SA Policy Towards African Countries: Department briefings

This premium content has been made freely available

International Relations

24 August 2005
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE AND TRADE AND INDUSTRY PORFOLIO COMMITTEE
24 August 2005
SA POLICY TOWARDS AFRICAN COUNTRIES: DEPARTMENT BRIEFINGS

Acting Chairperson: Ms F Hajaig (ANC) and Mr K Bapela (ANC)

Documents handed out:
SA structured commissions in West and Central Africa: Department PowerPoint presentation
SA structured commissions in Sudan, Ethiopia, Rwanda and Kenya: Department PowerPoint presentation
Structural bilateral commissions in Southern Africa: Department presentation
SA structured commissions with North African states: Department PowerPoint presentation
SA’s Strategy for Africa’s Economic Development: Department PowerPoint presentation

SUMMARY
The Department of Foreign Affairs briefed the Committees on South Africa’s structured commissions in all the four main regions of Africa. South Africa had structural relationships with most of the countries on the continent, with the majority of the commissions being bilateral. Poverty alleviation and underdevelopment were the main issues underlying South Africa’s policy. The main problem facing the Department was the lack of capacity to implement the agreements once they had been signed.

The Department of Trade and Industry then briefed the Committees on South Africa’s leadership role in Africa’s economic development. South Africa aimed to position itself as a long-term economic partner in order to lead to sustainable development and co-operation. South Africa’s economic strategy was underpinned by the aim of alleviating poverty and underdevelopment, and it hoped to promote trade and investment. South Africa faced a number of internal and external challenges when trying to pursue its strategies, including a lack of capacity.

The Committees supported the initiatives of both Departments. However they felt that the time given to discuss these issues was way too short. The Committees requested more information on South Africa’s role in the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC). South Africa had made too many agreements and taken on too many challenges that were impossible to deal with. This was the reason for both Departments struggling with a lack of capacity. The Committees were concerned with the emphasis on bilateral agreements, rather than regional agreements. Lastly, they were concerned about South Africa’s role in the peace process in Sudan and the refugee problem in Rwanda.

MINUTES

Department of Foreign Affairs briefing on West and Central Africa
Mr Mxolisi Nkosi (Chief Director: West and Central Africa) discussed South Africa’s structured commissions in those regions. South Africa had a regional responsibility towards 15 countries in central Africa and seven countries in West Africa. South Africa had structural relationships with most of these countries. A number of regional characteristics in Western and Central Africa posed challenges when trying to create bi-national relationships. These included political transitions, economic reform and major social development challenges particularly poverty and underdevelopment. Important future challenges were strengthening the capacity of future partner departments, streamlining the work of commissions and integrating them into departmental programmes as well as implementing and obtaining funding for various projects.

The Bi-National Commission (BNC) established between South Africa and Nigeria was the flagship of South Africa’s constructive engagement with the West African region and was established in October 1999. The main objective of this BNC was to lay a firm foundation for co-operation and partnership between both countries within the broader objectives of the African Union. Future plans regarding this commission included the ratification of a number of outstanding agreements and the restructuring of BNC committees. Preparations were also being made for a seventh BNC session. Total trade with Nigeria in 2004 and 2005 was R2.9 billion in exports and R5 billion in imports.

Preparations for the establishment of a Joint Commission of Co-operation (JCC) between South Africa and Ghana have begun and would be launched by the end of 2005. Different departments, especially the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) would form working groups to accomplish the objectives of the Joint Commission of Co-operation. South Africa hoped to expand trade and investment, which were R1.243 billion in South African exports and R64 million in imports and finalise a cultural co-operation agreement with Ghana. Lastly it hoped to explore co-operation between the countries in the justice, education and tourism fields.

South Africa hoped to establish a joint commission of bilateral co-operation with Senegal by the end of 2005. In the future there would also be a focus on the issues of trade, investment, transport, education, immigration, public enterprise and gender. During 2004 South Africa’s exports to Senegal stood at R211 million while imports were a low R5 million. The South African-Mali JCC had been held at Foreign Minister level and a second session of the JCC was planned in Bamako, Mali, for 2006. South African exports to Mali totalled R117.6 million in 2003 and imports stood at R6.8 million in the same year. It was important to note that Eskom Enterprises won the international bid in July 2001 for the hydro-electrical project in Manantali. Manantali was a joint project between the governments of Mali, Senegal and Mauritania who would all receive electricity generated by the project.

