Discussion between SA and European Union (EU) Parliamentarians on strategic issues

Meeting report

Chairperson’s opening remarks

The Chairperson welcomed everyone to the meeting and emphasised that Members should be tolerant and respectful of those who shared different views in order to strengthen the relationship between the two partners. The meeting should also not be seen as a “talk shop,” as Parliament remained the voice of the people and there should be a concerted effort to work with one another and take their positions to the respective Parliaments. It formed part of the broader debate on major areas, especially in the strategic partnership. The meeting also hoped to contribute to peace, development, stability and good governance in Africa, Europe and the rest of the world.

The oversight role of the Parliamentarians in the EU-South Africa Strategic Partnerships

Mr S Tsenoli (ANC) also welcomed the guests from the EU Parliament and indicated that it was always a pleasurable opportunity to exchange ideas. Institutions like Parliament had a responsibility to ensure that the relationships that had been created through national governments were always in the interests of the people that were represented by Members of Parliament. The focus should be on reducing the dramatic impact of income inequality and poverty. All these challenges could be traced back to the past, and the fact that South Africa had managed to create this partnership was an important acknowledgment of the need for the country to interact and put in place policies to ensure that there was an improvement in the work that the government was doing. The support that the EU gave to the South African government and the rest of the world should be strengthened in order to deal with the challenges that had been identified.

The meeting should be about sharing common experiences and playing an oversight role, looking at the nature of agreements and how to deal with issues such as migration, and how this was linked to poverty and political stability on the African continent. The meeting should, moreover, be about ensuring the implementation of the programmes in place to deal comprehensively with developmental challenges. There should be discussions around key developmental programmes to be taken on board to deal with the complexities that were emerging in the world, and which had the potential to affect South Africa as well. South Africa recognised the value of the relationship with the EU Parliament and hoped that this relationship could be strengthened for the betterment of the communities that were represented by different Members.  

Mr B Radebe (ANC) also welcomed the colleagues from the EU Parliament, and said this meeting was particularly important, since South Africa shared a historical bond with the EU. There were three arms of the state in South Africa -- the judiciary, executive and legislature. Members were part of the legislature, whose job was to oversee the role of the executive.  The executive was the one which initiated diplomatic contact between various countries or unions, and it had to account to Parliament. The budget of the executive was passed by Parliament, which had to monitor the funds that had been allocated to various departments to ensure that they executed their mandates according to the plan. The issue of the EU and South Africa regarding the strategic partnership was at the level of the head of state, together with various departments, like the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), the Department of Trade and Industry (dti) and other relevant departments.

It was important for Parliament to monitor the funding that came from the EU in order to ensure that the money was spent according to the agreements that had been ratified. There was a focused group -- the Parliamentary Group on International Relations (PGIR) -- which dealt specifically with the issues related to the EU and ensured that there was an effective oversight of the EU’s work. South Africa had adopted a strategy of focusing on international relations in order to ensure that there was a follow up on the agreements and protocols that had been ratified by the executive. South Africa and the EU had a trade development and cooperative agreement which had been initiated by the heads of state, but what was critically important about this was that Members had to interact with the EU so that the money that had been allocated to the departments was able to play a meaningful role in job creation, fighting poverty and creating a developmental state.    

Mr Hans van Baalen, of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) Party, chairperson of the delegation, highlighted the fact that the EU had evolved from being an advisory board to becoming a full Parliament. The current delegation was important, as it was the one that focused specifically on the full relationship and strategic partnerships between South Africa and the EU. This relationship needed to be strengthened to deal with the issues of income inequality, poverty and climate change.

Ms Catherine Bearder (ALDE) welcomed the opportunity to be part of meeting and mentioned that the role of the EU Parliament was extraordinary and unique in the world. The EU Parliament was not the government, and therefore could do only what had been directed by the member states’ governments.  The EU Parliament represented the citizens and was founded on peace, with a particular focus on the rights of the citizens, trade and the free movement of people, goods and capital. South Africa was considered as an important trading partner of the EU -- there were many countries in Europe with a very long-standing relationship with South Africa in terms of trade.

The EU Parliamentary delegation was also relatively new following a period of recession and real financial constraints in Europe, and many countries had not emerged from this difficult situation. There was a growing crisis of migration and so many changes in a number of states in the world, with some emerging as democratic states and others as non-democratic, and starting to play an important role in the world. Europeans were questioning the role and place of the EU in the world. The EU was much more diverse and polarised at the moment, and some of this came from fear of how the Parliament was doing its work. There was huge pressure resulting from migration coming to Europe -- mostly from Northern Africa -- and South Africa has a long history of migrants coming into the country and changing the dynamics of the continent.

The Chairperson said that the South African Parliament was unique in a way. Despite representing the voices of the ordinary people, it was also a constitutional, multi-party Parliament, and the country was one of a few with a Bill of Rights that was included in the Constitution. The country was not simply a people’s democracy, but a people’s participatory democracy, and the portfolio committees were always encouraged to go to the people and conduct oversight visits so that the legislators could have a closer engagement and relationship with the ordinary people. This idea was also intended to create and promote peace, security, development and equity.

