International Relations & Co-Operation Portfolio Committee Strategic Plan & Programme of Action

Meeting report

Briefing on the Committee’s Strategic Plan
Ms Dineo Mosala, Content Advisor, Parliament, said that the mission and vision of Parliament and its core objectives was to pass legislation, to oversee and scrutinise executive action, to facilitate public participation, to promote a co-operative government and also oversee international relations issues. From those core objectives of Parliament, Committees were required to draw up their own objectives so that it could be in line with Parliament’s objectives. It was therefore necessary that the Committee’s vision and the mission reflected to the outside world what it stood for.

Ms Mosala explained that the Committee’s strategic plan entailed key priority areas that would guide the work of the Committee for the next five years. These included oversight visits and legislation that would be tabled in Parliament. The country was involved with peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts in many countries on the continent. Accordingly, the Committee needed to monitor and ensure that the money was being spent for a good cause and that the projects which were being funded had the necessary intended impact.

Ms Mosala noted that the Department of International Relations and Co-operation had undertaken to play a communal role in advancing the agenda of the South by assuming leadership roles in international organisations such as Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the G20 and the G77. They did so in order to advance the developmental agenda of the South. The Committee therefore had to monitor that and ensure that these institutions realised their objectives. South Africa had existing bilateral agreements with countries of the North, such as the USA and the European Union. The Committee was tasked with ensuring that these strategic partnerships were maintained.

Ms Mosala said that the Constitution had a Bill of Rights which government took into account when engaging multilaterally with other partners. The Committee had to ensure that human rights considerations were taken into account when they dealt with their partners and that international law prevailed. The involvement of non-state actors in international relations was another issue that the Committee had to contend with.

Ms Mosala briefly highlighted the Committee’s operational plan and cost estimates (see document).

Discussion
A member of the Committee said that he did not have a problem with the vision however he thought the Committee would have to ask the Department of International Relations and Co-operation to unpack the meaning of term “national interest” as different interpretations existed. He also said that they were going to experience a big problem when it came to monitoring foreign policy. A lot of foreign policy was being undertaken by the President so he should avail himself for questioning especially if they were going to talk about the peace keeping policies.

The Chairperson replied that the Committee would definitely take into account the issues that the Member had raised, particularly the question around what constituted “national interest” as this was an important matter.

A member of the Committee noted that there was a lot of monitoring being done by the Committee, but asked whether the Committee had any influence over it.

The Chairperson responded that the Committee had influence over what was being said. He gave the example of the budgeting issues. The influence was not so much over how much money was there but rather whether the money which was there was being spent appropriately and in the correct places. Citing the African fund as an example, he pointed out the Committee should not be afraid to ask how money was being spent outside the country because it was within its jurisdiction.

The Chairperson then asked whether the Members agreed on the vision for the Committee as the vision was always such a broad statement. The vision however was nothing new as it was graded by the Constitution.

Mr T Magama (ANC) commented that if issues were to be specified from the Constitution, the entire preamble had to be introduced. One principle could not be emphasised over the other because South Africa’s foreign policy was not only based on human rights, it was based on other issues as well. The Committee’s vision should not be confined to specifics.

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) complained that Members did not have a clear guidance as to what the country’s foreign interests were. He asked whether the vision was generic or specific and mentioned that a vision could not be generic.

The Chairperson said that the vision was specific to the Committee. It did not list one thing but rather it included everything relating to democratic values and national interests.

Mr Magama asked whether the national stake holders included municipalities as well. The second issue he raised related to the Committee’s planned consultation with the Department of Home Affairs. He recalled that at the workshop the discussion was restricted to the influx of foreigners into the country for the 2010 World Cup instead of the general influx of the foreigners into the country.

The Chairperson noted that Mr Magama was speaking about immigration issues. He clarified that on issues concerning the 2010 FIFA World Cup, the Committee dealt with Home Affairs and the Department of Sports and Reconciliation as well.

Mr G Koornhof (ANC) advised that the Committee should engage with the South African National Defence Force regarding the deployment of soldiers in peace keeping operations.

The Chairperson replied that this item was already included in the Committee’s programme.

The Chairperson asked whether the Committee was allowed to source funds elsewhere. If so, what were the guidelines for that?

Ms Mosala replied that it was possible for the Committee to source funding from elsewhere subject to the approval of the Speaker.

Mr Mokgalapa should distinguish itself from a boardroom committee by conducting many oversight visits. The Committee could not do an oversight on international issues, which was the aim of that specific committee, by being in the boardroom. The Committee could not for example do an oversight on Zimbabwe based on reports. They could only sort out issues relating to oversight visits by being there.

The Chairperson agreed and said that this Committee, particularly with regards to international issues, could not be treated as other committees. The very nature of their work was outward looking. It was something that needed to be brought to the attention of the Speaker.

The Chairperson then said that they needed to look at recommendations concerning the budget.

A member of the committee asked whether their budget was R2.2 million. He wanted to know whether that was a wish list or if it was reality.

Ms Mosala explained that the figure was based on their projections. Currently, the Committee had been allocated R450 000-which was insignificant and would not allow the Committee to do its work properly. Further discussions and negotiations were still underway to resolve this matter.

The Chairperson said that they had to adopt the programme.

Mr Koornhof proposed that the Committee accept the Strategic Plan subject to the proposed amendments.

The Chairperson agreed that the document should be adopted with the amendments that had been proposed.

The meeting was adjourned