The South Africa-Gabon JCC had been established on 26 November 2003 by the General Co-operation Agreement signed by the two Ministers of Foreign Affairs. The inaugural session was due to take place at the end of the year. A number of other agreements were also signed with Gabon and the implementation of existing commitments were planned for the future including the Libreville Waterfront and Tourist Gateway project, housing projects and gold and manganese mining projects. The South Africa-Republic of Congo JCC was established by the signing of the General Co-operation Agreement by the two Foreign Ministers on 25 November 2003. The inaugural session was due to take place at the end of the year. Future plans included the signing of outstanding agreements covering trade, investments, taxation, transport and health and President Mbeki’s state visit in September 2005.

The JCC with Equatorial Guinea was established on 1 December 2003 when the Foreign Ministers signed the general Co-operation Agreement. Equatorial Guinea was the third largest oil producer in Africa yet trade was low. South Africa imported only R4.4 million of goods and exported R65.5 million during 2004. South Africa planned to host senior officials from Equatorial Guinea before the end of 2005 to discuss future co-operation in a number of areas including trade and investment, transport, health, communications and environmental affairs and tourism.

The Democratic Republic of San Tomé and Principé were important as they were potential future oil producers and tourism areas. Currently trade was low with South Africa importing only R160 000 and exporting R16.4 million. A General Co-operation Agreement was signed between the two Ministers of Foreign Affairs on 9 April 2005 and provisions were being made for a meeting between senior officials to take place before the end of 2005.

Finally, the Republic of Chad and South Africa signed a General Co-operation Agreement in December 2004. In order to begin the implementation of this agreement, South Africa had placed an official in N’djamena to further bi-lateral relations and was also planning to host Chadian officials over the next few months in order to implement the agreement. Chad was planning to open an embassy in South Africa and there was great potential for future co-operation especially in the fields of transport and communications.

East Africa
Ambassador L Makhubela (Chief Director: East Africa) briefed the Committees on the South Africa’s commissions in East Africa and the Indian Ocean Islands. This region was conflict stricken and urgently required economic and social development as well as institutions that promoted democracy including civil society structures. A major challenge was that ‘regionalisation’ of conflicts, for example, the conflict in Sudan had a destabilising effect on its neighbours including Uganda, Chad, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Kenya. Sudan was South Africa’s 58th largest export partner, and its 156th largest import partner. A Co-operation Agreement had been concluded in February 2003 between the Foreign Affairs Ministers.

President Mbeki had visited Sudan from 30 December 2004 to 2 January 2005 and along with President El Bashir had agreed to strengthen relations between the countries. In February 2005, President El Bashir sent a special envoy to request the establishment of a JCC. South Africa had in reply submitted a draft legal agreement to Sudan for consideration and the JCC would possibly be launched before the end of 2005. It would exist on a technical expert’s level and co-chaired by the respective heads of the Departments of Foreign Affairs. The JCC aimed to strengthen and consolidate relations between Sudan and South Africa as well as assist Sudan with its developmental and reconstruction needs. It would also assist the Government of Sudan and the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) with the implementation of a Comprehensive Peace Agreement.

A Joint Ministerial Commission (JMC) between South Africa and Ethiopia had been launched in March 2004, after the signing of a General Co-operation Agreement by both Ministers of Foreign Affairs. In May 2005, the first bi-lateral meeting of heads of relevant departments met in South Africa. The next JMC meeting would be at a Ministerial level and was planned for 2006. The purpose of the JMC was to strengthen and consolidate relations between the two countries and to ensure effective co-operation with regards to human and institutional capacity building between relevant institutions in the countries. The possibility of establishing a South African-Ethiopian Business Forum was also being investigated which would co-ordinate and promote trade and investment on a continuous basis and in a more focused manner. A number of new bi-lateral instruments were also proposed.