Outcome of the South Africa-EU Joint Cooperation Council in 2014

Mr Van Baalen said that the last remarks of the Chairperson were remarkable. The EU Parliament was also elected by the public and all member states, but it was unfortunate that the EU Parliament was far away from its voters. It was important to observe that the budget for development aid to South Africa had been reduced significantly, and this was partly due to the fact that South Africa was no longer a developing country, as the country had developed to another league. The EU was currently looking at countries where cooperation could be vital, as the issues of migration and the ability of people to obtain direct access to justice had been raised.

Mr Roeland van de Geer, EU Ambassador, said that there had been comprehensive discussions between South Africa and the EU in the Joint Cooperation Council (JCC), where there were agreements on matters that were of critical importance for development in developing and developed countries. The budget for aid to South Africa had been reduced, as previously indicated. There was agreement with the National Treasury (NT) of South Africa, the South African government and the EU, that the current budget would be able to run a very productive programme focused on education, skills development, employment and assisting the government in its delivery of the National Development Plan (NDP).

Mr Van Baalen indicated that there should be a parliamentary element included in the JCC meetings, and he hoped that this matter could be brought to the executive, highlighting the need for the EU Parliament to have a parliamentary role in JCC meetings.

Mr Tsenoli said that the evaluation of the JCC was very important, as parliamentarians also needed evidence based on the research that had been conducted, to back up the challenges that were being addressed and to give feedback to the government. This was an area that would require support from Parliament. The research capacity needs to be increased and resources allocated to it. The ability of members to undertake their work effectively should be focused on using evidence-based policies and solid research to determine the efficiency of programmes. The availability of information from various sources needed to be pulled together as an important tool for effective oversight between South Africa and the EU Parliament. Their advisory role was essential but should not be limited to just offering advice – they should be making an impact on the lives of communities, and this could be achieved only by putting more resources into evidence-based research. It was comforting to observe that there was now more focus on research by the government, as this would assist in implementing better policies and their assessment by the people. In essence, there should be a focus on capacity-building for Members and also solid research to assess and evaluate policies, for the purpose of continuing or discarding them. 

Mr M Masango (ANC) said it was painful that the budget for aid to South Africa had been significantly reduced -- by 75% -- as this was a massive amount. However, the reduction of the budget should also be looked at in the context of the financial crisis that had affected most of the Eurozone since 2008. The whole continent was still grappling with the problem of under-development, especially the scourge of unemployment, poverty and the shortage of critical skills. The South African government was currently focused on infrastructural development as a way of creating job opportunities, especially the renovation of airports, bridges and roads. He asked whether it was possible for the EU to offer some assistance in the area of infrastructural development. This assistance may not be financial, but the training of skills, like engineers, artisans and technicians, in Europe. South Africa was a strategic partner to Europe, and the ability of the country to be able to buy from Europe was significantly dependent on its ability to be able to reduce poverty, inequality and to create employment opportunities.

Mr Radebe said that it was understandable that the EU had decided to graduate South Africa to a higher level, as it was stronger and more stable than most African countries. However, what had not been observed was the under-development within the country, as development was still skewed. It was clear that the majority of South Africans were still living under the poverty line. However, South Africa was also very attractive to the people from the continent, and since it was a constitutional democracy, it meant people that had immigrated to the country could not be excluded from key services like education, health and other “safety nets.” The reduction of the budget was clearly ill-advised, as the country needed more support than before when considering the influx of immigrants from unstable states on the African continent. The country was appreciative of the current allocated budget of 241 million Euros, as it would go a long way towards assisting in education and health. He appealed to the EU Parliament to reconsider the decision to reduce the budget, and focus on the dynamics of the country, especially the under-development in rural areas.

Mr M Waters (DA) commented that the reduction of 75% in the aid that had been allocated to South Africa would obviously have an impact on its developmental approach, but it was understandable that the EU was also facing a major financial crisis and needed to resolve its own challenges. He wanted to know whether the EU had considered offering trade to South Africa instead of aid, as opening up more trade opportunities would create jobs for individuals. Was progress being made in this regard?

National Development Plan (NDP)

Mr Tsenoli said that the NDP had arisen from the realisation that some of the work that had been done in the past had not been based on a long-term plan, and it had been difficult to integrate work that the government was doing. A commission had been set up comprising a variety of people from professional organisations and committee organisations, and this body had ultimately produced a document that had been discussed and debated throughout the country. The NDP was a long-term programme that looked at the horizon of 30 years ahead. Its significance could not be underestimated, as it assisted government departments to achieve the goals that had been established. The central vision of the plan was to improve the quality of life of all South Africans and to do that required the elimination of the levels of poverty and the rising inequality that still bedevilled the country today. These were the major challenges that were faced by the majority of South Africans.

The country’s growth over time had not been inclusive or made a greater impact on the quality of life for all South Africans. Essentially, some of the pillars of the NDP were focused on a common agenda, which was to eradicate poverty and create job opportunities. Although government would still be playing a critical role in the realisation of the overall goals of the NDP, citizens would become the critical payers in this process as it would assist in keeping the government accountable for what it had promised to undertake. The NDP highlighted the importance of making the economy grow and increase exports. It was critical for the country to be able to build its own manufacturing capacity in order to avoid its raw materials being manufactured in foreign countries. It was essential to create an economy that was labour absorbing, as the country was still facing the problem of many people who were unemployed, and this situation could not be regarded as normal.

