Department of International Relations and Co-operation Quarterly Report; Committee resolutions on Israel and Palestine conflict; Update on political situation in Syria

Meeting report

The Chairperson at the outset of the meeting informed the Committee that the Director General of the Department of International Relations and Co-operation, Ambassador Jerry Matjila, had been delayed at a previous engagement and would join the meeting later. As a consequence he suggested that the Committee proceed with other matters on the agenda before engaging the Department. 

The Committee agreed.

Consideration of Committee Resolution on the Israel and Palestine Conflict
The Chairperson pleaded with Members not to become emotional regarding the matter at hand. He said thus far the Committee had dealt with the matter without dissent.  At the Committee's previous meeting, the ANC had presented a proposal which could be seen as a resolution. Other political parties in the Committee had been given the opportunity to make amendments to the ANC resolution, or to propose their own resolution. All political parties except COPE had made proposals.  Mr S Ngonyama (COPE) had informed the Chairperson that COPE had not discussed the issue as yet, but would meet the day after the meeting to discuss it.  In studying the resolutions put forward by the various political parties, he had observed that it seemed that they had used the ANC resolution as a template in drafting their own.
He asked the Committee if it was acceptable for him to point out the points of convergence in their resolutions.

The Committee agreed.

The Chairperson said that the IFP resolution had noted the multiparty delegations that had visited the region. It also addressed the IFP proposals.

The DA had made additions to the proposed resolution of the ANC. The DA had included a statement to the fact that since 1949 South Africa had recognised the state of Israel and had had "good diplomatic relations" with them ever since.  The Chairperson conceded that diplomatic relations were there, but that diplomatic relations with South Africa had been good only for white “apartheid South Africa.”  Whether it was good or bad for blacks was altogether another matter. All the proposals of the DA had been encapsulated into the resolution proposed by the ANC. The DA's use of the word "good" in all but one instance had been deleted. He emphasised that as things stood, there was only one recognised state and that was Israel.   The Palestinians did not have a state.  As for the rest of the proposals, they had all been encapsulated.

The ACDP had taken a different approach, however.  They had deleted some of the proposals made by the ANC and had made some of their own. There were some proposals which were similar to those of the ANC.   It was felt, however, that there was no good reason put forth by the ACDP for the deletion of the ANC proposals, and hence they would be retained.

As stated earlier, the Committee was still awaiting inputs from COPE.

Mr Ngonyama responded that he had informed the Chairperson that COPE was having a caucus on Thursday, 12 September 2013, which was the day after the present meeting, and would thereafter make a submission to the Committee.

The Chairperson understood COPE's position but said that the issue could not be further delayed and would be concluded in the present meeting.

Ms M Kubayi (ANC) pointed out that the ACDP had circulated a second document. What was it?

Ms C Dudley (ACDP) responded that the second  ACDP document was an internal document meant for the Committee. It expressed her feelings over the issue. It was merely a courtesy.

Ms Kubayi felt that the document was insulting, as it stated that the Committee had been biased in its approach. The document further stated that the Committee Report concluded on the trip to Israel-Palestine, had included nothing of substance. The trip was, so to say, a waste of taxpayers' money. She strongly felt that the document should be rejected by the Committee.

Ms Dudley reacted that the document was merely expressing an honest opinion. On the contrary, she was defending the Committee. The document reflected the conversations that she had with her constituency. It was a private document between herself, the Chairperson and the Committee.
If the document offended anyone, she would be happy to withdraw it. She officially withdrew the document.

Ms P Ngubeni-Maluleka (ANC) said that it was all good and well to withdraw the document but it was nevertheless insulting to the Committee. Ms Dudley herself had been party to adopting the Committee Report on the trip to Israel-Palestine.  Why had she not raised issues at that point in time?

Mr E Sulliman (ANC) felt that Ms Dudley should submit a written apology to the Committee regarding the statements that she had made in the document in question.

The Chairperson noted that there were two issues to consider, the first was the withdrawal of the document and the second was the request for an apology.

Ms Dudley said that she was astounded by the reaction of Members to the document. It had seriously been taken the wrong way. She apologised to the Committee.

