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

Meeting report

Chairperson’s opening remarks

The Chairperson welcomed everyone to the meeting and indicated that it would continue from the debates that had emerged in the previous engagement, but with a particular focus on unstable states like Syria, Libya, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Sudan.      

Issues arising from the G20

Mr Boris Zala, Socialists and Democrats (S&D) Group, first vice-chairperson of the delegation, indicated that it was only the G20 that would be able to solve the problem of money that disappeared through the illegal channels, as this had a catastrophic impact on the economies of African countries. South Africa could also play an important role in the G20 on how to deal with the illicit financial flows and tax evasion, as it was a country that had a strong and advanced financial service.

Mr Hans van Baalen, of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) Party, chairperson of the delegation, said that the EU Parliament was currently looking at the issue of tax evasion with a focus on the big corporations which sometimes formed a coalition with countries, where they would make investments in order to pay minimal tax for the next five years. It would be important to look at these practices in order to address those that were negative to the economies of many developing countries, especially on the African continent where there were weak financial services.

The Chairperson mentioned that the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry was currently busy with the issue of transfer pricing, which was essentially an illicit financial flow out of the country and was also sometimes referred to as tax evasion. It was shocking to discover how much the African continent was affected by this illicit financial outflow, as this was money that could have been used on infrastructural development. This problem was indeed global, as some countries like Greece, or the United States of America (USA), were also largely affected by the problem of tax evasion. It was impossible for any country to solve this problem on its own, as it would require the assistance of the G20, the EU Parliament and other broader blocks. The regulatory framework of South Africa was one of the finest in the world, as had already been indicated, but the challenge of illicit financial flows still continued to be a major challenge.

Mr A Williams (ANC) admitted that the South African delegation had initially assumed that the issue of illicit financial flows was an African problem, with a focus on the big multinational companies that were coming to the continent, and using the raw materials without leaving any profit behind. However, it was astounding to discover that this was a global problem, as it was also affecting countries in Europe. There should be cooperation between the EU Parliament and South Africa in order to resolve this matter, as it was against the country’s development goals.

Burundi

The Chairperson indicated that the negotiations to bring peace in Burundi had started during the tenure of Mr Nelson Mandela as the President of South Africa and it was interesting that the current President (Zuma) was also dedicated to bringing about peace in Burundi. South Africa, Kenya and Tanzania had managed to work with all parties in Burundi to craft a negotiated settlement, and that settlement had resulted in the election of the current President of Burundi. The problem with the initial negotiated settlement had been that it was not followed by elections, as had been the case in South Africa, and therefore the majority party in Burundi regarded the previous term as only the first term of the current President, Pierre Nkurunziza. This issue had gone to the Burundi High Court and it had been ruled that it would indeed be the second term of the current President, as the first term had not been based on the results of the elections.

The African Union (AU), together with the East African Commission (EAC) and South Africa were all trying to avoid this third term of the current President, as this had been based on an interpretation of the law. However, the Burundian government had gone to the elections on 21 July 2015, and the process of counting was still on-going. The AU and EAC had emphasised that there should be serious consideration given to formulating a government of national unity in Burundi.

Mr B Radebe (ANC) said that the current President of Burundi would clearly emerge victorious in the recent elections and therefore South Africa, together with the EAC, would be involved in some dialogue with President Nkuranziza and the opposition parties in order to form an inclusive government. President Museveni of Uganda would be leading this process. South Africa, like everyone, wanted the violence in Burundi to stop. This violence was also happening along the border with Rwanda. It was expected that the 170 000 refugees that had fled in Burundi would have to go back to the country. Most of them were scattered in regions of Tanzania, Rwanda and Uganda. South Africa would be working very closely with the EAC and the AU to ensure that all this happened. It was impressive to see that the AU had committed about €200 million to assist the refugees to go back to Burundi.

The issue of Burundi should not be looked at in isolation. One should look at what was happening in the region as a whole, especially in Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Congo Brazzaville. The AU did not want to allow the current sitting President to change the Constitution in Burundi, as this should be done legally and constitutionally.

The Chairperson wanted to put into perspective the fact that contestation for legitimacy of the presidency could happen anywhere in the world. It had happened in the USA, where the courts had had to decide that Mr GW Bush was the legitimate president. The voice of South Africa and the EU should be simple -- third termers should not be allowed in any democratic states, especially in maturing states. It was puzzling to see that the Burundian government wanted to change the Constitution of the country and make it legitimate for presidents to run for a third term. She appealed to the delegates to be alert to these kinds of developments in Burundi, and to act before any crisis emerged in other countries. She asked what could be done to underpin good governance.

