Tunisia Constitutional Referendum & Russia-Ukraine situation: DIRCO briefing

Meeting report

The Chairperson said the Committee would be briefed by the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) on the constitutional referendum in Tunisia and its implications for the future of the country. DIRCO would also brief the Committee on the Ukraine-Russia conflict.

The agenda was adopted, moved by Mr X Nqola (ANC) and seconded by Mr D Moela (ANC). The minutes were considered and adopted.

Mr Nqola cautioned that there was a participant in the meeting who identified themselves only as "iPad". The Committee took a keen interest in who was in attendance.

The Chairperson said the issue would be attended to while the Committee dealt with the adoption of the agenda. The agenda would be adopted as suggested by Mr Nqola.

The Minister, Dr Naledi Pandor, had sent in an apology, as she was in Geneva. Deputy Minister Candith Mashego-Dlamini had sent in an apology, as she had been requested to make a presentation

The Chairperson checked with the Committee Secretary to ensure that all participants were identifiable so that persons were not excluded from observing or participating in the meeting.

Chairperson's introductory remarks

The Chairperson said that the Committee was aware of the escalated “situation” in Tunisia. This issue had been there for some time. Tunisia remained one of the Committee’s areas of oversight. This oversight was performed in pursuance of foreign policy relations in both the region and the world. Good governance formed part of the strategic objectives the Committee looked at as a representative of Parliament and the people of South Africa. Tunisia and South Africa had bilateral relations and agreements which had been signed. This agreement was convened around 2008. Those agreements should be revived because they had been entered into for a reason. The forum should be revived and it should be ensured that South Africa, Tunisia and Africa at large benefit. Tunisia was consistent, particularly in the Security Council of the United Nations. It was a reliable partner that South Africa could depend on, and it was consistent where issues of principle were concerned.

Mr D Bergman (DA) said that presently there was a crisis that "threatened World War III" which should be discussed.

The Chairperson intervened to remind Mr Bergman that the agenda which had been adopted had included the Russia-Ukraine issue as a topic of discussion on the agenda.

DIRCO briefing on Tunisia constitutional referendum

Ms Nonceba Losi, Acting Director-General, DIRCO, apologised on behalf of the Department for not having a presentation prepared covering the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The Department had not been informed that they would present on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. They were, however, ready to present.

South Africa enjoyed friendly relations with Tunisia, guided by the Joint Bilateral Commission which was launched in 1996. There was collaboration in the fields of health, social development, science, technology, culture and sport. Over the years these relations which “dated back years,” had strengthened. The bilateral relations on collaborations in the sphere of trade, information and communications were presently receiving particular attention between Tunisia and South Africa. In addition to an exchange of visits from both countries, the signing of cooperation agreements in several fields had had an impact on other areas of cooperation.

DIRCO was preparing to revitalise the structured bilateral mechanism. There was a need to further strengthen cooperation. Tunisia had provided doctors who had contributed to South Africa’s healthcare in rural areas. It was an important partner and South Africa sought to strengthen the relationship it had with Tunisia through deeper economic engagement. The aim was to increase trade, investment and cooperation, and both countries needed to capitalise on the wealth of untapped opportunities in sectors such as banking, information technology and tourism. Tunisia was very strong in the tourism sector. DIRCO was committed to promoting national priorities through the National Development Plan (NDP). Efforts were being made to overcome the crippling challenges of unemployment, inequality and poverty.

Mr Fadl Nacerodien, Chief Director: Policy Research and Analysis Unit, DIRCO, was responsible for North Africa, would make the presentation. He had recently come from Brazil and was seized with North Africa and all the Department's work.

Ms Phumzile Mazibuko, Chief Director, DIRCO, would administer the discussion around the Russia-Ukraine conflict and all other related countries.

The Chairperson said the Committee extended condolences to Ms Losi, who had suffered a bereavement.

Presentation: The Constitutional Referendum in Tunisia and its implications for the future of the country

Mr Nacerodien said South Africa’s foreign policy approach worked towards an African continent that was peaceful, democratic, non-racial, non-sexist, united and prosperous, and which contributed to a world that was just and equitable. South Africa pursued this policy vision, guided by the African values of Ubuntu. It was Africa-centric in approach. The presentation would focus mainly on the constitutional referendum in Tunisia and its possible implications for the future of Tunisia.

Historical background

In 1956, Tunisia became independent and the country was proclaimed a republic. Habib Bourguiba became the first President of independent Tunisia. In 1989, Ben Ali won the Presidential elections and was re-elected in 1994, 1999, 2004 and 2009. At the beginning of December 2010, Tunisian citizens, led by the youth, began protesting against the authorities, especially around the deteriorating economic conditions. The government was led by interim President Moncef Marzouki, installed from 2011-2014. A new constitution was signed into law by Marzouki with the support of his Prime Minister, Beji Cais Essebsi in 2014. Kais Saied was elected President of Tunisia in the 2019 presidential elections as an independent candidate.

Current Dynamics

Currently, Tunisia continued to experience economic difficulties. Increasing stability challenges were exacerbated by threats posed by extremist groups in some parts of the country. The Covid-19 pandemic had also contributed greatly to the negative economic performance of the government.

Kais Saied was elected President of Tunisia in the 2019 presidential elections as an independent candidate. The President was conservative and had opposed attempts to modernise some of the institutions in Tunisia. Dynamics in Parliament were characterised by fierce political battles between members supporting Saied and the majority Ennahda Movement and its allies, the Qalb Tounes Party and Al Karama Party. The President was increasingly regarded as autocratic and not taking into consideration the views of stakeholders.

On 9-10 February 2022, the Tunisian Judges Association called for the suspension of work across all courts in the country in protest. Tunisia’s unemployment rate was at approximately 18%. Furthermore, the country's economy shrank by more than 8%. The budget deficit stood at 11.4%. The security situation throughout the territory remained stable, despite threats by small extremist groups. On 25 July 2021, the President had suspended the Parliament and had issued a decree proclaiming a constitutional referendum to be held on 25 July 2022. The objective of the Presidential rule by decree was claimed and seemed to be necessary to effect changes to the constitution and general governance. The President launched an electronic online platform of consultations on the forthcoming referendum in January 2022. Opposition parties and civil society stakeholders were calling for the holding of a national dialogue on the matter of the referendum instead of online electronic consultations.

Tunisia was an important country in North Africa that offered significant opportunities for South Africa in trade and investment. Sharing South Africa’s experience in inclusive constitution-building and possible inter-parliamentary cooperation could offer relevant opportunities for active assistance. Both countries should continue to work together to advance the African Agenda 2063 and a rules-based international system, anchored in multilateralism.

Ambassador's comments

The Chairperson gave Mr Siphosezwe Masango, Ambassador to Tunisia, an opportunity to address the Committee.

