Foreign Relations Sector Overview: briefing by Committee Staff & Institute for Global Dialogue

Meeting report

Opening Remarks, Apologies and Agenda
The Chairperson opened the meeting, welcomed all Members and presenters, including presenters from outside Parliament. Thereafter, he asked if there were any apologies.

Mr M Lekota (COPE) said that he did not have any apologies, but that he wanted to alert the Committee that might have to leave around lunch time because he had some business to take care of during that time.

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) said that since the Committee Secretary was not there, the apology might not be there, but there should be an apology for Ms S Kalyan (DA).

Mr B Radebe (ANC) said that he wanted to issue an apology for Mr M Mncwango (IFP) who was attending the Portfolio on Justice and Security committee, which was meeting at the same time.

The Chairperson noted the apologies and read out the agenda for the day. The Committee would begin with the sector analysis by Ms Lineo Mosala, the Content Advisor. After that presentation, Mr David Madlala, the Committee researcher, would give the expert analysis on the budget votes. Dr Shiphamandla Zundi from the Institute for Global Dialogue would give the third presentation. The last presentation would be by the Committee Secretary, Mr Lubabalo Sigwela. The Committee would break for lunch. In the afternoon the Committee would have the Department’s Annual Performance Plan (APP) for 2014-2015, then the 2014-2017 Strategic Plan. Lastly, the Committee would have the 2014-2015 budget plan for the Annual Renaissance Fund (ARF). He then asked the presenters to begin. 

Dr B Holomisa (UDM) interrupted Ms Mosala during her introduction and asked if the Chairperson could clarify the order of the meeting, specifically when budget and strategy were going to be discussed. On the agenda it seemed that only strategy would be discussed, and he was wondering when the budget was going to be presented. He did not want the Department to be unprepared in the afternoon.

The Chairperson replied that the budget was going to be discussed in the afternoon and that the Department would cover what needed to be covered.

Mr Radebe added that the strategy must go with the budget, there was no other day to discuss either one and so the Department would definitely do both that day.

Dr Holomisa asked if it could double checked that the Department would indeed cover the budget, because he wanted to make sure that the Department was ready for the presentation.

The Chairperson responded that the Committee would receive a presentation on the budget that day. He then asked the Content Advisor to begin her presentation.

Content Advisor Sector Overview
Ms Mosala began her overview of the sector, and highlighted that South Africa’s foreign policy was strengthening with more involvement in Africa and more diplomatic missions. However, there had been challenges with operational inefficiencies. From a strategic standpoint, it was very important to keep the Southern African Development Community (SADC) stable and secure. Alliances like BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa) showed that South Africa was very well-placed internationally. She emphasised that international relations were about relations that South Africa had with other countries around the world, which affected domestic policies.

Focus Areas and Oversight Areas
Ms Mosala indicated that the Committee must focus on the Foreign Service Bill and the South African Development Partnership Agency (SADPA). The Committee must prioritise Africa, the African Union and SADC. She added that all the meetings from now until October would deal with what the Committee had done with oversight.

The Chairperson thanked Ms Lineo Mosala then to save time, suggested finishing the presentations before engaging in discussion.

Committee Researcher
Mr David Madlala, Committee Researcher, began his presentation on the budget analysis of the budget vote by giving an overview of the allocation of money.There were five programmes currently implemented by the Department: Programme one: Administration, Programme two: International Relations, Programme three: International Cooperation, Programme four: Public Diplomacy and Protocol Services, Programme five: International Transfers. He gave an overview of each programme.

Programme one:  He emphasised expenditure for the Foreign Service Bill and Partnership Fund Development Bill.

Programme two: On a strategic side, there would be more expenditure in subprogrammes, the first subprogramme was Africa, second Europe, third Asia and fourth the Middle East. Part of those subprogrammes would be sending diplomatic missions, and the purpose of sending diplomatic missions was to increase tourism and emphasize South Africa as an investment destination.

Programme three: There was also an initiative to get South Africa to participate in international organisations and institutions. Part of the spending would be focused on participating in the UN system. South Africa was now part of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), and so part of the budget would be spent on the country’s involvement in the organisation. He also reminded members that South Africa was hosting the Pan African Parliament, and so that was going to be a priority for the Committee.

Programme four: As in the other programmes, there would also be more spending in compensation of employees. However, he highlighted the increase in this programme and said the reason for increased spending related to the increased number of employees in the programme. Another reason for increased spenditure in the programme was the renovation of diplomatic guesthouses, which the previous Committee visited and noticed, needed more funding. Talking about programme four, the Public Diplomacy and Protocol Services, he alerted members that there was over expenditure in the programme and explained that this was due to the late President’s passing away.