The country needed to reflect on the policies that had been implemented over the past 20 years in order to ensure that the goals of the NDP were achievable, and this required an improvement of the capacity of the state, and the people in general. These capabilities included skills, infrastructure, social security and strong institutional partnerships between the country and its key international partners. There were no illusions about the capability to achieve the goals of the NDP. The country was very clear on what was required for those goals to be achieved, especially the need for strong institutional partnerships like the JCC. There was already a Presidential Infrastructure Coordinating Committee (PICC) that had mapped out a pipeline of projects that would lead to more economic activity.

It was absolutely necessary to ensure that the country developed an effective and efficient social security system, especially when one considered the levels of poverty, as the failure to do so could result in destitution and this could be unstable for the country. It would be a pipe dream to believe South Africa could achieve the NDP goals without improving the capacity of the state, and this meant a government that was able to implement policies effectively and, most importantly, coordinated across the three arms of the state. The coordination was important to preserve the scarce resources, as the activities at the national level needed to be coordinated with those at the provincial and local level. There was also a need for a coordinated approach at the departmental level in order to make a greater impact.

The country had nine provinces, and there was a now a greater emphasis on collaboration between Parliament, the National Assembly (NA) and the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), working with the nine provincial legislatures. This had been a very useful development, as it included local government so that there could be better and effective oversight of what was happening, and the planning that had to be undertaken. There was now a Sector Oversight Model (SOM) to ensure that the legislatures were able to oversee the executive effectively at these three arms of state. Government had already translated the NDP into programmes that had been presented to Parliament, and each department had already presented its budget reflecting how it was implementing and progressing in achieving the NDP goals. There would now be a concerted effort to monitor each and every department through the portfolio and select committees in order to ensure that those goals were achievable.   

Ms C Dudley (ACDP) said that the independent development of the plan had led to it being accepted widely from different perspectives, and this has been very helpful. Employment creation was a big theme at the moment, as this impacted on everything, so the EU was extremely important to a country like South Africa, especially when one considered the trade agreements that had been ratified. It would be impossible for South Africa to set up local manufacture without dealing with the issue of energy restrictions and the ability to generate a reliable source of energy. The other main theme would be education, especially the focus on technical and relevant education. These were strong areas of the EU, and South Africa would require some form of assistance in this regard.

It was important to commend the EU on its research capacity, as this was also one of the areas where South Africa had become weaker. There was no doubt that poor research and assessment would make it impossible to achieve the NDP goals. It was important to ensure that South Africans were healthy and able to live longer, and it was shocking to learn that almost 70% of South African children were impacted by Foetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS). This was a huge number of people who would have educational and behavioural problems, especially if the education was not geared to helping those individuals and the particular issues they would face in life. The migration issue would come up later, but what was important was to deal with the issue of xenophobia that had hit the country in the past couple of months, and how this was linked to the fact that South Africa was servicing a huge percentage of Africans, particularly Zimbabweans.

It was quite clear that when South Africa had been rated as a middle-income country, this had failed to take into consideration that the country was housing a huge population of foreign nationals and that this would have an impact on the delivery of key services like health, education and social security. The assistance that was offered as aid should be cognisant of the fact that South Africa was seen as a place of haven throughout the continent.

Mr M Waters (DA) commented that the NDP was a very ambitious plan and although not everyone agreed with every aspect of the plan, the overwhelming majority supported it, especially at the parliamentary level. It was comforting to hear that part of the aid money would be going to the NDP, as this would ensure that the plan was translated into reality. The NDP aimed to create about 11 million jobs by 2030, and to improve numeracy and literacy skills. This was to ensure that the individuals who were leaving school were employable. The plan also aimed to ensure that South Africa was more investment friendly -- not only to the EU, but to the rest of the continent as well -- and this would be possible only if the country was able to develop critical skills that would increase employment opportunities. 

The Chairperson said that the country was currently in the phase of a medium-term strategic framework, where the focus was on looking at the 2014-2019 period, and the plan was to develop the state’s capacity through a developmental state and an economy that would include everyone in the country. The NDP had set up clear and realistic targets and timeframes, recognising the need to attract investment and propel an agenda of radical and rapid economic transformation.

Mr Van Baalen added that the matter of planning was most important, and it did not matter whether someone was a democrat, a socialist or even an economic liberal. There were many comprehensive long-term plans that had failed because of the fact that the private sector had often not been involved in the planning, and the scarcity of skilled labour, and countries were often forced to import critical skills from other countries to ensure that the plan was executed. There had to be close cooperation between private enterprise, the labour unions and the government to ensure that a plan was able to achieve its desired outcomes. Long-term planning was tricky, as things could possibly change during the planning process, especially when one considered that a lot of companies in South Africa were investing outside the country.

South Africa was probably more interesting than countries like Nigeria or Spain in terms of investment prospects. One of the most important factors to take into consideration was that the country should not be an importer of agricultural products, but should rather open up opportunities for young black farmers to invest in agriculture. However, this would require a focus on skills and expertise in farming. The EU government did not spend much on private enterprise, and this was a matter to be taken into consideration.

