French Foreign Policy: briefing by Ambassador; Department Strategic Plan: briefing

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
10 May 2006
FRENCH FOREIGN POLICY: BRIEFING BY AMBASSADOR; DEPARTMENT STRATEGIC PLAN: BRIEFING

Acting Chairperson morning session: Prof K Asmal (ANC)
Acting Chairperson afternoon session: Ms Magau (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Presentation: Department of Foreign Affairs Strategic Plan 2006/09 (please email [email protected])

SUMMARY
The French Ambassador to South Africa addressed the Committee on the four key areas of interest in French foreign policy. These were African issues, global issues, global crisis and bilateral co-operation between South Africa and France.

During the discussion, Members raised French protectionism for its agricultural sector, elections in the Comoros and Cote d’Ivoire, Iran’s uranium enrichment programme, financial support for Palestine and cultural co-operation between France and South Africa as the main issues.

In the afternoon session the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) briefed the Committee on
- The Structure of their strategic plan
- The Departments medium term priorities and objectives
- The Departments asset management plan
- The Information and Technology plan
- The DFA foreign services Institute, human resource Plan and organisational structure
- The resource allocation per programme

Members sought clarity on issues related to the Department's foreign policy. Members questioned the adequacy of the funding of the Pan African Parliament. The Committee raised queries about conflicts on the African continent and South Africa's proposed non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council. The need for greater communication between the Department and the Committee was mutually recognised. Members questioned if there were any foreseeable solutions to the troubles in Zimbabwe, and sought clarity on what the international community thought of South Africa’s nuclear power station.

MINUTES
Introduction by French Ambassador on French Foreign Policy

The Chair welcomed and introduced the French Ambassador, M. Jean Felix-Paganon.

The French Ambassador welcomed dialogue between France and South Africa, and emphasised agreement between the two nations on basic principles, while acknowledging also the disagreements, which he found to be more tactical than specific.

The Ambassador, by way of introduction, alluded to four key issues, which his presentation would focus on. These where: African matters, global issues, global crisis, and bilateral issues. He maintained that these key areas would highlight fundamental points of agreement between the two countries as well as illustrate points of disagreement.

With regard to Africa, the French Ambassador argued that South Africa had been co-operating fairly well on two to three important cases or crisis management dossiers, which included the Comoros where the results have been satisfactory with respect to the first round of elections. The French government worked together with the respective governments to gain African Union (AU) support and has provided for the airlift of AU observers. With regard to the second round of elections efforts will be made to stabilise the situation.

Secondly, with regard to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), South Africa and France have played an important part in the DRC. He maintained that there is little worry over the postponement of election dates, though, it would be technically complicated and a lot of funds would be required as well as a lot of observers would be required. The Ambassador thanked the South African Government for its support during the European military mission, which was underway and will soon be decided upon. He maintained that the French were acting under a mandate from the United Nations (UN) and this would be a contingency force in case there is any difficulty on the ground. The Ambassador argued that this would also be a good opportunity to demonstrate a military capacity and the capability of enforcement measures by the European Union (EU) far from Europe and for the benefit of Africa.

Third was the issue of Cote d’Ivoire which he found to be more complicated, but good progress had been made thanks to the African Union and the involvement of Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo (Nigeria) following the adoption of resolution 1633 of the UN Security Council. Though a timetable had been set in place, the Ambassador maintained that there were still some difficulties such as the reluctance of various parties to participate in elections due to a lack of faith in the outcome i.e. a fear of a winner takes all result. The Ambassador stressed that democratic elections were none the less essential for national reconciliation. The tool for this process, the Ambassador argued was both identification and disarmament. The Ambassador admitted that there would probably be a need to look beyond the set date for elections in November and the time frame would most probably be "extremely tight." Hence if the elections were postponed there would be no problem; however the modalities for transition would have to be reconsidered.

