Department of International Relations and Cooperation briefing on the situation in Swaziland; Second Term Committee Programme

Meeting report

Opening Remarks by Chairperson
The Chairperson welcomed Members and said that the agenda of the day was not extensive agenda. Thereafter, he acknowledged apologies from absent members.

The Chairperson further noted that the Committee was awaiting Ambassador Ebrahim Saley, Deputy Director-General: Africa Bilateral Department of International Relations and Cooperations, so in the meantime it would consider and adopt its minutes and programme.

Consideration and Adoption of Outstanding Committee Minutes
Minutes of the 27 February 2013
The Chairperson tabled the minutes for consideration and invited input from Members.

Ms L Jacobus (ANC) said that she was present for the meeting but the attendance list indicated that she was absent. This error was corrected.

Ms Jacobus moved for the adoption of the minutes and this motion was seconded by Ms C September (ANC).
The minutes were adopted with minor amendments

Minutes of the 20 March 2013
The Chairperson tabled the minutes for consideration and invited input from Members.

Members were satisfied with the document and did not raise any issues.

Mr B Elof (DA) moved for adoption and this motion was seconded by Mr S Ngonyama (COPE).

The minutes were adopted without amendments.

Committee Programme
The Chairperson said that the programme contained many issues which were carried over from the previous term.

One of his concerns was the scheduling of the Extended Public Committees (EPCs). The Committee had to check and ensure that there were no clashes. The Committee had received a communication from the House Chairperson’s office relating to clashes between committee meetings and EPCs. The Committee was fortunate that it had no clashes. The letter from the House Chairperson’s office stated that no committee meetings could be he held when their cluster was having a budget vote or when there were EPCs.

The Committee was not going to meet on the 29 May 2013 as the next day was the Budget Vote of the Peace and Security cluster so members were going to have to prepare for this.

The Chairperson presented the programme to the Committee for adoption.

Mr Elof moved for adoption. This motion was seconded by Ms Jacobus.

The Committee Programme for the second term was adopted without amendments.

Briefing by the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO)
The Chairperson welcomed delegates from the DIRCO. He said that the Committee had decided to prioritise issues related to the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region and that was why the Committee had to take the situation in Swaziland seriously. The Committee had plans to discuss the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) as well.

The Chairperson said that it was nice to have a DDG and a Chief Director as they could give the detail of what was happening.

Briefing on the situation in Swaziland
Ambassador Saley informed the Committee that Swaziland continued to face socio-economic and political challenges. Over 60% of the countries budget came from revenue allocations by the Southern African Customs Union (SACU). The difficult situations had made the Swazi society restless as manifested by occasional protests and strikes by public servants. An improved financial situation, mainly as a result of increased SACU revenues in 2012/13had not alleviated the political situation.

Amb Saley said that the Swaziland Constitution determined the system of government for that country. The system was non-partisan as the Constitution did not recognise political parties. In the Senate, King Mswati chose 20 of the 30 members while the other 10 were chosen by the House of Assembly. None of the representatives were elected by the people.

Swaziland was scheduled to host elections in August/September 2013 but no election announcement had yet been made. In 2008, the poll was announced very late leaving only three days for people to declare their candidacy with no voter’s roll to determine who was eligible to vote or not. The 2008 SADC Election Observer Mission (SEOM) had declared that those elections were “free, peaceful, transparent and credible”. It was expected that the SEOM would again be invited to observe the 2013 elections.

Political Situation
Amb Saley said that Swazi political problems were highly linked to the 2006 Constitution which banned political parties. Chief amongst demands to the government was the call for the unbanning of political parties and the call for democracy. In response, the government had instead over the years promulgated security legislation including anti-terrorism and sedition legislation. Force was used to clamp down on protests. Recent political developments had made the situation worse.
The Swazi situation had attracted international attention with calls on South Africa to assist the country to deal with its challenges.

Economic Situation
Apart from the fact that Swaziland’s currency was pegged to the South African Rand, the country received 85% of its imports from South Africa and sent 74% of its exports to South Africa. The 2008/09 global economic crisis had severe impacts on the country’s economy resulting in a reduction of the SACU revenue.

