South Sudan political situation; Department of International Relations and Cooperation 4th quarter 2014/15 performance

Meeting report

Ms S Kalyan (DA) at the outset of the meeting stated that she had three weeks ago raised the point with the Committee that it needed a Committee Programme or calendar. It was still not done. The current meeting had not even appeared on the z-list of parliamentary meetings. If other parliamentary committees had programmes why did the Committee not have one?

The Chairperson explained that he and members of the management committee of the Committee were waiting on Parliament to complete its own strategic plan before the Committee could do its own. Once Parliament presented its strategic plan then the Committee would complete its own strategic plan. The issue of the meeting not being reflected on the z-list was an administrative problem that the Committee Secretary Mr Lubabalo Sigwela would have to sort out.

Ms Kalyan responded that Parliament had presented its strategic plan that very morning. She hoped that by the end of the day Members should know what the way forward was.

Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) - Performance and Financial Report for the Fourth Quarter for 2014/15
The DIRCO briefed the Committee on its Performance and Financial Report for the Fourth Quarter of 2014/15. The delegation comprised of Mr Jerry Matjila, Director General, Ms Tselane Mokuena, Chief Director: East Africa and Mr Seraki Matsebe Parliamentary Liaison Officer. Mr Matjila undertook the briefing.

Programme 1: Administration
The new structure of the DIRCO was approved following completion of the organisational functional assessment. Forty vacancies had been filled. Ten of these were filled within the four months turnaround time and thirty not within the four months turnaround time due to unavailability of panel members and delays in finalising approvals. 99% of suppliers were paid within 30 days. Final appropriation for Administration was R1.3bn.

Programme 2: International Relations
In accordance with the DIRCO’s Annual Performance Plan (APP) a target was set to have 34 structured bilateral mechanisms and the end of Quarter Four had achieved 29. On economic diplomacy a target had been set to have 17 government ministries, by the end of Quarter Four the target had been surpassed and 52 government ministries had been achieved. The Final appropriation for International Relations was R3.1bn.

Programme 3: International Cooperation and Continental Cooperation
On international cooperation the DIRCO provided substantial support to the South African delegation to the World Economic Forum, Davos in January 2015, which focused on Africa’s growth ambitions and global infrastructure investment, amongst others. On continental cooperation the DIRCO participated in the 24th African Union (AU) Summit in Addis Ababa in January 2015. SA was endorsed as the host for the 25th African Union Summit in June 2015. Final appropriation for International Cooperation was R485m.

Programme 4: Public Diplomacy and State Protocol Services
In line with DIRCO’s APP an annual target had been set to have 24 media briefings and by the end of Quarter Four 32 had been achieved. The DIRCO’s principals had held nine media briefings to articulate SA’s positions on international affairs. Two public participation programmes were also undertaken. Final appropriation for Public Diplomacy and Protocol was R286m

The financial report of the DIRCO showed that total expenditure amounted to R5.9bn at the end of the Fourth Quarter, amounting to 98% of its appropriation. The expenditure was 2% lower that the projected expenditure for the period which represented a net under spending of R119.6m.The DIRCO recorded foreign exchange losses due to expenditure incurred in missions abroad and payment of membership fees to international organisations to which SA was a member. Under spending was also recorded on DIRCO’s infrastructure projects due to unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances. One of these was the Hague Project where a contractor had under quoted the cost of work to be done. The unspent operational budget of the DIRCO had been shifted to cover overspending in Programmes 2 and 5. The Committee was provided with details on the DIRCO’s asset register.
Members were also given insight into the African Renaissance Fund’s (ARF) Performance Report for Quarter Four. With the performance indicator being democracy and good governance the ARF’s actual performance had met its target of 100% of approved disbursement to support democracy and good governance processed. With capacity building as its performance indicator there was also 100% of approved disbursement to support capacity building processed. Total amount of funds available to the ARF was R1.4bn.

Discussion
Ms Kalyan asked Mr Matjila what his view was regarding the new visa regulations and the requirement of an abridged birth certificate for children travelling had on the Brazil, Russia, India, China and SA (BRICS) agreement and an impact in general on people coming to SA. China Airlines had cancelled its flights to SA. She asked what the status of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) was. Mr Matjila had stated that the Pan African Parliament (PAP) Agreement was still in place; as a member of the PAP she had just participated in a sitting for two weeks where it came to light during that the PAP Agreement had lapsed. Other issues relating to the PAP was that there was no Wi-Fi and no Information Technology (IT). Meetings had taken place with DIRCO over the issue of the Agreement but no resolution had been reached. She asked that the Committee be kept up to date regarding the possibility that the United Kingdom did not to wish form part of the European Union any longer. A DIRCO spokesperson had made inflammatory statements about Nigeria in relation to Nigeria’s response to the recent xenophobic attacks that had taken place in SA; she considered the statements made not to be a good thing. Minister Jeff Radebe had to step in to say that the statement made was not the official position of SA.