Mr Masango said he wanted to make two additions to the presentation. The electronic consultations in Tunisia, which commenced in January and was set to conclude on 20 March, had experienced serious glitches. Only 5% of the people had participated. There was a less than 5% participation rate. People were afraid to share intimate information like addresses, identity numbers etc. The electronic consultation process could not reach the masses and was inaccessible to both urban and rural regions. Only 40 to 45% of the population in Tunisia had access to the internet. The weakness of the process was that it excluded persons in rural areas and the uneducated.

To deal with this matter, President Kais Saied had appointed committees that would consult with people and consolidate amendments. The refusal to convene a national dialogue would deprive the process of a wide acceptance because it would be viewed as lacking inclusivity. The national dialogue would have included organised structures like labour unions, political parties and other social formations. The lack of participation would mean that opposition parties could argue later that the process was not inclusive and reject it.

As movement was made towards the parliamentary elections on 17 December, there was a possibility that the people would vote for Members of Parliament. President Saied had a dislike for political parties because he said they were “trapped in corruption.” The President wanted young people to participate as independents. It would be unlikely to get young people, who were apolitical and disorganised, into Parliament as Members of Parliament without any structures driving them.

The likelihood was that there would be a new constitution after 17 December. Political parties were likely to be weakened. The judiciary would have a semblance of independence, but it would be very weak. The situation in Tunisia was very fragile and volatile.

The Chairperson asked Ms Losi whether there were any more additions.

Ms Losi confirmed that there were no further additions.

Discussion

The Chairperson opened the floor for questions. Ambassador Masango was the previous Chairperson of the Committee. The Committee wished him well. He should continue focusing on the strategic objectives and hoist the flag of South Africa at all material times. The ambassador should continue doing the good work.

Rev K Meshoe (ACDP) proposed that the Committee move on to the Russia-Ukraine discussion since some Members needed to leave early for other commitments.

The Chairperson, in response to Rev Meshoe, asked if he was "changing the agenda.”

Mr W Faber (DA) also asked whether the Russia-Ukraine discussion could commence.

The Chairperson advised that the agenda had been adopted and that there were Members who wanted to participate in the Tunisia presentation. Members who had questions in respect of the Tunisia brief were recognised.

Mr G Hendricks (Al Jama-ah) thanked Ambassador Masango for allowing Libyan students to apply for visas in Tunisia for them to study in South Africa. “We owe the Libyan people quite a lot.” The ambassador should look at ways to make it easier for Libyan students to apply for visas because this was not possible in their own country.

Members were "crying wolf” in an attempt to prevent or delay discussion on Tunisia. Tunisia was a very important ally to South Africa situated at the northern tip of Africa. Cape Town was at the southernmost tip of Africa, there was a special magnetic attraction between the southern tip and the northern tip. There was concern around the “Cape Exit” group, which was further strengthened in respect of the Russia-Ukraine issue. The Cape Exit people wanted to be a separate country.

He praised the Chairperson for his assertive leadership, saying that he was “not allowing the wolves to try and scare us that there is a World War III on the horizon." There would never be a World War III because if that happened, then there would be no world.

Mr Bergman said that he would love to see Mr Hendricks’s curriculum vitae (CV), as he always seemed to be “on the right side of wrong.” He added that “sometimes the wolves are dressed in sheep’s clothing.” The Chairperson’s chairing was complimented. he was a “breath of fresh air.” Gratitude was expressed to the ambassador, who was the previous Chairperson of the Committee. The ambassador had been an excellent Chairperson whom Mr Bergman had enjoyed working with. The ambassador was trying to do a good job in Tunisia.

South Africa found itself in a situation where it had to stick to a principle. The principle was that the people should govern and should have their say. Where power was usurped, there needed to be a mechanism in place to protect the will of the people. No person should be able to take away power from the will of the people. South Africa should do whatever it could to ensure that the citizens in Tunisia were listened to. The recommendations made must ensure that the referendum is held freely and fairly. There should be no intimidation, and everyone should have the right to participate and the right to vote. The referendum should take place under “free conditions.” This was where South Africa found itself.

Ambassador Mathu Joyini, permanent representative of South Africa at the United Nations (UN) was said to be neutral. This was a weak position to take in a situation like the Russia-Ukraine conflict. South Africa had always advocated for peace. South Africa should never be on the “right side of wrong” -- it should always ensure that people were protected and not exploited. “Government should never take an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

Mr Nqola said he echoed the views of other Members who had warmly welcomed the detailed and informative presentation. He had clarity-seeking questions. The presentation had mentioned that the security in Tunisia was stable, but had moved on and stated: "despite threats from small extremist groups.” The ambassador needed to provide context in respect of the security statement. What were the fundamental causal links to the “extremist battalions”? Were they simply domesticated groups or was there external support from external countries?

What was the state of the South African mission in Tunisia? Were there any forms of threats? Was the embassy operating well? What was the state of the safety of South Africans in Tunisia? Was there a way of contacting South Africans in Tunisia? The conflict in Tunisia did not look “small.” Parliament in Tunisia had been suspended since July 2021. This indicated a serious governance problem. The safety of South Africans in Tunisia should be assured.

What was the voice of the African Union (AU) in trying to intervene in the problem of Tunisia? Had conflict resolution delegations been sent to Tunisia to negotiate the problem and find a solution? The North African regional leadership equally needed to state how they had responded to the situation in Tunisia. What was the ‘voice’ of the South African government? Had a statement been issued by DIRCO or the President as a form of “voice” from the South African government in response to what was happening in Tunisia? South Africa had led the AU, led the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and had been a paragon of 'silencing the guns' in Africa. It was important for South Africa to respond and make its “voice” known in whichever region of Africa where turmoil had erupted.

Mr T Mpanza (ANC) thanked Mr Nacerodien for the presentation and said that whenever the Committee put in a request, the Department would see to the request “without any doubt and with immediate effect,” A request had been made for the attendance of the relevant ambassador, and this had been seen to. The historical background included in the presentation helped the Committee understand the historical context in which Tunisia found itself. The presentation had been very good.

An issue needed to be raised, and this was not done in the hope of spoiling the mood of the meeting. A trend had been observed -- particularly from Mr Bergman -- comparing the previous Chairperson with the current Chairperson in respect of how Committee meetings were being conducted. This was not a good thing. It was not good to raise issues “when someone is not even part of the meeting.” If the Committee did not condemn this, it would be condoning it. There was no system of managing the chairing of meetings. Mr Bergman must keep his own assessments to himself and “not speak on our behalf.” It was not the business of Members to measure the performance of each Committee Member and Chairperson in terms of their participation and chairing of meetings. There were no comparative assessments. Members should desist from making comparative comments because they were divisive and very opportunistic.

