African Union: briefing by Deputy Minister

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
21 August 2002
AFRICAN UNION: BRIEFING BY DEPUTY MINISTER

Chairperson: Mr P Jordan (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Briefing by Deputy Minister (see Appendix)

SUMMARY
The Deputy Minister emphasised that the institutions that were set up to carry out its programmes would determine the impact of the AU. South Africa, as first Chair, would have to lay the foundations for years to come. For the next three years SADC countries would hold the chairmanship -indicated that decisions taken as chairperson would have to be agreed to by SADC members.

He stressed the proactive role that the Portfolio Committee would have to take in relation to fostering communication between government, civil society and parliament so that good ideas filtered through to the negotiation process. On the budget issue, although the AU was working towards being self-sufficient, it would for the immediate future be reliant on outside assistance, but the emphasis was place on Africa finding its own solutions to its problems. Gender equality was a principle that ran through the Constitutive Act of the AU and South Africa would encourage other member states to build on the principle.

MINUTES
The Chair welcomed the Deputy Minister, Mr Aziz Pahad, who would be updating the Committee on recent developments relating to the AU and other developments on the African continent. (for full briefing see appendix)

Briefing
Mr Pahad apologised on behalf of the Minister for not being there as she was in the Cabinet at that time. An extensive discussion had been had the previous day at Parliament on African economic development and NEPAD. His intention was not to cover that ground again but to stress that although one could have programmes, their impact would be dependent on the institutions that were set up to carry them out.

As first Chair of the AU, South Africa would have to set the foundations for the years to come. Given South Africa's economic position, it has a very important role to play and this would put pressure on the Portfolio Committee. It was vital that the Committee familiarise itself with the objectives and principles of the Constitutive Act of the AU as it was only by doing that that one could see what needed to be done. It was important to note the objectives of the AU, which are to promote greater unity in Africa (not only between countries but between peoples as well), integration, peace, democratic principles, good governance and to promote human rights in terms of human rights instruments.

An important dimension of the Constitutive Act (CA) is that it introduces the right of intervention to the political situation on the continent. The issue of women's rights is also fundamental. The CA reiterates that it will condemn and reject any unconstitutional change of government. These principles would have important consequences and were not meant to be far off objectives.

The Inaugural Summit meeting had approved the Rules for the various organs relating to the AU. One important decision was the approval of the Protocol of the Peace and Security Council. The Summit also unanimously adopted the NEPAD declaration of good governance, both politically and economically. The question now was hot to give effect to it.

Priorities that the Portfolio Committee needed to give consideration to were how to operationalise the AU and give content to its various structures, for example, the issue of the Pan-African Parliament, which will remain an advisory organ for the next five years, and the African Court of Justice, which requires a Protocol. Major discussions have been held on the issue of conflict and resolution. During the establishment of the Peace and Security Council, an attempt had been made to get the position accepted of having five permanent members without the power to veto. However the vast majority of countries had argued against it on the grounds that all member countries are equal. South Africa was not yet a member of the Council because each region needed to nominate a member and South Africa need to work towards being nominated, although Mr Pahad could not see how South Africa could not be on the Council. The Panel of the Wise had also been set up during the Summit. The Panel would constitute five senior leaders from Africa who would advise the Peace and Security Council.

Great emphasis was being put on moving towards ensuring good governance. The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) had been established and would be using agreed criteria to measure good governance. Mr Pahad's own opinion was that the broad principles of the APRM were a good starting point and indicated that Africans wanted to monitor their own move towards democracy. It was clear that the Pan-African Parliament would be one of the most powerful institutions to influence the APRM on what constitutes good governance and indicating ways to address problems. It was also a tremendous opportunity to interact and use South Africa's own experiences to enhance and strengthen other Parliaments. There had to be a joint parliamentary/ governmental and civil society interaction to make the objectives of the AU a reality.

