Department of International Relations & Co-operation on Budget & Strategic Plan: Minister’s input

Meeting report

Ms M Nkoana-Mashabane (Minister of International Relations and Co-operation) committed herself and her Department to being accountable to the Committee. She spoke about the name change of the Department with the inclusion of the element of ‘Co-operation,’ and to this extent talked about the aim of building lasting relations underpinned by South Africa’s national interests. She emphasised that South Africa was not a floating island unto itself and that it was an integral part of Africa, with its main focuses being SADC, Africa and the world. She noted that the world expected a lot from South Africa and expected it to work in co-operation with its partners and to enhance its international co-operation.

She told the Committee that South Africa had been engaged in a lot of co-operative programs from financial assistance, especially in Africa, to peacemaking, conflict resolution and post-conflict rebuilding of countries. She said that they will, during the course of the year, outline the plans to establish a fully fledged South African Partnership Development Agency as informed by the resolutions of the ruling party conferences and the consensus that had been reached by all interested bodies in this sector.

She talked about the mandate of the Department, that the President was ultimately responsible for the foreign policy and international relations of South Africa, and that the Department was entrusted with the formulation and promotion and execution of South African foreign policy. It was influenced by a number of key global principles that SA stands for, to propagate multilateralism, secure a rule based international system, peaceful settlement of disputes, contribution to the formulation of international law, enhancing respect for provisions thereof, and strengthening bilateral relations. She spoke of the global economic meltdown, and how co-operation was essential to get us out of this through greater opportunities to markets and investments.

She spoke about the constraints brought by the economic meltdown and foreign exchange challenges.

The Minister excused herself and the Chairperson asked the Director-General to make his presentation.

Dr Ayanda Ntsaluba (Director-General of the Department of International Relations and Co-operation) said that the Power-point presentation would be more detailed than his oral presentation. (Refer to Power-point presentation and Strategic Plan documents). He looked at the consolidation of the African Agenda and the strengthening of South-South Co-operation. He then spoke of the North-South relations and participation in the global system of governance, with an emphasis on multilateralism centered around the UN. He noted that evaluation was central to the partnership between South Africa and the UN because South Africa was not a traditional developing country.

He talked of the goal of strengthening political and economic relations, and went into the broad objectives in relation to the various regions. These regions included Africa, Asia (Central & East-Asia), South Asia, the Middle-East and Gulf states, the Americas, North America, Latin America & the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, Central Europe and Western Europe (Refer to Power-point)

He spoke of the South African Development Partnership Agency and how the Department would interact with Committee in establishing the agency. He spoke of building organisational capacity and the various challenges. The latter included the challenge of talent retention and the human resource implications of the additional departmental mandates. He informed the Committee of the progress to date of the diplomatic training programme. He went over key areas of achievement, the strategies and priorities. He highlighted priority 6, which dealt with partnerships and co-operation, and the recording of the experiences of past officials for lessons for the future and getting their assistance in training.

Dr Ntsaluba told the members about some of the consular services that the Department provided or that were being developed or needing to be promoted. This included services for South Africans who were prisoners in foreign countries, the establishment of a rapid response for emergencies such as a tsunami and the registration of South Africans while overseas (ROSA) to help with informing families when there were disasters.

He outlined their information and communication technology plan. Their asset management plan contained a valuation strategy and project plan, which, in agreement with Treasury, was to be done over three years, beginning with documenting high value assets such as land and buildings.  He introduced the Committee to the concept of acquiring assets such as property in foreign countries for long-term benefit due to the high rent being paid in so many missions around the world. It would be more cost-effective to buy property, especially for long-term missions. He asked the Committee for support for this strategy.

Regarding resource allocation, the Department was high spending but that it had received a clean audit and an unqualified audit report, indicating that the budget was well spent in line with its objectives.

Dr Ntsaluba spoke of the 2009 budget allocations, saying that these were a major problem because the Departmen’ts budget was very sensitive to currency fluctuations, with 60% of its budget spent overseas. Its requests to Treasury for further budget grants had not been approved. He explained the budget spending on the various missions, noting that comparatively little was spent at head office with the bulk of the budget being spent on the mission programs.  He presented the transfer fee commitments for the various entities and reiterated that the 2009 allocations meant that the operational budget was under pressure.

Dr Ntsaluba presented some of the key objectives of public diplomacy, such as the support of the FIFA African Legacy project, projecting a positive image of South Africa and managing the brand of South Africa.

Discussion
Ms R Magau (ANC) noted that members of the region had signed an economic agreement with the European Union that South Africa had not signed, and asked where this put South Africa in terms of regional harmonisation. She also questioned the status of the Caribbean regional membership, stating that she was informed there was no ratification of its constitution.