Referring to the presentation, he said the Committee should do exactly what the presenter had suggested. The initiatives taking place in Tunisia should be supported. Ultimately, political problems and any other problems should be resolved by the country on its own. South Africa was a good example of this. "We had managed to resolve our very serious problems over dialogue and by sitting around at the table.” Dialogue amongst Tunisians should be encouraged. Space must be provided for diplomatic dialogue, whether bilateral or multilateral. The international institutions handling the matter should all be supported and respected. South Africa should also play its role in making sure that the relationship with Tunisia was strengthened. Ultimately people should govern and be allowed to express their democratic will. South Africa subscribed to democratic principles and constitutional democracy. South Africa supported any initiative through the Department, Minister and Deputy Ministers “representing us.”

The Chairperson thanked Mr Mpanza for raising the matter concerning Mr Bergman’s comparative comment. The comment had put the Chairperson in an awkward position. Moving forward focus should be placed on the work before the Committee. The comparisons should be discontinued. People would never be the same in respect of their lifestyles and leadership styles. Everything else about human beings would never be the same because “we are not homogeneous.” Each person had their own unique strengths and weaknesses. It was important for Members to use the opportunity of being in the Committee to contribute to the community. The Committee worked on behalf of the people of South Africa by performing oversight. The strengths and weaknesses of Members should be brought together to achieve the strategic goals. This was the most important thing.

The AU should have responded in a more material manner, other than just calling for engagements to continue between the conflict groups within Tunisia. There needed to be direct engagement between the AU and conflict groups so that it could continue to closely monitor the situation. The AU was a body overarching the affairs in the African continent where conflicts were taking place. The action expected from the AU was “not necessarily an aggressive stance.” but a more incisive, open, transparent and visible action in the form of engagements with all parties involved in Tunisia so that the situation could be stabilised.

DIRCO's response

Acting DG Losi said she agreed with Mr Nacerodien and Members of the Committee. Parliament was encouraged to engage and consider relations with the Parliament of Tunisia. Tunisia had a vibrant Parliament, just like South Africa. In the past, attempts had been made to engage and share experiences with women who were members of the Tunisian Parliament. After the revolution, the Parliament in Tunisia had opened up and had more women in Parliament, including the first female Deputy Speaker. Experiences were shared by bringing in parliamentarians from South Africa. It was uncertain whether Tunisia would want this at some point. Tunisia wanted to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of its own. The situation needed to be monitored and engaged with.

Mr Nacerodien responded to the question which asked about the role of the AU. The Chairperson had been correct in saying that more action-oriented mechanisms needed to be looked at in terms of engagement. During the COVID-19 period, these engagements were not possible. The opportunities present needed to be utilised. It was mutually beneficial to look at and explore all possible areas of cooperation, including the sharing of experiences South Africa had with its TRC, as well as the question of women empowerment broadly within the Arab world. Just prior to the appointment of Prime Minister Najla Bouden, Tunisia had been identified as a country that had more engagement at various levels of society. It also had a government in which women participated.

South Africa had much to share with Tunisia and the broader scope of the region. Areas of the South African Constitution could be explored and used to resolve potential tensions which could exist within the constitutional development process. These potential tensions include the centralisation of power around the President, as opposed to the power and scope given to Parliament and the independence of the three spheres, namely the executive, legislature and judiciary. The President seemingly tended to centralise more of the powers around the presidency. There was scope for collaboration at various levels.

DIRCO had looked actively at possible solutions to implement. It would reach out to the AU to determine to what extent there had been engagement. In this way, active engagement could be accounted for. The AU recently had its summit with the EU. President Saied of Tunisia had used the opportunity to have bilaterals and to solicit support for the institutions he needed to build and affirm, especially with respect to the economy. There were pledges of support. Countries like France, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Germany, Italy and the United States were strong contributors, despite what happened within Tunisia. These countries were contributors because they supported Tunisia in moving towards democracy, even though there had been unease about the way the President had approached the transition.

The Tunisian President had taken a decisively different path. Instead of allowing the stalemate and for a weakened presidency to constantly instruct Prime Ministers to form unsuccessful governments and letting the state implode and the public continues to suffer, the President took a decisive step. This was very different from what analysts and political commentators had expected. The silence was therefore expected. In the silence, other countries had taken time to decide how to best engage within that process. The Tunisian public had decided that they wanted to give the President the benefit of the doubt. There were academics, commentators and external players who expressed their misgivings about the processes undertaken by the President. They urged the President needed to come with a clear roadmap because they could not just take his word for it.

Prime Minister Bouden was in a slightly precarious position, but she seemed to be implementing some of the programmes. This indicated that the country was moving towards the desired direction, but it remained fragile. Tunisia required support and active engagement. The Department would continue to facilitate active engagement with Tunisia.

In respect of the stability and security of Tunisia, at the moment the kind of mass protests showing dissatisfaction that was displayed during the revolution. In the polls, there was strong support for the President. This had surprised many observers because the sudden sweeping aside of the constitution, the legislature and the firing of the prime minister and essentially ruling by decree, was considered by many analysts as a bureaucratic coup. It was surprising to see that almost two-thirds of the population had responded positively to this “coup.” The country was relatively stable as it went through the transition which would be seen through to the end of the year, with elections for Parliament. The Prime Minister would then essentially work with the parties to form a new government. In this sense, the country was stable.

The country was fragile and the extremist groups were a minority. The security establishment was effectively dealing with that issue. There were threats from neighbouring extremists groups. Attacks like the massacre at the Tunisia beach resort had had a major impact on the economy because they brought tourism to a complete halt. This period was pre-COVID-19 pandemic. The country had been dealing with extremist groups fairly well, although there were dimensions to the issues. There were sympathisers internally who felt that certain groups were being excluded. The Berbers/ Amazigh community felt that their culture was not being recognised within Tunisia. The issue of minority rights was an important element that needed to be addressed because there were strong grievances amongst people, particularly concerning languages. Countries like Morocco recognised the language of the Berbers. Some countries within the region had also given recognition to the Berber communities and their cultural rights. This was a work in process, and these were the kind of elements within society that had to be monitored to ensure that this did not become a threat from a security point of view. In this sense, the security in Tunisia was fragile and needed to be monitored.

Ambassador Masango wanted to make a small addition in respect of the clarity-seeking question from Mr Nqola, who had asked why the report had said the situation in Tunisia was stable but there were extremist groups. The situation in Tunisia was indeed stable. Tunisia had experienced periodic impositions of a state of emergency since 2015 to the present day. The state of emergency had been extended to 31 December 2022. The following processes were taking place under a state of emergency -- the electronic consultation, the referendum on 25 July, and the parliamentary elections on 17 December. The situation was stable because the police as well as the military had been clamping down on all possible mass protests.

As Mr Nacerodien had indicated, the opposition was very weak and unable to muster a nationwide protest. The largest labour union, the Tunisian General Labor Union (UGTT), had “lukewarm relations with the President,” and was unlikely to organise a mass strike against the President. The UGTT had, however, made a call that a national dialogue was important, where warm bodies could act freely and express their views instead of through cold electronic platforms. A military coup was unlikely to result in Tunisia because the police and military were on the side of the President.

