South African Council on International Relations on a wide range of issues

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed the members, the SACOIR delegation and the officials from the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO). He said this was going to be a ‘fireworks’ meeting, given the number of topics that would be discussed. In a Committee such as this, a briefing like this became important to inform the quality of the debates and to inform the questions which Members put to the Department, the President and the Deputy President. Therefore the Committee welcomed the opportunity to receive SACOIR’s input.

The Chairperson stated that the agenda was a comprehensive engagement with SACOIR on a wide range of issues:

• A summary of a seminar on South Africa’s strategic role on the continent, to be held between 12 and 14 July 2017;
• A summary on the proposed SACOIR workshop on global governance;
• A briefing on Israel and Palestine;
• A discussion on the Pan African Parliament; and
• A briefing on key elements of the Trump administration and the repercussions for South Africa and Africa, such as climate change, the American protectionist policy, their ban on Muslim travel to the United States (US), and the increasing threats of terrorism.

The Chairperson said SACOIR had indicated that they would be happy to hear if Members wanted briefings on any other topics. From his side, perhaps not in detail, he wanted a briefing on the latest elections in the Netherlands, France and Britain, and some small details on the Trump-Cuba policy, which had come up a few days before. He also asked if one member from the delegation could explain how South Africa was reading the world order and the balance of forces internationally. One journalist had said it was “a second cold war” in terms of the international political climate.

Ms S Kaylan (DA) asked if feedback on the following week’s programme and the study tour could be added to the day’s agenda. The agenda was adopted.

South Africa’s strategic role in Africa; proposed SACOIR workshop on global governance

Mr Tshepo Mashiane, SACOIR council member, said that the Chairperson’s preamble prepared them well in terms of the inputs on which they could engage the Committee. It was no secret that we live in a world that was rapidly changing in terms of the geopolitics. The current economic uncertainty led to the question of what South Africa’s position in the world was, given these particular realities. Professor Shamil Jeppie, a University of Cape Town (UCT) specialist of the Middle East and North Africa and a member of the SACOIR Council, would speak on the planned seminar, which in part examined South Africa’s, place, role and understanding in Africa. The seminar would also determine South Africa’s will and capacity to lead Africa’s renewal in governance, security and development.

Prof Jeppie said that at SACOIR, they divided themselves into four working groups according to different topics. He was part of the working group referred to as “Africa’s world,” which dealt with flagging African issues in the world, and vice-versa. Each of the working groups were meant to develop programmes and activities to highlight the issues that were important in their respective areas.

They were starting with the first seminar on 12 and 13 July. It would be the first major event, and was an attempt to be intensive about the many aspects that faced Africa.

There would be a mixture of presenters – “heavy hitters” from the United States, Russia, the European Union (EU) and members from DIRCO, and they would be paired with academics. He invited members to look at the programme and ask questions if they had any. He also invited the Members to attend and participate in the seminar.

The initial thinking was to have a Southern African focus, but they first wanted to start with a bigger continental picture. This was going to be a signature event for the continent. A Southern African focus would be the follow-up seminar. He asked if there was any item that Members thought should be on the agenda.

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) asked what the main focus of the regional sessions was, and whether there were any specific themes. Was it open -- did they focus on “hotspots” like Zambia, or was it thematic?

The Chairperson said that the topics that were covered by the seminar were very good, but when it came to development and intra-Africa trade, which was very important, he would have loved the seminar to discuss the current challenges for each of the regions in Africa, such as the East African Community (EAC), Southern African Development Community (SADC) and Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). What were the successes of the regions, how far had they come towards their tripartite free trade areas, including the Continental Free Trade Area (CFTA)? On the other hand, they may gravitate towards this vision if intra-African trade was not as low as it is. If there was any lesson to be learnt, it was the European Union (EU).

He had recently picked up that France and Germany had played a key role in the evolution of the EU in various sectors. There were physical impediments to the African union -- roads, the quality of gravelled roads, connectivity, the dams, the railroads and air transport, which was still the ‘colonial’ air transport. The trade among the Eurozone nations was greater because they had these types of enablers, while Africa had these types of disablers amongst themselves.

Regarding the invitation to the Committee, he requested a written letter directed to the Parliamentary Speaker so that Parliament knew and could make necessary provisions.