Mr K Mubu (DA) wanted a comment on what the government proposed to do about the situation in Somalia, saying that for two decades there had been no functioning government and it was a failed state. He highlighted the impact this had on trade and the effects of piracy. Secondly, he noted that South Africa was the host of the Pan African Parliament and that it was the primary contributor, but questioned if there were any other sources of funding. Thirdly, regarding the African Renaissance, he asked whether there were any other projects other than the Sudan projects and whether there were any other sources of funding. Finally, he pointed out that many South Africans were not aware of the services provided to them by the Department and asked if there was a better way to disseminate the information.

Mr G Koornhof (ANC), addressing his first question to the deputy ministers present, asked whether there had been a policy shift at the expense of human rights in favour of economic considerations in the background of the economic meltdown and instability. He felt that the long-term investment of property was a brilliant idea and requested that the Department inform the Committee of its plans and how the Committee could assist to attain this as a phased approach. Finally, he pointed out that the currency fluctuations were not a new problem and asked what discussions had been held with the Auditor-General to address this issue.

Rev K Moshwayo (ACDP) asked whether the earlier reference to Korea in the presentation related to North or South Korea, questioning what the benefits of diplomacy with North Korea would be to South Africa. He also asked why MPs had not earlier been informed of ROSA and what the category ‘Other’ in the proposed budget for entities included, and why they were not listed.

Mr T Magama (ANC) asked about the Department’s strategy of promoting and strengthening the Zimbabwean government, especially with the reported problems of the continued detention of opposition members. He asked what South Africa’s role was and what would be the impact of the World Bank’s decision not to grant a loan to Zimbabwe. He requested more information on the rapid response teams that had been mentioned. What were the mechanisms to centralise the foreign policy of all the spheres and were they in place? He highlighted the need for ordinary people to understand their foreign relations policies, and gave the example of the uproar over the Dalai Lama decision.

Ms Pilusa-Mosoane (ANC) asked how much the Department thought was needed for the budget to be sufficient.

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) asked what the role of the South African Development Partnership Agency would be and how it would be funded. He wanted clarity on the comment about the need for “co-coordinating all spheres”. He queried if the provinces and local governments were in a free-for-all and needed their wings cut. He reiterated the need for ‘public’ diplomacy so that citizens would be acquainted with the government policies, also giving the example of the Dalai Lama saga. He emphasised the need to monitor assets. He mentioned that most of the budget was directed to Africa and Asia and asked if there was monitoring on how it was spent and if it was well spent.

Mr Nxesi mentioned that South Africa was chairing SADC and asked what outputs could be shown as the chair of SADC. He also noted that the foreign policy presented mostly involved state actors, however South Africa was a very politicised nation so what attempt was being made to bring the ordinary masses on board. The emphasis when it came to non-state actors usually involved business, but very little was centered on civil society, non governmental organisations and so on. He asked how one could make it mass based.

Dr Ntsaluba replied that South Africa was committed to harmonisation, but that this was not a linear process and that there were internal contradictions within SADC and even within smaller sub-sectors of SADC. There was a need to manage this and there were certain reservations in signing the EU agreement because it may have implications later. He believed that at some point SA’s political leaders needed to reflect on what the full implications would be in signing the agreement, but until then they had to manage the situation.

Regarding Somalia, he replied that the Department had interacted with the current government as late as April. They were going to open a mission there before the recent flare-ups. They were in full support of the AU mission but they were not able to put troops on the ground because of their involvement in missions in Darfur, the DRC and Burundi. The government was still considering whether they would participate, now that there was a UN resolution, particularly with patrolling to open up a humanitarian corridor. However they had also taken a strategic view on Somalia with the support of South Africa to be rather through the AU or the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), so that there were not too many conflicting messages.
 
Dr Ntsaluba explained that part of the bid to host the Pan African Parliament included having to supply the premises and other obligations, but that some of the funds also came through the mainstream budget of the AU. However it was a significant commitment by South Africa and needed to lead to concrete results.

Regarding the African Renaissance Fund, he explained that other countries such as Rwanda and Sierre-Leone all benefited. In terms of funding, they had partnered with some countries for certain projects. For example, they worked with the Dutch in Burundi maintaining the office of the facilitator, the Swedes assisted in the DRC policing project, and the Cubans aided the doctor programme.

He said that he took on board the criticism contained in the comments and questions about the dissemination of information about their services. He agreed that public diplomacy needed to be corrected, acknowledging that it had gone beyond including only state actors and that it now should encompass business and civil society. He acknowledged that a strong message outside with poor domestic backing was an error that needed to be examined. 

Dr Ntsaluba explained to the Committee that there was no mechanism to anticipate currency fluctuations, and that the estimates were too conservative when budgeting.

He clarified that the presentation referred to South Korea, and that ‘Other’ was in reference to ‘other organisations’, of which there was a full list, but that for the sake of the presentation it was consolidated.

