Overview of International Relations issues in State of the Nation Address; Treaties and role of Parliament; Committee monitoring tool

Meeting report

The Chairperson noted that it was the task of the Committee to hold the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) accountable. The issues that the Committee had to deal with were not confined to the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF).

Analysis of the State of the Nation Address (SONA) 2015
The Committee Researcher, Mr David Madlala, presented the Committee with an overview of international relations issues as contained in the State of the Nation Address 2015. He first provided insight into the February and June SONAs of 2014. In February 2014, the President highlighted the historical narrative which shaped SA’s foreign policy especially in Africa as well as SA’s successes in climate change negotiations. In June 2014, the President focused on domestic priorities and emphasised that SA would build on the National Development Plan and the Presidency Twenty Year Review. He only briefly touched on international relations policy by noting that Africa would remain a priority in SA’s international relations engagements. The 2015 SONA looked at key aspects of international relations. These would require the Committee’s attention in order to assess DIRCO’s implementation of SA’s foreign policy. Mr Madlala in analysing the 2015 SONA noted the following themes:

The African Agenda - The President called for schools to practise the African Union (AU) anthem in preparation for the celebration of Africa Month in May 2015. SA would also continue to support peace and security and regional economic integration in Africa.

Economic Diplomacy - The President stated that SA had doubled its foreign direct investment inflows to R88bn in 2013 while 2014 projections also looked positive. He was concerned about SA’s ambition of achieving a growth target of 5% by 2019 due to slow global growth as well as domestic constraints in energy, skills, transport and logistics. There was the possibility of amendments to Home Affairs legislation to attract foreign skills to SA.

Energy Security - The President reflected on SA’s long term energy master plan which would pursue gas, petroleum, nuclear, hydro power and other sources of energy as part of its energy mix.

South-South Cooperation - SA’s economic cooperation with its Brazil, Russia, India, China and SA (BRICS) partners was strengthened when the first two intergovernmental agreements were concluded at the sixth BRICS Summit. The two agreements were about the New Development Bank and a treaty establishing a contingent reserve arrangement.

North-South Dialogue - The President noted that countries of the developed north would remain important strategic partners for SA. SA also had a valuable partnership with the European Union in, amongst others, the Infrastructure Investment Programme for SA valued at approximately R1.5bn. The renewal of the African Growth Opportunities Act (AGOA) was also important given that it would expire in September 2015.

Institutions of global governance - The President said that 2015 marked the 70th anniversary of the United Nations (UN) which brought along with it the need to transform the UN Security Council and other institutions.

Bilateral relations - The President made mention of efforts to have national liberation heroes, Mr Moses Kotane and Mr JB Marks reburied in SA. He thanked the people of the Russian Federation for taking care of the remains of SA’s liberation heroes.

He concluded by raising these questions:
- Would DIRCO play a role in popularising the AU anthem?
- What was the progress in renewing AGOA?
- Would DIRCO be working with the Department of Energy on the Energy Build Programme?
- Would DIRCO brief the Committee on the agreements emanating from the 6th BRICS Summit?

Discussion
Ms S Kalyan (DA) pointed out that the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) Report had been submitted to Parliament but had not reached the Committee. Members needed to read its contents. The Committee should also receive a briefing on it. She noted that she was a member of the Pan African Parliament. There was also urgency in renewing the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) which was to expire in September 2015. DIRCO needed to brief the Committee on what the way forward with AGOA was. She was delighted that the President had acknowledged that the United Nations needed to be transformed. The Committee needed to consider what the UN mandate had been at inception and whether 70 years later, it was still relevant. Perhaps the Committee could call in an expert to address the Committee on the matter.

Mr M Maila (ANC) said that the President had given a directive in relation to the African Agenda that all schools had to practise singing the African Union (AU) anthem. The President had also stated that the AU flag should be hoisted next to the SA flag at schools. DIRCO should take these presidential directives seriously. He was impressed that the President had stated that efforts were being made to have the remains of national liberation heroes reburied in SA. DIRCO should look at doing the same for other national liberation heroes.