Programme five: The purpose was to fund membership fees in international organisations such as the UN, AU, and SADC.

In conclusion one of the important points was that the department had received additional funds to build the South African Partnership Programme. There had also been an increase in expenditure on infrastructure, and things like staff accommodation abroad.

The Chairperson said the presentations were flowing well. He asked to begin the third presentation and then get to the last presentation by the Committee Secretary Mr Lubabalo Sigwela.

Mr Holomisa asked the analysts that when they were going to outline the budget and alert members to what issues they should expect. In his view, what the Committtee just heard was not analysis, but something that the Department could tell the Committee. The presentation had no analysis. He wanted to know that programme X would have to cut funding and these were the struggles that the Departmentwould face. That way, the Committee could engage the Department in an informed manner.

The Chairperson said that the observation was noted, but the Committee would continue to Dr Siphamandla Zundi’s presentation.

Briefing by Institute for Global Dialogue
Dr Siphamandla Zondi, Director, IGB, began his presentation on the concept of continuity of change, continuity and change or no continuity without change, a big discussion out there. Southern Africa was the most important area for South Africa, and so integration, institution and economic policies were not a new thing. The key was interacting with developing countries. Those countries were facing the same challenges, so there was a lot to learn about how they were handling the issues. For example, Brazil had the hard power currency and the soft power currency, but, unlike South Africa, other countries did not contest Brazil’s role and leadership in South America. South Africa represented itself as a gateway, but other African countries questioned that representation. In places like Malawi, where South Africa wanted to help, there were countries that did not want South Africa involved and would not follow South Africa, because they did not trust South Africa. Perhaps South Africa had taken its relationship with other African countries for granted. In fact one of the most useful platforms had been China. Further in cooperation with other countries, we have BRICS and IBSA. We have to remember that IBSA was temporary, and so if things seemed shaky at times, or that it would be overtaken at times, it must be kept in mind that it was a transitional organization. BRICS was not geographically solid, but it was geopolitically solid, which was something that could be beneficial. Furthermore, IBSA and BRICS were meant to compliment each other. The other layer was bilateral and multilateral relations with developed countries.

Dr Zondi said that one of the most significant relationships that South Africa needed to foster was the relationship with the European Union (EU). On a strategic point, South Africa had taken several strategic orientations. It had been Reformist meaning it was all about institutions. Then it became Pan-Africanist, meaning that all decisions were African oriented, and Africa was in the middle. South Africa has also been eclectic, meaning that it was not socialist, not communist, not capitalist, it did not have a specific label. Lastly, it had been multilateralist, which meant that it never took decisions alone. So how to respond to this and what are the left overs from the 2009-2014 year?  SADPA was supposed to replace the ARF, but that did not happen. South Africa must figure out why this had not happened. Were there legal reasons or financial issues? Brazil implemented similar programmes and those programmes worked well, so there had to be a reason why it did not work in South Africa. The second commitment was to put together a White Paper, and this was discussed and introduced to the previous Committee. However, the Committee might want to consider resvising the White Paper. Lastly, there was the South African Council on International Relations (SACOIR). The fourth one was a code to manage South Africa business conduct outside of the country, however the idea of the code fell away. There was also the idea to professionalise diplomacy; the deployment of political deployed people in diplomatic settings was usual around the world. However, there were different ratios. The general rule was that there was 80-20 ratio of career diplomats and political diplomats. We must look at South Africa’s ratios. Number six was regulation of paradiplomacy, South Africa did not want an awkward moment when the President of South Africa arrived in China, there were two other delegations arriving at the same time. There should be more coordination.

Dr Zondi mentioned that the idea to increase public engagement was important because when people were not engaged, they saw it as foreign and as a waste of money. Engagement could begin by reaching out to universities. He then emphasised how important it was to have a good relationship with the public, because it was the way that diplomacy worked. For example, if in the afternoon, South Africa decided that it would not join the United States or United Kingdom in a resolution, all that one needed was for the Washington Post to call Bishop Desmond Tutu, and tell him that South Africa was against human rights. The Bishop would then say that this was horrible, and the news would spread before South Africa had time to explain itself. He then shifted the focus to other opportunities, opportunities such as promoting relationships with places in the Indian Ocean, such as Indonesia, a relationship that had been key for many years. Another important place to focus was to audit South African representation, and if South Africa could afford the manner that it tried to represent itself internationally. He also concluded with an overview of the NDP, and how the NDP could be used as a resource for outlining and strategizing in international relations.