There had been terrorist attacks. In 2015 there was a terrorist attack at the tourist resort at Port El Kantaoui, in 2016 there was a terrorist attack at a beach, in 2020 there was a terrorist attack against the United States embassy. Sleeper cells had been discovered, with operatives found in France and other countries.

As to whether the extremist groups were from external countries or from within the country itself, the extremists groups should be understood within the context of the Sahel region. The Sahel region was made up of Mali, Burkina Faso, Libya, Sudan and Chad etc. The whole Sahel region was “awash with sleeper cells” and ISIS or Daesh operatives. There were countries accused of funding these organisations. The terrorist attacks which occurred in Tunisia were part of the sleeper cells who were arrested from time to time by security forces in Tunisia. It had been discovered that the extremist groups who had attacked France and other countries came from Tunisia and Libya, amongst others.

The South African embassy in Tunisia was safe. It was unlikely for a civil war to erupt in Tunisia. The South African National Defence Force (SANDF) had visited the embassy two weeks ago. SANDF officials had drawn up evacuation plans which would be submitted to the Department. There was a request for all nations to have evacuation plans. There were South Africans conducting business and working in Tunisia, and the embassy was in contact with some of them. To date, no problems relating to the safety of South Africans had been experienced.

Briefing on Russia-Ukraine situation

Acting DG Losi guided the Committee into the Russia-Ukraine briefing, which would be led by Ms Phumzile Mazibuko, Chief Director, DIRCO, followed by Mr Andre Groenewald, the South African Ambassador to Ukraine, Armenia, Georgia and Moldova. Mr Zaheer Laher, Acting Chief Director: UN Peace and Security, DIRCO, was also invited to speak on the matter.

Ms Mazibuko said she was honoured to brief the Committee on developments in Ukraine. She apologised for not having a presentation prepared for the Committee to follow.

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine had been ongoing since 2014. Russia and Ukraine had a history and were close. The role of history and geopolitics in the region was intertwined between the two countries. The focus of the brief would be on the current conflict experienced between Russia and Ukraine.

On 21 February, President Vladimir Putin had signed two decrees recognising two regions in Ukraine as independent sovereign states. He had also signed a treaty of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance between these two regions and the Russian Federation. On 24 February, Russian forces were launched on a special military operation into eastern Ukraine territory. The Russian military build-up had been taking place in Russia since March 2021. The Russian narrative had been that the movement of military personnel and equipment remained within their right to move within their own borders. Russia also had Allied Resolve military exercises/drills that were held between Russia and Belarus from 9 February to 20 February.

It was these Allied Resolve military exercises that mainly unsettled the west. Russia was accused of a possible provocation. Exactly seven years ago, in February 2014, Russia had stopped an offensive by the Donbas troops against the Ukrainian army. It was under pressure from the West and during this time, the Minsk agreements were negotiated. Ukraine and Russia had ultimately signed the Minsk agreements, which were a series of international agreements which sought to end the war between the Donbas region and Ukraine. The agreements were put together by a Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine in 2014 which consisted of representatives from Ukraine, Russia, and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). The mediation by leaders of France and Germany, as part of the Normandy Format, had participated in achieving the Minsk protocols. After extensive talks, agreements were signed and representatives of the Tribunal Contact Group had agreed to sign agreements. These agreements were multiple agreements and had stopped the fighting in the region and were aimed at implementing an immediate “ceasefire”.

The first Minsk agreement unfortunately failed to stop the conflict and was followed by a revised and updated agreement called Minsk II. Minsk II was signed in February 2015. Minsk II consisted of a package of measures including a ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons from the frontline, release of prisoners of war, constitutional reform in Ukraine granting self-governance to certain areas of Donbas, and restoring control of the state border to the Ukrainian government. The fighting subsided following the signing of the Minsk agreement. Some would argue that the fighting had never completely ended and that the provisions of the agreement were never fully implemented. The Normandy Format parties agreed that the Minsk II agreement remained the basis for any future resolution of the conflict. This had been the stance supported by South Africa.

There was also an important articulation in respect of the military action which had happened on 24 February 2022. Russia had been voicing its concerns with the West. These concerns mainly revolved around Ukraine’s aspirations around moving further west. The security concerns included that Nato should not accept new members, including Ukraine. The red line for Russia had been that Ukraine should not be allowed to be a member state of Nato. Russia had concerns about the deployment of military hardware on its borders. Russia saw a military build-up on its borders as a big security concern. The issue of Russia and Ukraine had since 2014 been discussed as a stand-alone issue at the United Nations Security Council.

In respect of the current situation, South Africa’s ambassador in Ukraine had been seized with the task of supporting all South Africa’s nationals to enable safe passage from a very fast-paced and dangerous situation. The South African embassy had created a WhatsApp group for South African citizens to keep them updated on developments and to ensure that they had access to information. The recommendation had been that South Africans should try and leave on the safest possible routes which had been identified. The Department had engaged with countries within the region and was advocating for the safe passage of all South Africans. The South African ambassador to Poland, Ms Nomvula Mngomezulu, was presently at the Polish border, which had been a central port for evacuating Ukraine. South Africans were being assisted. South Africa had kept engaging with local foreign embassies. In South Africa, DIRCO was in contact with the embassy of Ukraine and Russia. There was interaction with the ambassador of Poland to ensure South Africans had safe passage out of Ukraine.

Ms Losi invited Ambassador Groenewald to speak. He had agreed to give a perspective of what was happening on the ground.

Ambassador Groenewald greeted everyone and apologised in advance for losing connectivity. He asked whether the Committee had any specific issue they had wanted him to address.

Ms Losi asked the ambassador to touch on the situation in Ukraine, as well as the support provided to South Africans, including people from other African countries. He should also discuss what support had been received from South Africans at large who were willing to assist. He could start by discussing the security issue in Ukraine, followed by the support available for South Africans.

Ambassador Groenewald said the priority was to assist South African nationals. Individuals were registered on the South African embassy database. A WhatsApp group had been created to include those who had not registered. The initial border used to evacuate South Africans was the Polish border. Within a day or two, the Polish border had become completely congested. The media had reported racist incidents at the Polish border. This had become a big issue for both South Africa, other African nationals and the Middle East. Ukraine had a priority list of people passing through the border, and the priority was Ukrainian women and children. In the end, foreigners were not permitted to exit. Many people were stuck and had to sit at the Ukraine-Polish border for days. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs had engaged with the South African embassy.

The Deputy Minister had said that more people were sent to address the issue to ensure that “racist” incidents did not happen. This was a sensitive issue for the Ukrainian government, especially in view of them being called Nazis, which they believed was part of Russia's propaganda measures. The ambassador's message to the Ministry was that it “doesn’t matter what happens now -- we want our people to be safe [and] treated with dignity. We want a signal on the ground to see how you are solving this and what you are doing”.