Mr David Borrelli, Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFDD) Group, said it was concerning to observe that the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita in South Africa in the last 40 years had been declining. This had been easy to establish, as the country had population and economic indicators. The population of South Africa had increased by one million each year and there were currently about 54 million people in the country, according to the census of 2012. It would be important for the country to achieve a higher economic growth rate in order to deal with unemployment, inequality and poverty. The NDP was a very comprehensive plan and it should be supported in order to achieve its main goals.

Ms Bearder said that it was delightful that South Africa had a long-term plan, as when industries looked at politics they had decry the fact that most countries had short-term plans, usually after every five years. The execution of long-term planning was actually very difficult in the political sphere, as it was possible that sometimes a new government would take over and drastically change the initial planning. South Africa was a shining example to most African countries, as most of them did not have good taxation systems to maintain a functioning social security system. It was also clear that there were levels of poverty in the country, despite the amount of wealth that was available, and this would bring about a lot of social pressure. One of the factors that had not been mentioned in the planning was the issue of environmental protection, as it was an important matter to prioritise on food security and a quality environment for everyone. The plan had also failed to highlight the need to mitigate the impact of climate change, as it was impossible to ignore the importance of good quality water and protection of the environment.

Mr Boris Zala, Socialists and Democrats (S&D) Group, first vice-chairperson of the delegation, said it was important to be aware of what it meant to be a strategic partner, especially in the field of economic development. What was needed in Europe was investment, both internationally and domestically, and this was the same problem in South Africa. It had been noted that domestic investors were not investing domestically, but in other countries, and this was one of the problems that needed to be addressed. The EU and South Africa could cooperate in finding solutions to attract investors, but foreign investment did not mean support for cheap labour, as this had been a problem in a number of countries. The problem of cheap labour could be solved by focusing more on skilled labour, and this was where the EU could assist South Africa to prioritise on skilled labour instead of on developmental aid.

The EU was the biggest and most powerful economy in the world, but there were also differences between the states, social groups and different strata, as it was the case in South Africa. He admitted that he was not a fan of planning, as this was not an effective way to deal with deep structural challenges. However, planning was great when it focused on a particular problem and was adapted to the real situation on the ground. The most important matter to be taken into consideration at the moment was to rethink what it meant to be a strategic partner. South Africa could benefit immensely from the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) alliance, because the country had a developed financial system and this could be an entrance to other regions in Africa, including sub-Saharan Africa.

Ms Monica Vana, European Free Alliance (EFA) Group, agreed with the statement that the parliamentarians were the voice of the ordinary people on the ground and this should be the commonality that united everyone here. There were a number of plans that had failed and the EU had experience of this, but the failure of a plan did not mean the goals and objectives were wrong -- it just meant that there had been challenges involving the resources needed to ensure that the plan was translated into a reality. The EU had Europe 2020 goals, and these included very important aims for climate change, the integration of women in the labour market, poverty reduction and employment, and these goals had been set up with clear targets. However, the EU was cognisant of the fact that there was still a long way to go to achieve those goals. This did not mean the goals were wrong, but they required the countries to intensify their strengths and resources in order to achieve those goals.

The Chairperson added that the NDP, by and large, had unanimously been adopted by Parliament. The plan was realistic in the sense that there were short, medium and long-term goals, and there was a strategic review every year to ensure that the goals could be adapted to the situation on the ground.

The Post 2015 Development Agenda

Ms M Boroto (ANC) appreciated the support that had been offered by the EU to developing countries, as this was aimed at addressing developmental challenges. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were coming to an end in September 2015, and the world was now moving towards Sustainable Development Goals, although this did not mean a total disregard of the MDGs, as these still needed to be used as a measurement of how each country had fared with these goals. There was a focus on improving the quality and the standard of education to make it more relevant to the labour market, reduce poverty and inequality, and the empowerment of women, so South Africa had a Ministry of Women that was focused on improving the lives of women in the country. There was also a concerted effort to ensure that there was a sustainable utilisation of water, as this was a scarce commodity in the country. There was also priority in ensuring that there was a reliable source of energy in order to attract investment and deal with the challenge of unemployment and poverty. The partnership of South Africa with the EU was critically important with regard to dealing with the eradication of poverty.

Mr Radebe said that it was impressive to observe that South Africa had achieved more than 95% of the MDGs, and the social grant system had made a huge impact in dealing with the issue of extreme poverty among the most vulnerable families. The country had had a serious challenge with HIV/AIDS during the development of the MDGs in the year 2000, but it was commendable that the country had been able to contain the spread of the disease through anti-retrovirals (ARVs) and the distribution of condoms. This would not have been possible without the support of the EU and other partners in the world. The support of the EU had not been in vain, as there had been an improvement in the quality of lives. The skilling of the workforce was a critical aspect of development, and this should be an area which South Africa had to focus on. This could come about through proper investment in the country. The MDGs spoke of “decent work for all,” and this would not be possible without the proper skilling of the workforce.  