Prof Jeppie thanked the Members for their valuable input. SACOIR had a lot of expertise and empirical research which would tell indicate the extent of successes and infrastructure. and so on.

There would be a specific focus on the issues in each area. For example, in West Africa, terrorism would be discussed. In Southern Africa, Zambia would be covered, but they had also identified Zimbabwe as an issue. In North Africa, Libya was the issue, but it would not be limited to this. He added that SACOIR’s secretariat would deal with the written invitation to the Speaker.

The Chairperson commented that there was continuous tension between South Africa and Nigeria, which was perhaps over leadership on the continent. Good rapport between these two big African states was needed at the leadership level -- it was not about personalities. Even if one changed the presidents, the countries needed each other so that they could lead the African continent on the issues of the economy, development, security, and so on.

If one talked about the standing of South Africa, how other regions viewed South Africa was also important. Sometimes, South Africa was viewed with suspicion. The weakness was that South Africans, both black and white, thought like non-Africans. The Minister of Basic Education, Angie Motshekga, while speaking on this topic, had said that much of the continent looked at South African hairstyles, dress sense and attitudes, and say that we behave like whites. This was in reference to black people in South Africa towards other Africans.

Prof Jeppie said that this was the type of discussion SACOIR had in their meetings. South Africa could not take its position in the continent for granted. It always shifted and one needed to take that trend into consideration. Many of the speakers in the seminar would critically evaluate changing perceptions on South Africa, so that South Africa did not take its position in the continent for granted -- which had happened in the 1990s.

Mr Mashiane said that the issues the Chairperson had raised had been noted, and what had come out of this engagement informed what should be on the programme. The reason why SACOIR was at the meeting was to move to the next step of implementation, towards inclusion. Their advisory role was not limited to sectors they had in the SACOIR council, but it was inclusive. They were also discussing having an outreach programme held annually, targeting the youth, to discuss the very same issues they were grappling with in international relations.

He sits as a convener in the working group of global governance, and in their interaction they try deliberately to identify sectors of interest. They had already implemented a few programmes with the University of Pretoria (UP), engaging with students in the field of international relations or political science. They had also supported the United Nations Association of South Africa (UNASA), which was an association which is modelled on the United Nations, (UN) as well as engaging in research. They were also in discussions with young people who were part of the African Union (AU) student chapters.

These engagements allowed them to understand and gain confidence for the future that was envisioned. However, because they had already done this work, they wanted to go above and beyond and engage with young people who were not part of formal structures, such as university institutions, and instead move towards young people who were part of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and churches, and engaging them on these issues. For the first time, they would be able to have publications that had the voice of general South Africans on international relations. These discussions were meant to start debates and discussions, so that at the end of the day one would come to the understanding of what the role of South Africa was. They were planning to have this discussion with young people from different sectors of society by September at the latest. The preparations were under way. It was still in the conceptual phase, and they would like to get views on how they should do this, and do it right collectively.

Ambassador Griffiths Memela, a member of the SACOIR council, said that he wanted to comment on the issue of tensions within the African continent which impeded progress towards African unity. It was an important framework towards moving forward at their workshop. One important point he wanted to clarify involved the internal and external influences, and the balance between the two. People may assume that tensions between South Africa and Nigeria were caused by Nigerians and South Africans, only to realise when one investigated this situation that there were other forces outside who might not wish that Nigerians and South Africans should work together. This meant that efforts to try and create constructive engagement between the two countries must follow a full analysis and evaluation of the external aspects before one could ask “what was wrong with us” and “why could we not work as a team”. West Africa was a region with countries that came from a French background, while Southern Africa was Anglophone, so that also needed to be looked at closely.

The issue of the youth was critical, because when referring to the youth on is talking about the future. This meant therefore that one should put more effort into organising the South African youth to be part of the process. There were outreach programmes in various parts of the country, but these needed the Committee’s support so that they could work together to ensure that they worked.

Discussion

Mr M Maila (ANC) said that the input by Ambassador Memela, especially regarding French-speaking and English-speaking Africans, reminded him of a situation in Cameroon, where the English-speaking people tend to think that the government was not taking care of them, and there was a likelihood of turmoil. The discussion on West Africa should touch on that particular aspect.

With regards to the youth, Africa’s population was youthful, unlike the European population that was ageing, so there was a need to focus on programmes for the youth as future leaders of Africa.