Discussion
Mr Seramane (DP) said, regarding the APRM, that some countries argued against it on the grounds of sovereignty. He asked what would happen to countries that tamper with their constitution and manipulate it to their own ends.

Mr Eglin (DP) said that he had not been able to find out from Foreign Affairs about the budget of the AU and was worried that only rich countries would be able to host the institutions of the AU. He asked for a copy of the budget and whether it had been discussed.
He asked whether the AU non-recognition of governments that have come into power unconstitutionally would only apply to those members who came into the AU in future and not to existing members.

Mr Pheko (PAC) asked what the fundamental difference was between the OAU and the AU and what the rationale was for South Africa being Chair, followed by Mozambique and Angola. He questioned why the Chairs all appeared to come from Southern Africa when the AU was supposed to be an African body.
He raised the issue of foreign governments that give money towards elections in African countries - thereby ensuring that their interests are met by the government after the elections. He inquired as to what extent the AU would try to convince foreign powers that if they were really interested in democracy they would not interfere.

Mr Pahad replied that the APRM is a voluntary mechanism by which peers will judge how member countries achieve in what will be determined as general principles of good governance. It has been accepted that there might be some who that they do no want to join. All countries would help each other to see how strong their institutions are and to help in building them. He agreed that there might be countries will use the concept of sovereignty to reject the recommendations of others. This was something that happens all over the world. Issues of good governance are not a luxury but a necessity and those who used the excuse of sovereignty would begin to feel pressure from all around. The AU would be taking a holistic approach and would try at the beginning to help members and indicate that it is in their best interests to join. Other foreign countries may impose conditions on African countries, but this was a situation where Africa would be deciding for itself. All the institutions are a reality.

The full budget for the institutions had not been worked out. In the interim, the AU Secretariat had been mandated to determine the budget. He asked for the interim budget to be distributed to the Committee. There was a general feeling that an attempt should be made to become self-sufficient. Although self-sufficiency would be sought, his own feeling was that for the immediate future, assistance would have to be sought to enable institutions to become functional.

On the difference between the OAU and the AU, he said that the OAU by nature had two legs: political and economical, but was not able to focus on the economic aspect because most of its work was aimed at defeating apartheid and he felt that it had succeeded. Africa has the largest amount of intra-state conflicts but, if one looked at situations where the OAU had intervened early enough it would become apparent that it had been able to act effectively. They had not succeeded in economic and social areas, but that work would now become institutionalised. There was now also a civil society / government partnership which the OAU had never emphasised. The Peace and Security Council had been met and would meet once a year at the Heads of States level and at Ministerial level. All of these aspects are new within the framework of the AU.

Mr Pheko suggested that the OAU could have done the same things as the AU were it not for the Cold War.

Mr Pahad agreed that that was a good point. The rationale for SADC chairing the AU for the next three years was that when SA had put forward its recommendation for chairmanship it was not realised that it would coincide with the launch of the AU. Mozambique had put forward its recommendation because it was the last year in office its President. Either Madagasca or the Seychelles would have been next, but had fallen out of the running and so Angola had become the next chair. He hoped that it would not become the basis of the AU that whoever put their name forward first would become the chair, as had been the case with the OAU.

Regarding funding for elections, Parliament was looking at ways to provide for funding through Parliament, however the case might be different with other countries but an attempt would be made to try and convince everybody that all partnerships are on a new basis and would be mutually beneficial. He was glad that the General Assembly had passed a resolution expressing support for NEPAD and would be holding two meetings in September on NEPAD. There must be interaction with the South on a mutually beneficial basis and so emphasis must be put on visiting countries in the South. There was an inside joke that Parliament only visited countries of the North. This Parliament has a major role to play and there was a need to improve communication between government, parliament and civil society.

Mr Pheko, on the question of interference, noted that the OAU had held a different position on the issue of Madagascar from the US, UK and France, who supported the new regime. He had not heard the position of the AU.

