dissent over the ANC recommendations, as there was no balance. The DA hence disagreed with them.

Ms Dudley said that the ACDP disagreed with them.

The ANC supported them.

Mr Ndlovu preferred to be neutral, and said that the IFP abstained.

Mr Sulliman proposed that the ANC recommendations be accepted.

The Chairperson said that there was clearly no consensus, and hence for the first time the Committee had to put the issue to a vote.

He noted that the ACDP did not agree to it, so he asked the ANC if it wished to revert to its original version.

Ms Mahomed said that said that the old version could be kept.

Prof Mayatula said that it was better to accept the new amended version.

Ms Mahomed agreed with Prof Mayatula.

The Chairperson placed the ANC recommendations, inclusive of the wording changes suggested by Ms Dudley and Ms Mahomed, before the Committee for adoption.

Seven ANC members voted in favour of its adoption.  Two DA members voted against.  One ACDP member voted against.  The IFP abstained.

The ANC recommendations were adopted.

The meeting was adjourned.