The second key area of the Ambassador’s introductory presentation related to global issues. He maintained that in this area there was a "mixed bag" of agreement and disagreement. The Ambassador thanked Prof Asmal for the co-operation regarding matters of cultural diversity, which he found to be a great success and an important item in international diplomacy. It was the first time sound principles of cultural diversity and the rights of states to promote their own culture had been put into place. An agreement for early ratifications had been reached, but those opposed to these treaties would try to stop them and continued co-operation was thus imperative.

With regard to the WTO (World Trade Organisation) and the issues of commerce and agriculture, especially relating to protectionist measures, the French Ambassador raised a couple of issue. Firstly he emphasised the commitment of France to the increase of free world trade. He pointed out that Europe was the first commercial power in the world, and that France was the fifth largest exporting nation with one out of four French workers working directly for export. He argued that whatever mechanism aids the increase in international trade would be to the benefit of France, hence France is not approaching the Doha negations with LDC (less developed countries) in a defensive mood, as France had more interests at stake than many other players in successful negations. With regards to the sentiment of Europe as a ‘fortress’ of protectionism for agriculture, he maintained that Europe is not a ‘fortress’ as the extent of agricultural tariffs were a mere 10%. However they have given up subsidies for the export of agricultural products, which he saw as a main factor that facilitated market distortion.

Since 2003 there has been sentiments in the EU to fundamentally change the traditional view of agricultural policy where there will no longer be subsidies for the products but rather the farmers themselves, thus minimal distortion will be discerned, and this distortion will be fully removed by 2013. The Ambassador explained that France had an open market, and that the EU was currently taking two-thirds of African exports and three-quarters of exports from LDCs. Hence the European market is the key market for LDCs. The Ambassador also highlighted that the issue of assistance was vital, apart from the issue of tariffs and trade. In this regard the EU and France were the first donors and the first providers of assistance and preferential access to markets, which is essential for the agriculture of LDCs. In addition, he maintained that the EU and France have particular programmemes and initiatives in areas that are particularly sensitive such as medicine and cotton. In the field of medicine, preferential access at a lower price has been granted to LDCs. Initiatives have also been taken to protect the farming industry of African countries with regard to cotton, which he saw as essential for their economies.

The French Ambassador emphasised the importance of agricultural policy with regard to food supply security. He highlighted that 80% of agricultural trade took place within the EU among member states; hence the external trade share is minimal. The Ambassador highlighted concerns for quality of food including that of health and environmental concerns; hence subsidies could not be seen as unfair but addressed legitimate concerns for food supply security. Thus, the Ambassador argued, subsidies could be a useful social, economic or political tool. Finally he maintained that since 1995, the EU has continually opened its market to importation of agricultural products, and this openness has led countries such as India to increase their exports to the EU by 70%.

In relation to the third key area (global crisis), the French Ambassador highlighted the case of the Arab/Israeli conflict with particular reference to the legitimacy of Hamas, and the prominent case of the Iranian uranium enrichment programmeme. With regard to the former, he argued that Hamas owes its legitimacy and access to power to the Oslo peace process. Therefore, they had to recognise the Oslo process, which encapsulated the priorities. The Ambassador maintained that the European community did not want the Palestinian people to be "punished for the way they voted," but at the same time they would not help Hamas directly as long as it did not recognise Oslo. He highlighted a trust fund initiative with the World Bank to provide assistance to the Palestinian people, while circumventing the Hamas authority.

With regard to the issue of Iranian uranium enrichment, the French Ambassador expressed concern on behalf of the European community with regard to the suspicion of a military dimension to the enrichment programme. Additionally, he maintained that there is a concern that a military programme could not explain some of the activities, while there is no economic justification for a purely civilian programme. He pointed out that the EU 3, that is Germany, Britain and France started a dialogue with the Iranian government with a certain degree of success where the unilateral acceptance by the Iranian government for a suspension of the enrichment programme was fundamental. The board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) endorsed this. While it did not have a legal perspective it did have international backing and within this framework co-operation with and aid to Iran was under dialogue. However with the resumption of the enrichment process the framework and subsequent dialogue have been forfeited. He highlighted that there has been a resolution by the IAEA and a presidential statement by the Security Council on this matter, where the five permanent members agreed on the fundamental tenet of suspension of the programme by Iran.