Mr Pahad said that the AU had passed a specific resolution and Madagascar had not been allowed to participate in the AU. The matter was in the process of being resolved. The Minister had visited Madagascar the previous week. There were only two countries in Africa that had recognised the new government - Mauritius and the Seychelles.

Mr Sithole (ANC) asked to what extent mechanisms had been set up to ensure that programmes started by South Africa would be carried through by the chairs to follow. He asked how the AU saw itself dealing with the Morocco / Sahrawi Republic situation and if it anticipated the possibility of Morocco coming within the fold of the AU. He felt it important for the AU, and South Africa as the chair, to resolve the situation. Regarding the Working Group on the African Union, he felt that there was gap in terms of how the Working Group received briefings from the executives. Although the Group had taken decisions, there was still a gap in information exchange between the Ministry, the Portfolio Committee and the Working Group.

Mr Mokoena (ANC) asked how is the AU going to be capitalised in terms of its membership fee and how is the fee determined. He asked what the deficit is regarding outstanding fees of member states of the OAU and if the books were closed. He enquired as to the relationship between NEPAD and ECOSOCC and in particular, if NEPAD was a special programme or if it was linked to ECOSOCC. He asked the Deputy Minister for comment on the perception in the media that NEPAD stands alone.

Ms Magazi (ANC) asked if the Peace and Security Council would be gender sensitive as there had been a perception that the Security Council is always gender biased. She asked if there would be efforts to make sure that women are brought on board.

Mr Pahad was unsure whether the Protocol relating to the Peace and Security Council had been circulated amongst the Committee. This was an area were two-way communication was necessary and he hoped that the Committee, as the overseeing body, would demand the instruments from the Department.

Mr Pahad was of the opinion that the Morocco / Sahrawi position had been hounded for too many years. The mandate of the Security Council to help resolve the situation had been extended for several months. The AU was working on the basis that the Security Council initiative would help to resolve the situation. Morocco would not join the AU while the Sahrawi Republic was a member. That was the decision they had taken but he hoped that matters could be resolved sooner rather than later.

He was happy to hear that the Working Group was discussing the Pan-African Parliament and taking decisions. Clearly the flow of information from the legislature to the executive (including departments) was not as good as it could be, and vice versa. Ultimately, the best ideas would not be used if they did not filter through to the negotiating team. It was necessary to look at how to co-ordinate. His view was that the system needed to be looked at more carefully. Experience from the cluster committees had shown a tendency to be snowed under by documents.

On the budget, there were about four of five countries that had not paid in their membership fees. According to the new rule, they can participate but not vote. He would circulate details of the budget to the Committee. At present, outstanding fees amounted to the tune of 50 million, but he was not entirely sure, as he had not kept abreast of the financial aspect.

ECOSOCC was one of the institutions of the AU, while NEPAD is the programme of the AU and could not stand alone.

The question of gender was not only relevant to the Peace and Security Council. Throughout the CA gender was an overarching issue. The decision to make one out of every two nominees to the posts for Commissioners had gone a long way towards ensuring gender equality. South Africa would continue to argue for women on the Security Council and its position on the Council would be gender sensitive, and would also try to influence other delegations in this respect. There is no actual opposition to it but it is the actual implementation that will determine it the positions. South Africa would fight for

Mr Eglin, on the issue of the rotating chairperson, noted that any country that hosts the AU would automatically become the chair. He gave the example of Idi Amin who, at the height of his atrocities had become chair of the OAU. In addition, he believed that the term of office for chairperson should be longer than one year, although maybe not as long as the five years - that was being argued by some.

He continued that the Sahrawi/ Morocco issue had gone on since 1975 and was partly the fault of the OAU who had decided to allow in the Sahrawi Republic without it having held elections. It was not good enough to sit back and rely on the Security Council to find a solution. On the issue of Madagascar, he was not satisfied that there had been a decision of the AU taken on the merits of the case.
One gets the impression of the AU being one big happy family and he questioned if there were any blocks that were relevant to the situation and was there any game being played by, for example, Gaddaffi.