Ms D Raphuti (ANC) said she really loved young people. She engaged with a lot of youth, and was doing a study about how international relations impacted on the youth. In the rural township areas, the youth did not know about these issues. She did not say that the youth were future leaders -- she believed they were the current leaders. She was very excited about the seminar topic, and wanted an impact on the rural youth and youths in the townships.

A child from the township should be able talk to a child in China, and a child from a township should be able to go to China. One could not say there was a Department of International Relations and Cooperation while the youth did not even know what that was or what was happening, so they needed to revolutionise how they impacted the youth in terms of international relations. This “ubuntu” diplomacy should start at the street level. She added that Mr Mashiane had so much to do, and also thanked him for this direction.

Mr Mokgalapa asked for clarity regarding the issue of Nigeria raised by Ambassador Memela regarding the external assessment of external forces. He presumed that the professors present at the meeting would also know was that when one did an evaluation, one started internally and not externally. One could not go looking for a problem elsewhere without first asking what the problem with oneself was. Therefore, with the external assessment one had to first ask internally what it was between South Africa and Nigeria, before talking about external forces. It was always the de facto position in Africa that when things go wrong, rather than looking at ourselves, we blame others.

The issue of global governance and the inclusion of youth was welcomed, and should be supported. He would like to see a foreign policy from the young people, because often the South African foreign policy stance did not necessarily make sense to the youth. They were impacted by those decisions, so he would like to see a synergy between the involvement of young people in the foreign policy space, not only to clarify the country’s national interest, but also the foreign policy internationally and domestically. If South Africa said it had relations with China, how did that impact a young person from a rural area?

On the issue of global governance, it was not the country’s participation per se. He was always fascinated by the number of multilateral forums that the country attended -- but what was the impact of these forums? Was South Africa staying true to the constitutionally mandated principles and values in those forums, rather than just participating? Participation was one thing, but impact was another.

He suggested that the SACOIR delegation should conduct an exercise, where the youth was asked if they knew about South Africa’s national interest, what they thought the national interest was, and what they thought it should be. SACOIR’s advisory role was to ensure that the foreign policy space was open, and public participation was important. They needed to stay true to their own principles and open the foreign policy space that was closed.

Ms T Kenye (ANC) said that she was disappointed that she did not see women among the SACOIR delegates. In relation to the discussion around youth, she asked if this was the first outreach initiative. To make it more accessible, with the inclusion of civil society, was very important. The notion that foreign policy was only elitist needed to be addressed. SACOIR should spread their reach in terms of government assistance, so that different constituencies could understand the policy choices of the country.

She asked the delegation to explain what was happening with the working groups – what were the specific portfolios, and who was leading what.

Mr Mashiane thanked the Members for their input. SACOIR’s step towards mobilising the youth around international relations was also informed by the fact that the AU had declared 2017 as harnessing the demographic dividend in youth. The question was, what was South Africa doing, and as SACOIR they felt the need to take that challenge and have some form of response, so that next year when the AU met, they could say that this was what they had done.

The Chairperson referred to the issue of young people. What had not been said was that there was an “in-school youth” and an “out-of-school youth”. There were young people at institutions of technology and universities who were organised in student organisations and belonged to different political parties. SACOIR needed to draw them in from their different political parties and student organisations.

His view was that there was a well formulated position on what constituted South Africa’s national interest across party lines, so that every South African could say, “I am a South African and this is what I am all about.” When they spoke speak as political parties, national interest was not the same thing. Therefore it would depend on the party in charge of government about what constituted national interest. When he had been asked on the matter, he had said that “this was the thinking of the ANC,” or “this was the thinking of the government”.

The youth that were in the arts sector should be targeted, because some of the activists had come from this sector -- people such as Miriam Makeba, Hugh Masekela, Ray Phiri and Fela Kuti -- and they had promoted the oneness of Africa when it came to language and culture. When one spoke of ‘young people,’ one should not look for those in politics, but should draw in youth from other sectors.