Finally on bilateral relations, the Ambassador highlighted the framework document for partnership drafted by France, which entails a devotion of € 400 million, roughly R3 billion during the coming five years on three areas. These were poverty reduction, the promotion of small to medium business enterprises, and sustainable development in areas such as water. The partners to this process were France, Morocco and South Africa. Finally in this regard, the French Ambassador emphasised the need to correct the South African trade deficit i.e. to balance European exports of E1.7 billion to South African with South African exports of E1 billion to Europe.

Finally the Ambassador was excited about the African Picasso exhibition, in his view the most important art exhibition ever in Africa, where 83 pieces of Picasso’s art will be exhibited and which was co-funded by South Africans. He pointed out that it could be considered a dialogue between the work of Picasso and African art. This he saw as a symbol of cultural dialogue between the two countries. The Ambassador ended his introductory presentation on this note.

The Chair thanked the Ambassador for his effort and opened the floor for questions. The Chair also reiterated the need to revisit the importance of the Picasso exhibition.

Discussion
A concern was raised by a Member regarding the emergence of the Omega programme in relation to the rest of Africa. With reference to the issue of the Middle East, an unidentified Member commented on Hamas’ legitimacy to the effect that it derived from the Palestinian people and not the Oslo process. This Member asked how the World Bank would go about funding the people directly without going through the mechanism of the Palestinian Authority. Finally, he asked who the Ambassador was referring to as far as co-operation in Africa was concerned.

The Chair, also with reference to the legitimacy of Hamas, asked if the same requirement for the recognition of Oslo could be extended to Israel, who in his view have complete disregarded the principles contained in the Oslo process.

Mr D Gibson (DA) maintained that there was consensus among the LDCs that the main distortion in the market came from agrarian subsidies by the USA and Europe. He asked what the significance of the 2013 process was and pointed out that in the interim there was still an expectation of an open market in the developing world, while France is given a period to emerge from its protectionist policies. Secondly, Mr Gibson pointed out that South Africa has generally sided with Iran, and South Africa chose to believe Iran’s peaceful intent and dismissed their stated philosophy of ‘wiping Israel off the map’. He thus asked what the French view was of the letter addressed to President Bush by the President of Iran. He also asked what steps France proposed Iran should take to reassure international concerns while still exercising its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Ms S Motubatse (ANC) asked to what extent French policy was influenced by the background of colonialism and what role France were playing in supporting institutions in former colonies and assisting with self reliance.

The French Ambassador firstly addressed the question of the Omega plan. He maintained that his understanding was that Omega had merged with the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and that France has been supporting NEPAD both politically and financially. With regard to the issue of Cote d’Ivoire, the Ambassador observed more trust than mistrust. In addressing the question raised with regard to Hamas’ legitimacy and aid to the Palestinian people, the Ambassador maintained that his view was that legitimacy was a combination of participation and support of the people and process, and both needed to be acknowledged. However he stressed the need to recognise the Oslo process as most important. With regard to Israel’s violation of the process, he maintained that at least recognition of the right of both parties to exist in the former Palestinian territories was necessary and cannot be challenged. As long as Hamas did not do this, difficulties would persist. With regard to financing people by avoiding the government, the Ambassador maintained that there were mechanisms such as NGOs through which this process could take place.

The Ambassador maintained that the EU budget for agriculture was not that big, but nonetheless reduction is being considered. He further reiterated that the concern was to help people stay in the country and assure food supply security. On the distorting effect, he argued that it impacts on less than 6% of the agricultural production of African countries. On Iran, he argued that he would not characterise the South African position as support for Iran. If that was the case, he claimed, there would be a "major problem." He admitted that there were differences in the views of sovereignty in technological development with South Africa valuing this principle more, but in the case of Iran, the EU needs to build confidence. With regard to the letter to President Bush, the Ambassador simply suggested that it was a letter highlighting Iran’s usual position of claiming the enrichment programme was peaceful. However he found the content unhelpful.