A member asked if the process of de-establishing the OAU had been completed or not.

Mr Pahad replied that the whole question of automatic chairing was one of the matters that had been raised and would be discussed at the upcoming extraordinary Summit.
The AU was one big family with 53 constituents and it would be foolist to say that all of them thought alike. States had different views on different issues. Regions, such as SADC, were important because out of the debate in the region a consensus would emerge that would be based on compromise. Sub-regional groupings would allow for regional positions. Some groupings were stronger than others.

On the issue of politics, it was Gaddaffi who had raised the notion of fast-tracking the Abuja Treaty in Algiers. South Africa's position was that the media had overplayed Gaddaffi on both his negative and positive positions. This was not to say that amendments put forward by him were wrong - they would need to be debated on. Vibrant and heated discussions had been had at the Summit, including on the topic of Madagascar. The view was that the situation was being dealt with by the regional grouping and led by the President of Senegal. The AU had endorsed the decision.

Regarding the operationalising of all the AU institutions, mechanisms had been put in place but some would not come into place for a long time, for example the Bank of Africa. Five main institutions, amongst them the Pan-African Parliament and ECOSOCC, had been established and would lay the basis for the other institutions to come into the process.

The Chair thanked the Deputy Minister for his comprehensive briefing and the Deputy Minster excused himself. Moving on to Committee matters the Chair explained that a problem was being experience by members who had made a claim for mileage, parking and attendance of meetings against the Committee's budget rather than Parliament's budget. He asked those members to speak to the Committee secretary. On the issue of the WSSD, he said that he had submitted name from the Committee for accreditation, however members would have to pay for their own transport and accommodation. He mentioned briefly the likelihood of the Committee going on a study trip to Russia during the recess.

Meeting adjourned.

Appendix:

Parties need to be congratulated on their constructive participation and inputs on the National Assembly Debate on 20 August 2002: "Peace, Development and Prosperity: The African Century". As some speakers mentioned, the time has come to put our intentions into action - the putting in place of the institutional mechanisms of the AU is an important part of that process.

South Africa key role in realising the African Century. As AU chairman SA will help to lay foundation for the road ahead for the AU and we should utilise that opportunity effectively also through SADC. South Africa remain in the AU Troika until 2004, and the Chair of the AU will rotate within the Southern African region until 2005/6, with Mozambique and Angola acting as Chairs for the AU in 2003 and 2004 respectively. SADC would thus have a substantial role and input in the establishment of AU institutions.

The Constitutive Act of 2000 sets the framework for the work and policy formulation for the AU.

Its objectives and principles form the basis for the process ahead...

- Panel of the Wise - to act when threat to peace and security;

- Early warning system [with centres at HQ in Addis Ababa and in each of RECs eg for SADC]

New initiatives worth underscoring are:

The entry point for the South African Parliament to assist in the development of the continent is the proposed Pan-African Parliament. The Pan-African Parliament is classified as a political and democratic institution, which will represent the citizenry of all African States. Its elected members will symbolise the democratic will of all the peoples of Africa. As stated in the Constitutive Act of the African Union (AU), the Parliament will ensure the full participation of African peoples in the development and economic integration of the continent. Each member state will be represented by 5 parliamentarians, two of whom will have to be female, and being representative of the political spectrum of that member state.

As such, the Pan African Parliament has a role to place in the creation or maintenance of:

The South African Parliament has a leading role to play with the establishment of the PAP based on its Parliamentary infrastructure, experience, process and efficiency.

Parliament also has a central responsibility in assisting with SA's chairmanship of the AU in ensuring an effective outcome for the continent's future. This would require good interaction and co-operation at intergovernmental level but also between Parliament and Government and the Portfolio Committee is encouraged to contribute actively to this process.