Western Sahara; African Renaissance Fund; 4th Quarter 2015/16 performance: Department of International Relations

Meeting report

Prior to the commencement of the briefing, the Chairperson informed the Committee that Ambassador Jerry Matjila, the former Director General of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) had been appointed as South Africa’s representative at the United Nations in New York. He suggested that the Committee invite Ambassador Matjila in order for Members to express their appreciation for his contribution towards the foreign service, and to bid him farewell.

The Committee agreed.

The delegation from DIRCO included Deputy Minister Llwellyn Landers, who was later joined by Deputy Minister Ebrahim Ebrahim; Mr Kgabo Mahoai, Acting Deputy Director General; Ambassador Ebrahim Saley, Deputy Director General: Africa Bilateral; Ms Delores Kotze, Chief Director: Monitoring and Evaluation; and Ms Hlengiwe Bhengu, Chief Director: Finance.

DIRCO briefing on Western Sahara self-determination

Ambassador Saley undertook the DIRCO briefing on the progress made under the UN auspices towards the realisation of the right to self determination by the people of Western Sahara. The conflict in Western Sahara had been on the decolonisation agenda for more than fifty years. In 1963, the Western Sahara had been included on the list of non-self governing territories under Article 73 of the UN Charter, to which the UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 1960 on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples applied.

When Spain as a colonial power withdrew, the northern part of the territory was left under the control of Morocco, while the southern half was controlled by Mauritania. A bloody conflict ensued and Morocco had taken control of the southern half as well.  The United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) had been established by Security Council Resolution 690 of 29 April 1991, in accordance with settlement proposals accepted by Morocco and the Polisario Front. The matter was considered a case in the failure of international legality and was still in the Fourth Committee of the UN, which dealt with countries waiting for decolonisation.

MINURSO’s primary mandate was to conduct a referendum in order for the people of Western Sahara to exercise their right of self determination. The referendum never took place, and the matter was referred back to the UN Security Council. In March 2016, Morocco had expelled 73 civilian UN staff members from MINURSO in angry retaliation over Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s use of the term “occupation” to describe the status of the territory. The people of the Western Sahara lived in refugee camps in tents. There were numerous camps. The occupation by Morocco had been since 1976. The matter had also come up in the African Union. It was an issue which divided the continent. The cardinal principle of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) of recognising colonial borders did not apply.

Part of the reason for Morocco not wanting to let go of Western Sahara was that the area was rich in phosphate deposits and also had rich fishing resources. The possibility existed that the French company, Total, might do exploration for hydrocarbons, which was an element of oil and gas. It was also believed that there might be gold deposits in the territory as well.

The UN Security Council had recently reiterated its call for the resumption of talks between the Polisario Front and Morocco, which should culminate in the holding of a referendum on Western Sahara’s peoples’ right to self determination. SA affirmed the right of the people of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) to self determination, and continued to call on the African Union (AU) and the UN to work towards resolution of the dispute.
           
Discussion
Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) pointed out that the issue of Western Sahara was a longstanding one and was of great concern. He asked what the difficulty was in holding the referendum that was proposed. The referendum would settle the matter once and for all. On the one side, the Moroccans were alleging that the people of Western Sahara were happy, whereas on the other side it was alleged that abuses were taking place at the camps. There seemed to be a political turf war between Morocco and Algeria. He remarked that if the United Kingdom could hold a referendum on the Brexit issue, why could one not take place in Western Sahara. He asked whether the use of the term “occupation” by the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr Ban Ki-moon, had been a political blunder. What did the term “occupation” in legal international law mean? He did not think that Mr Ban Ki-moon had used the term carelessly. He did not see a solution to the stalemate, other than holding the referendum.

Mr Landers said that there was absolutely no doubt that suffering was taking place in Western Sahara. He said that some believed that Brexit had weakened the European Union. If this was true, it could be used as leverage for the European Union to recognise the SADR.

Ambassador Saley, referring to the use of the term “occupation,” said that the preferred term to use would be “illegal occupation”. It was felt that Morocco was illegally occupying Western Sahara.

Mr M Maila (ANC) agreed that the referendum should take place. Morocco should be accepted into the African Union only if the referendum was realised. He asked where the International Criminal Court (ICC) was regarding the human rights abuses that were taking place in the Western Sahara.

Mr Landers replied on the issue of human rights abuses, and said that the ICC could intervene only if someone drafted something wherein it was asked that charges be laid against Morocco for contravening the Rome Statute.

Ms D Raphuti (ANC) said that the presentation was an eye opener. It was a painful state of affairs, as the people of Western Sahara had the right to self determination. She felt that SA should assist the people of Western Sahara.