Mr Masango said that President Zuma had made it very clear that “if the United Nations (UN) does not deal comprehensively with the scourge of poverty, underdevelopment and diseases, then the poor of the world would consider anything that the UN has achieved so far to have been a failure”. It would be important for the EU to assist South Africa with a package to develop scarce skills, as this was an area where the country was still lagging behind.

The Chairperson mentioned that this kind of engagement was important, as it allowed the delegations to see things differently, and further emphasised the fact that parliamentary mechanisms would be important in relation to the developmental agenda. The concept of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) was also gaining ground, with the recognition that it was not about throwing money into a particular country, but also offering assistance through skills.

EU Development Cooperation for South Africa

Ms Bearder said that the cutting back of the budget for aid would indeed have an impact on migration, as it had already been indicated that South Africa was housing a number of immigrants from the continent. However, it was important to take into consideration that by offering aid to those countries that were unstable and where poverty was rife, it also took pressure away from South Africa. It was important for each and every country to be able to take the lessons that had been learned with the MDGs, particularly the importance of sustainable development and the ability to live within the capacity of the planet. The aim was that everyone should be able to live a better life, but it was also estimated that more and more people were living beyond their means. This would have a huge impact on the environment, especially the issue of climate change.

The challenge at the moment was to improve the living standard of everyone while also maintaining the supportive capacity of the planet. The “elephant in the room” was population growth. It has been indicated that the population of South Africa was growing by one million annually, and China was the only country able to manage population growth, as it was a totalitarian communist state. The policies on population control had been extremely difficult to implement, as there were social issues that also emerged out of this restriction. The easiest way to manage population growth was through education, particularly of women, and offering them various choices to enter the labour market. This was an issue to be looked at currently.

The EU was also focusing on assisting countries like South Africa, which were moving from being developing countries to becoming full trading partners with the rest of the world. Trade has to be an important part of assistance. She highlighted the importance of maintaining local procurement in order to have local workers, and said this could be achieved through the ratification of developmental agendas that ensured local people were able to benefit from foreign investment.

Climate change  

Ms Vana stated that the issue of climate change was very important, especially when one considered that the world was approaching the Climate Change Conference, COP 21. There was also an important conference in Cape Town on renewable energy. Climate change was an important part of the strategic partnership between South Africa and the EU. The issue to be emphasised at the COP 21 was that climate change was not an issue of the environment, but of the economy, social and human rights, and potential migration problems. The importance of women in supporting families would become critical, especially in the agricultural sector. 70% of the South African population was working in the agricultural sector, and Africa would be the continent most impacted by climate change. The Europeans and the biggest polluters had a responsibility to ensure that mitigating actions were taken to reduce the impact of climate change.

Mr Van Baalen said that despite the fact that some people doubted the impact of climate change, there were already signs in most of the countries that it was a reality, and the important issue was to implement remedial actions to deal with this challenge. It might be easier for developed countries to reduce the impact of climate change by focusing on renewable energy.

Current economic and political issues in Europe

The Chairperson said that there has been a fundamental shift from terms like “religious wars,” “fundamentalism” and “terrorism,” to reaching a consensus term like “extremism,” which was all-encompassing of what was happening around the world, especially in the Middle East.

Mr Waters said there had been reported cases of extremists, or terrorists, in Europe where people had been killed because they were perceived to have offended a particular religion. It was often difficult to ensure the safety of people in one’s country, which was obviously of paramount importance, without encroaching on the civil liberties of ordinary citizens. It was important to ensure that the minorities in Europe were also able to be integrated into the culture of Europe, to prevent situations where individuals would join terrorists groups that were against their very own countries. South Africa was not immune to this problem, but the situation was not as extreme as what was currently happening in Europe, where illegal immigrants were coming from unstable states like Libya to Italy and Greece. This was raising concerns and tensions among the minorities and immigrants in Europe.

Mr Masango wanted to know whether it was correct to assume that the political parties in Europe were developing a very conservative political disposition, because Europe felt like it was being flooded by many immigrants, and some parties might even take a stand against illegal immigrants. It would be important to see how Europe would deal with the issue of migration, considering that there had been a major population decline, or ageing population, in Europe since World War II, and it might be important to source skilled and productive labour from outside the continent. South Africa might also need to take that path, in order to close the skilled labour gap. The issue of the recent xenophobia in South Africa was directly linked to competition for resources, especially the preference of employers for foreigners at the expense of South Africans.

Mr A Williams (ANC) said South Africa should be concerned about the rise of extremism in Europe, especially those supported by extremists parties. South Africa had existed under the apartheid regime for many years -- extremism of a different degree -- and a country like South Africa should be concerned when one considered the debilitating impact of extremism in the long run. There was also a concern around the issue of individuals in Europe who were taking illegal action against the minorities, especially their religions. This was understandable, as history had shown that whenever there was economic pressure in Europe, there seemed to have been a move towards the right. A Bill of Rights was enshrined in South Africa’s Constitution, so the approach towards the minorities was approached very differently -- the protection of the minorities was stipulated in the Constitution. It was a known fact that white people in South Africa still controlled a large proportion of the country’s wealth, but there was legislation in place that was aimed at redressing the imbalances of the past.