Swaziland had approached the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for financial assistance. The IMF made a set of recommendations to the Swazi authorities which resulted in the development of an intervention strategy called the Fiscal Adjustment Roadmap (FAR). However, the Kingdom had only implemented a few recommendations, namely the collection of tax and the introduction of Vat and fuel levy.

Swaziland had turned to South Africa for a loan which was concluded and signed in June 2012 with the approval of R2.4 billion. However, Swaziland informally indicated in January 2013 that it was no longer willing to pursue the loan. For South Africa, the loan was still on the table only if Swaziland implemented the required conditions and submitted documents like a loan book as requested by the National Treasury and the Reserve Bank.

Amb Saley said that from an assessment of the situation, Swaziland was going to continue to face severe political and economic challenges and there was therefore a need for some external support from SADC. 

Discussion
Questions
The Chairperson said that nothing new had come from the presentation since the presentation of the Director General of DIRCO.
He asked what DIRCO had been doing all along to map out a strategy to present to government in terms of assisting Swaziland. The mediation from SADC was one thing, but was it only SADC to intervene in the human rights violation in Swaziland. South Africa was directly affected so there was surely something which could be done. It was ridiculous that in spite of elections being called in 3 days, the elections were said to be free and fair. SADC observer missions ran the risk of undermining their own credibility. The integrity of the mission could be compromised. South Africa was part of SADC. The South Africa loan was still on the table but the Swazi government had formally declined. What was the situation and what was DIRCOs position in this regard?

Ms Jacobus said that with regard to the loan from South Africa, why was the loan still on the table when the conditions were not being accepted? Her proposal was that the loan offer should be withdrawn.
On tax collection, if there was no tax collection in the country, where was the government expecting to get its revenue from?

Mr E Sulliman (ANC) asked if there was anything which could be done to enforce democracy in Swaziland. The Committee had to make strong recommendations in this regard.

Mr I Davidson (DA) said that the Swazi Parliament had no powers so elections were not the only problem. The Constitution itself had no power. On the loan issue, SACU revenue had increase and this was not even helping the problem. This meant that there was a hole in their finances. South Africa had to exert some pressure on the Swazi government. South Africa had huge leverage over Swaziland and if South Africa believed that foreign policy was an extension of domestic policy, it could decide not to allow what was going on in that country to continue. What could South Africa do to ensure change which conformed to democratic value systems? This was a classic case where South Africa could exert influence to ensure a positive outcome. Swaziland had to start living within its means. South Africa had to be quite tough in this situation.

Ms September said that she had spoken to a Swazi Member of Parliament who denied all of what the Committee was being told. The Member of Parliament said that Swaziland was not willing to listen to South Africa anymore. The country was working on its tax system but she was not sure if the measures were sustainable. What was the position of the DIRCO on the denial of the allegations? South Africa could not allow another neighboring country to collapse.

Ms September noted that the presentation did not make mention of whether the matter had been discussed in the African Union, the United Nations and SADC level. These were the other organs which could help the situation. The Speaker was correct when he said that the Committee should go to Swaziland. The Committee had to visit the place, make its findings so as to make informed decisions. A debate on the matter should also be started.

Mr Elof said that Swaziland helped South Africa fight for democracy but now it was completely going against everything which democracy stood for. The country was definitely going to run into trouble.
The effect and burden of the unemployment levels in Swaziland was directly affecting South Africa. South Africa was a senior partner in SADC and did not have to be waiting for SADC to take action in Swaziland. He suggested that the Committee should visit Swaziland, make its findings and make strong recommendations.

Mr Ngonyama said that he agreed with Ms September that it was not clear what the positions of the AU and UN were. What was the strategy suggested by DIRCO? In this situation, there was the need for a solid strategy. Intervention in such a case had to be well planned. Perhaps the Committee was expecting too much from DIRCO. The Committee could set a day aside to brainstorm on the matter so that if it was to visit Swaziland, it could come up with very solid recommendations. He asked what model and formula was used to allocate the huge amounts by SACU to Swaziland.