Ms S Kalyan (DA) said that the Pan African Parliament (PAP) had a working group dealing with the issue. She asked what SA’s direct involvement with Morocco and with the Saharan Republic was. She felt that the UN Security Council (UNSC) was not acting on its mandate. The AU and the UN had, after all, mandates to uphold peace and security. It was unacceptable that the matter had dragged on for 40 years. She wished to understand what SA’s involvement was, and who was being spoken to on each side. She asked for an explanation on the statement made, that the AU respected the sanctity of colonial borders. On the issue of a referendum, a platform needed to be created for parties to express their views. There would also be a need for an electoral system. Would the UN Security Council (UNSC) oversee the process?
Mr Landers replied that SA did have diplomatic relations with Morocco and had a long standing relationship with Sahara. SA provided support to the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) via the African Renaissance Fund (ARF). The SADR had an embassy in Pretoria, and there was constant support.

Ambassador Saley said that the “sanctity of the colonial borders” had been the cardinal rule when Africa was decolonised. Africa had realised that if it had to redraw borders, it would have opened up the proverbial “Pandora’s box.” He commented that there were secessionist movements everywhere in Africa. 

Mr B Radebe (ANC) pointed out that the fact that the Western Sahara had rich natural resources also exacerbated the conflict. He asked which companies and which countries were exploiting the resources of Western Sahara. Action needed to be taken against such companies and countries. The AU should be supported on its condition that before Morocco could join the AU, it should first respect the democratic rights of the Saharan Republic. Morocco’s behaviour should not be tolerated. The fact was that SA did not have an embassy in Morocco.  

Mr Landers said that the AU had a Constitutive Act, and in terms of Article 29 set out very clear procedures for any country wishing to join it. Haiti had applied to join the AU. If Morocco wished to join the AU, it needed to follow the procedures. DIRCO could do some research to find out which companies were abusing the resources of the Western Sahara. Total was a French company involved in Western Sahara, but it was not clear whether they were exploiting. The Polisario Front had made a legal challenge recently to the European Court of Justice against a treaty which the European Union had signed with Morocco in 2012. The court had found that the treaty was fine, as long as there was no trade. There were some fishing and agricultural products which originated from the occupied territory. The European Union had appealed against the ruling. Should the Polisario Front be successful, it could impact upon European Union members. 

Ambassador Saley, on natural resources in the SADR, said that a Norwegian non-government organisation (NGO) called Resource Watch had much detail on ships and companies which were involved in exploiting natural resources. It did naming and shaming. 

The Chairperson joined Members in their support for a referendum to take place in Western Sahara. Western Sahara had been a colony of Spain. After Spain left, Morocco had occupied it in 1975.No sanctions against Morocco had been imposed by the UN. How could Morocco alone block the referendum? He asked whether there was perhaps another party which was not in favour of the Saharan people being on their own. Did the Polisario Front represent all Saharan people? He asked why the UN did not conduct the referendum through MINURSO. He said that it was not clear what SA’s position on the issue was. Was it an “occupation”? Did SA support Western Sahara on this? Clarity was needed. He asked whether the UN was considering sanctions or punitive measures against Morocco. He was aware that Morocco was no longer a member of the Organisation for African Unity (OAU), due to its occupation of Western Sahara, nor was it a member of the AU.

Mr Landers responded that the UN had adopted resolutions over the issue. In order for a referendum to take place, a census should first be done. The Saharan and Moroccan people should agree to a referendum. A census would determine who was Saharan and would thus be eligible to vote in the referendum. The difficulty was that there were both Algerians and Moroccans present in Western Sahara. The referendum should be held under the control of the UN, duly assisted by the AU. He pointed out that there could be a positive spin-off if both the SADR and Morocco were members of the AU. In such a case, both parties could be dealt with as equals. The negative effect, on the other hand, could be that the conflict could be escalated. Morocco had used its influence with countries like France, Spain, Israel and several African states to derecognise the SADR.  SA’s position was that it was in favour of the SADR being recognised as an independent sovereign state. A wall had been erected in the SADR called the “Burn,” which was heavily mined with explosives. Most of the mines originated from European countries and the United States. He said that a referendum needed to be held to test the views of the people. 

The Chairperson asked whether the issue had been discussed in the PAP and, if it had been discussed, what decision had been taken. He suggested that the Committee write to the Speaker of the House to slot in a debate on the issue. The Committee could issue a statement in the House. The DIRCO was requested to provide Members with information over the issue in order for them to prepare for the debate. A public lecture on the issue by the SADR Ambassador could also be held, perhaps at the Centre of the Book as a possible venue.