Mr Van Baalen indicated that the EU could not change the world, but could assist only where it was possible. It was often better for the AU, AEC and South Africa to come together in trying to resolve most of the conflicts on the African continent. The EU was not the police of the world and should not be considered as such. Human rights issues, and the development of the country, were involved.

Ms Catherine Bearder (ALDE) also added that indeed the EU was not the police of the world, but it was also increasingly concerned about the developments in Burundi, as these kinds of conflicts were capable of destabilising the whole region. Where there was conflict, people would be fleeing to outside that country. She supported the idea of the AU for the two term policy, but the real issue was how to govern the country. This was a major concern of the EU.

Mr Zala said it would be important for the EU, in collaboration with South Africa, to find a possible solution that could be used to stabilise Burundi, and should look at possible sanctions that could be imposed on the Burundian government.    

Ms Bearder said that she was not a big fan of sanctions, as the most simplistic form of sanctions hurt the most vulnerable. It was preferable to impose well targeted sanctions, especially on individuals or particular political parties. The EU should be more helpful and not destructive, and the simplistic forms of sanctions tended to be more destructive in this instance. The EU was very concerned about the fact that Africa was now descending into the “old Africa,” where most leaders were so obsessed with power that they had no respect for human rights and the constitution of the country. The priority at the moment would be to ensure that what was happening in Burundi was not repeated in other African countries.

Mr Van Baalen said that the EU Parliament would be able to solve the issue in Burundi and other African states only through close collaboration with the AU, EAC and South Africa.    

Sudan

The Chairperson mentioned that the focus on Sudan would be on the Olmar al-Bashir issue. The conflict and challenges in the region of Sudan were less than they had been a few years back, as there had been shifts and moves by South Africa and the AU to try through influence to begin to generate other responses. South Africa was an International Criminal Court (ICC) signatory and as such was obliged to implement arrest warrants. The charges that had been brought to South Africa for the interdict to arrest Mr al-Bashir had been significantly reduced, and it was still not clear where the current charges were at the moment. South Africa had always been a strong supporter of good governance, law and order, and this was one of the reasons the country had been the first to become a signatory of ICC. South Africa also believed in the idea of multilateralism, and was aware that there were serious crimes against humanity that required an effective judiciary process. However, the overriding concern of South Africa and the continent at moment was peace, stability and development.

It was important to remind the delegates that World War I had led to World War II, and strategies had been put in place to assist all those countries that had been most affected by these wars. The kind of assistance that had been offered to those countries had brought about peace, stability and even the formation of the EU. The African continent was mainly focused on building peace and reconciliation, and this included the very same countries that had oppressed the continent. She emphasised that the plan was to think about the most vulnerable people in Africa, so it was critically important not to just impose sanctions on a particular country without thinking about the possible consequences. The Freedom Charter made it very clear that South Africa needed to put the interests of people first in the final analysis. South Africa aimed at encouraging regional integration, especially with close neighbours, in order to directly address the current challenges on the continent.

No country in the world had ever achieved sustainable settlement through military intervention, and it was in this context that South Africa had decided not to arrest Mr al-Bashir. South Africa had decided to release its stalwart, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, to be the leader of the AU in order to promote peace and integration in the Africa, and there was a lot of good governance in the AU at the moment. South Africa also sought to balance its international obligations with those of the African continent, also taking into account many other issues of humanity. South Africa had gone to the Central African Republic (CAR) as a peacekeeping training group, and many of the soldiers had died in the process because of a lack of preparedness by the Defence Force, and this should not be allowed to happen again. The primary position of South Africa in regard to what was happening in Sudan was to respect law and order and the constitutional systems that would provide an environment for democracy and good governance.

Mr M Waters (DA) said South Africa was an ICC signatory and as such was obliged to implement arrest warrants. Countries needed to fulfil these obligations without any compromise. The country could not afford to tip-toe and cherry-pick the obligations to be enforced. It was interesting to observe that the Chairperson had also highlighted the importance of the safety of South Africa’s troops in Sudan. There were reports that the South African troops had been intimidated by the Sudanese troops before Mr al-Bashir fled or departed from South Africa, although this had been denied by the Sudanese government. The late Nelson Mandela had indicated back in 1993 that “as a country, I believe that our human rights should be the main concern of our international relations, and consideration of justice and respect for international law should guide the relations between nations”. It was clear that the country had deviated from those very principles by allowing Mr al-Bashir to escape from South Africa without arrest.