The challenge of South Africa was to ensure that wealth was distributed evenly from the one that was minority controlled to the one that was majority controlled. Europe on the other hand, had cases where the minorities were infringing on the rights of the majority citizens, and this was a very difficult issue to tackle. It would be essential for Europe to deal with the mass of immigrants who were coming from North Africa by boat, as this had caused a major humanitarian crisis. The rise of the Arab Spring had turned out to be chaos for countries like Libya, Egypt and Syria. 

Mr G Mackay (DA) said that part of the problem in Europe was that minorities had not been integrated into the continent like they had been, for example, in the United States of America (USA), where the minorities had managed to participate in the economy, civil society and democracy. In essence, the issue of integration was mainly an economic matter, where the minorities were empowered by legislation to participate in the particular culture of the country. 

Ms Bearder stated that migration was not a new issue. The EU was founded on human rights and this was enshrined in the Constitution. Most of the people that had fled to Europe had highlighted that they felt that their human rights were better protected on the continent than in their native countries. There were some immigrants from Bangladesh, Southern Africa and the Middle East. The USA was also facing a similar problem, where there had been an increase of illegal immigrants from Mexico. It was shameful to observe that the United Kingdom (UK) was not taking in the immigrants that were coming from the Mediterranean region, as these were human beings that should be allowed to participate in the economy.

Mr Borrelli mentioned that Italy was more integrated in terms of accepting different religions and cultures, but there was a challenge in terms of managing the large number of people that were arriving on the Italian coastline. Italy had requested the EU for assistance to deal with this challenge, as it has already been indicated that this was a humanitarian crisis.

Mr Zala said the problem that still needed to be resolved was the issue of nationalism, and the EU had emphasized the importance of putting nations together in a spirit of peaceful cooperation. Extremism that was likely to continue if issues such as migration, national pride or competition for resources or employment were not dealt with. 

Mr Van Baalen said that it was difficult to profile those who were involved in religious extremism or jihadists, as different people were joining these violent and atrocious groups, ranging from those who were well educated and empowered to those without any education or employment opportunities.  

The Chairperson commented that it was clear from the debate that extremism had somehow been linked to migration. It would be interesting to see how these two factors were intertwined and could be solved concurrently.   

Ms Dudley said that throughout the world, the problem of migration had been caused by countries where there had been no freedom of religion or belief, and attacks on minorities because of their religion. People who had moved out of those countries where there was no religious freedom often imposed their religions on the regions where they had settled. Freedom of religion or belief should be a human rights declaration, as was the case in South Africa. Some sections of the population were even uncomfortable with the idea of freedom of religion or belief, as they felt as if it threatened their very own belief. It was discomforting to observe that there had not been a debate on what freedom of religion or belief meant, and how far one could go in this instance.

Mr Waters said it was true that the EU had been formed in order to prevent wars and an increase in nationalism, but it seemed like the EU had become a victim of its own success when ones looked at the resurgence of nationalism in the region, and those on the far-right. The EU was a union, but it did not look like it was a fully integrated union. This was evident from the Greek crisis, where some of the countries that should have assisted Greece to rebuild its economy, had not. The EU needed to be a fully integrated union, where everyone had the same fiscal policy, as opposed to allowing other countries to overspend. Germany and France were now being forced to bail Greece out of the crisis, which also encouraged another form of extremism and nationalism within the union. Was the EU going to go for full integration, or would it be stepping back and allowing the nationalists and populist parties to start dictating?

Mr Radebe appreciated the fact that there has been an emphasis on the importance of human rights, as this needed to be at the centre of the programmes that would be undertaken. There was a concern that most of the immigrants from Africa into Europe had not experienced any form of human rights, unlike in South Africa, where immigrants were immediately protected by the Constitution when entering the country. He appealed to the EU to ensure that immigrants – even those who were illegal -- were treated with dignity and respect as human beings. The issue of extremism was directly linked to unstable states, and the fall of President Gaddafi in Libya had led to the rise of extremism in the country. There was a similar case in Syria. It was totally unacceptable that Australia had imposed strict measures to prevent the entrance of immigrants, but had been the first country to rush in and topple the elected government in the African continent and the Middle East. The EU should move consciously to deal with the conflict between Ukraine and Russia and the rise of the Islamic State (IS), as this was an extremist group that had previously been supported by the USA to topple the president of Syria. 

Current economic and political issues in Europe

Mr Van Baalen wanted to put it on record that those who were coming to EU for asylum, refuge or as illegal immigrants, were protected by the European Constitution and nobody was without human rights.

Mr Theodor Stolojan, European People’s Party (EPP), said a number of factors had been discovered when the economic crisis had begun to affect the Eurozone. One was that each country had its own problems, and there were some weaknesses that had been unknown before the crisis. The EU was back on firm ground, and countries like Portugal, Spain and Ireland had managed to recover from the crisis. However, economic growth had been relatively slow and unemployment was still very high for several countries, especially among young people. The EU had an instrument to support those countries that were still in financial distress, and could also lend money to some of them. The EU did not have an instrument to deal with countries in financial difficulty, as there was no fiscal capacity to report a country that was in financial crisis.