Members supported the Chairperson’s proposals.

Ms Kalyan suggested that the Committee undertake a visit to the PAP and do an oversight visit to the SADR. By visiting the SADR, Members could see first hand what conditions were like at tent city. At the PAP, a resolution had been drawn up and debated. It had then been referred to the AU, calling for a referendum to take place in SADR.

The Chairperson responded that Ms Kalyan had made two useful suggestions. The first was a visit to the PAP, and the second an oversight visit to the SADR. Both suggestions would be included in the letter to the Speaker of the House.

Mr L Mpumlwana (ANC) asked why SA had diplomatic relations with Morocco.

Mr Landers responded that SA had diplomatic relations with Morocco. SA did trade with Morocco. Such was the world of diplomacy. It was all about compromise. Whether SA wished to place sanctions on Morocco, the matter could be taken up with the ruling party. He did not, however, see SA imposing sanctions upon Morocco. On 15 September 2004, SA had recognised the SADR. As a result, Morocco had downgraded relations with SA. SA had a history with Morocco and Algeria during the struggle against apartheid. This was the manner in which the world of diplomacy worked. Issues like the one before the Committee could be resolved at the diplomatic level. He did not consider himself a diplomat, but rather a politician, and at times some of his comments got him into trouble.

DIRCO on its Fourth Quarter Performance
Ms Delores Kotze, Chief Director: Monitoring and Evaluation, spoke to the performance of the DIRCO for Quarter 4 in terms of its programmes -- Administration, International Relations, International Cooperation/South-South and North-South Cooperation, and State Protocol Services.

Administration Programme
The target had been set at 100% for the payment of its suppliers within 30 days, but actual performance sat at 99.62% due to outstanding information from end users. There had also been a target set that all disciplinary cases had to be finalised within 90 days from the date they were initiated, but only 75% had been achieved. Completion of the construction of the Chancery in Dar Es Salaam, had reached only 80%, as there had been delays in the delivery of crucial material due to project negotiations and further delays due to freight material hold-ups at the port.

International Relations Programme
The target to have three structured bilateral mechanisms to promote national priorities -- the African Agenda and the Agenda of the South -- could not be achieved due to scheduling difficulties. However, the target for 20 trade and investment seminars to be held had been surpassed, with a total of 25 trade and investment seminars being held. The target of 22 meetings with high level potential investors and importers had also been surpassed, with the actual figure sitting at 23.

International Cooperation/South-South and North-South Cooperation Programme
A focus area identified in international cooperation was the promotion and protection of human rights. To this end, SA had participated in the 31st session of the Human Rights Council that was held in Geneva. On peace and stability, socio-economic development, good governance and democracy, SA had participated in the AU Assembly in Addis Ababa in January 2016, whereat it had been re-elected to serve on the AU Peace and Security Council for an additional two-year term. On North-South Cooperation, the EU had been identified as a focus area, and SA had participated in the 13th Ministerial Political Dialogue held on 26 February 2016, where discussions had centred on various issues of mutual interest like the sharing of knowledge and technology in the field of the ocean economy.

State Protocol Services Programme
For the quarter, all requested protocol services had been rendered where they were requested.  The DIRCO had also met its target of having three media briefings, 40 media statements and two opinion pieces. It had only one Public Participation Programme (PPP), even though a target of three had been set.

Financial performance
Ms Hlengiwe Bhengu, Chief Director: Finance, continued with the financial performance of DIRCO for the quarter. The point was made that the expenditure figures included the expenditure of the Department of Home Affairs at missions abroad. The total adjusted appropriation sat around R6.5bn. The projected expenditure for the quarter was R1.9bn, but actual expenditure had reached R2.2bn,14.5% higher than forecast. Detailed figures were provided on expenditure per Programme and per Economic Classification. Reasons were given for variances between projected and actual expenditure.

As at March 2016, the DIRCO was overall within its allocated baseline at the end of the financial year. It was pointed out that the briefing did not speak to audit outcomes, even though the information had been received from the Auditor General’s Office not too long ago. The DIRCO would in due course table its audit outcomes in Parliament. The DIRCO had received a qualified audit for 2015/16. Two major issues were the non-identification of heritage assets and usable tangible assets. Plans were in place to deal with the qualification. The DIRCO had just had a workshop with the Auditor General’s Office to address the issues. A supply chain management workshop with National Treasury was also taking place.

Discussion
Mr Mpumlwana asked how supply chain management issues were dealt with in terms of the Financial Management Act. Had National Treasury and the DIRCO discussed supply chain management issues? Given the fact that the DIRCO operated overseas, he asked whether National Treasury exempted the DIRCO from certain requirements.