Rwanda has had a history of violence and low levels of socio-economic development. The security situation in the country had remained a constant concern in and outside the country’s borders. The current socio-political situation of Rwanda was characterised by stability and dynamism and this would affect its neighbours positively. The refugee situation in Rwanda had to be addressed as it threatened this stability. A JCC between South Africa and Rwanda was concluded on 19 October 2000 during the Foreign Affairs Minister’s visit to Rwanda. The purpose of the JCC was to serve as an instrument to further consolidate the strong relations between the two countries. A number of other bi-lateral agreements had been concluded between the two countries but implementation of these agreements and projects posed a major challenge. In order to monitor this implementation a Medium Term Mechanism had been established which would meet soon in order to prepare for the next annual session of the JCC on 7/8 September 2005 in Kigali.

Finally, a draft text on a proposed JCC between South Africa and Kenya was finalised in 2004 and was ready for signature. It would be headed by the Heads of the Departments of Foreign Affairs and would aim to strengthen co-operation between the two countries in the economic, trade, security and socio-political sectors. The proposed JCC hoped to develop a mechanism for intervention that could be utilised to interact with the stakeholders in the Kenyan government in case current political wrangles impacted on the stability of the government and regional peace and security. The JCC was important as Kenya had been identified as an engine of change and an anchor for peace and stability in East Africa. A number of other proposed and existing agreements existed between South Africa and Kenya.

Southern Africa
Ms Tselane Makuena (Chief Director: Southern Africa) highlighted the importance of joint commissions in Southern Africa due to the challenges of poverty and underdevelopment. South Africa had therefore established joint commissions with the entire Southern African region except for Malawi. A JCC with Angola was signed in November 2000. It focused on socio-economic and political co-operation and its purpose was to promote post conflict reconstruction through a number of bilateral agreements on a wide range of issues.

A Joint Permanent Commission for Co-operation was established in March 2003 between Botswana and South Africa. The next session was proposed for September or October 2005 and would be on a Ministerial level. It aimed to deal with socio-economic issues and identify mutual challenges relating to the day-to-day interaction between the two countries. It also hoped for political co-operation and dealt with Southern African Custom Union (SACU) related matters. A Joint Permanent Commission on Defence and Security was also established in June 2000 between South Africa and Botswana. A number of departments had led the commission. It aimed to promote the day-to-day co-operation regarding defence, security and crime issues between the two countries.

The Democratic Republic of Congo and South Africa had established a Joint Bi-National Commission in August 2004. It aimed to facilitate peace and stability as well as post conflict reconstruction and development. It would also assist with the forthcoming Presidential and Parliamentary elections in 2005 or 2006. Finally the agreement would aid the identification and conclusion of bi-lateral agreements on a wide range of mutual interests. A Joint Bilateral Commission for Co-operation was agreed upon in April 2001 between South Africa and Lesotho. The leading Departments involved were grouped into four clusters namely; economic, social, security and stability and finally good governance. Its main purpose was to assist Lesotho in graduating from being classified as a less developed country through economic development. A Joint Commission for Economic, Technical, Scientific and Cultural co-operation would be concluded by the end of 2005 between South Africa and Malawi. Its purpose was to promote NEPAD, spatial development projects and other mutually beneficial socio-economic co-operation programmes in the areas of agriculture, health and so forth.

Mozambique and South Africa enjoyed a Heads of State Economic Bi-lateral agreement that was established in 1997. The leading department was Trade and Industry and its main purpose was to promote socio-economic development in Mozambique; 25 agreements had been signed to achieve this. A Joint Permanent Commission for Co-operation had also been established between the two countries in July 1994. The leading department was Foreign Affairs and it aimed to monitor joint projects and promote bi-lateral co-operation in many areas. Namibia had two agreements with South Africa, firstly the Heads of State economic Bilateral established in April 1999 that aimed to co-ordinate special development initiatives, SACU issues and a number of other agreements between the countries. Secondly, the Joint Commission on Defence and Security was signed in June 1997 and was lead by the South African National Defence Force. It aimed to co-ordinate the day-to-day co-operation in defence and security matters between the two countries. Swaziland signed a Joint Bilateral Commission for Co-operation with South Africa in December 2004. This paved the way for future co-operation and the promotion of values of political reform and socio-economic co-operation.