Issues were not as difficult at other border posts. The Hungarian border was one of the better borders to cross presently. The Hungarian government had assisted the South African embassy in getting people across the border. The embassy had also worked with the Indian embassy in Kyiv, organising buses to go to the railway stations, coming together at the university and then ultimately getting people to the border. The Romanian border crossing had also initially been a problem because people were not allowed over if they did not have a visa, but this had been resolved. There was no problem at the Moldova border.

The next phase was dealing with those who had made it out of Ukraine. A list was being developed to determine who was present. The embassy in Poland and Hungary was actively working on this task with volunteers and other colleagues of DIRCO. The next phase involved providing accommodation for the people and finding a means to get them back to South Africa.

Some of the problems seen on the ground were that there were two South Africans in a town called Sumy in Ukraine which was on the border of Russia. There was concern over this matter.

The embassy was moving to the border of Hungary with Hungarian diplomats, as well as the Ambassador from Nigeria.

Ms Losi thanked Ambassador Groenewald. In respect of the South Africans at the Russian border, the Russian ambassador and the South African ambassador in Moscow had been engaged to appeal for the safe passage of South Africans. It would be dangerous for South Africans on the Russian border to go to Kyiv and then travel to Hungary or Romania or Poland. A proposal was made for them to cross into Russia, but this needed to be negotiated with the Russian ambassador. Instructions were being given to the South African ambassador in Moscow. There were a group of South Africans in London who had offered to assist. Safe transportation was needed for South African students in Ukraine when they crossed over into Russia. South Africans abroad had assisted greatly in terms of accommodating students, raising funds etc.

The acting Deputy Director-General, Ambassador Francis Moloi, was requested to say a few words. Mr Zaheer Laher, Acting Chief Director, was also urged to speak. They were negotiating and had first-hand information on any developments.

Mr Laher said he would outline developments at the United Nations (UN), specifically in respect of the Security Council and the General Assembly on the matter. Russia and Ukraine were members of the UN. The Russian Federation was the successor state of the Soviet Union. This had been agreed to during the dissolution process of the Soviet Union, and all the former republics of the Soviet Union, including Ukraine, had agreed that the Russian Federation would assume the seat of the Soviet Union.

The matter of Ukraine had been on the UN’s agenda for a number of years, specifically following the events in Crimea in 2014. In light of recent developments, the Security Council being the body of the UN seized with the mandate of maintaining international peace and security had met several times in the last few weeks at the request of Ukraine. The President of the Security Council during February was incidentally the Russian Federation. A resolution prepared by the Western countries in the Security Council was tabled by the United States and Albania, serving as the eastern European representative on the Security Council. The resolution was put forward, condemning Russian action in Ukraine, and was tabled on 25 February. This resolution was vetoed by the Russian Federation. China, India and the UAE abstained. The remaining 11 Council members voted in favour of the resolution, but it was not adopted because of the veto.

Following the failure of the Security Council to adopt a resolution on the matter, there was a process within the UN system not often utilised. There was a mechanism that allowed for a matter related to international peace and security to be referred to the General Assembly. The Security Council was the body tasked with the mandate of maintaining international peace and security in terms of the UN Charter. However, when the Security Council is unable or unwilling to act, then the matter could be referred to the General Assembly as another principal organ of the organisation. The fact that the Security Council was unable or unwilling to act due to the Russian veto, the matter had now been referred to the General Assembly. The General Assembly had been meeting for the last two days and would convene again today for a debate on the matter. This allowed all members of the General Assembly to participate, whereas in the Security Council the matter had been dealt with only by the 15 members of the Council. South Africa was not a Council member at this stage. South Africa had been a Council member, but its term had ended at the end of 2020.

The Russia-Ukraine matter had now been before the General Assembly, and a debate had been held. This debate had started on 28 February. There had been a long list of speakers. South Africa had delivered a statement yesterday, 1 March, on the matter as a member of the General Assembly. The primary focus of South Africa’s intervention was to call for an end to the conflict and for political dialogue and diplomatic endeavours to resume. This was to ensure that the conflict was resolved because of the implications and ramifications of the conflict which endangered not only European security but global security. South Africa made a point that the issue of Ukraine should not derail other multilateral processes. All other processes were being affected by the conflict in Ukraine.

The atmosphere in the UN in terms of working towards consensus making, negotiations and other processes, were all being derailed because of disagreements in respect of the Ukraine conflict. This had an impact on the manner in which the organisation worked. Due attention should also be given to other conflicts. While the conflict in Ukraine was occurring, other conflicts around the world persisted. South Africa also highlighted the specific plight of people fleeing Ukraine, specifically Africans and people of African descent. This matter had been raised by several African and Caribbean delegations expressing concern about the alleged discrimination at European border posts.

The resolution on Ukraine had thus far not been tabled. It was anticipated that a resolution would be tabled later today by the same drafters of the resolution in the Security Council. This resolution would now be tabled in the General Assembly. The draft resolution that would be tabled condemned the Russian Federation's declaration of the military operation in Ukraine, as well as the decision to increase the readiness of its nuclear forces. It deplored the Russian Federation's aggression against Ukraine in violation of the UN Charter and demanded that the Russian Federation immediately and unconditionally reverses its decision related to the areas it had recognised as sovereign states. The draft resolution did reflect “a little” on the need for a political process and the resolution of the negotiations and mediation (the Minsk agreements and formats that had been created). The challenge had, however, been that the language in the paragraphs referring to the role of the Russian Federation was not conducive to creating space for diplomacy and other initiatives such as mediation. The draft resolution was also silent on addressing the security needs of the parties, which constituted a major stumbling block to making substantive progress.

The main concern was that whereas member states of the UN should be working towards bringing the parties closer together, promoting negotiations, member states should not be driving a deeper wedge between the parties. Dialogue and the possibility for the resumption of negotiations should be promoted by member states. Member states had not been given the opportunity to negotiate the draft resolution, which was very unusual. Usually, at the UN, all member states participated in the process of negotiating to reach an agreement but in this case, members were merely given a text -- it was a fait accompli, and "we had to take it or leave it.”

Mr Laher concluded by saying “we are currently looking at it and working with our team and the Minister as well to seek guidance on how we will vote on the resolution.” At present, member states had not voted on any resolution pertaining to the Ukraine matter.

Discussion

Ms Losi opened the floor for any questions that the Committee had for DIRCO in respect of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

The Chairperson asked whether the team was unable to contact Ambassador Moloi.

Ms Losi reported that the ambassador had experienced challenges connecting with his mic.