Mr Landers responded that the DIRCO, in terms of the constitution, should have unqualified audit reports. Unqualified audit reports should be the norm for all government departments.

Ms Bhengu, on supply chain issues at missions, said that the Auditor General had raised the matter, but had stated that there was improvement. There was a supply chain management framework in place which allowed that if there were not three quotations, reasons and evidence should be provided on why not.  

Mr Mokgalapa said that on consular services, complaints were received from South Africans that they were not assisted when they were in distress. This was especially so in the Americas and Europe. Drug mules from SA got arrested, and their parents were clueless about what had happened to them. He asked the DIRCO to provide the Committee with a template on economic diplomacy. It would shed light on what the outcomes were after a certain amount of visits had been undertaken. He was glad that the DIRCO, in its financials, had been upfront about its disclaimer. The Auditor General seemed to identify issues year after year on the DIRCO’s Information Communication Technology (ICT). Once again, there seemed to be overspending which tied in with supply chain management. He asked why the expenditures on the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) and the AU Summit had not been budgeted for. Why had it not formed part of the DIRCO’s financial planning? The DIRCO was asked whether it had done planning on the AU funding model. He also asked whether the DIRCO was engaging with relevant departments.

Mr Landers said that drug mules were a perennial problem. South African courts would not be keen to allow exchanges of prisoners. The persons were after all guilty of offences, and it would be questioned why one should be soft on them.

Mr Kgabo Mahoai, Acting Deputy Director General, on the assistance to South Africans in distress abroad, said that there should be officials performing full consular services. The DIRCO was unfortunately short staffed.

Ms Bhengu explained that the AU Summit had been moved to SA at the last minute when Chad had pulled out. The decision by the AU had been taken only in January 2016. The FOCAC had been planned at ministerial level. It had then beeb taken to head of state level. The DIRCO and National Treasury were working on the AU funding model. National Treasury was taking the lead.

Mr Maila noted that an indication had been given that the Auditor General’s Office had expanded its audit from 20 missions to 30 missions. When had the decision been taken and what were the budgetary implications? The fact that the DIRCO had received a qualification on its assets was concerning. It was now two years’ running, and there was a likelihood of it happening again.

Mr Mahoai said that the DIRCO had met with the Auditor General’s Office to get to the root causes of its qualified audit report. Issues like having a clean asset register and heritage assets were being worked on. At missions, people usually had four-year terms, which meant that there was a lack of continuity.

Ms Bhengu said that the DIRCO had only received notice in August 2016 about the audit of 30 missions. The audit would start in September 2016. Overall, the DIRCO had to reposition its budget to cover the extra missions, as this was not provided for in the fourth quarter.

Ms Raphuti agreed that it did not bode well for the DIRCO to receive qualifications. She asked why it took so long for the DIRCO to conduct disciplinary hearings.

Mr Landers said that it was quite a process to deal with grievances and disciplinary procedures at missions. People had to be flown over.

Ms Kalyan said that the financial report presented was good. However, she failed to understand what the difficulty was in the DIRCO auditing its assets. It was not difficult to count assets.  She referred to the recent bomb blast at the airport in Istanbul, and said that South Africans in distress had tried to contact the DIRCO, but calls had not been answered. Why was there a disconnect between the South Africans at the airport in Istanbul and the DIRCO? She had personally called the DIRCO to ask what the problem was, and had been informed that the Turkish authorities had done a lockdown and had jammed cell phones. A spokesperson for the South African government should have explained that there had been a lockdown and a high security alert. In a crisis, people got worried. She felt strongly about the matter.

Mr Landers explained that on the auditing of heritage assets and assets, it was not simply about counting assets. At missions, there were firstly works of art, and secondly, works of art that had heritage value. These could be high value items, like Pierneef paintings that were valued in excess of R500 000. The DIRCO needed to appoint a curator through procurement, who would be able to identify and value artworks and heritage assets. It had to be ensured that the individual had the necessary qualifications to value the assets properly. He noted that the DIRCO was made up predominantly of diplomats, which led to administrative issues not always being dealt with when they should. He and the Acting Director General, Mr Mahoai, had agreed that a curator needed to be appointed. It would not be cheap, but it would settle the issue of assets. He pointed out that when people went overseas, they did not inform the South African consulate or embassy in that country that they were there. People did not register on the Registration of South Africans Abroad (ROSA) website. If the DIRCO was aware of where people were, then they could offer assistance. He agreed that the lockdown should have been communicated to people.  