The Chairperson asked if members wanted to discuss right now, or wait until the presentations were over.

Mr Holomisa said that there was only an hour before the last meeting and asked the last presenter to talk about the slides, not read the slides.

Budgvet Vote Process
Mr Lubabalo Sigwela, Committee Secretary, said that his presentation would be very brief and would give the Committee an idea of what to expect in the upcoming weeks. He gave an overview of the week and of the rules on how the reports will be handed out and the procedures that would take place.

Mr Radebe noted that Members were coming in and out and the Committee started late, so asked that members should stay still.

The Chairperson agreed and moved chairs to the area were movement seemed to be originating. He then asked for questions and called out the names of the Members in the order that they should speak.

Discussion
Mr Holomisa said that the first and second presentations were only procedural. Only Dr Zondi’s presentation pertained to the budget, and as such he would engage him. He thanked Dr Zondi for the eloquent presentation and asked him about his view on the role that South Africa should play in what seemed to be an implosion in the Middle East, and other countries like Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Mali, Kenya, Nigeria. The UN had informed South Africa that there were terrorist organisations in those countries and South Africa needed to play a certain role. However, he wondered about the role that South Africa should play.

Mr Holomisa asked three additional questions. Firstly, he asked if South Africa had a strategy or the necessary intelligence data before engaging in the wars or deploying troops. Secondly, he asked about the contestation of international trade and who was in control of intellectual property rights. Thirdly, he asked Dr Zondi what role South Africa should play as a developing country. Lastly, he stated that there was a perception that the other BRICS countries wanted to use South Africa. Therefore on issues like nuclear development, if South Africa wanted nuclear proliferation, would it have issues with those countries over that.

Mr Mokgalapa appreciated all the presentations, however, he wanted to focus on Dr Zondi’s input, noting that he had always been a resource and the Committee could engage with him.

Mr Mokgalapa asked what the Committee should be doing, especially since the Constitution said that part of the Committee’s job was oversight of institutions. Secondly, he asked Dr Zondi about his focus on the NDP and using it as a guide to define what the national interests were. Thirdly, he asked how the country could align its domestic imperatives with international relations. Fourthly, he asked if Dr Zondi was convinced that South Africa’s international relations’ activity in terms of foreign relations and protection of the economy was sufficient, or if South Africa was overstretching itself. Fifthly, he stated that if one looked at the report on bilateral relations and trade, there was no synergy on where the foreign relations were located and where money for this came from. He therefore asked Dr Zondi what he thought about this lack of synergy and what South Africa should do.

Mr Mokgalapa addressed one question each to the Content Advisor and to the Researcher. To the former, he asked what kind of oversight the Committee could do, especially when it came to multilateral institutions and missions. To the latter, he asked about the details of the over-expenditure in the Public Diplomacy and Protocol Services programme, and if this was only due to Dr Nelson Mandela’s funeral, or if there were there other reasons.

Dr P Jordan (ANC) addressed the first presentation by the Content Advisor and said that it contained “an unfortunate term of phrase”. He quoted the sections that described the patterns of international relations under each President. Since human rights and morality were used to describe international relations under President Mandela, it suggested that after he stepped down, these two factors did not have a place in South African foreign policy. This was a very dangerous notion and could be misleading. That paragraph needed to be reconfigured and thought through. It should be rephrased.

Dr Jordan then addressed a number of issues in Dr Zondi’s presentation. Firstly, he was not sure what Dr Zondi meant when he said that South Africa should engage the private sector when developing its embassies. That notion raised interesting problems. South Africa had the example of the American embassy in Moscow. That embassy was built during Soviet time, and the Americans used the Soviet contractors. When the Americans moved into the embassy, the building was a huge concrete bugging device. He then addressed South Africa’s role in international affairs, for example, nuclear proliferation. There were two new nuclear powers in the non-aligned movement. South Africa was the only country that had nuclear capacity, but decided not to follow through with the nuclear build-up; an intelligent decision, in his view.