The Chairperson said that it was fine if the ambassador was not available. The briefing had been very useful and strengthened the Committee. It gave Members assurance and certainty that the Department was attending to the problem, particularly the necessary evacuation of South Africans. It was important to assure the parents, relatives and other people involved in terms of the students in Ukraine, that something practical was being done to ensure the safety of South African students and South Africans during evacuations. South Africans based elsewhere in the world who had volunteered and assisted were thanked and congratulated. The Chairperson had received a call yesterday from someone in Britain who had suggested that there was a team of approximately six South Africans who were working hard to try and assist. The suggestion from this group was for DIRCO to get evacuated South Africans to Germany so that for 30 days they could be assisted with temporary accommodation/settlement until they were able to get those citizens out of Germany.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Laher for taking the time to brief the Committee on developments in the Security Council and the General Assembly. The Committee looked forward to South Africa maintaining its stance and using platforms like the UN to “propagate our position of ensuring that we achieve peace through negotiations [and] through unending engagements,”

Discussion

The floor was opened for Members to engage with the brief.

Mr Bergman thanked the Chairperson and apologised, saying he was sorry some of the Members had taken offence to his comments on the chairmanship. He was actually complimenting everyone -- "just some more than others.”

He said the Democratic Alliance had never said that “some were guilty and others were innocent” in the Russia-Ukraine situation. There was acknowledgement that Nato had been creeping onto the Russian border where there was an informal agreement in respect of how far Nato would be going. This was a situation that negotiations and talks should be resolving. Leadership from the US and Nato had been weak. Sanctions should have been instituted weeks or months ago. The Russia-Ukraine conflict had been badly handled.

The Minsk I and Minsk II agreements had been opened up to the interpretation of Russia. President Putin had shown in the past that his interpretation had often been very different from the interpretation of people in Ukraine or the West. This meant that one could have an agreement in place and sign it, but when it came down to the crux of the agreement, someone like President Putin could “come around and say, but that’s not how he remembered signing it,” and that he had agreed to signing a particular translation and that the wording was different. When diplomacy, agreements and pacts were discussed, it was important to note that Russia was not always a reliable partner, not because they were “evil or bad” but because of issues of translation.

The Donbas regions were a big issue -- like the Crimea issue when Russia took over what was the buffer and walked into disputed territory without anyone putting up much of a fight. Russia was flooding the Donbas area with passports, and no one had said anything. “We saw it was taking place in the Donbas region exactly like what was taking place in Georgia.” There had been a call for South Africa to use its proximity in BRICS to speak to Russia in a “brotherly way." There were times in which South Africa could have reclaimed some of the lost space it had on the world stage since Nelson Mandela’s days, for the sake of world peace. South African citizens in Ukraine had said that the embassy had been late in their preparations because they should have pre-empted that there would be a war. There should have been “a little bit more” preparation -- not necessarily in Ukraine, but outside Ukraine.

Members of DIRCO -- and Ms Mazibuko was one of the members of the group -- had made it very difficult for him to join a volunteering DIRCO group because of the party he belonged to. He said that “when this is finished, I am going to do something about it.” Politics had been prioritised at a time of war. The focus and concern should be about getting citizens to safety and not about “whose party is doing what,” and “which colour of shirts are we wearing when we are trying to get people out.” This was about getting citizens across the Ukrainian border. The statement that people had requested certain political parties over others to facilitate their evacuation/rescue out of Ukraine “was an outright lie” told by officials. Ms Mazibuko and the Acting DG needed to investigate why the lives of citizens had been put in grave danger because of politics. The people of South Africa must always come first. Consular services must always be the most operative parts of DIRCO, not politics. There were enough political deployees in DIRCO, and “we cannot have DIRCO members playing politics as well.” This was dangerous.

He condemned the racial profiling at border posts in the strongest terms. Ukraine was attempting to get its women and children out of the country, and they were coming across citizens from other countries who were “in the way,” as they had phrased it. Colour was not being used as a proxy, but countries were being used as a proxy.

When South Africa voted, it should ensure that it voted to end the war. War was never good for anyone. War was never an option. “ We must never try vote on the side of warmongering people that are trying to cause a war.” Ukraine was being used as a proxy between both the east and the west. Today's vote should be about ending what could escalate into something far greater when one considered the two nuclear powers involved. This was not about historical loyalties, but about identifying the dangers in the future. Members should not sit comfortably in their houses in the south, “cheering from your comfortable armchairs as armchair politicians. Empathy needed to be shown for South Africans who were stuck in Ukraine during this period. “Logical hats” needed to be put on. This was not about loyalty, but about “being right and just.”

Mr D Moela (ANC) said the Chairperson had categorically stated very clearly that the Department had played a very crucial role. The Department needed to be applauded for the work done. Everyone was concerned about what was happening. The concerns were around the results and the impact of what the armed conflict would bring about in respect of suffering, destruction of infrastructure and the devastating effect on the economy, not only in Ukraine but in the world. The conflict would have a negative impact on the markets. A common understanding needed to be found so that mediation and engagements to end war could be organised.

South Africa needed to be sober while dealing with the matter to prevent creating any problems for the country. To prevent the creation of further problems, preaching peace was encouraged and environmentally stable development in line with the Freedom Charter, which clearly stated that there should be “peace and friendship” at all times. These were the issues the Department needed to handle, without taking sides. A common solution needed to be found. The prayer was for both Russia and Ukraine to find a common solution to end the war.

The Department was applauded for helping South African citizens. It was representing South Africa very well. Increased diplomacy and finding a solution would help de-escalate the tension between Russia and Ukraine. The discussion taking place should bear fruit to ensure that everyone was safe.

He did not agree with the assertions made by Mr Bergman about the Department turning down volunteers based on their political alliance. As things stood, the Department had done very well and had contributed.

Mr Nqola said that there was nothing wrong when Russia protected its borders against any form of invasion. The basic principle, however, was that it should not escalate to the endangerment of innocent lives and property being destructed.

Mr Chetty said he endorsed what Mr Bergman had said. South Africa had been aware of the imminent attack by Russia on Ukraine but had chosen to ignore the reality and this had led to bad planning. Other countries had started planning evacuation strategies for their citizens in Ukraine weeks ahead. South Africa had delayed acting in this manner. When the Chairperson started the meeting, he opted not to give the Committee a clear indication of what the situation surrounding DIRCO was, and the contradictions that were coming from the President’s office. It was the Chairperson's responsibility to inform the Committee of such matters. Why was there a "flipflop"? Contradictory messages were coming from the Department and the Presidency. South Africa was one country. One solid message should be sent out in response to the Russia-Ukraine conflict stating where the country stood and what South Africa’s position was. South Africa’s position should be on the right side of what was happening, “because history will judge us.”

No one had alluded to the fact that Defence Minister Thandi Modise was busy “clinking” champagne glasses with Russia during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This had made international news and soured South Africa’s image in the international arena. Some speculated that South Africa had celebrated the loss of innocent Ukrainian and foreigners' lives. There was no time to sit on the fence. A message needed to be sent. South Africa’s indecisiveness was not in its favour.

The Chairperson asked Mr Chetty what he would suggest the message to the Minister and the President should be.