Palestine and Israel

Prof Jeppie said that looking at the Palestine and Israel region, it was rather depressing and bleak. This was the 50th year of Israeli occupation. Some supporters of the Israeli position would argue that it was no longer an occupation, because there was an administration in the West Bank. Actually, it was an occupation and the occupation had deepened itself – essentially, it was a large prison. That morning, the newspapers had said that Israel would allow only three hours of electricity to Gaza. The Hamas was totally dependent on Israel for services. The day before, the press had reported that Israel was starting its first entirely new settlement in 25 years. It was against international law to settle land that was occupied in war -- it was simply illegal. When Israel had started these settlements, they had grown incrementally, and this one it was creating now was a new settlement. This was the main stumbling block, because Palestinian status was impossible. It was going to be worse than what one referred to as a “Swiss cheese” -- a little compartment here, and a little compartment there. There were separate roads for Israelis and separate roads for Palestinians, with all these barriers.

The Oslo Accord had not been viable, because it had led Palestine authorities to become the operator of Israeli security. It seemed that the two state solution was just not happening because so much of the West Bank was occupied. How did one get people who had lived there for decades to move?

The current administration was right-wing, and it was bolstered by the fact that it could have quiet -- and not so quiet -- alliances with various Arab states, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, so it was a rather bleak situation. There was no way to seek a solution that would bring back some integrity and some honour to the Palestinians -- they seemed to be on the back foot.

The one bright spot was the impact of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which was a non-violent, passive campaign to boycott Israeli products, universities, etc. The EU had made it illegal to sell products that had been produced in the occupied territories. There was a big campaign with Sodastream, which had factories in the occupied areas. Now Sodastream had closed these factories in the occupied territories.

Universities in South Africa did not want anything to do with Israel, although individual contact with academics was allowed. There were many Israeli academics who support the BDS, which he knew from personal experience. It was very much the situation that South Africa was in in the 1970s and 1980s, with the white left and the end conscription campaign.

In the broader scheme of things, this was one of those conflicts that had taken place for more than 50 years, but of course the other conflict was the issue of Syria and Yemen. In some ways, Palestine figured in all of these matters -- for example, the Saudi position against Qatar, by the way Saudi was an absolute monarchy, and it was bizarre how the US could be so indulgent of this country. Qatar had been a host to Hamas leaders and had been close to Iran. So there was a kind of scare in some of these monarchies that any groups that were not pro-monarchy should be sidelined completely. This took away from the core issue of Palestine, which had been festering for 50 years and more, the longest running conflict there.

From his perspective in South Africa the big push for BDS had been supported by universities, by civil society and the political sector, which was the only hopeful thing he saw as a way for non-violent pressure on the Israelis at the moment.

Discussion

Mr D Bergman (DA) said that he had not started in politics with the Middle East in mind, but throughout the ages it had been the focus of attention, which was quite sad, because the focus had been on one aspect of the Middle East, which was Israel -- and Israel was a pin drop. As Prof Jeppie had mentioned, the Israel issue was the longest standing one, but in principle any loss of life, or any atrocity, must be treated equally.

He himself was Jewish, but that did not make him Zionist or anti-Zionist. One was a Zionist if one believed Jews deserved a homeland, but there was many issues surrounding that. He had studied it and been drawn into the issue because he was Jewish. Now it had come to the point where he saw that there were three issues that went to the heart of this issue -- land, refugees and Jerusalem -- and he was surprised that Pro Jeppie had not raised them in discussing the conflict in Israel.

If one had watched footage of Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza on British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Cable News Network (CNN) and all pro-Palestinian media, what one would see was armies that had to take mothers and children from settlement land. Six months later, the whole basis of this Gaza withdrawal was that there would be peace between the Palestinians and Israelis in that part of Israel. Not even a few days later, and one would see rockets being fired in general, and he wanted to believe that it must be illegal to build settlements on land that was occupied by law. However, he needed to understand whether a country did not have a right to protect itself?

In our own South African situation, where one sees ‘occupy Luthuli House,’ one sees how our own soldiers in a political party are called upon to protect Luthuli House. How then could one condemn people for protecting themselves? He was interested in hearing from Prof Jeppie how one could find a resolution on the land and Jerusalem issues, and how would one could move forward seeing that the two state solution was not the way to go. Based what Prof Jeppie was saying, there was going to be a three state solution, as Gaza was very separate from the Palestinian Authority, and it sounded like no one wanted Gaza. That was where the rockets had come from, but it seemed that Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Lebanon did not want Gaza.

When looking at mediation, South Africa always wanted to say that it was balanced, but it supported Gaza, and they want to mediators. He understood the connection from the brothers in Palestine, but one can not be mediators from one side. The most credible mediator was not even the US -- he considered Egypt as the most credible mediator. What South Africa should be doing was to focus its efforts on having Egypt as a full mediator.