Mr al-Bashir had fled the country on 15 June 2015. This was after the Cabinet had taken a decision to grant him immunity from arrest. South Africa had no such authority to do that. On 14 June, the South African court had issued an order to arrest Mr al- Bashir, but the Cabinet had ignored this order. On 15 June, the full bench of the North Gauteng High Court had declared the conduct of the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, the Minister of Police, the Minster of International Relations and Cooperation and the Minister of Home Affairs, including the respective Director-Generals (DGs) to be inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. The Gauteng High Court had made it very clear that the Cabinet had shown contempt for the court order. There had been an excuse from the government that the composition of the ICC was questionable, but if South Africa had had an issue over the composition of the ICC, then it should have withdrawn from that body and not just ignored the ICC arrest warrant. The fact was that South Africa was an ICC signatory and therefore was obligated to arrest Mr al-Bashir for serious crimes, including genocide, rape and the displacement of people. In essence, the official position of the DA was that South Africa was a country that supported and upheld the principles of human rights, and therefore should have arrested Mr al-Bashir.

Ms C Dudley (ACDP) added that the official position of ACDP was that since South Africa was an ICC signatory, the country was obligated to implement arrest warrants for Mr al-Bashir in order to uphold the rule of law. This was an aspect that South Africa needed to strengthen, rather than to undermine. However, there was a need to take into consideration that there would be no “new South Africa” without compromise. It was absurd to hear the DA constantly talking about “no compromise,” but compromise was a critical factor in every relationship at every level. Political solutions must trump military solutions, and complex issues needed good handling for the good of everyone concerned. South Africa should have done everything in its power to uphold the rule of law, and to arrest Mr Bashir as ordered by the ICC.

Mr Williams indicated that the situation of the arrest of Mr al-Bashir was a very tricky one. The approach of South Africa on the African continent was based on reconciliation and the pursuit of peace and stability. The arrest of Mr al-Bashir by South Africa would have created instability in Sudan, and thousands and thousands of people would have died. This could also have excluded South Africa from negotiations to bring about peace and stability in the region, and this had to be taken in consideration. It could be argued that it was for the greater good of humanity that South Africa did not arrest Mr al-Bashir. In the future, the country would be required to work for the betterment of the people in Sudan and action would be taken at a later stage. South Africa had taken the best decision in the interests of peace and stability in the region.

Mr G Mackay (DA) said that South Africa should have not invited Mr al-Bashir to attend the conference in the first place, as the country was aware that this particular individual was the target of the ICC. The fact that it had done so meant it would be compelled to arrest Mr al-Bashir.

The Chairperson said that the South African delegation agreed that the country had a multiparty democracy, and therefore people had the freedom to express themselves freely and openly without any confrontation, and there would always be issues on which one would not get unanimity. It was important to make it clear that South Africa had not offered an invitation to Mr al-Bashir -- this had been issued by the AU and South Africa was only the host country of the conference. In the same way, it was not the USA that issued invitations to the United Nations (UN).

The EU delegation needed to be aware that once a position was put out by a court, then that position was subject to a response from the plaintiff. South Africa did not have a final position on the matter of Mr al-Bashir, as it was still waiting for all due processes. This matter had proved to be very contentious in the political arena, and it was important to emphasise once again that it was not the first time that South Africa had opposed the arrest of a sitting president while they were trying to establish peace and development. The case in point was the current President of Kenya.      

Mr Van Baalen said he appreciated being able to witness the political discussion on the matter of Mr al-Bashir. However, it was essential to be frank and honest that if a country signed a particular international treaty, then it needed to be committed to it. South Africa, as a signatory of the ICC, should have prevented Mr al-Bashir from leaving the country. South Africa should be commended for choosing to have a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) instead of bringing anyone to court for the atrocities that were committed under the apartheid regime, and this was part of maintaining stability and peace. The basic rule was that if one wanted peace, then it was important to negotiate with one’s enemy and friends.

Mr Zala said that those people who often complained that the ICC was more focused on the atrocities that had been committed by African leaders, failed to take into consideration that there were other bodies that were focused on hunting individuals who had committed serious crimes like genocide and the displacement of innocent people.

Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

Mr Williams said that the DRC was presently facing an uncertain political future, having to meet the challenges of holding joint provincial, local and municipal elections in 2015 and presidential and legislative elections in 2016. There had been a slow progress in the implementation of the commitments of the PAC framework, and he stressed the urgent need for a renewed effort by all parties to address the political challenges in the DRC. In relation to South Africa, despite the eradication of the formidable M23 rebel threat in 2013, with South Africa’s direct assistance as part of the Force Intervention Brigade (FIB), the eastern DRC remained unstable and beset with challenges of multiple armed groups. South Africa was committed to the objectives of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), which supported the DRC in achieving peace, stability and economic development.

