Department of International Relations & Co-operation Annual Report 2008/2009: Input from Institute for Global Dialogue & African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Dispute

Meeting report

The Chairperson stated that the Committee would consider the Department of International Relations & Co-operation’s (DICO) budget report in April. Today external stakeholders were invited to assist the Committee to unpack the DICO Annual Report for 2008/2009.

Presentation by the Institute for Global Dialogue (IGD)
Dr Siphamandla Zondi, Executive Director, IGD, said that IGD was founded in 1994 in order to analyse policy and global dynamics. Focal areas were global economy and development, Africa and Southern Africa and South Africa’s foreign policy.

The IGD interpretation of the DICO annual report focussed on 2008/2009 and made a distinction between the wish for continuity in terms of policy or continuity of change. Strong domestic imperatives were expected to merge leading to insularity in foreign policy. Due to the regime change there seemed to be an abandonment of the Mbeki era polices, this was an opportunity to seek changes and clearly enunciate South Africa’s purpose, goals and endgame.

The meaning behind the name change of the Department from Foreign Affairs to International Relations & Co-operation was important. The term ‘foreign affairs’ was associated with short term interventions, concepts of enemies and friends, power-games and promoted the line between the domestic and foreign. The term ‘relations’ suggested long term relationships, friendship and courtship, consensus and bridge building as foreign became an extension of domestic. In relations with non-state actors it became apparent at the Copenhagen Climate Summit that South Africa’s views were essentially attuned to civil society. The need to effectively use ‘soft’ power tools such as public, cultural and conference diplomacy was raised. Furthermore the strategy of treating all countries with equal weight relegated the importance of strategic partners. Other diplomatic strategies such as economic diplomacy needed to be properly used as well as positions in international organisations.

With regard to change, a White Paper on foreign policy was needed as well a conclusion to the 1997 debate on the creation of a Foreign Policy Council. South Africa needed to look at how it was going to strategically position itself in the world, focusing not just on participation in international events but influence at said events.

Presentation by the African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD)
Mr Vasu Gounden, Executive Director, ACCORD, stated that he would focus on whether the African Renaissance Fund (ARF) had an impact on peace and security in Africa; whether this has translated into a lever for influence and if South Africa had succeeded in persuading the north in supporting southern African goals.

Mr Gounden stated that the ARF had allowed South Africa to meet underlying foreign policy objectives by providing African leadership and solutions to problems on the continent. Furthermore, the ARF had allowed South Africa not have to compromise its agenda; providing the flexibility and power to take advantage of the momentum of situations on the continent in a senior role. Thus independent funds with South African oversight were crucial.

The development of the South African Development Partnership Agency (SADPA) meant that the ARF and SADPA needed to be under a single administration, but ring fenced in order to distinguish independence and interdependence. The ARF was a body that met political objectives, whilst SADPA would meet development objectives. As such SADPA needed a clear strategic intent.

The influencing of the North to meet regional goals was clearly met. To increase impact, a rethink was needed about SA’s involvement in the multitude of global bodies; to concentrate scarce funds into bodies that yielded the highest dividends. Institutional membership needed to be in line with foreign policy objectives. The DICO strategic document needed to be transformed into a national document which engaged with a commonality of interest.

Discussion
The Chairperson stated that the critical issues raised by Dr Zondi were meant to help Committee Members engage with the Annual report to make recommendations to DICO. He added that the inputs had been interesting and that they seemed to be on the right track.

It would be difficult for DICO to respond as they had not prepared, but there were some questions that could be answered. He asked what South Africa’s national interest was as it needed to be addressed fully, as well as the long term strategy and end goal. An outline of South Africa’s strategic partners globally was needed. The identification of non-state actors was needed beyond research institutions as civil society had the ability to say what needed to be said without the constraints of diplomatic language. He questioned why a 25 year maintenance contract was issued with one service provider for the new DICO headquarters.

Ambassador George Nene, Deputy Director-General: Multilateral Affairs, DICO, apologised for the Director-General’s absence. He added that he would not address long term strategy as the delegation was at a disadvantage. The need to examine the notion of South Africa being a young democracy was raised. It seemed that if South Africa lacked actual might then all the considerations raised would be moot. South Africa did not have a clear guide, to where it saw itself in 2050. DICO was dealing with the short term, which was a disadvantage. South Africa’s role in Africa was unclear, but was there. The country had entered the international community post 1994 in a mode of gratification with the aim of making the world a better place and South Africa’s role in Africa was driven by this. The way in which this was achieved was simply a matter of details. DICO looked at domestic priorities and tried to make foreign policy an extension of domestic policy.

In terms of regional interest it was important to have a presence in multiple international bodies. The Community of Democracies (COD) had risen as counter to the Non-Aligned Movement and the G77. It was necessary to have a presence in this organisation to maintain a grasp on what was occurring. The formation of India, Brazil & South Africa (IBSA) was due to national reasons. South Africa was invited by Brazil and India because it is the three largest democracies and players in the Southern hemisphere.

Ambassador Nene stated that DICO was aware of a global power shift and wanted to ensure that South Africa had a big role in the G20. Sympathy was expressed for Mr Vasu’s views.

Ms Mathu Joyini, Deputy Director-General, Human Resources, DICO, stated that the 25 year contract awarded for maintenance was because DICO would not own the building for the next 25 years. DICO needed a 25 year arrangement for funding until ownership was reached. The owner wanted a guarantee of maintenance until that time. She added that documents like the Annual Report were public and that the level of detail of strategic issues was toned down. Strategic issues raised were being dealt with and would be addressed in the strategic plan meeting on March 15 to 16.

The Chairperson asked what DICO recommended in terms of a ‘crash-course’ for Members to fully appreciate the dynamics of international relations. Members needed a session to consider the issues discussed during the meeting. A second meeting with DICO was necessary so that Members could interrogate the issues at hand. Questions would be forwarded to DICO in writing.

Mr B Skosana, IFP, supported the need for a workshop.

Mr S Mokgalapa, DA, thanked the presenters for what they had done and added that they had given Members an angle to interrogate the issues raised through their insight.

The Chairperson thanked the delegates and asked that DICO and the institutions help the Committee identify other stakeholders for future engagement. He added that a workshop would be forthcoming.

The meeting was adjourned.