Mr Matjila stated that the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation had asked whether the PAP Agreement had expired. The DIRCO’s lawyers as well as the State Law Advisers Office had looked into the matter and the conclusion reached was that the Agreement had not expired. If the Committee so wished the legal team could be brought in to address the Committee. The PAP wished DIRCO to provide it with funding for Information Communication Technology (ICT) and for security. The PAP wished to procure its own ICT. The point of contention was contained in the annexures to the Agreement in terms of the other benefits that the PAP was requesting. If the United Kingdom wished to withdraw from the European Union then they could do so. SA could not influence who should leave or remain in the European Union. He did not wish to deal with the visa issue and asked that it be left to the responsible line departments. It was a very topical issue. The visa regulations kicked in on 1 June 2015, but were an issue best left to the line function departments. SA had good relations with Nigeria. He had authorised the statement made by the Deputy Director General. Nigeria had withdrawn its ambassador from SA due to the xenophobic attacks. He felt Nigeria had over reacted. When South Africans had perished in the church disaster in Nigeria, SA had not withdrawn its ambassador even though no one had been held accountable by the Nigerian authorities. Not one Nigerian had died in the xenophobic attacks. It was very embarrassing for SA when the outgoing government of Nigeria withdrew its acting High Commissioner. Perhaps the statement made was harsh but it was time to take a stand. It was very unfortunate that Minister Radebe had taken a different stand over the matter. It was a matter that needed further discussion.

Ms Kalyan responded that SA needed to speak with one voice. It reflected badly that Minister Radebe distanced himself from the DIRCO statement.

Mr B Radebe (ANC) said it was correct for SA to assert itself. It could not allow itself to be bullied. The DIRCO had responded appropriately. It was not the mandate of Minister Radebe in any case to deal with international relations.

Ms C Dudley (ACDP) was personally pleased with the statement that the DIRCO had made in relation to Nigeria. The issue had gained global reach via the Internet and various publications and asked whether SA would be afforded the right to respond.

The Chairperson said that it always seemed as if Nigeria and Zimbabwe had bad attitudes towards SA. He had heard this from government officials from African countries.
  
Mr Radebe commented that the books on the financials for the DIRCO were now closed for 2014/15. Could the Committee expect to hear from the Auditor General’s Office this year as well as was done last year that there were problems. He was glad that the Human Rights Council of the United Nations had dealt with the issue of Palestine. Concern was raised over the suffering of people in a refugee camp in Syria that was home to more than 120 000 people. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) were butchering people. He asked how SA could bring the issue to the attention of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations. He also asked how the DIRCO had assisted Nigeria against Boko Haram.

Mr Matjila responded that the audit results for this year would be different from last year’s. The refugee situation in Syria was a sad state of affairs. SA had said lets learn from the mistakes of Iraq and to solve the Syrian conflict differently but to no avail. No one had heeded SA. There was no international law applicable in Syria. SA had assisted Nigeria with the issue of Boko Haram. The issue of security was high on the agenda of the African Union. The major concern was the destabilisation of Africa. A new issue on the agenda of the African Union was the migration of Africans to Europe who were dying at sea and some European countries turning their backs on them. Another important issue was xenophobia. In Europe some countries candidates’ were running their election campaigns on anti-migration platforms.

Ms T Kenye (ANC) referred to page 4, bullet point 2. If there were a reduction in staff what had happened to the deputy director generals. Were they redeployed? She also referred to page 8 and asked why no mention was made on the page of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). Reference was additionally made to page 9, bullet point 2, and asked whether SA had received cooperation from Nigeria over the Boko Haram issue.  Most of the time SA did not get cooperation from Nigeria. She asked why the budget of DIRCO had been reduced when it had to spend on unforeseen circumstances as well as having to cope with foreign exchange fluctuations. Regarding the African Renaissance Fund (ARF) she asked whether the DIRCO could provide the Committee with figures on how much was spent on the Ebola issue in various countries. The ARF financial Report spoke about SA’s additional assessed membership contribution being R17m. How often was the membership fee paid?