Regarding the BDS, one would think it was flourishing in South Africa, but when one looked at the EU, they were banning BDS in quite a lot of universities. The Sodastream case study was worth looking at, because if one took into account the loss of jobs and the destruction caused because of this loss of employment, South Africa needed to take an unbiased and un emotional look at the situation in order to promote peace. South Africa had to make sure that atrocities on both sides were protested against. As a Committee, they needed to take a balanced look of the situation.

Regarding the workshop in July, he would like to focus on the three areas that had been identified internationally as the key problems to peace -- land, refugee status and Jerusalem.

Mr Mokgalapa said the problem he had when they discussed the issue of conflict was the picking of sides -- they ended up flip flopping and not being consistent, so they ended up not being credible. How did one mediate when one was on the other side? It was a simple basic principle of negotiation -- you cannot mediate when you have picked a side. He was not saying it was wrong to pick a side, but one must not call oneself a mediator.

South Africa’s official stance was that of a two-state solution, and Prof Jeppie had pronounced that it was unattainable, so what was the solution he was putting on the table? Prof Jeppie had spoken about the success of the BDS movement, but some felt it was counterproductive. It was one of those situations where, like beauty, it was in the eye of the beholder. His issue was that South Africa ends up not appearing credible -- it ends up flip-flopping and talking in tongues. On the one hand, the government proclaims it has a two state stance, and then the next thing at an ANC conference, they proclaim that they support the BDS movement and are pro-Palestine. All the while, South Africa has a R500 million trade with Israel. That was the type of flip-flopping he was talking about, without drilling down into what South Africa’s role was, and what the country’s experience was.

South Africa was miles away from this conflict, and he thought that the country’s best energies could be served in resolving the Western Sahara issue. At least with the Western Sahura question, South Africa had influence, whereas with the Palestine-Israeli conflict, it was miles away from it and did not even play a role. As Prof Jeppie had mentioned, this conflict involved Qatar, Jordan and other states, which made it complex, as there were other external forces at play.

He asked what South Africa’s position was -- a two-state solution? An end to violence? Going to negotiations? An end to the building of settlements which, by the way, the UN had pronounced? What was South Africa putting on the table?

South Africa needed to stay true to what one government was saying and send one message. Politically, South Africa could pick sides, and that was fine, but as a government, it should have one position and it needed to make sure that it harnessed that position.

Ms Raphuti said that speaking very broadly with regard to Israel and Palestine, they should probably ensure women and children were safe, because they were the people that were suffering. As mediators, why could they not use women to assist in that regard? It was known that the media sold whatever they wanted to sell. This issue had been there for 50 years, and who had been part of the negotiations and the mediation? She requested that women should be the ones to assist.

Mr Mpumlwana said that one could not bite the hand that feeds one. The crux of the matter was that there was history to this. Gradually, there was no Palestine -- there had been UN resolutions, but they had been ignored. In Palestine tomorrow, land was going to be taken. That was a fact, and one could not say it was not there. It was a pathetic situation. It was correct to say that there were mistakes and what needed to be said was, “please withdraw”, full stop. Those people who were able to talk to them needed to say, “please withdraw,” but the question was, should South Africa come in and if so, how? There were two ways. The first was to say to Israel, “please, do not do this.” The second was to apply sanctions which put on pressure.

The Chairperson said that he agreed with Mr Bergman that one should not conflate the Middle East with Israel and Palestine. The two countries were impacted upon by relations, good or bad, among other players in the Middle East. He thought they should find a day where they could have a discussion about the Middle East, which brought in Qatar, Yemen, Jordan and others.

What Mr Mokgalapa was touching on referred to those countries who were actually supporting the Palestinian cause, and what ideological disposition had informed them to take that decision. Beyond those countries were the multilateral institutions, like the UN. What was the UN’s comment about this, because it was a world body, and why were other countries not listening?

He was not sure that he was necessarily right -- he was just being historical about this -- but the Middle East had been a contested terrain for over 100 years. The Middle East was critical in winning or not winning in the first and second war, and during the “cold war.” When certain countries support Israel, they may not like what is happening internally, but it was an important country of influence.