Mr Mahoai pointed out that the event in Turkey boiled down to consular work. On average there were five or six staff members at missions. In Turkey, it had been a search and rescue mission. Consular services had to assist people abroad.

Ms H Hlophe (EFF) referred to page 8 of the presentation which spoke about the number of high level visits, but failed to give detail on the visits. The Committee needed to be given a progress report on what progress had been made subsequent to a visit. She noted that the membership fees that SA paid to organisations like the AU and the UN were expensive. The DIRCO was asked to provide the Committee with a report on the 54th Session of the United Nations Commission for Social Development. She asked what had happened to the official in Oslo, Norway, who had driven under the influence of alcohol. She was concerned that the Committee undertook too few oversight visits. She referred to a recent parliamentary visit to the United States that she had undertaken as a representative of her political party. She had agreed to a media interview with the SABC, but a DIRCO official had blocked the interview and it had not materialised. How could this be allowed? She further complained that a DIRCO official had frustrated her when she had requested that an earlier flight from Zambia be booked for her.

The Chairperson responded to Ms Hlophe being blocked from giving a media interview. He said that once he had led a Southern African Development Community (SADC) delegation, and one member of his delegation had been “all over the place.” As the leader of the delegation, the Chairperson had called him aside and had spoken to him. Any leader of a delegation must make it clear to his delegation what the rules were. If a member of the delegation wished to do an interview, then the leader of the delegation should be informed about what was to be discussed in the interview. In this way, the person could receive guidance from the leader of the delegation on what could or could not be said. Sensitivities needed to be understood, as the reputation of the country could be tarnished.  

Mr Landers said that the drunken official had been recalled and was facing disciplinary action. On the issue of the blocked interview, he said that it was not the responsibility of the DIRCO official to block the interview. The leader of the parliamentary delegation could block the interview. It was in any case an interview with the SABC, and not a foreign broadcaster. 

Mr Radebe agreed that the financial report had been good. The results of the Auditor General’s audit would come before the Committee when the DIRCO submitted its annual report. It was evident that the DIRCO had tried to stay within its budget and was implementing cost cutting measures.  He said that the FOCAC summit had been successful, and that China had committed to investing $100bn in SA. How far along were the projects that had been promised at the FOCAC Summit? He also asked how far the PAP construction project was, since it seemed to have been in limbo forever. On the issue of South Africans in distress abroad, he said that cases relating to the Nigerian Church disaster were still ongoing. What support had the DIRCO given to the males from the Free State who had been arrested in an Arab state and were in jail?

Mr Landers said that there had been progress on the PAP project. Building plans had been approved prior to the 2016 local government elections. No glitches were expected. He did not understand how the men from the Free State could sign a document in Arabic, the contents of which they did not understand. 

Mr Mahoai, on the Nigerian church disaster, said that the DIRCO had been part of inter-departmental mechanisms until the remains of South Africans were returned to SA. The Department of Social Development had been involved after the incident. On FOCAC projects, the DIRCO had coordinated sector departments. The DIRCO had discovered that the projects were not at a bankable stage yet. A South African delegation had gone to Beijing.

Mr Radebe pointed out that often South Africans wished to do business and sought employment overseas. The DIRCO needed to give South Africans warnings of what they should be aware of. Where South Africans were incarcerated and appeared in court abroad, there was often no South African representative present. He felt that the DIRCO needed to take responsibility. What should Members say to family members whose loved ones were incarcerated abroad?

The Chairperson asked what measures the DIRCO had in place to address the matter it getting a qualified audit opinion year after year. He referred to page 9, where trade and investment seminars had been mentioned, and asked whether enough of them had been held. Were the trade and investment seminars held abroad or in SA? SA had a good diplomatic footprint abroad with its 126 missions, yet it was not taking advantage of it to encourage trade. Intra-Africa trade could be better. He asked whether international transfers done by the DIRCO had to be done in Euros or dollars.

Mr Landers said that the DIRCO had a report on inter-Africa trade, which would be forwarded to the Committee. He agreed that intra-African trade at 12% was too low. The report would speak to what SA was doing in the context of trade. It had to be remembered that there were political and infrastructural challenges that hampered intra-Africa trade. 

Mr Lubabalo Sigwela Committee Secretary, alerted the Committee that the meeting’s agenda items had not been concluded, as the fourth quarter financial report of the African Renaissance Fund (ARF) had still to be presented by the DIRCO.

The Chairperson said that there was no time to do so.

Mr Radebe suggested that the briefing on the ARF be postponed until the next time the Committee met with the DIRCO.

The Committee agreed.
           
The meeting was adjourned.