The Chairperson stated that a written apology would be forthcoming from Ms Dudley.
It was placed on record that the document had been withdrawn.

Mr I Davidson (DA) said that the Chairperson had misread the DA contribution.  He explained that the DA had gone through the ANC's recommendations and had tried to identify commonalities. The first commonality was that South Africa had diplomatic relations with Israel. Secondly, Palestine was comprised of two parts. One of those parts was under occupation by Israel and Israelis were building settlements. The DA believed that the Israelis should not occupy Palestine and should not be building settlements. The third point was that on both sides, there was a need for commitment to peace which needed to be externalised. There should also be no violence. Fourthly, there should be agreement that each nation should live side by side and for each nation to have a sovereign state.  He noted that both the ANC and the DA documents were, in a sense, tailored along similar lines.  A point of contention, perhaps, was that he felt that a part of the ANC proposal could be referring to, and supporting, the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) Campaign. If this was in fact the intention of the ANC, then the DA distanced itself from the resolution. The provision was worded in such a way that it supported the BDS Campaign. He did not have a problem with South Africa supporting the Palestinian cause. If the intention was not to support the BDS Campaign, then the provision needed to be tweaked.

The Chairperson wished to categorically state that the BDS Campaign was not South Africa's policy. The resolution did not include support for the BDS Campaign. If it pleased the DA, the provision in question would be reformulated.  Something could be formulated to the effect that it was in line with South Africa's foreign policy.

Mr Davidson was concerned.  What if the President of South Africa decided to support the BDS Campaign in the future?

The Chairperson said that Parliament approved policy.

Ms Kubayi shared the sentiments of the Chairperson. If a campaign was specified, one would actually be elevating it. The BDS Campaign was not South Africa's policy, and therefore would not be mentioned in the resolution.

Mr Davidson said that he understood the point that had been made. He pointed out, however, that at the ANC Conference in Mangaung, resolutions adopted had supported the BDS Campaign. He was aware that there was a difference between South African government policy and ANC policy. He was in support of SA's "current" government policy.

The Chairperson said that a formulation could be accommodated to satisfy the DA.

Mr B Skosana (IFP) said that the golden rule was that the Committee should look at the intention of each of its resolutions.

The Chairperson said that it seemed that there was sufficient consensus.

Ms Dudley said that the ACDP did not support those clauses to which Mr Davidson had made reference.

Mr Ngonyama added that the clauses were “overkill” on the issue of "solidarity".

The Chairperson said that he was under the impression that the Committee had already reached consensus.

Mr Ngonyama responded that it was not a “big deal”, and it could be left as it was.

The Chairperson stated that South Africa officially stood in solidarity with the Palestinian people. It did recognise the state of Israel, however. Those were the facts.  There were two issues which needed to be considered. The first was to intensify solidarity efforts, including strengthening a sovereign Palestinian state. The second was broader support in the world for the Palestinian cause. The two issues were not the same.

Mr Davidson agreed that two different points were being made. He had no objections to them.

Mr Skosana shared Mr Davidson's sentiments.

The Chairperson said that it seemed that there was agreement on all the changes.

Mr Ngonyama asked about the COPE submission.

The Chairperson reiterated that all parties had been given an opportunity to make submissions. The issue could not be delayed any further.

The Committee adopted the resolution document as amended, with the exception of the ACDP, which expressed its dissent.

The Chairperson said that the Committee needed to extract a resolution from the document which would be in an acceptable format for the House.

DIRCO on its Quarterly Report: 1 April - 30 June 2013
The DIRCO briefed the Committee on its quarterly report for the period 1 April to 30 June 2013. The delegation included Mr C Basson, Chief Director: Office of the Director General, Ms Amukelani Maluleke, Director: Treasureship and Financial Support, and Mr Seraki Matsebe, Parliamentary Liaison Officer.
 