Mr Matjila apologised for not mentioning the APRM in the briefing. Part of the under spending was due to multiyear programmes and problems with the Hague construction project. The DIRCO had been shocked when the contractor in The Hague almost doubled his cost. Efforts were being made to find a compromise. Figures on the funds spent on Ebola would be forwarded to the Committee.

 Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) said there were allegations in the media about SA’s ambassadors to Ghana and Cameroon. What was the status regarding action against these officials? There were also allegations against the DIRCO’s Deputy Director General on Public Diplomacy. There were complaints from the public about capacity issues at certain offices of the DIRCO abroad. When were these diplomatic posts to be filled? On international relations it was asked whether high level visits yielded the requisite FDI. Was ARF financial support for projects in counties abroad reported regularly to the DIRCO? One example was the R100m given to Namibia. Did the ARF provide support in Mozambique and Malawi?

Mr Matjila explained that a police case had been opened against the ambassador that had been deployed in Ghana. An investigation would take place. The ambassador in question had written a letter to DIRCO stating that she intended to resign. The DIRCO also intended to file a civil suit against the ambassador. The intention was to recover the R8m. The ambassador to Cameroon had paid back all the funds.

Ms D Raphuti (ANC) asked what type of posts were the 30 posts that the DIRCO was unable to fill. She asked that the Committee be provided with the new organogram of the DIRCO. The more or less doubling of building costs on The Hague Project was nothing new as this was common with contractors. Why was there under spending on the payment of capital assets?

Mr M Maila (ANC) asked what SA’s state of readiness was given that SA was hosting the African Union Summit in June 2015. He asked how the recent xenophobic attacks had dented the image of SA abroad. There was public outcry over ambassadors misrepresenting their qualifications, what was the DIRCO doing over the issue?

Mr Matjila responded that SA was 120% ready to host the African Union Summit.

The Chairperson asked why SA had been asked to develop a position paper on albinism. Albinos as humans should form part of the protection of universal human rights. Even the African Union should have covered the issue. He referred to page 8 of the briefing document and asked how the focus of the World Economic Forum on infrastructure in Africa linked up with Agenda 2063 and the efforts on the North-South corridor. Would there be separate finance to the finance provided by the Development Bank?

Mr Matjila said the human rights environment was evolving. The Declaration of Human Rights did have provisions that covered Albinos just like any other human being. SA’s constitution also covered human rights. However not all countries adhered to the protection of human rights. In some countries Albinism was seen as a curse. SA was asked to look into the issue because SA was forward looking. He was of the opinion that SA would have a resolution protecting the rights of Albinos. The facts were that Albinos were persecuted and hunted. SA needed to contribute towards the global debate on Albinism. On the issue of infrastructure in Africa there were discussions taking place over challenges facing Africa and what Africa’s aspirations were. The idea was to market the entire African continent. Infrastructure covered water, electricity, energy and roads etc.

The Chairperson said if any questions were unanswered the DIRCO could forward written responses to the Committee. The Committee had time constraints and encouraged presenters to bear this in mind in making the rest of the presentations.

Department of International Relations and Cooperation on current political situation in South Sudan
Ms Mokuena undertook the briefing, which spoke to the current political situation in South Sudan. She provided the Committee with a historical background to the conflict that eventually saw the appointment of a special envoy from SA to the region. The outbreak of the conflict in South Sudan on 15 December 2013 was due to an alleged attempt by former Vice President Riek Machar to remove President Salva Kiir from office. The genesis of the conflict pointed to the internal divisions within the ruling SPLM. The conflict prompted President Jacob Zuma to appoint Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa as his Special Envoy to the Republic of South Sudan. SA’s political intervention in South Sudan was premised on the notion that a solution to the ongoing conflict lay primarily in the reconciliation of the SPLM. This process was seen to be as complementary to and not in competition with the mediation process led by the regional body the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD). Negotiations had focused on resolving the power struggles amongst conflicting parties, the SPLM-IG (In Government), SPLM-IO (In Oppositions) and the SPLM-FD (Former Detainees).To date thousands of people had been killed with over a million left internally displaced and over five hundred thousand having fled to neighbouring countries as refugees. SA had also set aside R15m for humanitarian assistance towards South Sudan and provided post conflict reconstruction and development assistance by training South Sudanese public service officials. On 3 March 2015 the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) unanimously adopted Resolution 2206 (2015) which outlined proposed punitive sanctions which would include travel bans, freezing of assets of individuals as well as an arms embargo. The impending sanctions were expected to target those allegedly responsible for or engaged directly or indirectly in actions threatening the peace, security and stability of South Sudan. Even though members of the SPLM welcomed the need for reconciliation, hardliners within the party were opposed to the idea of integrating former vice president Dr Riek Machar due to his previous record. In light of the impending expiration of the term of office of the current administration there was mounting fear that a vacuum in governance would lead to an undesirable set of circumstances in South Sudan. Whilst the electoral commission had announced that it was preparing to hold national elections by June 2015 it was possible that this might not happen as conditions necessary for holding elections were nonexistent. The government did not have the funds and political donors were shying away in the belief that a political settlement was the only way forward. In the past week the intra-party process led by SA and Tanzania had reached a critical stage with the proposed permanent return by the end of June 2015 of former political detainees. The meeting of the five former detainees with the government, politburo and the National Liberation Council on 2 June 2015 facilitated the Special Envoy, had ushered in a new dawn for peaceful resolution of the South Sudanese political security and humanitarian crisis. The next step was to engage Riek Machar. Heads of state from Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and SA would lead this engagement.