Tanzania and South Africa hoped to conclude a Presidential Economic Commission by the end of 2005 in Pretoria. Its focus would be on socio-economic co-operation, the promotion of trade and development of natural resources, development corridors and infrastructure. A General Agreement on Economic, Social, Scientific, Technical and Cultural Co-operation was signed in 1996 between Zambia and South Africa and it aimed to promote co-operation in these fields. Lastly, Zimbabwe and South Africa signed a Joint Commission for Economic Technical, Scientific and Cultural Co-operation in October 1996. It aimed to promote socio-economic, scientific and political co-operation. However, the last session was held in November 2002 and subsequent sessions had stalled due to tight work schedules and finding appropriate dates.

Department of Foreign Affairs Director-General’s briefing
Dr A Ntsaluba, Department Director-General, suggested that the Committees should rather read through the document on South Africa’s structured commissions with North African states as there was not enough time to give this presentation. The Department faced three major challenges regarding all the various commissions mentioned above. The first challenge was co-ordination. This could be linked to the problem of capacity. The Department enjoyed co-operation from African countries far beyond its capacity to co-ordinate this co-operation. This problem meant many of the meetings between countries occurred at a junior official level and certain countries such as Nigeria and the Democratic of Congo received more attention than other countries.

The second challenge was as South Africa consolidated political relations with various countries in Africa, the pressure for introducing structural relationships grew. This meant that relationships with countries were often conducted on lower official levels until they increased in momentum and reached a political level. Finally, once South Africa entered into bi-national commissions at a heads of state level with certain countries other countries called for their co-operation agreements to be conducted on the same level. This was obviously impossible so South Africa tried to keep agreements at a head of state level to a minimum. Most agreements had begun at an official level, and once countries had showed commitment to their agreements with South Africa they were elevated to a Ministerial level.

Department of Trade and Industry Director-General’s briefing
Mr Tshediso Matona (Acting Director-General: Trade and Industry) discussed South Africa’s strategy for Africa’s economic development. The Department constantly tried to improve its work on the continent and its relationship with the Department of Foreign Affairs had been extremely helpful in achieving this aim. The economic relationship between South Africa and Africa was continuously growing. South Africa’s contribution to economic development in Africa was a strategic imperative and it accounted for a third of Africa’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and was one of the three leading sources of foreign direct investment on the continent. Africa was also increasingly a key in South Africa’s GDP growth. Development was a key issue that influenced South Africa’s projects and engagements in the rest of Africa. Economic growth in South Africa had a positive impact on the rest of the continent but it was important to note that South Africa was also dependent on the economic growth of the rest of Africa.

South Africa’s economic strategy in Africa was guided by asymmetry and the country needed to make bigger concessions in trade and economic dealings with African partners. This strategy needed to be multi-faceted by promoting trade and supply-capacity as well as being conducive to promoting investment and infrastructure development. Finally this strategy had to be located within the NEPAD framework and should emphasise the importance of partnerships on the continent. There were a number of areas of engagement regarding this strategy. Firstly, it would promote regional integration and the SADC would become a key pillar for economic development and a platform for co-operation with the rest of the continent. The SACU would also be strengthened. Secondly, South Africa’s strategy would lead to the establishment of Intra-Africa trade where most importantly the access of African products into the South African market would be promoted. The implementation of NEPAD would also be co-ordinated as well as the African Union’s trade and integration agenda. Outward investment was important to develop and rehabilitate infrastructure and production in other countries. Lastly, a common African approach regarding global economic issues would be forged.

There were a number of stakeholders from the government sector, civil society, the private sector and development agencies that were involved in South Africa’s economic relationship in Africa. It was important that all these stakeholders be brought into a common framework as the present initiatives of these stakeholders lacked co-operation and co-ordination. Finally, there were a number of external and internal challenges facing South Africa and the Department of Trade and Industry. The external challenges included the legacy of Apartheid, global Afro-pessimism, trade barriers, political and economic stability, low institutional capacity and competition from the major global powers. These global powers should rather be encouraged to enter into partnerships with South Africa to aid development in Africa. Internal challenges were afro-pessimism and xenophobia, constraints in capacity and co-ordination in government and between the private, sector, ‘short-term-ism’ in the approach to business and no institutional history and culture of co-operation in Africa. It was imperative that ‘Africa-centric’ instruments and measures be adopted to support economic development on the continent.