It was important for the country to reiterate its unwavering commitment to the elimination of all negative forces in the DRC. South Africa considered the early and full implementation of the Nairobi Declaration that had been agreed upon in December 2013 as vital in bringing a speedy conclusion to conflict in this region. The country recognised that peace, stability and a security framework for the DRC and the region should be the guidelines for the region to achieve peace.

Mr Mackay said that a prosperous Africa would be built upon a prosperous DRC, and South Africa had invested very heavily in DRC projects for the past 20 years. Parliament had taken a step last year and ratified the Grand Inga treaty between the DRC and South Africa. This would be a major economic stimulant to development in that country, while also providing South Africa with a renewable source of energy. The South African delegation was concerned about the levels of violence in the DRC, especially as it was approaching the provincial, local and municipal elections in 2015, and the major presidential election in 2016. The instability in the eastern DRC also created political instability in neighbouring regions like Rwanda, Kenya and Burundi. South Africa should be proud of what it had achieved in the DRC, as the country had been responsible for the first democratic elections following its independence from Belgium. There were very positive signs emanating from the DRC in terms of growth opportunities for businesses, and trade relationships were growing extensively.

The Chairperson reiterated that the Inga Dam in the DRC would play an important role in the region. South Africa had signed a treaty and would be one those that would benefit from hydroelectric energy. This would the biggest dam providing hydroelectricity in the world. This showed that countries could benefit immensely from regional integration and working together, but this could be achieved only if there was peace and stability.      

Ms Bearder said she had been in the eastern DRC 18 months ago, when the EU had been looking at legislation on issues ranging from conflict minerals and traceability. It was worth noting that it was difficult to govern a country as enormous as the DRC, and the focus had been mostly on the eastern DRC, with little or no focus on the west and south. The south and the west were reasonably stable regions, but there were also concerns about corruption, as the further away governance was, the easier it was for corrupt practices to thrive.

Mr Theodor Stolojan, European People’s Party (EPP), underlined that what was happening in Europe at the moment could not be compared to what was happening in Africa. The EU had decided to increase military expenditure to 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This increase in expenditure was the result of the growing tensions in Europe, and could be regarded as contrary to the development agenda, as more money was being spent on military intervention than on development.

Syria

Mr Van Baalen said the Chairperson had already indicated that military intervention had never brought democracy, and the only exception to this could possibly be Japan. The military intervention in Iraq by the USA had brought about the exact opposite of what the country and government wanted, as it was evident that Iraq today was still an unstable state and many minorities were still persecuted, killed and displaced. Syria was also in a shambles, with the persecution of minorities -- particularly Christians -- and the destruction of national heritage sites, which was clearly heart-breaking to any civilised individual. Russia had always had much influence in Syria, and could have done more to support the country through military intervention to bring peace and stability in the region. It would be important for the international community to put aside their differences and find a workable solution that would improve the situation in Syria and Iraq, as it was clear that if nothing was being done, then it would be a “hell-on-earth” in these countries.

Mr S Tsenoli (ANC) said that the biggest tragedy in the current situation in Syria was the humanitarian crisis, particularly the number of people that had died and the four million refugees, which included vulnerable women and children. People who had visited the refugee camps had related horrific stories of the abuse of human rights and South Africa together with the international community needed to stand in solidarity with the people of Syria. There was no military solution to this kind of conflict, and the principle of inclusivity would be essential. Key parties would need to sit together and find a workable solution that would be in the interests of all the people, and it was comforting to hear the USA also propagating this point. The emergence of Islamic State (IS) had had an impact in Syria and Europe, and it was worrisome to see that there were now linkages between it and other terrorist groups. One could see from some of the attacks in Somalia, Kenya and Nigeria that this problem was affecting the African continent as well.

South Africa was very fortunate to have a fully operational embassy in Syria, and the South African Ambassador had met with the opposition parties in Syria to discuss the possibility of bringing about a negotiated settlement. This would not be an easy exercise, as there are also complexities within the opposition parties.

Libya

Mr Van Baalen said that Libya was also in a similar position to Syria and Iraq. The Gaddafi regime had not been a normal state, like Syria was, and it had been very difficult for the situation to return to a state of normality. Once again, military intervention in this region had not brought about peace and stability. This was not only an immense problem for Libya, but had also opened up problems like migration, especially from eastern Africa to Europe. The EU, together with the United Nations (UN), would need to work together in order to establish a normal state and possibly reach a truce.

