Amending Agreement to SA-EU Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation

Meeting report

The Acting Chairperson informed Members that the presentation on the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCW) had been postponed.

Department of International Relations and Cooperation on the Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation
Mr Jan van Vollenhoven, Chief Director: European Organisations, Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), briefed the Committee on the Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation (TDCA).

Mr Van Vollenhoven explained that TDCA was a foundation for relationship between the Republic of South Africa (SA) and European Union (EU) that was signed in 1999. In 2004 TDCA was fully implemented after its final ratification by Parliament but a mid-term review of TDCA led to the realisation that it needed to be updated in order to broaden its scope and expand areas of cooperation between South Africa and the EU. In 2007 both parties entered into a strategic partnership that was going to benefit them on development and development leadership. In March 2007 there were formal negotiations, which included relevant South African governmental departments, in which 35 Articles of TDCA were revised. The amendment was signed by the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, the Hon Ms Maite Nkoane-Mashabane. The main focuses of the negotiations were the Political Dialogue Negotiating Group, Development Cooperation Negotiating group and economic and other areas of the Cooperation Working Group.

South Africa was one of only nine such strategic partners for the EU; the other eight were Brazil, Canada, China, India, Japan, Russia, Ukraine and the United States of America. TDCA had been very beneficial to South Africa in terms of trade as it helped to facilitate a 234% of trade increase between 2000 and 2004. It also regulated SA-EU assistance. The European Investment Bank had budgeted € (Euros) 900 million as a loan for infrastructure projects and the revised TDCA article did not impose any mandatory financial commitments for either side.

Some of the revised articles were those on the Information Society and on information and communication technologies (ICTs). Cooperation should include dialogues, information exchange and possible technical assistance on different aspects of building an information society. Article 60 had broadened tourism to include the development of local communities and promoting cooperation at regional and continental levels. The Amended Article 86 also allowed broader dialogue in the area of employment and social policy, which included, among other things, questions relating to the social problems of post apartheid society, poverty alleviation, social protection, gender equality, violence against women, etc. Revised article 90 had been re-titled “cooperation on illicit drugs”, which allowed the cooperation to ensure a balanced and integrated approach towards addressing the drugs problem and reducing the supply of, trafficking in and the demands of illicit drugs.

Article 91A - H dealt with essential element of committing the parties to cooperate and to contribute to strengthening disarmament and non-proliferation. Parties also agreed, in accordance with the charter of the United Nations and international Law, relevant Conventions and within their respective legislation and regulations, to cooperate in the prevention and suppression of acts of terrorism. The parties committed themselves to preventing the use of their financial systems for laundering of proceeds from criminal activities and offences related to illicit drugs and psychotropic substances. The parties reaffirmed their support for the International Criminal Court and its work. The Article also allowed very broad SA - EU migration dialogue, which covered comprehensive agenda like fair treatment of foreign nationals residing legally on their territories, travel document security and identity issues and prevention and reduction of illegal immigration and parties agreed to readmit their illegal migrants.

The failure of South Africa (SA) to ratify the TDCA revision agreement would send a negative signal to a key strategic partner. The revised TDCA for the first time committed the EU to recognise that the disarmament and non-proliferation treaty system in its entire components was of vital importance, and that progress should be made in the implementation of the entire obligation derived from it.

Discussion
Dr G Koornhof (ANC) wanted to know whether the CCW Convention was also included in the ratification of disarmament and proliferation He also mentioned that SA had an act that clearly stated certain prohibitions on the use of Conventional Weapons, like blind lasers, and wanted clarity if these Acts were also included in the TDCA agreement.

Mr Van Vollenhoven assured the Committee that the agreement included CCW matters and all international protocol, conventions and regulations. The agreement also committed the SA to implement its domestic laws, so they could be binding to Europeans who were in South Africa

Mr K Mubu (DA) wanted clarity as to whether the TDCA Agreement had extradition laws that should be able to get rid of criminal fugitives who were here in South Africa, as it was common knowledge that South Africa had been a hiding place for criminal fugitives who were able to defend their continued stay in South Africa. His concern was also raised by the fact that Article 91C did not mentioned any extradition laws that controlled these fugitives. Secondly he wanted to know if our relations with the EU, African Union) AU and International Criminal Court (ICC) were not in jeopardy as South Africa had supported, in the AU Summit, the resolution of not handing Abasanjo of Sudan to the International Criminal Court.

Mr Van Vollenhoven explained that the agreement was a unique relationship with a strategic partnership and legal foundation and the EU could only act on those matters over which the EU and its Commission had exclusive mandate. This exclusive mandate was called exclusive competency. In that partnership there was a process of a dialogue on justice in which would be discussed crime and justice cooperation on subjects like migration. He also informed the Members that South Africa had raised its concern about the Sudan matter and said it was a delicate matter. He assured the Committee that SA was aware that it had an obligation to the ICC.

Mr S Ngonyama (COPE) wanted clarity on whether the bill on Human Trafficking was part of any of the new 35 Articles. He asked the DIRCO to explain whether the money that was leaving South Africa to Europe illegally was money laundering as mentioned in article 90.

Mr Van Vollenhoven defined money laundering according to the Article as proceeds of crime that got into the legitimate money system. So the money that Mr Ngonyama referred to was not necessarily laundered money. Human trafficking was on the agenda for the Joint Cooperation Council, which was in the sphere of the Cooperation Agreement that oversaw the implementation of TDCA. In the Council human trafficking was said to be a migration issue and on the crime and justice dialogue parties would consider possible cooperation and exchange interaction on how to fight this crime.

The Acting Chairperson asked if it was not possible for the Department to create a separate security agreement to deal with ICT, and, if South Africa did not comply with the EU agreement, if South Africa were to be penalised.

Mr Van Vollenhoven explained that, if the agreement was violated in anyway, it became null and void. He also mentioned that the Department had developed a Safety and Security dialogue forum which gave advice on Safety and Security.

Other business
The dissolution of Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) Tribunal
Mr Mubu suggested that they discuss the matter of the SADC Tribunal judges whose contracts had come to an end and had not been renewed, as that could mean that the Tribunal was dissolved or no longer existed.

Mr T Magama (ANC) reminded the Committee that, not long ago, Mr Mabu had information from an informant in the media. However, the Minister had not known anything about it. He asked if Mr Mubu had again raised a point about which the Committee had not been informed. Mr Magama then suggested that the Committee should discuss matters from official sources and also suggested that the Department must address the Committee on the matter.

Mr Mabu agreed with Mr Magama that the Department had to address it on the issue. He clarified that his information was from the recent Summit in Kampala, where the matter had been discussed.

The Acting Chairperson stated that they had to rely on verifiable information that is why it was appropriate to ask the Committee Secretary to inform the Department that it had to come and brief the Committee on the matter.

Consideration of the visit of a Vietnam Parliamentary Delegation to South Africa
Mr Mubu explained that he was approached by the Ambassador from Vietnam and asked if it was possible to have audience with this Portfolio Committee. He had informed the Ambassador that he would pass the request to the Committee so it could decide on the matter.

The Acting Chairperson informed the Committee that there was a process that was unfolding about the matter and that Members would be informed when it was finalised.

Mr Koornhof stated that there were supposed to be processes and procedures to be followed when Ambassadors from other countries visited Parliament or a certain Portfolio Committee, and he had been surprised to see the Japanese flag raised in Parliament, as Members were not informed about it.

The Acting Chairperson clarified that the Japanese Delegates were the Speaker's guests, and not visitors to the Portfolio Committee.

The meeting was adjourned.