Mr Basson apologised for the absence of the Director General, but assured members that Ambassador Matjila would join the meeting later. The presentation was a snapshot of the Quarterly Report which DIRCO had, amongst others, presented to National Treasury and the Auditor-General's Office. The Report spoke to DIRCO's Annual Performance Plan.  It was even in the same format as the Annual Performance Plan. The briefing would be as concise as possible in the interest of time. He provided the Committee with insight into the four programmes of the DIRCO:

Programme 1: Administration
Thirty vacant posts had been filled during the period. Posts had to be filled within four months. There had been compliance with National Treasury requirements regarding the submission of financial statements. The DIRCO had also provided 38 training programmes during the reporting period, which included training programmes for Somali diplomats and a Post Conflict Reconstruction and Development (PCRD) training programme for Southern African Development Community (SADC) diplomats. Twenty-two of the 38 programmes were on protocol training.

Programme 2: International Relations
There were advanced national priorities -- the African Agenda and the Agenda of the South -- through nine structured bilateral mechanisms. Mr Basson said that these were not all the bilaterals that had been agreed upon. Of the nine, there was one African bilateral, five Asian and Middle East bilaterals and three European bilaterals. Twenty-four high level visits had taken place and a total of 45 investment seminars had been held and participated in.

Programme 3: International Co-operation
The DIRCO had participated in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) 67th Session and had contributed to agenda items dealing with Syria and the peaceful resolution of conflicts in Africa. It had also delivered an explanation vote on a GA resolution on the situation in Syria, adopted on 15 May 2013. South Africa had also delivered a statement on peaceful resolution of conflicts in Africa at an informal meeting of the plenary of the General Assembly on 25 April 2013. South Africa supported the adoption of a political declaration.  A total of 167 legal opinions relating to international law were rendered by the DIRCO. The DIRCO additionally provided logistical and substance support to the 6-17 May 2013 Pan-African Protocol (PAP) Session.

Programme 4: Public Diplomacy and State Protocol Services
Eleven media briefing sessions had been hosted by principals to articulate South Africa's position on international developments. Four public participation programmes had been undertaken to enhance public understanding of South Africa's international engagements. The DIRCO had also rendered protocol services during 29 incoming and 30 outgoing visits. It had furthermore facilitated 26 state and/or official events at different levels at guest houses.

Challenges
Mr Basson said that DIRCO had experienced difficulty in filling vacant posts within the required four month period. The delay was due to the verifications done by the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA). Improvements had been made with the timeous payment of suppliers, but it was not yet at 100%.

Ms Maluleke continued with the second leg of the briefing by speaking to the financials of the DIRCO for Quarter 1. The total appropriation for the DIRCO for the financial year was R5.5bn. The projected expenditure for Quarter 1 was R1.76bn, and the actual expenditure for the Quarter was R1.56bn. The variance was 11.7%. She elaborated upon the expenditures for each of the four Programmes:

Programme 1 (Administration) - the projected expenditure for the Quarter was R335m but the actual expenditure was R230m. The variance was 31.3%.
Programme 2 (International Relations) - the projected expenditure was R712m for the Quarter but the actual expenditure was R640m. The variance was 10.1%.
Programme 3 (International Cooperation) - the projected expenditure for the Quarter was R112m but the actual expenditure was R86m. The variance was 22.7%.
Programme 4 (Public Diplomacy and Protocol) - the projected expenditure was R61m for the Quarter but the actual expenditure was R59.8m. The variance was only 1.9%.
Programme 5 (International Transfers) - the projected expenditure was 62.6% for the Quarter and the actual expenditure was very close, at 62.2%.

Foreign exchange fluctuations had impacted upon the budget of the DIRCO. The budget was also affected by support to the African Union Commission Chairperson, Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma.  The promulgation of the South African Development Partnership Agency (SADPA) on 14 June 2012 had impacted upon the DIRCO budget, as both personnel and equipment had been provided. 
The African Renaissance Fund (ARF) had an allocated budget for 2013/14 of R476m which, with the accumulated surplus as at 31 March 2013 of R932m, gave a total of over R1.4bn.  However, for Quarter 1 only R2.3m had been spent.

Discussion
The Chairperson welcomed Ambassador Jerry Matjila, Director General of the DIRCO, to the meeting.

Mr Davidson referred to the economic diplomacy and investment seminars that had been held, and asked whether targets had been set to increase investment and trade in certain markets.