Mr Chetty said the message should be that South Africa was in support of the people of Ukraine. South Africa needed to be on the right side of the conflict. History would judge us. The flip-flopping did not help the country. The Chairperson was well aware of the contradictory statements coming from the Department and the Presidency.

The Chairperson said he had had a discussion with the Minister, who was presently in Geneva. They had discussed the situation between Ukraine and Russia and considered the statement issued by the Department. The Minister had briefed the Chairperson on the matter, and it had been agreed that the broad thrust of the statement was consistent with South Africa’s official stance in respect of peacekeeping. South Africa did not pick sides, nor had it pointed fingers. Any misunderstanding which had arisen based on the wording used in the statement was a matter which belonged to the Department and the President. The Committee would be briefed as soon as the matter was clarified. The Department's statement, when closely observed, was consistent with the stance South Africa had always taken. This stance was for parties and states to unite, and multilateral bodies should be used to facilitate engagement to ensure peace prevailed.

The statement made by the Department was supported as well by the statement issued by the Presidency. In addition to the efforts that were being undertaken, it was important for the Committee to be briefed in terms of whether at a bilateral level there were discussions taking place between Ukraine and South Africa. The briefing received today from DIRCO was what had been requested through the Chairperson from the Minister. South Africa’s platforms in the UN should be used to make sure the message was delivered. The matter had been resolved and rested between the Presidency and the Minister.

Ms T Msane (EFF) said that she concurred with Mr Chetty. A sense of urgency in response to international emergencies was lacking on the African continent. This was very alarming. A similar stance to that presently seen during the Russia-Ukraine conflict was seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Africans were stranded all over the globe during the pandemic. There had been early warning signs in terms of a possible conflict between Russia and Ukraine. South Africa had not taken action promptly and delayed communicating with its people. Now that Ukraine prioritised its citizens, Africans were crying “racism”. African countries were obligated to protect its citizens and should have prioritised them. Africans should be comfortable and be confident knowing their government would protect them, irrespective of the state or circumstances they were in.

The African continent was very reactionary. The stance of the African Union (AU) was unknown. Nato was no different in Europe from the US Africom wanting to establish bases on the whole African continent. The AU should have a stance on what was happening. A lot of people were emotional in response to Ukraine's reaction but were not proactive in investigating the source of the action to determine why Russia was acting the way it was. Africans should also question why the US was allowed to continue establishing military bases in African countries. Although we might allow this, other countries in Europe would not allow a similar body to do the same. The leaders in the AU should have met by now and should have a solid stance on what the position of the African continent was. Alliances and allegiances to the French and English colonisers compromised Africa “because we are never united on what is best for the African continent.” Focus was always placed on what Western organisations and regions were doing. The African continent needed a single voice. Africa should be recognised as a single body.

There were South Africans in Ukraine who were currently struggling with documentation. They had been waiting on documents from Home Affairs. The issue had been pushed to International Relations, but South Africa's Department of Home Affairs had remained silent. They were not giving hope to South Africans. The African continent, as well as South Africa, was not ready “to serve our people.” Africans were constantly finding themselves “as hobos” (homeless people) and constantly found themselves in the role of the “weaker child” in the world. The continent did not feel prioritised, and struggled to bring hope “to our people.”

Mr B Nkosi (ANC) said international relations were influenced not only by what happened at a global level but more so by geopolitics all the time. To craft a proper response it was important to understand the regional geopolitical dynamics which informed the action or inaction on the part of the state. Perhaps a similar approach should be taken by South Africa as was taken in Libya, and now in Tunisia. The Department should give the Committee a detailed briefing of the historical perspective, including what was presently happening in the Russia-Ukraine region. The historical and present context needed to be understood to make an informed input.

Regarding the expatriation of South African citizens, the Department needed to indicate what it was doing to ensure South Africans were moved out of the conflict situation. The country should be concentrating on how best to move quickly in assisting those abroad within the conflict area.

The country needed to fall behind the approach taken by the Executive, through the President. At this level, it represented an approach a country like South Africa should take in view of the country’s sovereignty. This was a stance that was not extremist, minimalist or inverted towards any side of the conflict but was in the interest of South Africa, the continent at large and the world. Other equally important matters were being risked and would be side-lined. The Russia-Ukraine issue was an emotive issue that divided people. The stance was taken to call for peace, negotiations and for all multi-structural institutions to prioritise a peaceful resolution of all conflicts in the world. Support was extended to DIRCO in its efforts to play an active role in securing South Africa’s interests by ensuring that South Africans were properly evacuated back home, and also by working with other countries to bring about a peaceful resolution.

Mr Mpanza said he wanted to echo Mr Moela and Mr Nkosi’s sentiments in congratulating the Department. No one had anticipated this situation. One could criticise, but it was also important to give credit where credit was due. Under the circumstances, the Department had done very well. There was still room for improvement. No one could predict what would happen during a “war situation.” One could anticipate and plan, but “a war is a war.”

He thanked the Chairperson for taking the initiative of adding the Russia-Ukraine discussion to the agenda, and the Department, Acting Director-General and all the ambassadors for availing themselves.

He said the maltreatment of Africans at the Ukrainian borders should be condemned. However, it was understood that in a situation of war countries would prioritise their own citizens. The Department, along with various volunteering South Africans around the world, had done a lot to assist South Africans and other Africans at the Ukrainian borders.

Referring to the issue raised about the Department playing politics, he said those comments remained an allegation, and it was a matter which should not be dwelled upon. It should be noted that politics were being played in the Committee. The ones saying the Department was playing politics were the ones playing politics in the Committee. “We must avoid playing politics anywhere, whether at the Department or in the Portfolio Committee.” The initiatives taken by everyone throughout the world should be supported.

There were no contradictions between the statements from the Department and the Presidency. Everyone was urging for peace to prevail. South Africa was on the side of peace, not on the side of Russia or the side of Ukraine. Diplomatic engagement should be allowed by all the institutions responsible for dealing with the matter. South Africa was represented by the Department, the Ministry led by the Minister and the President of the country. In respect of individual capacities, Members of the Committee should also assist. Politics should not be involved at present played. A very serious issue was being dealt with, which affected the lives of innocent people.

The Chairperson said the Committee would love to hear the views of the youth “with regard to how we relate as a village globally,” and how South Africa played its role in the global village.

Mr Chetty interjected to point out that the Chairperson had not recognised his new hand.

The Chairperson responded that Mr Chetty had already been given an opportunity to speak.

Mr Chetty agreed that he had spoken, but said that there seemed to be confusion. He wanted to rectify a particular statement. There had been support of the statement made by DIRCO. There was a contradiction between both statements…

The Chairperson interjected and stopped Mr Chetty, saying that he was repeating himself. He had been heard very clearly. Mr Chetty was going back to what in his own view was a contradiction between the statement issued by the Presidency and the Ministry. The matter had been responded to. It had been discussed with the Minister.

Mr Chetty withdrew the statement but asked to be indulged in respect of answering a particular question in respect of what the Department should do.