Discussion
The Chairperson commented that the economic development in the Southern African region was extremely important to South Africa. She therefore requested that more information on SADC be sent to the Committees in the future especially regarding South Africa’s trade relationship with this region. She further requested that detailed documents be sent by the departments to the Committees on NEPAD’s programmes in Africa and more importantly if any of these programmes were intended for the SADC region. Mr K Bapela (ANC) then replaced Ms Hajaig as the acting chairperson as she had to attend an important meeting.

Professor B Turok (ANC) commented that the issues that had been discussed by both Departments were way too complex and detailed to be discussed in a morning session. He suggested that each Department meet with the Committees for a full day so that proper working meetings could be held to deal with these issues. He was surprised at the lack of emphasis on regional economic integration that NEPAD was based on. What was South Africa’s approach to all these regions as regional integration was the philosophy of the AU and not really bi-national agreements? He then requested more information on NEPAD as Parliament was not well informed on the whole NEPAD process. More importantly what was South Africa’s commitment to NEPAD and more importantly what was its approach to its own NEPAD process in the country, was South Africa leading by example? Lastly he commented that South Africa had a number of friends in Africa for example Tanzania and Zambia. Did these friendly relations lead to discrimination in foreign affairs especially regarding the issues of trust on the continent?

Mr Ntsaluba responded that the agenda for Africa’s economic development required that South Africa played a strong leading role in this development. But South Africa would not be the only force to play a role and it would distinguish a number of other forces that shared a common view and ideas for this economic development. Therefore when structuring South Africa’s bi-lateral agreements it would be wrong to believe that these agreements were the same for all countries. Rather the agreements with certain countries would create possibilities for the greater economic liberation of the continent as a whole.

Mr Matona highlighted that a Department of Trade and Industry and a Department of Foreign Affairs that was going to work on the continent in the way proposed in the briefings would have to differ to a great extent from the Departments inherited from the past. This transformation would include training existing staff and employing more staff in order to increase the capacity of the departments. He argued that regional integration was a priority in South Africa’s foreign policy. South Africa hoped to strengthen SADC economically as well as support the other regions on the continent. However to achieve many of the challenges on the continent South Africa needed to work bilaterally with countries and this even occurred in the European Union. The Department of Trade and Industry also planned to send information regarding NEPAD to the Committees.

Mr L Labuschagne (DA) commented that South Africa often seemed to punch above its weight in foreign affairs. After listening to the briefings he found two issues worrisome. Firstly, he asked whether South Africa was overambitious. The issue of capacity was important - did South Africa’s vision actually match its reality? Government Departments had many great ideas but problems arose when these had to be implemented, as these departments just did not have the capacity to do so. South Africa had approximately 66 Bi-national commissions with countries in Africa and 19 of these were strategic. Strategic agreements were high in status but due to South Africa entering into so many strategic agreements many countries were placing pressure on South Africa to enter into strategic agreements with them. South Africa also had embassies in most of the African countries. Could these embassies not play a role in the bilateral agreements with South Africa rather than the Departments having to do all the work?

This workload on the Department have led to capacity problems and has meant that some of the bi-national commissions had not met for two years undermining the purpose of these commissions. Lastly, South Africa’s JCC with Kenya planned to establish a mechanism for intervention in the Kenyan government if there were political problems. Mr Labuschagne argued that South Africa had not intervened in the political problems of Zimbabwe; so was it realistic to believe that it would intervene in Kenya? He suggested that South Africa rather be bold and confess that it simply did not have the capacity to deal with issues of such a magnitude.