With regard to the question on French foreign policy and former colonies, the French Ambassador stated that there has been a long process that started in the 1970s to have less bias toward Francophone countries. However, he admitted that there was a better relationship with Francophone countries based on the cultural-linguistic commonalities. Still, there was a slowly declining interest in Africa from the French view and this was a concern for him.

The Chair satirically highlighted the ambivalence of the Ambassadors’ answers with reference to the interest in and the declining interest in Africa. .

A Member posed a question regarding France’s role in the election process in the Comoros.

Another Member asked whether the EU decision or reluctance to suspend subsidies for farmers was congruent to the former Trade Commissioner of the EU’s assertion in 2003 that the EU has taken a deliberate political decision to keep the EU farmer on the farm regardless of productivity. The Member also asked whether the "propaganda" of South Africa playing big brother in Africa was part of a tactic of "divide and rule" by external interests. He stressed that the key to co-operation between Africa and the EU had to be genuine and honest partnership.

Dr A N Luthuli (ANC) asked how far France was prepared to go if Iran continued its present course of action.

On the Comoros, the Ambassador reiterated France’s financial support especially in the organisation of elections as well as the airlift of AU observers.

With regard to the question on subsidies for farmers, the Ambassador acknowledged the assertions made by the former Trade Commissioner concerning keeping farmers on farms. He then reiterated that this was not an effort to distort the market but rather to maintain farmers for the quality of production, and "food supply security". The Ambassador reiterated that 80% of trade in this sector was intra-community trade. As far as the propaganda labelling South Africa the ‘big brother’ in Africa, the French Ambassador argued that there is a huge gap between South Africa and the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa economically. He pointed out that the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Gauteng was larger than that of Nigeria to illustrate his argument. However, he maintained that he did not see South Africa as a ‘big brother’ in the respect that it is threatening to other African nations. To the contrary, he maintained that South Africa was very respectful of other African nations. He pointed to the case of consideration for permanent members of the Security Council where South Africa, in his view, did not attempt to claim the position with its own interests at heart but rather for the benefit of Africa. He thus claimed that France saw South Africa as playing a stabilising role in Africa. He denied any idea of divide and rule, as he argued that France has an interest in the reduction of conflict and the promotion of development for one thing to reduce the financial burden on France for constantly trying to secure this.

To answer Dr Luthuli’s question on Iran, the Ambassador maintained that he did not know how far things could be taken; however he underlined three facts in this regard. 1.) France has not spoken of consequences, and never threatened Iran. 2.) France wants to act within the framework of the international community, while also exerting pressure on Iran to suspend the enrichment programme. 3.) He highlighted that the use of force was only possible under the UN Charter in the case of self defence and with the mandate of the Security Council, and thus use of force by French forces would not occur outside of these two requirements.

Two final questions were asked. With regard to Cote d’Ivoire, a Member asked how far stabilisation had progressed, how ready the country was for elections and what specific role France was playing in making sure those elections took place.

The Ambassador explained that Cote d’Ivoire was a high pressure situation. He maintained that the France Government, having been accused of taking sides, had abstained from taking sides in the conflict but rather deployed soldiers as a buffer force. He argued that they avoided civil war by doing so; however the challenge now was to deal with the power struggles between the significant politicians or political actors whose interest might be in conflict with the interest of the people. He was confident, though, in the willingness of the people to co-operate and participate in elections.

The Chair listed general issues discerned during the discussion. He pointed out contradictions were inherent in these discussions and an "even flow" expectation is idealistic. He also highlighted that the EU "speaks with one voice" over issues of the Middle East, where he saw the central issue as the promise that America’s actions in Iraq would help the Arab-Israeli conflict, but the delivery of the contrary. He argued that the South African view was that the Palestinian people have spoken through elections regardless of the Oslo process. He added that there was no consistency in international politics, and that pressure on Palestine was really a principle to insure the position of Israel.