The Chairperson said that the Committee could request a briefing by SACU to tell them what the formulae were and for an update on their operations. The central question was what South Africa’s policy and strategy in Swaziland was. 

Responses
Amb Saley said that South Africa’s policy and strategy in Swaziland was one of greater democratisation to enhance human rights and respect for the rule of law. The difference between South Africa and Swaziland was that the latter was a monarchy with an absolute monarch. South Africa could not impose what Swaziland should become. The aspiration of the people for greater democratisation was a factor and the sovereignty of their Constitution was also a very important aspect to be considered.

The extension and approval of the loan was a direct result of the needs of the local people given that the SACU revenue was mismanaged. If the loan was withdrawn, the effect was going to be felt more by the population and not the government. The loan had certain conditions which necessitated an overhaul in the system. The IMF had a set formula which was used for every loan it offered. This had to do with political and economic liberalisation.

The central issue was that the country’s constitution determined its structure. It was for Swaziland to decide whether it wanted to reform its Constitution. In essence, what was being called for was the acceptance and provision for political parties.

Mr Edward Xolisa Makaya, Chief Director: Southern Africa, DIRCO, said that DIRCO had a strategy to use a Joint Permanent Team (JPT) which was established in 2004. The essence of the JPT and the strategy focused on democracy, human rights, good neighborliness and the rule of law. DIRCO was struggling to secure meetings with Swaziland’s government. Since 2004, meetings at ministerial level had happened just twice.

In a draft MOU signed in 2012, the conditions for the loan were clearly stated. The JPT was going to monitor this situation.

Mr Makaya said that Swaziland had a good Constitution which had very good ideals. The only problem with the document was the banning of political parties. This meant that anything could be done by the government without any opposition.

On what the role of other organs were and whether anything had been done, the answer was “no”. Swaziland was a member of the UN, AU, SADC and the Commonwealth but nothing was being done about the situation in the country. The opportunity was missed in 2006 when the constitution was being drafted. External influence could have been used to ensure the drafting of a good and democratic Constitution. The Secretary General of the Commonwealth had taken an initiative to engage with the King of Swaziland on the issue of the banning of political parties. The results of this engagement were still awaited.

On the concerns raised about the loan, Mr Makaya said that the loan was still on the table because DIRCO was using it as an entry point into the country. Once it was approved, it was going to be used as point of contact to ignite change and leverage for insistence of democratic reform. He said that Swaziland did not have the capacity to deal with its situation. SADC had to prioritise Swaziland on its agenda.

The Chairperson said that he did not know how DIRCO planned to engage with the Swazi officials because they were arrogant and often said that they did not need South Africa’s money. He wondered who was protecting the King and why was SADC so quiet about the issue. It was true that Swaziland had a constitution but it was the King who called the shots. The Constitution meant nothing. The banning of political activity was just out of order. SADC and South Africa could be stronger on the issue. There had to be other ways to address the issue if diplomacy failed. South Africa had a direct interest in what was happening in Swaziland.

There was a proposal from the members that the Committee should consider engaging with the role players and taking up the offer of the Speaker of the National Assembly to visit Swaziland. The vital point was that a deeper inquiry was required.
He proposed that the Committee would incorporate this into its programme.

Mr Elof said that DIRCO practically had no strategy in Swaziland considering that the Joint Permanent Team had met just twice. The Committee could liaise with the Swazi High Commission in South Africa to arrange for the working visit.

Mr Davidson said that the Committee also had to re-examine the conditions of the loan.

The Chairperson said that the Committee was going to be updated on the progress on the arrangements for the way forward. He said that on the issue of South Africa being a senior partner within the SADC, such a mentality had to be corrected and replaced by one that all nations were equal despite the size of their economies and political systems and power. It was important to keep such statements out of any discussions as such comments could bedevil any progress being made in resolving and improving the situation. 

The meeting was adjourned.