There was now a European Stability Fund (ESF), which did not fall under the rules of the EU, but was an agreement between member states who had participated with their money to create this instrument, which was directly linked to what was currently happening in Greece. The EU was aware that there was a need for countries in Europe to work even further to develop and strengthen this programme, and there were a lot of regulations that had been implemented in order to improve the financial sector so as to coordinate better, economically, fiscally and budgetarily, the policies of the member states. This regulatory framework had been created in order to ensure that all member states and European institutions considered each other with regard to the kind of policies that would develop the country. There was also a banking union, which was regarded as the most advanced part of the plan, to deal with the financial crisis, but there was still a lack of an energy union to deal with the shortage of energy.

The EU had a small budget, as it was only 1% of the GDP of member states. This budget was to support the implementation of EU policies and was not a budget to financially support countries that were in distress. The good news was that the Eurozone was recovering, and growth was back. This was also good news for South Africa, as the EU was trading with South Africa. The bad news was that Greece was still in a deep financial crisis. The Greek Parliament had approved the second part of the reform package on 22 July, which was a precondition to start negotiations between the European institutions and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Negotiations would start between the Greek government, the representatives of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the IMF on 24 July on measures to be taken to resolve the crisis.

The Syriza party in Greece was obviously against any austerity measures being implemented. The crisis was the result of long-term mismanagement of the public sector. There was a hope that the Greek government would implement all the reforms that had been proposed by the EU. He was optimistic that Greece would recover from the current financial crisis, although this would take time. The local shipping industry was not paying taxes in Greece, and this was a factor in encouraging domestic investment.

Mr Radebe said that it was pathetic and shameful to hear that the older people of Greece could not access their own pension funds because of the financial crisis. What due diligence processes had been undertaken in order to pick up potential financial problems in various Eurozone countries?

Mr Waters said it was a bit irresponsible of the EU to lend money to Greece while it was clear that the country would not be able to pay back its debt, and he wondered about the possible consequences. There seemed to have been a lack of accountability or oversight over Greece for them to have got into this predicament in the first place. What strategies would be implemented to ensure that other countries did not fall into the same trap as Greece?

The Chairperson expressed concern that it seemed impossible for Greece to be able to pay back its debt.

Mr Stolojan responded that there were rules in the Eurozone. These rules had firstly been broken by Germany and France, as it was stipulated that a country should not have a fiscal deficit of 3%, and it was clear that the rules had not been effectively implemented. International financial markets considered the Eurozone like a monolith, and pumped money into countries in the region without looking at the individual situation of each country. This reality would be taken into consideration in the meeting between Greece and its creditors. The EU now enforced the rules on fiscal deficits, debt to the GDP and economic balances, to prevent a repeat of the Greek crisis. Public administration in Greece during previous governments had created a lot of problems, especially in respect of access to social benefits and other operations of the state.

The EU was not asking the Greek government to cut down on pensions and salaries, but it was a case of reforming the economy and the country’s public administration. Greece was a developed country, and this was the matter that needed to be taken into consideration. The EU was ready to assist the country to recover and to get back to the country that it used to be. 

Ms Bearder said that UK had a population of 65 million people, while Greece had a population of 11 million. The debt of UK per capita was £3 000 more than for every Greek. The UK was lucky that it had an economy that was actually turning around so it was not costing the country so much to borrow money. The fact that the budget for developmental aid to South Africa had been cut down must be seen in the context of the current debt problem in the Eurozone.

Mr Van Baalen added that he was hopeful that the remedial actions that had been taken by the EU would be beneficial to the people of Greece. There was still such a possibility.

The Chairperson said that it was clear that the issue of Greece was still a major theme, and it would be useful for Members to accept the decision that had been taken by the EU on the matter and see what would transpire in the next few months. The matter of Greece also underlined the importance of establishing financial fundamentals and ensuring that the coun try’s finances were safe and secure.

Mr Waters said that a comment had been made that there were about 19 economic policies in Europe which dealt with social policies and policies on pension funds. The EU was faced by the prospect of some countries leaving the union, as some countries were currently negotiating their terms in the EU. It was important to highlight that if Southern Africa were to have a union similar to that of the EU, it would be crucial to have common grounds on a number of matters ranging from human rights to the judiciary, free speech and a free press. It was therefore important to learn from the pitfalls that had been experienced in the EU. 

The Chairperson appreciated that the discussion on the EU had been very frank, with everyone voicing their opinions openly. There was no doubt that the strategic partnership between the EU and South Africa would benefit the world immensely.

Trade and Economic Partnership Agreements (APAs)

Mr Williams said it was understandable that the EU still had to take the APAs back through their processes, but it was essential to point it out that any serious changes to these agreements would have serious implications for the conclusion of those agreements. The following issues were declared as stable in the last session dealing with the agreements during March 2015: Protocols on rules of origin, mutual administrative assistance and customs matters, and protection of geographical identification and relations between trade development and cooperation. The APAs must support regional integration, as South Africa was facing a huge challenge in terms of integrating with the African continent. The importance of market access that came along with the APAs must not be hindered by the introduction of non-tariff barriers by the EU. The APAs gave South Africa a massive market in the EU.