The Chairperson interjected to remind Mr Chetty that he had already answered. He warned him not to take chances -- "I’m listening very carefully to what you are saying." Mr Chetty had said South Africa should not be sitting on the fence on the matter of Russia and Ukraine. He had been asked what the Chairperson should say in respect of the position South Africa should take in response to the Russia-Ukraine conflict when in the presence of the President and the Minister so that South Africa was not seen as sitting on the fence. Mr Chetty had then given his opinion -- his opinion had been heard.

The meeting would be wrapped up and the way forward would be discussed.

Ms Losi said that the inputs of Members had been noted. The Committee was assured that DIRCO was doing everything in its power to ensure South Africans were helped, including those trapped on the border between Russia and Ukraine. The Department had engaged with Home Affairs. Some citizens needed visas, and Home Affairs had dealt with the situation. There had been engagement with the Director-General of Home Affairs throughout the weekend.

There was engagement with security forces. There were meetings with the defence force and the State Security Agency (SSA). The command centre, which usually took over when there were disasters or challenges of this nature, had been activated. All the details would be sent to the Committee Secretary. There were officials on duty. There was engagement with the team in the UK. The problem of students trapped on the border of Russia and Ukraine would be resolved soon. There were not only South African students present -- there were also Botswana nationals. The Chief of Protocol of Botswana and the ambassador would be contacted to get permission from them to assist the Botswana nationals. The Department had been helping other African countries as well. Requests had been received from Namibia. The Department was seized with this challenge and wanted to assure the Committee that it would do all in its power to ensure South Africans were evacuated to a safer place.

Chairperson's summation

The Chairperson thanked the Department for its earlier presentation on Tunisia. The ambassadors who availed themselves were thanked, including those who had prepared the brief on the Russia-Ukraine conflict at such short notice. The brief had been very enlightening. The facts had now concretely been received from the Department. The Department was applauded for taking the initiative to assist South Africans.

There was a broad agreement in the Committee that a message must be sent to the AU. The AU’s voice should be raised in terms of calling for peace, negotiations, and engagement between Ukraine and Russia. In the same context, there must be a united purpose expressed through the AU. There was also a broad agreement within the Committee that the Department should be commended for the work that had been done through the ambassadors of South Africa based at different locations. They ensured that South Africa played its role in not only ensuring the safety of South Africans but the safety of Africans and other nations. The Committee agreed that when the dust had settled, there needed to be investigations into allegations of racial profiling at the Ukrainian borders. It was hoped that at the right time, the matter would be attended to.

South Africa, through the Presidency and DIRCO, was correct in using negotiations, through bilateral and multilateral platforms, to ensure stability and peace was achieved between Russia and Ukraine. The wish was for everyone to ultimately be saved and for no one to be harmed in the conflict. It was good that the ambassadors had been safely evacuated from the situation in Ukraine. The ambassadors were applauded for their relentless commitment to continue to do their work and for providing updates to the Department and the country. This was very patriotic, and they were hoisting the flag of the South African nation.

The Committee was happy that allegations of racial profiling at the Ukrainian borders had been brought to the attention of the UN. Meetings were taking place in respect of this  

The Committee hoped that initiatives undertaken, which had resulted in some optimistic discussions taking place between Russia and Ukraine, would continue. Those providing leadership in that regard were applauded. The Committee looked forward to those discussions taking place between Russia and Ukraine and for them to have fruitful outcomes and ultimately bring the conflict to an end.

The Committee agreed with a proposal made to invite DIRCO to the Committee to give a historical account of the situation between Russia and Ukraine.

The Department should continue to brief the Committee and South Africans on the developments of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Predictability and certainty would assist in getting people out of the panic mode the more information they received.

South Africa was correct in continuing to call for toning down the rhetoric. Everyone needed to tone down so that rational engagements would ultimately take place. It was hoped that in the Assembly today, when the final determination was made, it would be a determination that would bring the world together instead of polarising it. Discussions should continue until a solution was found.

All other agreed resolutions from bodies like the UN in respect of existing ongoing conflicts should also be attended to.

The Committee was satisfied with the discussions which were taking place between the Presidency and DIRCO relating to some confusion that had arisen. The confusion had been settled. Confusion had arisen from the part of a statement made by DIRCO which had said that Russia should withdraw its forces from Ukraine. Leadership had been provided in that regard. The matter had now been settled between DIRCO and the Presidency. The focus would be on ensuring peace through negotiations and engagements between Russia and Ukraine.

The Acting Director-General and Ambassador were thanked for bringing the team together under emergencies. There were team members who had had to wake up in the United States to join the session. This represented "revocracy," which was a bureaucracy that understood how intertwined the needs of the revolution were and for bureaucrats to implement what the people expected. The Departments should marshal all its forces throughout the rest of the world to ultimately ensure that the situation between Ukraine and Russia was resolved. Between Ukraine and Russia combined, Africa imported more than $6 billion of sunflower and wheat. South Africa could not afford a prolonged conflict situation between Ukraine and Russia, because it had a ripple effect throughout the globe.

Adoption of minutes

The Chairperson said there were five sets of minutes that had been sent to the Members.

Mr Moela asked which procedure should be followed when adopting the minutes. Was it minute by minute according to the dates, or should the minutes be adopted as a whole?

The Chairperson suggested that the minutes be adopted as a whole since Members had received the minutes beforehand. Someone could suggest that the minutes be adopted as a true reflection of what had ensued in the past meetings on the dates indicated.

Mr Moela proposed that the minutes be adopted as circulated by the Secretariat.

Mr Mpanza seconded the proposal.

The minutes were adopted.

The Chairperson said the other household matter related to the Committee’s retreat and the trip to Namibia and the oversight trip to Pretoria. The Chairperson handed over to Mr Eddie Mathonsi, the Committee Secretary.

Mr Mathonsi said he had circulated a draft programme of activities for the Committee for March and April. There were two activities in March. The first was an oversight visit to DIRCO on 25 and 26 March, and this activity had been approved. The second activity was an oversight visit to Namibia, which was scheduled for 26 March to 2 April. This was yet to be approved. The last was a strategic planning session from 19 to 21 April. The venue was the OR Tambo Airport, which was not approved.

The Chairperson said there had been a misunderstanding with regard to the interpretation of a study tour and oversight from the perspective of international relations. The belief was that the Committee's trip to Namibia was a study tour when the Committee knew its trip to Namibia was an oversight trip. This was based on the outcomes of the Auditor-General's report. If this oversight was not performed, the Committee would be sleeping on duty. The Committee was awaiting a response. There was a possibility that the trip to Namibia might not occur because of the difference in understanding of the matter relating to a “study tour” and an “oversight.” The Committee was unambiguous in respect of going to Namibia to embark on an oversight. Members would be informed well in advance if it was happening or not.

The Chairperson thanked Member for participating in the discussion. It had been robust and informative.

The meeting was adjourned.