Ms T Kenye (ANC) asked if the Committee could be provided with the first two reports of the APRM. She also requested that members be provided with reports on the Brazil, Russia, India, China and SA (BRICS) Summit which was relevant to the Committee.

The Chairperson asked about the role of the SA National Defence Force (SANDF) in Lesotho and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). He noted that SA on the one side did peacekeeping and peace building and on the other side did peace enforcement. He asked that DIRCO together with perhaps the Department of Defence could explain about what progress or the lack thereof had been made. Some other issues that the President had touched on were the possibility of importing foreigners that had skills that SA needed. The Department of Home Affairs (DHA) was part of the security cluster which DIRCO also belonged to. He noted there was the Grand Inga Dam Hydropower Project which was supposed to assist with SA’s energy crisis. He supported the repatriation of national struggle heroes’ remains which fell under the Department of Arts and Culture. He emphasised the need for the Committee to be schooled on terrorism especially as it affected Africa. He asked what the President had said about the Palestinian issue and the Middle East crisis in general. SA had special envoys deployed to the region.

Mr Madlala, on the role of the SANDF and Africa’s response to crises, noted that SA was part of the Peace and Security Council of Africa. It fell under the Minister of State Security but it was an issue where there was overlap of responsibilities. DIRCO played more of a diplomatic role. DIRCO was also involved in the work of the African Union. The Committee could initiate a joint meeting with other portfolio committees. He noted that there was also overlap on the other issues mentioned by the President, that is, change in the policy of immigration, review of visa regulations etc. These issues affected the Departments of Home Affairs, International Relations and Cooperation as well as Tourism.

The Chairperson asked how the Committee would meet with three to four departments. Who would initiate the meeting?

Ms Kalyan explained that the Chairperson would have to write to the Chairperson of Committees requesting a joint meeting to take place.

Ms Mosala stated that in 2010 the Committee had requested a conferment with the Joint Committee on Defence on the deployment of troops in the DRC.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would be initiating meetings through the powers that be in Parliament. He noted that generally South Africans tend to be Eurocentric. South Africans found it difficult to think as Africans first. Europeans and Americans placed themselves first above everyone else. The AU Anthem needed to be taught to school children throughout Africa. The protocols of hoisting the AU Flag would also be dealt with.

Ms D Raphuti (ANC) noted that the President had stated that Ex President Nelson Mandela had been inaugurated on the 10 May 1994. What could the Committee do about that?

Ms H Maxon (EFF) noted the President’s call for school kids to practise the AU Anthem but also felt that schools kids needed to be taught the African Agenda at an early age. Yes the Committee needed the APRM Report but there were many other reports which the Committee should have. She asked whether there was a mechanism in which SA could make a contribution to the AU.

Ms Kalyan, referring to the Nigerian Church Disaster, pointed out that there were remains of South African citizens that had not yet been sent back to SA. DIRCO needed to look into the matter.

The Chairperson responded that the Committee could request DIRCO to look into the matter.

Mr M Lekota (COPE) explained that the SONA could not cover all issues. The Committee needed to monitor all the work of DIRCO. It was correct that not all the South African victims of the Nigerian Church Disaster had been accounted for. Areas in Africa had different levels of development. Hence it was a challenge identifying bodies without DNA analysis. DIRCO should look into what the holdup was. He said that countries needed to educate the youth on AU issues. The Departments of Education and all other departments should get on board. The Departments of Security, Defence and others should continue to collaborate on a regional basis. What was the need for peacekeeping forces? Some countries could afford it whilst others could not. There was an uneven deployment in Africa.

Ms Mosala said that at the AU Summit in 2009 it was agreed that countries had to popularise the anthem and symbols of the AU. The Committee could monitor progress as part of its Committee Outreach Programme.