The Chair also pointed out that whatever the position of Hamas the Palestinian people could not be penalised. The Chair argued that money should not go to Hamas, but rather the institutional authority of the government. Finally with regard to the Doha round of WTO talks, he explained that it was meant for developmental purposes, and even though South Africa might be considered naïve because they put solidarity above their own interests, he argued, that the interests and solidarity with others actually served the interests of South Africa. He maintained that openness was a main tenet of these talks; however as far as labour and education was concerned, there was a consensus not to make it a commodity or an open market service. He used the protection of Universities as an example of this. He argued that there should not be an understanding of reciprocity as far as tariffs and industrial production were concerned, and they must be differentiated. Hence the position of South Africa at the Doha round was that tariff reduction had to be asymmetrical in favour of Africa. He highlighted the case of Korea and American prerequisites for them to drop the local content from 90% to 48% of the television shows in order to engage in free trade talks. Hence there must be a cultural exception to protect one’s cultural goods, which he saw as very important in international co-operation.

Afternoon Session
[The afternoon session of this meeting was not recorded by PMG. The following minutes are courtesy of the Foreign Affairs Portfolio Committee Secretariat, and the Foreign Affairs Parliamentary liaison Officer.]

Briefing on the Strategic Plan of the Department of Foreign Affairs
In the afternoon session the DFA delegation briefed the Committee on their Strategic plan for 2006-09, which highlighted the overall conformity with the stipulations of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and included foreign policy and strategic objectives, they stressed the priorities for the Ministry and South Africa’s regional and multilateral interests. The DFA delegation highlighted the Medium Term objectives of the Department, which included consolidation of the African agenda and strengthening bilateral relations. The Department presented their plans for asset management and improving Information Technology. The Department discussed their employment equity profile. The DFA talked the Committee through their resource allocation per programme.

The representatives of the Department were Dr A Ntsaluba: Director General (DG), Mr M Nkosi: Chief Director (CD), Central and West Africa, Ms M Nompozolo:CD , Mr S A Nxusani: CD Finance, Ms F T Fadane: Budget Director, Ms L V Shongwe: Director Inter-Governmental Co-ordination, , Ms P Roji: Deputy Director from the Office of the DG. The French Ambassadors Mr P N January-Bardill and Mr G J Grobler.

Discussion
The Chairperson opened the floor for discussion.

Mr D Gibson (DA) noted that the Pan African Parliament (PAP) had not had enough resources. Would this mean that South Africa would have to contribute more as a country or would an effort be made to persuade other countries to increase their contributions.

Dr Ntsaluba explained that South Africa, Libya, Nigeria and Algeria/Egypt would guarantee 75% of the overall contributions to the African Union (AU). The Department was not however unduly worried regarding the funding of the PAP. The Deputy Minister, Mr van der Merwe, had resonantly met with the President of the AU to iron out any concerns in this regard.

Mr B Turok (ANC) requested that the Department provide the Committee with a document explaining South Africa’s strategic approach to the New Economic Partnership for African Development (NEPAD).

Dr Ntsaluba explained that the Department would provide the Committee with this as well as information related to issues of interdepartmental co-ordination.

Adv Z Madasa (ANC) asked for clarity regarding the current progress of integrating the NEPAD project into the AU.

Dr Ntsaluba stressed that the formulation of a strategy that would not signify a dominance by South Africa, a summit was to be held in Gauteng on this matter.

Mr D Gibson queried South Africa’s stance on Iran. France, the United States and the United Kingdom believed that Iran could use nuclear energy to create nuclear weapons. Why did South Africans hold a different opinion?

Dr Ntsaluba explained that South African foreign policy could not be determined by matters of opinion. Objective bodies that had sent inspectors to Iran had informed South Africa’s policy on this issue. They concluded that there was no evidence of diversion of nuclear materials to a weapons programme.

Dr Sefularo (ANC) stressed that there was a real need for greater communication between the Department and the Committee particularly as far as informing Members of conferences that were being held. Communication would be vital if the Committee were to support the Department.

A DFA representative agreed that the Department needed to work closely with the Committee. Members should be invited to conferences.

Mr D Gibson (DA) noted that the presentation had highlighted that there was support from Africa and SADC as far as South Africa holding a seat on the UN Security Council was concerned. What was the nature of opposition to South Africa holding a non-permanent seat on the Security Council?