Mr Mackay said that a significant deadline existed for South Africa -- 10 October 2016 was the joint ratification deadline, and if South Africa missed this deadline it would also impact negatively on smaller countries like Namibia, Swaziland and Botswana, as these smaller nations would lose access to the EU. There was a moral obligation for South Africa to ratify these APAs for the benefit of the country itself, but also for those neighbouring countries. He agreed that there was a need to avoid making any serious changes to the agreements, as this would have an impact on the conclusion of the agreements. It was important to re-emphasise that South Africa had already made some significant concessions on the APAs.

The Chairperson commented that the road to protectionism could become a slippery slope in an unintentional way, and this was a path that South Africa would need to be conscious to take. She appreciated that the EU had managed to assist South Africa with other administrative matters, and this has been very helpful.

Mr Van de Geer appreciated the very cooperative and constructive strategic partnership with South Africa, especially the relationship with the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF). The EU had threatened to refuse entry to citrus fruit exports from South Africa, alleging that the fruit found with traces of black spot on peels posed a risk to EU citrus producers, but this matter needed to be resolved with the dti. The European scientists were working hard to ensure that the issue of citrus black spot (CBS) could be managed so it did not threaten production in Europe.

Ms Bearder said that the issue of APAs had been on-going for a very long time and it was indeed shocking to discover that CBS was regarded as a trade barrier. This was more of a trade interrupter, as Europe needed to be protecting its own plants and production from diseases and invasive aliens.

South Africa’s participation in BRICS

The Chairperson indicated that it had been a great opportunity for South Africa to join the BRICS, as it was accepted that South Africa was nowhere near countries like Russia and China in terms of the level of development. However, since South Africa had been industrialising and changing the structure of the economy, going to the higher value chain, there had been a realisation that the country would need to sell its goods like every other developed country. The joining of BRICS should not be seen as to way to reduce the relationship of South Africa with the EU, but as a way of increasing partnerships with other countries in order to reduce any possible tension.

Mr Zala said that the BRICS was not really an organisation or assembly, as it was collusion of countries with different geo-political and economic make-ups and interests. It was an illusion to assume that the group could possibly be one union. The conflict between Ukraine and Russia resulted from the fact that the Ukrainian government was not very clear about the agreements in the Europe-Asian Union, and the majority of the citizens in Ukraine wanted closer cooperation with the EU. This had resulted in a decline in the Russian economy, as it was based solely on commodities rather than real manufacturing production. China was a very big player in the BRICS, as it wanted to be part of international financial institutions and international arrangements. Brazil had recently formed a strategic partnership with the USA and this relationship would become important, especially for Latin America. He wanted to make it clear that it was impossible for the countries in the BRICS to be integrated because of the difference in geo-political and economic interests.

Mr Stolojan congratulated South Africa on joining the BRICS, as the country had contributed about R5 billion to the group, and it was great idea to have a development bank. The issue of different geo-political interests in the group was a concern. The EU was particularly concerned about the conflict in the Ukraine, as this would create further regional conflict. The EU was now compelled to increase the military expenditure between Romania and Ukraine, and this was a waste of money.

The Chairperson appreciated the frank and open discussions around the involvement of South Africa in BRICS, and maintained that the BRICS union was very important as it offered an opportunity to do things differently, especially with the formation of a development bank. South Africa had contributed very little to the BRICS in terms of funds, but it had been allowed to have a more say. This proved that the group was more equitable, and this should be welcomed. BRICS offered South Africa an alternative global governance order. It was important to address the existing imbalances within the group.  South Africa would benefit immensely through infrastructure development.

Regional integration (South Africa and the African Region)

Ms Dudley said that there had been a lot of debate about whether South Africa should be so concerned about national interests. South Africa has decided that the interests of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the EU were the national interests of South Africa. It would be important to strengthen regional integration with SADC in order to improve economic empowerment on the African continent. South Africa needed to create diversity in its manufacturing and industrial sector in order to reduce unemployment and alleviate poverty, and there should be more cooperation in dealing with issues such as defence and security. There was a need to be careful with expenditure on defence, as most South Africans were not very keen on spending money on defence outside the country.

South Africa has been very effective in carrying out peacekeeping missions on the African continent. This was important for maintaining peace on the continent, especially in unstable states like Sudan, and lately Lesotho. It was unfortunate that South Africa had been unable to reap the benefits of the peacekeeping missions on the African continent, as this had benefited countries like China in terms of investment and trade. South Africa needed to take advantage immediately of regions where there had been successful peacekeeping missions.

The Chairperson said that a lack of infrastructure had been a major concern on the African continent and the SADC region, and this could be an area where the EU could offer assistance. The debates during the meeting had been illuminating and inspiring, and offered more hope for a world which would focus on the implementation of policies to deal with the challenges of poverty, unemployment and inequality. Parliament played a critical role in dealing with these challenges, and this Parliament should be accountable to the people it represented. The difference of opinions was welcomed, as this was part of driving the debate on development.

Mr Van Baalen also appreciated the opportunity to discuss critical matters that were affecting the world. The discussions here had been frank and open, with no taboos, and there should be a similar kind of engagement in the near future. 

The Chairperson thanked everyone who was present in the meeting and reminded Members that there would be a continuation of the meeting tomorrow to deal with other critical matters.

The meeting was adjourned.