Mr Vasu Gounden, founder and Executive Director of the African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD), had also been invited by the Committee to make an input on the issue. Former South African ambassador to the United States Mr Welile Nhlapo accompanied him.
 
Mr Gounden said that Ms Mokuena’s presentation had covered a great deal of the issues but he would add on certain things. He was well aware of the time constraints. The South Sudan conflict was symptomatic of conflicts that were going to be seen in the rest of Africa. There was a need to look at the underlying causes of the conflicts. A comprehensive presentation was needed to cover the issue fully.

The Chairperson said that Mr Gounden should speak to the issue, as the Committee would not be engaging in discussion given the time constraints.

Mr Gounden provided a brief background to ACCORD. Its headquarters was in Durban and it had offices in Juba and Burundi. Annual mediation seminars were held with the African Union regularly.
60% of Africa’s land was uncultivated. By 2030, 40 African countries would be oil and gas producers with proven oil reserves of R7.3 trillion and proven gas reserves of R3 trillion. The challenge for Africa was to shift its focus from agriculture to industry, from industry to technology, from technology to biotechnology and from biotechnology to space technology. Demographics and technology was the means with which to shift the focus from one realm to the next. Africa unfortunately was still stuck in agriculture whereas the rest of the world was in technology. By the end of the century 40% of the world’s population would be African. In Africa countries were run like kingdoms and not states. Sectoral partnerships were needed between the state, the private sector and civil society. A balance was needed between the three in order that there be stability in society. However skills and resources were needed. SA was lacking in skills; it had everything else.  In Africa there was rapid urbanisation taking place but no industrialisation. Consequently there was huge unemployment and poverty. Infrastructure allowed industrialisation to take place. Education was however key to take advantage of opportunities. There was a need to close the gap between education and infrastructure but unfortunately it took generations to achieve. In the case of South Sudan it would take three generations. Why did the conflicts not happen 20 years ago? The answer was that at present there was a convergence of various things at once i.e. urbanisation, climate change etc. A factor to consider was that today the world was interdependent. Someone who had Ebola could within a day catch a flight to New York and it would spread the virus. Many paradoxes presented themselves. There were great innovations in medicine and education and there was a rise in life expectancy but on the other hand there was a degradation of the environment and the onslaught of asymmetrical warfare. The complexity was demographic shifts; climate shifts, declining resources like water and the rapid unplanned urbanisation.  Governance was the core challenge in Africa. There was a need for a shift from a single party state to a multi party state. There was a shift from wars on borders to wars in cities. Urbanisation was happening fast and demographics were changing fast. Social protests were on the up. World economic growth was slow. The only country that was growing currently was the USA. Even China had shifted from being investment driven to consumption driven. Only one third of countries in Africa had growth above 6%. 69% of Africa’s exports were unbeneficiated goods. Africa was not industrialised. Nigeria was the largest exporter of oil in Africa yet it paid twice as much as SA for its petrol.70% of the workforce in Africa was in the informal sector. Political Islam was filling the serious ideological gap in Africa. There would be a proliferation of conflict in Africa that needed to be responded to.

The Chairperson thanked both Ms Mokuena and Mr Gounden for their presentations. He felt it important for the Committee to invite Mr Gounden again to address the Committee on a whole range of issues like threats and opportunities in Africa etc.

The Committee agreed to invite Mr Gounden again for a more comprehensive presentation and to engage in discussion.
The meeting was adjourned.