Role of Parliament in the approval of treaties and international agreements
Ms L Mosala, Committee Content Adviser, spoke to the role of Parliament in the approval of treaties and international agreements. She touched on the definitions of certain terms like treaty and Ordinary/Executive Agreements (OEAs). A treaty was a binding instrument in writing, governed by international law and requiring Parliament’s approval. OEAs implemented clauses within existing treaties and needed to be signed by representatives of states. OEAs did not require parliamentary approval. Sections 231(1) and 231(2) of the Constitution dealt with treaties. Treaties required ratification or accession if they were of a multilateral nature. Treaties also had financial implications which required an additional budgetary allocation from Parliament. To apply domestically, a treaty had to be enacted into national legislation as specified in Section 231(4) unless it was self-executing. Section 231(3) dealt with international agreements which became binding without parliamentary approval but had to be tabled in the two Houses of Parliament within a reasonable time. OEAs were governed by Section 231(3) and did not require ratification or accession. OEAs had no extra budgetary implications or any legislative amendments implications but had to be tabled in Parliament within a reasonable time. It was tabled in Parliament for information purposes. National Assembly Rules 307 – 308 spoke to the tabling of treaties in Parliament for approval or for information purposes. She broke down requirements on the examination of treaties which was important for the Committee to understand. Some of the things to consider on examining a treaty were whether it should be recommended for approval or rejected. The approval could be for ratification or accession. Confirmation of compliance with domestic law was required. It also needed to be checked if there were international obligations that were created or any implications for vulnerable groups. Were there self executing clauses and were there any financial or security implications attached to the treaty?

Discussion
Mr Mpumlwana asked whether treaties entered into SA before 1994 were binding on SA if it clashed with the spirit of the Constitution. He requested that the Committee be provided with a list of treaties especially those entered into before 1994.

Ms Mosala stated that she did have a list of treaties that SA had entered into before 1994 as well as those entered into after 1994. DIRCO needed to present a list of treaties that were relevant to international relations to the Committee. Departments dealt with executive agreements and multilaterals. She explained that in terms of international law the treaties that SA had entered into before 1994 were valid if they were not contrary to the Constitution.

Mr Maila asked whether it was possible to have a framework on agreements which could act as a guide to members when agreements came to Parliament.

Ms Mosala said that a framework was very important. She stated that the Fourth Parliament could not complete its work on treaties. Committees in Parliament needed to have a common understanding of what to look for in treaties. There was indeed a need for a framework on how to deal with treaties and on how to improve upon the explanatory memorandums contained in treaties.

Ms Kalyan stated that a framework had been a recommendation in the first APRM Report. She noted that the parliamentary grouping on international affairs also entered into Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs). There was no synergy when it came to the Parliamentary Group on International Relations (PGIR). Better synergy was needed between parliamentary committees and PGIR. PGIR did have MOUs but these did not come to the portfolio committee. She stated that these were MOUs for the Speaker of Parliament.

[Note: The role of the PGIR is to provide political advice on international participation and to oversee the participation of delegates involved in parliamentary diplomacy. The PGIR is further tasked with implementing and monitoring decisions and resolutions adopted at multilateral forums and bilateral meetings. The PGIR is jointly convened by the House Chairperson for International Relations from the National Assembly and the NCOP and members of Parliament are nominated according to the formula of party representation,”]

Ms Mosala responded that there were many grey areas between the PGIR and this Committee. The PGIR dealt with MOUs which established friendship groups whereas the Committee dealt with sector specific MOUs. The PGIR dealt with inter parliamentary relations.

The Chairperson explained that there were agreements, treaties and conventions. They did not always mean the same thing. He asked that the Committee be provided with agreements, treaties and conventions that still had an impact on the Committee. He asked whether there were best practices that the Committee could learn from, perhaps from the Portfolio Committees on Energy or Defence. There were also agreements entered into at Executive level. Some of these agreements did not have to come to Parliament. Then there were some agreements like the Grand Inga Dam Project which had to come to Parliament as funds needed to be approved for it. Parliament needed to understand what agreements were all about. He was not sure the Committee needed to engage with departments on agreements as yet. He suggested that the Committee first go through three or four important agreements and engage departments thereafter.