Mr Ntsaluba recognised that it was difficult for political decision-making to always be rational. It was easy to say that South Africa should avoid a myriad of agreements with countries that it could then not service, but often it believed it could service all these agreements. He agreed that there was a disjunction between South Africa’s capacity and the expansion of its international relations. The Department of Foreign Affairs had begun a process of analysing some of the agreements it had entered into and then tried to decide on how to increase its capacity so that these agreements could be serviced. He acknowledged that South Africa had a difficulty in striking a balance between entering into agreements and having the capacity to deal with these agreements.

Lastly, he highlighted the problem that South Africa was often only interested in entering into strategic agreements with countries within a specific sphere, for example education, and these countries then wanted to enter into agreements that South Africa did not recognise as a priority. He disagreed with Mr Labuschagne’s interpretation of the Kenyan situation and argued that geographical proximity did not mean greater success. South Africa tried its best to succeed in the many challenges posed by the continent. The challenges posed by Zimbabwe should not affect South Africa’s view towards Kenya, or the way it should interact with the country.

Mr W Seremane (DA) enquired about the attitude and approach of South Africa entering into foreign relations. He felt that South Africa entered Africa in the role of a knight in shining armour or as a big brother looking down on many countries on the continent even though it had good intentions. Instead of forming partnerships, South Africa adopted a former colonial attitude. A negative backlash to this attitude could occur as many of these countries would begin viewing South Africa as a big brother and treating it this way for as long as they remained underdeveloped. Secondly, what were the budgetary implications of all South Africa’s initiatives on the continent? Lastly, he enquired if these initiatives were not opening the gates for people to stream into South Africa in order to conduct business here and if this in turn did not cause the rise of xenophobia.

Ms S Camerer (DA) directed her questions to Mr Nkosi. South Africa enjoyed a number of business successes in Nigeria mentioning MTN and SAA as examples. Despite these successes, there were still a number of challenges that faced the business sector entering Nigeria. Lack of transparency seemed to be one of these challenges but she was interested in Mr Nkosi’s opinion regarding what these challenges entailed. Her second question regarded the Rwanda briefing and one of the main problems was the need to address the refugee situation. However, no indication was given how this problem would be addressed yet the refugee problem was widespread throughout the continent. Lastly, the briefing paper on Sudan did not stipulate whether the trade balance between South Africa and Sudan was positive or negative.

Mr Nkosi replied the challenges around trade and investment in Nigeria related to liberalisation of Nigeria’s economy and its reforms that were required by the WTO.

Ambassador Makhubela stated that the bi-lateral commission in Rwanda should be used as a dialogue between South Africa and the Rwandese. This forum should be used to ensure the refugee issue in Rwanda was amicably addressed so that refugees fleeing to Burundi did not start a serious war between Burundi and Rwanda. An open discussion needed to occur with the governments of Rwanda and Burundi. The trade balance between Sudan and South Africa was in the latter country’s favour.

Ms F Mahomed (ANC) had a number of specific questions regarding Nigeria and the Republic of Congo. Mr Nkosi had mentioned that there had been a restructuring of the BNC between South Africa and Nigeria, what did this restructuring entail? There were a number of outstanding agreements that still needed to be signed between South Africa and the Republic of Congo - when would this occur? Generally there seemed to be a large number of unsigned agreements between South Africa and countries on the continent. She enquired whether specific time frames could be given which stated when these agreements would be signed. She also enquired why the Department of Trade and Industry was not included in the preparatory meetings surrounding the JCC in Sudan that occurred from 11-13 June 2005. She further enquired whether an agreement between the Department of Science and Technology and Ethiopia had been finalised. Lastly, she was concerned over the impact studies that were occurring on the continent. What did these studies find regarding Afro-pessimism on the continent and how was it being dealt with? What did these impact studies find regarding trade liberalisation and how this issue should be dealt with? Lastly, how did the AU forge a common African stance towards multilateral institutions such as the World Trade Organisation?

Mr Nkosi replied that the restructuring of the BNC in Nigeria entailed the Department trying to streamline the working groups so that an overlap between these groups would no longer exist. There were too many working groups dealing with the same issues and the Department hoped to achieve this reduction by the end of the year.

Ambassador Makhubela responded that the Department of Trade and Industry had participated in the preparatory meetings that took place in South Africa. The Department also gave a document outlining its strategy for the future of Sudan but it could not participate in the June meetings in Sudan due to a Bi-national Commission to China occurring at the same time. Therefore a lack of capacity was once again the problem.