Mr Basson, referring to investment seminars, said that the DIRCO was redrafting the Medium Term Strategic Framework. There were targets for investment and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) had value-added targets. The system used by the DIRCO had been adopted from Canada. It was even difficult for the Canadians to measure the impact after ten years. The debate continued on how the increase in trade was to be measured. Sometimes the DTI took the lead on how to measure the impact, and at other times the DIRCO took the lead. It was a perplexing debate, while at the same time being a concern.

Mr E Eloff (DA) referred to the training provided by the DIRCO for Somalia delegates, and asked whether funding had been forthcoming from Somalia. Who had funded the training provided?  He asked about the legal opinions provided by the DIRCO. Were they done in-house, or were external persons used?

Mr Basson said that funds from the ARF were used for the training of Somali delegates. The training costs were now integrated into the budget of the DIRCO.  Legal opinions were generated by the DIRCO themselves. The DIRCO did not ask for legal help from other persons. The legal opinions related to the constitution, domestic and international laws.

Mr M Booi (ANC) referring to performance and monitoring asked whether the DIRCO was being restructured. Were the legal opinions provided within the ambit of the Constitution? What were the challenges?

Ms W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) asked what support the DIRCO provided to the Minister and Deputy Minister at meetings like those held at the United Nations. What was the reason behind the SAQA delays?

Mr Basson, referring to support to other Ministries, noted that the DIRCO monitored international treaties which resided with other ministries. The DIRCO also sent personnel with National Treasury and the Department of Justice when needed.  He said that many people had international qualifications. The fact of the matter was that SAQA delayed appointments. The DIRCO preferred to verify qualifications before appointing persons. Other government departments appointed persons first, while their qualifications were being verified.

Mr Ngonyama asked why there were 21 investment seminars conducted in Europe, but only four in Africa. Why the imbalance in numbers?

Mr Skosana said that the briefing had not referred to the National Development Plan (NDP). The international agreements entered into should be founded on the improvement of socio-economic conditions of the people. When were the investment and international agreements going to be discussed?

The Chairperson agreed with Mr Skosana. The Committee had stated two years ago that International Relations needed to come to the assistance of domestic conditions. The Annual Report of the DIRCO was even unable to quantify the benefits of expenditures by the DIRCO.  For example, it should be able to quantify that for a financial year as a country, South Africa was able to attract "x" amount of investment, that "y" amount of jobs had been created and that "z" number of downstream industries had been created. The ability to quantify had been lacking.  He noted that the National Department of Tourism was able to quantify how many tourists visited South Africa. The DIRCO should be able to quantify in the same way.  

He asked whether the DIRCO's economic diplomacy strategy was paying dividends.  What key decisions had been taken at the Conference on Maritime Security which had taken place in Pretoria?  He asked the question because Europe was hugely concerned about the piracy issue along the shorelines of Africa. Europe wanted South Africa to dispatch naval vessels to the affected areas. Thus far, South Africa had resisted. 

Mr Basson, speaking on the NDP, said that at the moment the DIRCO had been asked by Cabinet to look at the Medium Term Strategic Framework.  The DIRCO was looking specifically at Outcome 11.  All annual performance plans from departments would be aligned to the NDP. The new emphasis of the NDP was on economic diplomacy.  The DIRCO was aware that it needed to deliver on domestic priorities.
The DIRCO was aligning all its efforts towards the NDP.  Next year's Strategic Plan 2014/2019 would be in line with the NDP.

The outcomes of the Conference on Maritime Security would be forwarded to the Committee. There was co-operation on security and piracy. There was also intelligence sharing.

Mr Davidson, on economic diplomacy, said that persons needed to be well versed on investments. He asked what the DIRCO was doing to secure such individuals.

Mr Basson said that the DIRCO was working closely with the DTI. Diplomats were being trained with DTI marketing officials. Diplomats were now well versed in economic diplomacy. There was an economic toolbox that was very extensive. The toolbox was used to teach diplomats.

Mr Eloff commented that South Africa supported the African Union. Was there no other way to sponsor them, besides South Africa?