Ms Bearder added that the issue of criminality was also feeding into, and destabilising, most of the countries in central and northern Africa. There were also criminal gangs which were operating without any remorse as they persecuted and killed innocent people, and destroyed the national heritage sites and wild animals. It was particularly concerning that there were so many guns in Africa, and these often ended up in the hands of the criminal gangs who used them to pursue their agendas, including selling body parts, natural resources and any form of resources that could generate profit. This element of criminality was often ignored when considering what was happening across Africa and Middle East.

Mr Williams said that the Libyans had asked South Africa for assistance in reconciliation before the intensification of fighting in 2014, especially in the areas of reconstruction and national reconciliation. South Africa played an important role at the multilateral level in promoting the AU as an important and legitimate organisation and role player in the future prosperity of Libya, the North African region and the continent as a whole. South Africa, together with the UN and other international role players, would continue to work towards the reconstruction and development of Libya. As a member of the UN Security Council, South Africa participated actively in the meetings dedicated to Libya in an attempt to put forward the AU proposals to resolve the Libyan conflict. The broad position of South Africa was to see development, peace, stability and democracy, not only in Libya, but across the entire continent.

Iran

Mr Van Baalen said that it would have been easy for the EU, USA and Russia to work closely together in order to facilitate a deal with Iran concerning its nuclear military opportunities, and Israel seemed to be the only country concerned about this possible cooperation. The EU would need to meet with the President of Israel to hear their real concerns about the matter, as it was important for the international treaty to demand this kind of cooperation and oversight over the nuclear activity in this region.

Mr Zala said that the whole problem with Iran was that the EU would need to work with the whole region to find the best resolution, as the situation was also linked to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Israel did not have a problem with the technical proposals of the EU to have oversight over the nuclear activity in Iran, but the agreement did not limit the activities of Iran to the proxies in other parts of the region, especially the Hamas in Gaza. In addition, Israel was also sceptical of the agreement, as it felt that when the sanctions were lifted, all the money would spread and flood to the proxies. Wars would be become more common, and Iran would further its geo-political interests in the region. It was important to highlight that in reality, countries like Iraq and Syria could not be considered as states, as they were ruled and governed by terrorists groups like the IS. The international community, especially the UN, had failed to ensure that after the conflict there must be some settlement, with international guarantees for the borders and government. Without this, the countries would continue to be vulnerable and unstable.      

Mr Williams said that South Africa and Iran had a very good relationship. This relationship had begun in 1995 when South Africa had established a joint commission which had been chaired by the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation and the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Iran, to meet annually.

Ms Dudley said that the ACDP also did not have a problem with the technical agreement for oversight over the nuclear activities of Iran, but the problem lay in the fact that the agreement avoided any mention of limited activities with terrorist groups like Hamas. South Africa supported a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, and it would be expected that Iran could be held accountable in terms of this agreement so that things do not get slipped under the carpet.

Mr Van Baalen appreciated that the debates during the second day of the two-day 22nd South Africa-EU Parliament inter-parliamentary meeting had resulted in everyone being frank and open without fear of political correction or taboos. There should be close cooperation between the two Parliaments in order to discuss matters and come up with possible solutions that could make Africa, Europe and the world better.

The Chairperson also expressed appreciation for the meeting with the EU Parliament, as many issues had been discussed and there had been tolerance of different ideas and opinions. She asked the delegates to adopt the draft joint statement.

Adoption of the Draft Joint Statement

The Chairperson said that South Africa together with the EU Parliament would meet again in Strasbourg, and this had to be within a six-month period. The official date of recess for Parliament was 17 December 2015, and the constituency period was from 30 November until 15 January 2016. She suggested that the matter of finding a precise date to meet should rather be directed to the senior officials for assistance, as the country had elections next year and therefore would have a tight schedule.

Mr Van Baalen suggested that the word “EU” should be added after “Africa’s” on page 1 in the second bullet, in order to make it clear that this had been a meeting based on Africa and EU’s vision of regional integration. The phrase “development aid” on page 1 in the fourth paragraph should be replaced by “development cooperation”. The word “need” on page 1 in the fifth paragraph should be deleted, as it was a repetition. The matter of building a capable state and enhancing gender equality should be included on page 2 in the second paragraph, as this was one of the strategic goals of the post-2015 development agenda. The word “Union” on page 2 in the second paragraph should be deleted, as it was only the EU Parliament delegation, and the word “advised” in the same line should be replaced by “underlined,” as this was more emphatic.

The delegates adopted the draft joint statement, with amendments.

The meeting was adjourned.