Mr Mathona felt that regarding the issue of Afro-pessimism the continent needed much more support from people in South Africa as well as from the rest of the continent. Africa was experiencing greater economic growth and political stability than in the past and these needed to be shown to the rest of the world. South Africa highlighted these successes at the WTO and Commonwealth Forums and it needed to further encourage this support for Africa to encourage future investment. The question regarding how the continent forged a common African position was extremely important. The AU was the answer to the forging of this common stance but unfortunately the trade ministers of the AU only met once a year. This had to be supplemented by other forms of engagement for example, meetings between SADC trade ministers and SACU meetings. This common stance would be strengthened if South African embassies took up these issues with the host governments and it should therefore be included in the portfolios of the embassies.

Mr Nkem-Abonta (DA) wanted to discern what really drove South Africa’s foreign policy. Once this was known, it would be easier to set up relations with a few African countries and conduct relationships with these countries so that South Africa’s greater foreign policy goals could realistically be met. He then argued that including Morocco, Egypt, Libya and Algeria into the African agenda was a great mistake. Egypt’s bid for a seat on the UN Security Council, knowing that South Africa was interested in this seat, was a clear example of the country’s lack of allegiance in pursuing an African agenda. He could not understand South Africa’s creation of a steering committee in Sudan that aimed at discouraging secession. People in Sudan had fought for independence for many years, yet South Africa was going to lobby against this independence. South Africa should allow the people to decide for themselves what the solution in Sudan should be, even if this was secession. Lastly, South Africa believed that stability and dynamism existed in Rwanda today. The truth was that a minority group still ruled and as long as this group ruled there would be no stability in Rwanda.

Mr Ntsaluba believed that there was no inclination on South Africa’s side to prescribe to the people of Sudan how they should react. But what was important to note was that South Africa and the AU gave preference to the benefits they believed would derive from a united Sudan. This did not mean that South Africa was belittling the differences that arose from a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society; however it felt it was important to have people in Sudan realise the possibility of working together for a united Sudan. If the people in southern Sudan decided to secede after six years, South Africa would respect this decision. Mr Makhubela added that the SPLM had begun to appreciate that secession may not necessarily mean prosperity for the South. It could lead to the beginning of disintegration and clashes between the tribes in the South. The SPLM had therefore begun in-depth discussions where the possible outcomes of secession were being recognised. It was imperative that South Africa encouraged these discussions.

The issue of whether Morocco, Algeria, Libya and Egypt should be included in the African agenda was extremely complex and should be dealt with separately in the future. However the issues that drove South Africa’s actions on the continent were all related to poverty and underdevelopment. Any successes regarding these issues on the continent would directly benefit South Africa; especially if these successes occurred in the SADC region. Therefore South Africa aimed to concentrate poverty alleviation and development initiatives mostly in the SADC region which then did not obviously include countries such as Morocco, Egypt, Algeria and Libya.

Ms Makuena agreed that in order for South Africa to achieve its foreign policy objectives, it should start in the SADC region. However, often challenges on the rest of the continent meant that South Africa could not always pay sufficient attention to the SADC region. This problem was also due to the lack of capacity South Africa had when dealing with challenges on the continent. However despite not often paying sufficient attention the SADC region, it remained the most important region in the country’s African policy. If South Africa achieved greater economic strength, it was imperative that the SADC region also grew stronger economically.

The Chairperson acknowledged that the Committees could not adequately engage with the Departments due to time constraints and that a number of questions could not be answered. A future meeting with both Departments would be arranged. It was imperative for Committee Members to familiarize themselves with both South Africa’s Foreign Policy objectives and Economic objectives so that future debates could be constructive and to be able to determine if policy goals and objectives had been achieved. The view that countries such as Morocco, Libya, Algeria and Egypt were not part of Africa was also problematic as one of the main goals of South Africa was uniting the continent and this view was therefore a challenge. South Africa also hoped that the peace agreement in Sudan would lead to the establishment of peace in the country after six years.

The meeting was adjourned.

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: