Discussion of Committee Programme

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
15 May 2002
DISCUSSION OF COMMITTEE PROGRAMME

Chairperson: Dr Z P Jordan (ANC)

Documents handed out
Committee Programme for January to August 2002 [Appendix 1]
Committee Proposed Budget 2002/2003
Calendar of Events 2002 [available on DFA website: http://www.dfa.gov.za/events/calendar.htm]

SUMMARY
The Chair believed that consensus could be reached on core issues relevant to South Africa, such as economic growth and the improvement of the quality of life of its people, despite the fact that political parties will and do differ on the modalities of achieving these goals.

It was suggested that civil society has to be included in foreign policy matters, and the recent visit to the offices of the Department of Foreign Affairs proved an eye opener. Members were reminded of the visit by the South Korean delegation, and also of the Committee's visits to Moscow, Kinshasa, Angola and Morocco.

MINUTES
The Chair commenced proceedings by once again thanking Members for the confidence they have shown in him, and stated that he would reinforce this confidence and trust in the manner in which he executes his duty as Chairperson of the Committee.

South Africa finds itself in a new arena on the international front after decades of isolation and is once again a major player in international relations. Therefore the role played and work done by this Portfolio Committee is important to the South African polity as a whole. The rest of Africa is looking towards South Africa in this regard, especially in view of the specific manner in which we have attained democracy within the Republic. South Africa is thus "punching well above its weight division" as far as the developments in international affairs and people's expectations of our country are concerned.

South Africa has also placed itself as a principle player in some important global issues, such as the recent World Trade Organisation (WTO) conference and the African Union (AU) Summit and World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) to be hosted later this year. This indicates the position South Africa has come to occupy on the world stage.

There will be areas in which there will be both agreement or consensus as well as disagreement, such as the conflict in the Middle East. Yet it is firmly believed that consensus can be reached on issues such as the need for peace in those areas even though there might be disagreement on the modalities or actually attaining such peace. The current Zimbabwe situation is also divisive, but surely consensus can be reached on the current needs of Zimbabwe, such as stability.

There are also larger international issues on which most South Africans would agree and reach consensus, such as the growth of the South African economy and the consequent social upliftment of its people and the improvement of their quality of life. In this regard the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) is important, because it is premised on the building of a relationship between Africa and the rest of the world. It is important to realise here that this was crafted in the main by Africans themselves, as well as the recognition that South Africa has lost many opportunities over the last fifty years. This has caused the emergence of several independent African states which has, in the past, resulted in the absence of an acceptable number of institutions of good governance referred to by NEPAD. Multi-party and NEPAD consensus on these issues could be attained.

This Committee and indeed South Africa as a whole has to ensure the reduction of the marginalisation of the African continent, not only in terms of world affairs but also regarding the international economy. This consensus is important in that it should then "filter down" into the public sphere, and in this regard this Committee has an important role to play in correct the public's misinformation on South Africa's role and current status in foreign affairs. This Committee therefore has to adopt a more proactive approach in this regard.

The it was established during the recent visit by this Committee to the offices of the Department of Foreign Affairs (the Department) that most of the senior officials are functioning in an acting capacity, which adversely affects staff morale. The level transformation thus far achieved within the Department is also not of a satisfactory degree, and this needs to be achieved to ensure more representative and effectiveness.

The budget of this Committee for this financial year, contained in the document entitled "Proposed Budget for the Financial Year April 2002 - March 2003", is also important, as well as the strategic plan as it relates the vision and foreign missions of the Department to its actual practices. Indeed, the foreign missions are supposed to stimulate trade between South Africa and foreign jurisdictions. The Department is also a key facilitator in realising the African century.

A meeting will be held with the Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr Frene Ginwala (the Speaker), to discuss the involvement of this Committee in the AU Summit. A meeting will also be held with the CEO of the Africa Institute in this regard, whom the Speaker has invited to lead the Civil Society participation aspect of the AU Summit. A meeting will also be arranged with the Minister of Foreign Affairs (the Minister) to explore these issues, as well as the relationship between this Committee and the Department. There will also be a meeting with the Chairperson of the Environmental Affairs and Tourism Portfolio Committee to discuss their involvement in the preparation for the WSSD.

Mr C Eglin (DP) agreed fully with the Chair that this Committee should adopt a proactive approach, especially regarding any legislation passed by this Committee, as this Committee is not like an ordinary Committee that spends a significant amount of time on the processing of legislation. This is due to the fact that this Committee deals primarily with political action.

Civil society should be included in the process of the discussion of foreign policy matters, as public input in this regard is both needed and necessary. Furthermore, consensus on foreign policy matters is also needed as far as possible, and in this regard the DP will try to bring about consensus in the national interest.

Furthermore, Item 2 on the Budget document made available to Members is unclear, as the reason for this could be understood in terms of labour or health practices. These matters seem to be of more relevance to other Departments that to this Committee.

The Chair replied that that document has been composed on a pro forma template, and thus items that are not directly relevant to this Committee have also been included.

Mr Eglin stated further that the relationship with the Speaker's International Relations Committee has to be discussed, because this Portfolio Committee is a miniature of Parliament and has to be recognized as such. In fact, the Sheik will be addressing the House today, yet the attention of this Committee has not even been drawn to this, nor have Members been invited to interact.

Mr M Ramgobin (ANC) stated that it is also important to investigate what happens outside the borders of the Republic in the name of South Africa.

Dr B Geldenhys (NNP) stated that the Chair earlier referred to the question of what precisely constitutes the national interest, and reminded Members that a conference was held in Randburg in 1999 under the leadership of the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr Alfred Nzo, to address this very issue. Yet that conference failed to properly address this matter, and it thus pleasing to know that the matter will now receive proper attention.

Furthermore, the visits to the offices of the Department also mentioned earlier by the Chair proved to be a real eye-opener, and this was only the second visit to the Department since 1994, with the first taking place as far back as 1995. It is essential that this Committee engages with the Department on a much more regular basis.

Ms F Mahomed (ANC) referred to the document entitled "Programme - January 2002-August 2002", and suggested that point (viii) be added under Item 1, to be entitled "Sierra Leone", and a point (vii) should be added under Item 2, entitled "Security Council". Furthermore, Item 6 should be renamed "Miscellaneous", and should be divided into concerns with the Middle East conflict and other general matters. The former would include concerns such as the conflict in Kashmir, Madagascar, the Middle East and other problem areas, with the latter dealing with matters such as HIV/AIDS, nuclear disarmament, eco-tourism etc. These matters should thus be dealt with under separate headings, as suggested.

Mr P Hendrickse (ANC) informed Members that he does not object to the amendments posed by Ms Mahomed, but wished to remind Members that there are only ten meetings left for this Committee until August this year. Thus the items on the current agenda should be prioritized due to these time constraints.

The Chair responded that this is an important consideration, but the programme has to be looked at in a more open-ended manner.

Mr E Ebrahim (ANC) recommended that more attention be paid to the Latin American countries, and these countries have to be factored into the programme.

Mr Ramgobin suggested that Item 6 should be widened further to include the subtitle "Religious Intolerance", especially in view of the threatening nature of religious states, and this matter has to be dealt with "openly and fearlessly".

Furthermore, the issue of global peace should be made more specific to include such matters as the establishment of nuclear free zones, as South Africa cannot allow the African continent to continue such activities.

Item 2(v) should be unbundled to include the fact that industrialized countries use South Africa as a dumping ground for toxic waste and the effect of this on South Africa, especially within the context of sustainable development. This should be placed on the programme.

Ms F Hajaij (ANC) stated that the current programme is a sound one, but suggested that it has to include discussions on terrorism, so that a definition and impact of this matter may be arrived at.

Mr D Sithole (ANC) stated that some of the suggestions made by Members are valid, but questioned whether some matters should properly be discussed during the period before August 2002, or whether they should rather be dealt with via seminars specifically convened to discuss these matters. It seems that most of the comments and suggestions raised by Members are intellectual or academic concerns, and these should thus be omitted from the programme so that it does not become overloaded.

The Chair replied that at this stage Members are still brainstorming and trying to synthesize their ideas into a more comprehensive programme, and therefore contributions of Members cannot be excluded at this stage.

Mr P Ditshetelo (UCDP) agreed that the programme should be as inclusive as possible at the beginning of the process of finalising it. Furthermore, this Committee has to familiarise itself with other bodies that have a similar duty and function as it has. This Committee should also identify those areas in which the public express dissatisfaction and address these issues, and should also consider problems globally.

Mr G Makanda (UDM) agreed that a debate on current foreign affairs could be erroneous, and this Committee cannot only speak in general terms regarding the involvement of the entire South African society. The reason for this is that most people are not aware of the current state of foreign affairs precisely because of this top-heavy approach, with the result that relevant information is not filtered down to the public.

Mr E Sigwela (ANC) suggested that more weight be added to the sentiments expressed by Mr Ramgobin regarding religious intolerance, because this matter is at the very base of the issue. This is an important matter, and different religious leaders should be brought together to identify the civil conflicts and try to ascertain feasible solutions. It is certain that this initiative will generate a significant amount of attention and interest.

Mr Ramgobin contended that these comments are important, but they should not form the focus of this matter. It would, in the interim, be pretentious to believe that all these issues will be adequately addressed August 2002, such as the conflict in Afghanistan and the trouble in Zimbabwe etc. It is feared that this would impose increased limits or restrictions on this Committee.

The Chair reiterated his initial sentiments by informing Members that he tried to emphasise the obvious differences between South Africans on a list of issues on which the different political parties within the Republic (nineteen at last count) differ. Despite these differences, there are certain core questions or issues on which the vast majority of South Africans coalesce. These include the improvement of the performance of the national economy and infrastructure and the stability of the region, but they would differ on the modalities of reaching these goals. This Committee will have to interact on a much more regular basis on these matters with the Department as well as civil society and its international colleagues, so that more informed decisions will be reached on these important matters. This would also allow the South African public to properly understand the role to be played by South Africa in the international arena and its foreign affairs agenda.

Mr Ditshetelo replied that he had not implied that a blanket consensus has to be reached on these matters but rather suggested that, at the beginning of the process, information via brainstorming should be allowed to filter in. This would allow Members to better familiarise themselves with the core issues and competing views.

Mr W Seremane (DP) stated that the aftermath of phenomena such as nuclear disarmament has to be investigated via fora such as NEPAD, AU Summit and the African Renaissance, and includes the problems caused by landmines. The Committee has to evaluate its role in this regard, because allowing such events to pass is simply unacceptable. The use of young people in war also has to be considered. This seems to be a self-defeating exercise because when these countries eventually attain a stage of peace for which they have negotiated, it would be lost on the future generation because these children have already been indoctrinated in war. This results in the country being unable to successfully sustain the peace attained. Thus initiatives such as NEPAD, AU and the African Renaissance cannot succeed when the very basics have been ignored.

The Chair contended that the important issue of peace on the African continent does not properly fall within the ambit of global peace.

Mr Ramgobin recommended that this Committee set aside ten to fifteen minutes at the end of every meeting to audit its own performance against the set expectations contained in the programme. Members should note areas in which the Committee has been successful as well as those areas in which it has failed to meet its stated objectives. Reasons for the shortcomings also have to be identified, so that this Committee may be able to recognise its own strengths and weaknesses.

Mr Sigwela informed Members that the budget document reflects a serious under budgeting on the estimated catering costs for the seminars to be hosted by this Committee during the current financial year. This matter has to be addressed.

The Chair replied that a full discussion of the budget allocated to this Committee would take place later. Members also have to bear in mind the number of proposed visits to foreign jurisdictions, such as the Moscow visit in September or October this year, and visits to Kinshasa and Angola have also been planned. It will be recalled that an invitation was extended to this Committee to visit the Moroccan government, as well as the United Nations and European Union General Assembly, and these visits also have to be borne in mind by Members in considering the budget.

Mr Ramgobin inquired whether the trip to Pakistan, which was cancelled on the day of departure, was carried over and is thus still on the agenda for 2002.

Mr Eglin stated that the very nature of the visits as well as the contributions to be made by the host countries, if any at all, has to be ascertained.

The Chair agreed, and suggested that quotes should be attained from various agencies in this regard, as this would assist this Committee in dealing with its current budgetary allocation and spending priorities and restrictions.

A delegation from South Korea will be visiting on the 22 May 2002, and those Members who formed the South African delegation on the visit to South Korea must return the courtesy and meet the South Korean delegation. The problem here is that this visit clashes with the budget briefing by the Department.

The International Red Cross Conference on International Humanitarian Law will take place on 21 to 23 May 2002, and two delegates from this Committee have been invited to attend.

It is noted that Mr Sigwela has volunteered.

Ms Mahomed expressed her interest in attending, but informed the Committee that she would only be able to attend on the 22 May 2002.

Mr Sigwela suggested that a Member from each party attend this conference.

The Chair stated that these matters would be clarified.

The meeting was adjourned.

Appendix 1

PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
PROGRAMME - JAN 2002 - AUG 2002
1. Africa and Conflict Resolutions / Peace Process

i. Progress in Burundi
ii. Progress in the DRC
iii. Developments in Angola
iv. Swaziland
v. Lesotho
vi. Zimbabwe
vii. Western Sahara - Morocco

2. Multi-literal Institutions Transformation

i. SADC
ii. UN
iii. OAU/AU
iv. Non Alignment Movement
v. NEPAD
vi. Update on WSSD

3. WTO Agreement - Joint meeting with Trade and Industry
4. Outstanding issues on Abuja Treaty

5. Refugees - Joint meeting with Home Affairs

6. Middle East Development

7. Report on preparations for launching AU

8. Global Issues
i. General briefing by: Minister
Deputy Minister
Director General

9. Report on Launching Africa Union (after its launch)