Dr Jordan stated that one element that one should never lose sight of when comparing South Africa to other countries, like Brazil, was that Brazil had been independent, and even an empire, since the nineteenth century. However, South Africa was still fractured along many lines and in addition to that, the Department of International Relations was not aggressive enough in terms of engaging its citizens. If South Africa was going to have a vote in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), that decision was an important decision that required engaging citizens. So when the vote took place at 2pm in Washington D.C. the decision on the vote happend at 8pm in South Africa. By the time the Washington Post made the call, the horse had already bolted and South African newspapers would go with the story that they get. It would be smarter if the Department of international Affairs and Cooperation (DIRCO) came up with briefs for the media and the South African nation.

Dr Jordan was particularly pleased with Dr Zondi for emphasizing the Indian Ocean as a strategic region for South Africa. The Indian Ocean was of strategic importance for South Africa right now. It was the route that South Africa used to reach the East. In BRICS, South Africa had relations with India and China, which makes the route to the East important. Lastly, he wondered if South Africa was getting the value for money in the missions that it had internationally.

Ms M Moonsamy (EFF) wanted to raise a point of strategy. She asked “how much is hanging” on integration of the programmes set forth by the Department. Furthermore, she asked if it was healthy to have five programmes without having a strategic plan and how the implementation of these programmes without a strategic plan would affect the Department.

Ms Moonsamy addressed several other issues. Firstly, she stressed that South Africa should not import the inefficiency of development agencies. Secondly, she wanted to know about currency fluctuation and how that was being handled. Thirdly, she expressed concern about international institutions and the effect they have domestically. Fourthly, she enquired about financial value of the Department. Fifthly, commented on the question of career diplomats versus political appointees, pointing out that if the Department recycled the “same old” deployees over and over again, at what point would it begin its commitment to the youth agenda and economic transformation. Therafter, she asked about the value of the houses that the Department owned for staff. In addition, she if the Department attracted the people that South Africa wanted to attract. Lastly, she asked who decided if a country from developing to middle income, how South Africa missed that opportunity to be middle income, and how it could secure that opportunity. If South Africa did not make maximal use of multilateral agreements, how could the Committee monitor performance. Performance should be evaluated in terms of achievement.

Mr M Maila (ANC) asked if there was a challenge with South Africa being part of an institution like the G7 and whether there was a danger of being seen as an imperial power by other African countries if it did become part of that grouping. In addition, he asked Dr Zondi if it was efficient to have so many bilateral relations, and if South Africa could do anything to decrease the number of bilateral relations.

Mr Radebe told the Content Advisor that he was worried that her presentation only spoke about the responsibility of oversight. If there was a special fund, and that fund comes from National Treasury, how did the Committee perform its job properly? He did not understand why there was so much inefficiency or what stopped the Committee from calling the embassies and asking what they have done with the money. At the end of the day, foreign policy must be justified with national interest. The government needed to be able to tell the people that the money and time was worth it. Moreover, it was critical that South Africa was present at multinational organisations. If the country was going to spend money to be part of those organisations, it needed to be able to have its own people represented there advocating for South African interests. If the director of the WTO was Brazilian, and the staff was mostly Brazilian, then Brazil’s agenda would be prioritised. That was why the country needed a South African representative to be there, to make sure that its interest was heard. He also wanted to know if South Africa had a definition for “terrorist.” South Africa must have its own definition so that foreigners did not guide its policy. South Africa could not have foreign nations telling it to take action against an organization or a person because they considered them to be terrorists. Lastly, in places where WTO decisions were being short-circuited, he asked what action South Africa should take.

Mr Lekota directed his questions at all of the presenters. When constructing international relations, a country must look at the immediate and long-term goals. He asked where the government should take South Africa. The main idea in the international arena was that the world has been unipolar, and was moving into long lasting peace. However, Dr Zondi spoke about the development of BRICS, and other organisations seeing it as a threat. This statement suggested that mutations arise. One must not forget the First World War and Second World War. Those wars started in a unipolar atmosphere where competing capitalist interests clashed. Now we have come back to a unipolar world, and nothing else but the core of capitalism, we cannot just make alliances without considering them carefully. South Africa must think carefully if it aligns with China or Russia. South Africa must think medium to long term and be generally assured that economic interests and security interests were secure. Lastly, he asked the Chairperson to be excused as he had an urgent matter to take care of.

Ms T Kenye (ANC) said that her questions would not be long. She was concerned that the ARF was the only agency used by the Department and commented that if the government wanted to make Africa and South Africa a better place, it needed to realise that there was a long way to go. If the government wanted to increase inter-african trade, it should also be mentioning institutions like the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). She also wanted to know where the ARF failed as well as Dr Zondi’s opinion on how the Department should be restructured.