Dr Ntsaluba dismissed the fact that there was any opposition. At this stage it was merely a matter of going through the formal process. All Southern African countries as well as the African Ambassador in New York had now formally endorsed that there was no other competitor for this seat, which is allocated to Southern Africa. The seat only needed to be formally endorsed by the UN.

Ms Njobe (ANC) sought clarity on whether the border conflicts between Sudan and Chad had undermined the peace process in Sudan. She stressed that the Committee was eager to see a resolution to the conflicts of the region.

Mr M Nkosi (ANC) explained that the Department's assessment was that the tensions in Khartoum had been triggered by the Darfur crisis. The Government of Sudan was accused of supporting rebels in Chad; there had been mutual suspicion and tension between these two countries. The result being that ties had been cut between the Countries and Diplomats had been withdrawn. The DFA was concern on this matter.

Prof B Turok asked for an explanation what was actually happening in regard to the India, Brazil, South Africa Tri-lateral Co-operation Forum (IBSA). It was important for the Committee to be kept up to date on this, as to enable Members to review the situation.

Dr Ntsaluba canceled that perhaps the Department had been weak in the translation of the IBSA ideas into something concrete that could be understood by all sectors of society. A study had been done in Brazil and as a result of that research it had become clear that the business sector had a limited understanding of IBSA. He explained the current achievements of the IBSA project. In 2005 the DFA had arranged for South African business people to engage with the Brazilian business’. India was currently interested in engaging with MP's from the three Countries this had been communicated to the Chair. He emphasised that the DFA's approach was to focus on areas of transportation particularly air and maritime. They would also focus on secure energy supplies.

Dr B Skhosana (IFP) raised a concern regarding South Africa's level of engagement with the issues of the African Diaspora in relation to IBSA. Did South Africa need to recall skilled Africans back?

Dr Ntsaluba conceded that the Department had so far been unable to address this issue. However there was a meeting to be held Senegal where South Africa and Brazil would hope to get clarity on how to deal with not only the Diaspora, but also individual countries in the AU and otherwise.

Ms Njobe (ANC) queried what impact HIV/AIDS had on the Department, particularly since the increase in staff numbers.

Ms M Nompozolo explained that in 2005 staff members had undertaken a voluntarily counselling and testing exercise which revealed that less than 1% of them were HIV positive. The Department provided counselling for all staff.

Adv Z Madasa asked for clarity from the delegation on the current South African policy regarding the country’s relations with Angola and Libya,

Dr Ntsaluba explained that in regard to Libya bilateral relations were of a cordial nature. The relations with Angola should have been far better, on this matter South Africa needed to regain ground; it was a case of trying to manage the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) without competing with Angola. The DFA hoped to improve relations.

Adv Z Madasa asked the delegation to highlight to the Committee the differences between the AU Fund and the African Renaissance Fund (ARF)

Dr Ntsaluba stressed that the ARF was primarily for the purposes of funding development of the continent, there was no relationship at all between these two Funds. The Department was trying to ensure South Africa had representation on both these structures.

Mr M Sibande (DA) questioned what the stance of the international community was towards South Africa possessing a nuclear power station.

Dr Ntsaluba explained that under the Non Proliferation Treaty, South Africa was regarded as a responsible country; he believed there was no concern with Koeberg Power Station or the Pebble Bed modular reactor.

Dr B Skhosana, asked the delegation what the home grown solution would be to the troubles faced by Zimbabwe.

Ms Njobe substantiated this, how close was Zimbabwe to solving there problems.

Dr Ntsaluba, highlighted that the situation had become complicated, and internal disputes within the countries main opposition party Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) had not helped the situation, unfortunately South Africa did not at present possess a New Initiative that would Solve the problems of Zimbabwe.

Ms Njobe sought an explanation from the DFA on how it was intended that the AU Gender Declaration would be resuscitated

Dr Ntsaluba explained that the Department was trying to look at ways of implementing the Declaration. The Department was currently working with the office of the Status of Women and investigating gender representation.

The Chairperson thanked the Director General for attending the meeting.

The Meeting was adjourned.