Ms Maluleke responded that the DIRCO was trying to assist the African Union Commission to secure funding from other African states. Funding was received from member states, however.  South Africa was supporting the African Union for the duration that Dr Dlamini-Zuma was acting as Chairperson of the African Union. Alternative funding was being looked at.

The Chairperson pointed out that the issue of supporting the Chairperson of the African Union had come before the Committee. The Committee was required to support Dr Dlamini-Zuma. The African Union had vacant posts which the Committee had asked the DIRCO to fill.  The African Union Chairperson could not be allowed to fail in her duties due to a lack of capacity.

Mr Eloff was concerned that the funding support to the African Union might eat into the budget of DIRCO. International funding needed to be secured for the African Union.

The Chairperson hoped that DIRCO was prepared for the fact that the African Union Chairperson was to be in the post for a while to come, and that its budget had made provision for it.

He referred to the ARF, and said that Quarter 1 expenditure was R2m. Projected commitments were were R619m, however. Why had this happened?

Ms Maluleke said that committed projects were R619m. There could be previous years’ projects that had been forwarded to the current financial year.

Update by the DIRCO on the current political situation in Syria
Ambassador Matjila said that the world was in a dilemma. At the G20 Leaders Summit held in St Petersburg on 5 and 6 September 2013, heated discussions had taken place. Leaders were divided on what to do over the Syrian issue. The issue of Syria surrendering chemical weapons had not been on the table. The issue had been about international relations principles. The question remained -- what to do? There was a need to act. The third area of debate was about evidence of the attacks by the Syrian government on its people. The only evidence put forward was by the USA's Central Intelligence Agency. President Zuma took the stance that the rule of law and international law needed to be followed. Hence it meant taking the United Nations route.  The history of Iraq and Libya had shown that military action had not worked. Dialogue was what was needed. United Nations inspectors should be allowed to complete their work in Syria.

The war drums were beating in Europe and the USA, but if military action were taken, it would possibly end up in a sub-regional war, because Syria had supporters in the region. The rebels had support from the Gulf States. Internationally, Syria was supported by Russia and China. Even Brazil and Argentina were against the US move to take military action. Germany was also against military action. It seemed as if all the presidents who were against taking military action were all females. The option was therefore negotiation.  South Africa's position was to condemn the use of chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction. The issue needed to be resolved through negotiations between Syrians themselves.  

South Africa was concerned about arms pouring into Syria. There was no inventory of weapons kept. When the conflict ended, then the weapons would still be there. The arms would make their way to the rest of the region. There would be a proliferation of arms. The US was adamant that it had evidence against the Syrian government and wished to bomb Syria, even though they did not know where the chemical weapons were located. The US wanted to bomb Syria's air force bases.

The easy part was to get President Assad to surrender chemical weapons to the United Nations; the difficult part was to get the chemical weapons from the rebels in Syria.   President Obama was in all probability going to lose the vote in the US Congress. The military option was thus at present off the books. 

The decision was then taken to direct efforts towards negotiations. The Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) economic partnership countries proposed to embark on a Geneva 2 peace talks. The South African position was to negotiate a solution.  A ceasefire should be called and the killing of people should be condemned.  There were 2m refugees because of the conflict. There was also uneasiness in the Middle East. President Assad should be part of the solution. The Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr Ban Ki-Moon also agreed that President Assad should be part of a negotiated solution. The process on taking a decision had been postponed.  South Africa would wait and see what happened.  Ambassador Matjila hoped to see a move towards Geneva 2 peace talks.

Discussion

The Chairperson said that the Committee supported the efforts of the Director General in trying to find a solution to the crisis. He was disturbed by a comment made a Free Syria member that they would not negotiate with President Assad. The Syrian government had always maintained that it was open to negotiations.

Mr Skosana asked how the Committee could embolden the stance of President Zuma on the issue. Was it beyond the mandate of the Committee to make a formal statement of support?

The Chairperson responded that the Committee could make a statement, or propose a resolution for Parliament, to support the President.

The Committee agreed to extend support to President Zuma.

The meeting was adjourned.