Regarding coordination across different spheres, he explained that it would be best to resolve contradictory messages, to address sending inadvertently negative messages. It was better to coordinate delegation visits to various countries, so that the mission could service them and possibly use them for a beneficial opportunity for the mission. He clarified that what was meant was co-operation, but was not too strict so as to stifle creativity.

He believed that the budget required another R150 million.

Regarding the South African Development Partnership Agency and its funding, he replied that that was still being thought through and would be presented at a later date.

Dr Ntsaluba replied that he believed South Africa would be getting value for money when purchasing property assets.

Regarding Asia, the market was huge and valuable when considering the trade patterns. In Africa, there was economic work, which, though still small, had shown development and growth. He argued however that part of it was also about ‘political relations’.

In terms of the outputs as SADC chair, Dr Ntsaluba said that they had moved the issues in Zimbabwe from an impasse to receiving some cohesion. They had organised universal passports for the region so that FIFA benefitted the region. They had worked on the NEPAD Infrastructure Project Preparatory Fund and SADC Development Fund so that there was a more streamlined way of funding and doing feasibility studies. He conceded that some, but not all, were fully met.

On the decision of the World Bank not to grant Zimbabwe a loan, he said that South Africa’s role would be to assist in making the inclusive government work and to put pressure on the parties to be consistent with the letter and spirit of the agreement. He admitted he was concerned with the issue of renewed violence. He said that South Africa must lead by example, and that they had extended a R300 million budget support and further R300 million for agriculture. There were many ways to engage, and that South Africa would encourage the international community to engage in some of these and not simply to adopt a wait and see attitude.

Ms Sue van der Merwe (Deputy Minister) on the question of the EU agreement said that South Africa had a different setup with the European Union to the other countries and that there was an inter-ministerial Committee that was reviewing the situation to find a resolution to the situation regarding the agreement. She argued that there was no policy shift in terms of human rights, and that in many ways they were held hostage to the media’s understanding. She gave the example of Myanmar, where she had summoned the ambassador to express South Africa’s dissatisfaction about the massacre. [She did not appear to address the example raised by the two Members concerning the Dalai Lama].

She added that South Africa had also offered a credit line of R500 million to Zimbabwe and that SADC had launched a free trade area. She highlighted the importance of engaging non-state actors, such as the unions, civil society and, she emphasised, the media.

Mr Ebrahim Ebrahim (Deputy Minister) stated that the commitment to human rights had not changed and that they would always express concern at and condemnation of human rights abuses, giving the examples of Iraq and Myanmar Dalai Lama.

Mr Nxesi questioned the AU structures and its functioning and whether the host of conferences in South Africa were having the desired results or if these were just for the sake of it. He also inquired about the controversial Israel-Palestine issue and how Israeli representatives had expressed discomfort with South Africa’s policy, and displeasure at the manner in which they perceived they were treated in Pretoria during the Hamas matter.

Dr Ntsaluba replied that conferences elevated tourism. On the matter of the Israeli discomfort, he said he was familiar with the criticism. He gave the example of where the Israeli representative had come to a meeting very aggressively because of South Africa’s voting patterns at the UN and because it had been strong in articulating the right to self determination. However they had attended a number of meetings to get to an informed policy point and had not been reckless in coming to their positions. Further, the executive was keeping the lines of dialogue open, even though parts of civil society wanted the ambassador withdrawn. He informed the members that the stance was based on the Oslo decisions and that Israel wanted them to be silent on issues of principle. He noted that they equally condemned attacks on civilians by Palestinians.

Dr Ntsaluba admitted that the AU structures required work, that they were not satisfied and were looking to strengthen the structures. He noted that one of the reasons was over reliance on commitments of outside donors.

Mr Mubu asked what the position of the South African government was about the arrest warrant for the Sudanese president and what the position was on Southern Sudan desires for independence.

Dr Ntsaluba replied that South Africa would respect Southern Sudan’s right to make its choice but that there was concern about what might result in a second round of conflict

Ms van der Merwe added that South Africa was a signatory to the Rome Statute, but that South Africa was also party to a decision by the AU that there should be a hold-off on the arrest warrant until there was some peaceful resolution. However the decision to issue the arrest warrant meant South Africa would be bound by the Rome Statute, and had informed Sudan that the president would risk arrest if he came to South Africa. She noted that they were putting energy into resolving the matter.

Ambassador George Nene, Deputy Director-General Multilateral Affairs, spoke on the UN reform and how it had been on the cards for more than 15 years. The biggest problems had been reforming the Security Council, which was a politically sensitive matter, with some members not wanting to give up their veto power. He highlighted that this had taken a backseat as the economic crisis had taken centre stage.

Meeting Adjourned