Ms Mosala said that she could provide legal definitions for the different types of agreements, treaties or conventions. The Committee needed to know what bilaterals and multilaterals were. An MOU emanated from a main treaty. Treaties had to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. Administrative agreements came to Parliament for information purposes. Declarations were not legally binding but were made in good faith. The importance of parliamentary diplomacy was that there were many things that DIRCO was doing that were of a bilateral or multilateral nature. She added that since 2012 she had been making presentations to committees on best practices on treaties.

Ms Kalyan said that Ms Mosala should make a distinction between African and International Treaties in her list of treaties.
 
Mr Lekota explained that after agreements were ratified, departments were required to implement them. Parliament approved budgets of departments but the budgets may not be sufficient to cover all aspects of agreements. Departments would therefore be forced to prioritise certain issues at the expense of others. He pointed out that in 2014 only three countries could pay their membership fees to the AU – SA, Nigeria and Egypt. Members had to understand these dilemmas that departments faced. It was after all Parliament that approved the budgets of the Executive.

Consideration of the Committee’s monitoring tool
Ms Mosala stated that she had a working document and that it was work in progress. It was part of the build up towards the Committee’s Legacy Report. Areas to be included were those contained in the Committee’s Strategic Plan, its Annual Performance Plan and the Committee Programme. The period that she was taking into consideration was from June 2014 onwards. Consideration was given to the different programmes of DIRCO and the budget allocated. What progress came out of the Annual Performance Plan 2014/15 needed to be considered? The Committee had to be aware of decisions that had been taken about the Annual Performance Plan so that the Committee could follow up on progress made. Small issues that needed tightening by DIRCO was the need for improvement in ICT, problems with its asset register needed to be sorted, filling of vacant posts had to take place and the timely payment of service providers had to be ensured. Decisions taken at Committee meetings resulted in recommendations by the Committee. She however pointed out that the recommendations  in the Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR) had not been communicated by the Speaker to the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation yet. Officially speaking DIRCO was not aware of the recommendations of the Committee. Hence there were no response from DIRCO to the recommendations. DIRCO was scheduled to meet with the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) on the 4 March 2015 based on the Committee’s BRRR.
Going forward she highlighted issues which needed to be included in the Committee’s Strategic Plan. There was still governance issues pertaining to the South African Development Partnership Agency (SADPA) and the Committee has yet to see the Bill on it. There was also the short listing of candidates for the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) Council. The Committee also needed to come up with a strategy on public diplomacy.

Discussion
The Chairperson encouraged members to read the working document that Ms Mosala had referred to.

Ms Raphuti said that if African Union member states were not paying their membership fees, what were the fees? How much was SA paying?

Mr Maila asked what the implications were for DIRCO appearing before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) the following week even though recommendations contained in the BRRR of the Committee had not been formally forwarded to them.

The Committee Secretary responded that he needed to communicate with the Speaker’s Office. The Speaker had not written a letter to the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation about the recommendations in the BRRR.

The Chairperson stated that perhaps there were administrative weaknesses in the Speaker’s Office. He had a sense that the meeting could proceed as scheduled with DIRCO despite not receiving the BRRR recommendations. Alternatively the matter could be sorted out between the Speaker’s Office and the Minister.

Mr Lekota felt it to be more complicated than that. The Committee was tasked with monitoring DIRCO. Before DIRCO accounted to anyone else, they had to appear before the Committee first. From an administrative view it might give the wrong impression to outsiders.

The Chairperson said that there was not much which the Committee could do as the meeting was scheduled for the 4 March 2015.

Ms L Mosala, Committee Content Adviser, suggested that in the future a joint meeting with SCOPA could be held with DIRCO. Whatever DIRCO needed to discuss with SCOPA could be shared with the Committee.

The Chairperson was not too sure that what Ms Mosala was suggesting was possible given that all committees in Parliament were equal. The Chairperson of SCOPA might take exception. He stated that perhaps he would take exception too if he were the SCOPA Chairperson. There was administrative red tape that one had to consider.
 
The meeting was adjourned.