He thought he understood the issue of the two state solution. He knows that people have been saying that the Palestinian state was shrinking. So if countries continued to claim a two state position, there may be no territory for the other state. The one was increasingly becoming stateless, and South Africa needed to review its position and hear Israel out on whether they were supportive of a two state position, and hear Palestine out too.

Israel had passed legislation in December, which had been condemned by the UN, which legalised retrospective settlements in Palestinian territories or land. In other words, if they had settled 100 or 50 people in there, now it was legal. That was why the territory was shrinking. Mr Bergman was perhaps helping by saying a three state resolution, but was it a view expressed by the Israelis, and what would constitute the three states?

There was also the security situation. If, for instance, Israel had serious security concerns, it thought that the statehood of the Palestinians could be a threat to them, who would do what to ensure that this threat in fact did not exist. As a country, they were trapped in that security mentality. It was not an issue of being a Jew, as there were many Jews who see it differently.

Just as Prof Jeppie was saying, in South Africa, just because you were white, you saw the freedom of blacks as a threat to you. But there were many Jewish, Afrikaner and English people who had joined hands with the ANC, and who had been part of the discussion and adoption of the Freedom Charter in 1955. In the 80s, as an Azanian Students Organisation (AZASO) activist, there were white students who had refused to be conscripted and been made to fight against their brothers in Angola, and it was not a new thing. In 1973 in the US, young Americans refused to fight in the Vietnam War.

When Mr Mokgalapa had said that they must agree to disagree, he disagreed. He came from the AZASO in university, the black consciousness movement in the 1970s, and he was part of the ANC. They were not apologetic to anyone about taking sides with the Palestinians, because before 1994 the ANC had worked with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). There had been good rapport between the ANC leadership and them, and they had housed them when the ANC was in trouble, so they would not leave them now that they were governing South Africa. They would not leave Cuba and they would not leave Western Sahara. These three countries felt that they were being oppressed by someone, so they would stick to what they were sticking to, but if a new government came in, they knew that things would change.

He explained two months ago at his lecture….

Ms Kaylan intervened on a point order and stated that with all due respect, the Chairperson was now articulating ANC discussions, thoughts and his personal points of views. Her understanding was that they should not be expressing party views when delegations had a presentation to make. If he was going to persist in that manner, then he should allow her to talk about her lectures and what the DA policy was, and a little about the DA history. With due respect, she suggested that they should stick to the presentations and have the presentation in an objective manner, and that they interrogate it in an objective manner. This was not an ANC study group -- it was a Portfolio Committee meeting.

The Chairperson said her point of order could only be partly sustained. He could leave the lecture part out, but where she had said that they were a Portfolio Committee and had to be objective, when Committee Members spoke it was clear what ideological disposition informed their views. They must agree to disagree even as a Portfolio Committee about what their take was on the matter presented.

The ANC was in charge of government and in charge of Parliament, and when they spoke about Parliament to Parliament or state to state -- at least for now -- they had a mandate of 62 percent of South Africans until the next elections.

He wanted to clarify what Mr Mokgalapa was saying when he said that South Africa was miles apart from Palestine and Israel. He did not think this was appropriate, as South Africa was a member of the UN, the AU and Southern African Development Community (SADC). There were instances that South Africa, informed by a history of negotiations, had been called upon to intervene in certain areas. Other countries had requested South Africa to assist, and the President had called on two specialist envoys to try to bring the two sides together.

Secondly, South Africa must be seen to be playing a role in conflicts on the continent, even if it was far from it. He suggested that SACOIR prepares a comprehensive presentation on the Middle East -- geographically, its trade, security, etc. Only then the Committee could have a discussion where they could situate Palestine and the Israeli conflict in the context of the Middle East.

Mr Mokgalapa said that he agreed with the Chairperson’s statement in terms of something comprehensive, because Prof Jeppie had given them snap notes from a notebook, so it was not yet comprehensive. He clarified that when he hadsaid ‘miles apart,’ he was not referring to that geographically. He meant it in terms of South Africa’s influence, adding that the country had limited influence and was making itself have less influence. People might be looking on South Africa for negotiation skills, but in his view, the country was not even there.

The Chairperson said that perhaps they should also have a presentation on national interest so that they knew where they stood on this matter, and at a party level, they could agree to disagree.

Ms Raphuti asked if they could also have tangible solutions and suggestions on how they could assist.