The Chairperson thanked the presenters and alo made an input. Firstly, he asked whether the idea of ubuntu diplomacy had an English or Afrikaans equivalent. If the concept could only be found in South Africa, should the country’s diplomacy not infuse the idea of Ubuntu into its foreign relations? South Africa wanted international relations that were humane. People like Mandela were part of the diplomatic fact. Sometimes the international community picked a person that was special, and that person attracted others to the country. Something to consider was whether the government had done enough to brand South Africa. The Department must showcase what South Africa was about. One of the weaknesses of the ARF was that there were no guidelines when releasing funds to aid other countries. When there was a disaster in another country, South Africa reached to the fund and just gave the other country money. However, there was no regulation on how to manage that relationship with the other country. On another point, he asked which countries within the African continent believed that South Africa saw itself as the new imperialist. He asked whether this view was due to the differences between Francophone and Anglophone countries. Another important aspect to consider was the relationship between developing and developed nations. Many in the developing world thought that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank set standards that were not beneficial and kept those nations underdeveloped.

Ms Mosala commented that by the time the Department arrived, it would find a well-prepared Committee. She began with the problem of oversight. There were different residences abroad: there were official homes as well as residences for the staff. Missions were divided into many categories, and called many things. Some of them were called the high commissions, at the UN they were called permanent missions and at the EU they were called permanent representatives. Oversight budgets determined the budget for keeping track of those places abroad. Since the Committee’s budget dealt with oversight abroad, any trip abroad would be seen as an oversight visit. So the Committee might meet challenges when it wanted to do oversight oversees. Parliament only envisaged oversights internally, and allowed other committees four oversights per year. Besides oversight visits, the only means of going abroad was using study tours, which was only allowed twice in five years for international travel. Another issue for oversight and for properties abroad was registers. The Members could ask the department about that issue in the afternoon. The ARF had existed for a while and it had many problems. Now that Members were aware of the issue, they could ask for another meeting to discuss the problems with the Department.

Mr Madlala answered Mr Mokgalapa’s question about the over expenditure. Dr Nelson Mandela’s funeral only accounted for R27.1 million of the debt. Then there were other expenditures, such as operations abroad with IBSA. A lot of the money was spent on international transfers. Part of the issue was also due to the fluctuation of money, which impacted South African organisations.

Mr Mokgalapa wanted to clarify whether part of the over expenditure came from the R110 million that South Africa gave the EU Commission. If not, he asked whether the money came from the ARF or elsewhere.It could not be counted as over expenditure because it had to come from the ARF fund.

Mr Madlala replied that what he had referred to in over expenditure was from the previous financial year there was other spending because of issue highlighted earlier. The transfer was cabinet approved transfer, which came from the ARF and transferred to other banks. There was a cabinet approved reduction of R540.3 million over medium the term from the ARF. Some of that money was intended to use for the establishment of SADPA.

Ms addressed Dr Jordan’s question on the paragraph that he highlighted in the document. It did not mean that there was no continuity of human rights, just that it was very prominent during President Mandela’s term.

Dr Zondi said that all the questions gave him ideas for papers to write. They were all good questions. Countries that South Africa called partners were increasing, and they were putting effort into that relationship. For example, China hds one university dedicated to BRICS, Brazil established one of the biggest institutions of African studies, and increased 500 delegates in Africa. The key was in the nuances, if South Africa was going towards nuclear nonproliferation and there was an issue that the ambassador must attend to at the same time; that created a problem in terms of delegation. South Africa needed internal research capacity to analyse whether a growing number of bilateral agreements were worth the time and money. For example, the Western Cape and Ontario, Canada had a relationship where very soon Ontario would be able to export pork to South Africa in big numbers. On the other hand, South Africa had been exporting blueberries to Canada in big numbers and was no longer able to do that. South Africa must analyse how that happened. There was a small pool of people who were international relations experts, and the government needed to have research internally. There needed to be serious analysis on what China was looking for in BRICS. If China wanted to contribute the most, South Africa must figure out China’s end goal. As for diplomatic strategy, South Africa needed to look at wooden diplomacy. For Americans coexistence means cooperation and cooperation means cooperating with them. So South Africa must ask, not in paranoia, but ask if wooden diplomacy would not change anything but just be a brand. Very few people know about South Africa’s strategy on BRICS. The Committee must decide the strategy for long term. Progressive people feared that South Africa may swing without having a strategy.

The Chairperson thanked everyone, said that lunch was served and the Committee would reconvene at 2pm.