Prof Jeppie thanked the Members for their valuable inputs, and agreed with Mr Bergman that land was the core issue. South Africa knew what settler colonialism meant, and this was settler colonialism. He would be very happy to engage the Committee on a longer session on the Middle East.

Mr Mashiane said that on behalf of the council, there had been a few issues raised that he wanted to highlight. It was important that they understand the position of SACOIR, of not being part of a government. They were an independent council, and they were probing debate. Some of the inputs they made were relevant, as of the day before. Importantly, they would never be a mouthpiece of any government. Therefore it would assist if they would treat each other in that particular fashion, so that even if in the future, they had a different point of view from the Portfolio Committee, they would present it as such.

Pan-African Parliament

The Chairperson invited the presentation on the Pan-African Parliament

Mr Mashiane asked the Committee if they could postpone that discussion, as they had requested Dr Somadoda Fikeni to present that topic, and had not been given that presentation in his absence. At the next engagement, they could present that topic along with the comments that had circulated from that day’s meeting.

The Chairperson accepted Mr Mashiane’s request, and said that it would be valuable to hear SACOIR’s analysis of the Pan-African Parliament( PAP), especially because Ms Kaylan, a Member of the Committee, sat on the PAP.

Ms Kaylan said it would be interesting to hear SACOIR’s take on the protocol to transform the PAP from a consultative forum to a legislative body, and whether in the foreseeable future, should legislative powers be given, how it would be implemented across the board. What would be their view on the issue of an African passport to ensure free movement.

Presentation: Trump administration, French, Netherlands and British elections

The Chairperson invited SACOIR to brief the Members on key elements related to the Trump administration and the repercussions for South Africa and Africa, and also on the elections in the Netherlands, France and Britain.

Mr Mashiane said that the presentation about the Trump administration was also supposed to have been given by Dr Fikeni. SACOIR had prepared for the engagement on the basis of giving people responsibilities according to their areas of focus. On the issue of the elections, he invited his colleagues to make contributions. He added that he wanted the Members to flag issues that SACOIR needed to focus on so that when the did come back and present, they would have dealt with those areas of focus.

Prof Jeppie referred to the European elections, and said they were meeting next week so they did not think they knew any better than what had been in the press. He himself reads a dozen papers a day, so he could say something in general. What they had seen was a pushback from centre and left-wing parties against populism in Europe, at least in France and Britain.

There had been a massive surge of young people using social media who had voted for Jeremy Corbyn, which had hit Theresa May’s government from nowhere. It was a similar situation with Emmanuel Macron -- it had been social media. These were two fascinating phenomena, young people raising the importance of the youth.

The sentiment had been that Jeremy Corbyn was simply bad news for the Labour Party, but this had been a massive resurgence. Even Tony Blair was indicating that people would vote for the Tories. The other news on elections was the Georgia elections in the US, where the votes had gone the other way and the Democrats had lost.

Discussion

Mr Mokgalapa said that they would await the next engagement and hear SACOIR’s views on those issues. One thing for homework was the issue of migration in Africa, and refugees. The UN had released a report about the refugees in Central African and Burundi. Migration was a big issue. There were lots of people dying in the Mediterranean trying to cross over to Europe, and it would be great to have the non-state actors to come up with some thoughts. They should look at the Sahara question in the light of the UN resolutions and the proposal that had been put forward. He was very interested in the regional sessions, and it was just unfortunate that he and the Chairperson would be at the SADC parliamentary forum during that period.

He asked SACOIR what issues had affected them in terms of their core mandate, because that would assist the Committee. The Committee had last met SACOIR in November. What had been happening from November until now?

Committee matters

The Chairperson asked about next week’s schedule.

Mr Lubabalo Sigwela, Committee Secretary, said that they were supposed to have a presentation from the Department of Public Works the following Wednesday, but they had still not responded. He added that it was up to the Committee to take a decision on whether they continued or not.

The Chairperson said regarding the next week, they had Public Works, the Foreign Service bill and the Malabo Protocol.

Mrs Kaylan proposed that if the Public Works Department had not confirmed by the end of the business day, then they should not have a meeting next week. She was coming to Cape Town only if the Committee was meeting. If they did not get a confirmation by close of business that day, the Committee work should be suspended until the third term.

The Chairperson said that Ms Kaylan had never made such a progressive input ever since she had worked with him.

Members agreed with Ms Kaylan’s proposal

The meeting was adjourned.