Committee Report on Canada Study Tour & Oversight of South Africa’s international relations policy in Ottawa

Meeting report

Ms S Kalyan (DA) at the outset of the meeting asked that members be provided with a programme of work of the Committee up until June 2018.

The Chairperson informed the Committee that the consideration of the three quarterly reports of the Committee would be deferred to another time.

Mr Lubabalo Sigwela, Committee Secretary, pointed out that not all stakeholders were able to make inputs on the Foreign Service Bill in 2017 and would be afforded the opportunity to do so when meetings of the Committee kicked off in 2018. He suggested that Wednesday 7 February 2018 the day before the State of the Nation Address 2018 be set aside for the Committee to deal with its three quarterly reports.

Ms D Raphuti (DA) agreed to the deferral of the three quarterly reports.
Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) responded that the DA had a caucus scheduled for Wednesday 7 February 2018.
If the meeting was purely to deal with the three quarterly reports he asked for the meeting to be deferred.

The Committee agreed to defer the meeting until another time.

Ms Dineo Mosala, Committee Content Advisor, said that a committee programme for the next six months was being finalised and would be circulated to members.

Draft Report of the Portfolio Committee on International Relations and Cooperation on the Study Tour to Ottawa, Canada
The Chairperson stated that the whole point of study tours undertaken by the Committee was for members to visit countries that had Foreign Service legislation in place and those that did not. This would enable members to gauge the pros and cons from either types of countries around how Foreign Service was being dealt with. Canada was a country that had Foreign Service legislation in place. Canada’s Foreign Service had evolved over a long period of time. China on the other hand did not have Foreign Service legislation. He placed the Draft Report before the Committee for consideration and went directly to the findings in the Draft Report.

Committee Findings:
- The Committee realised that the issue of a single Foreign Service Policy was a challenge. In Canada there were many players but the centre of accountability was with the head of missions who in turn was accountable to the head of government.
- The role of unions was important to Foreign Service. Unions were part of the public service. Officials of government belonged to trade unions. The Chairperson stated that the Public Service Co-ordinating Bargaining Council (PSBC) wished to meet with the Committee and so too did the Confederation of South African Trade Unions (COSATU). Consultation with unions was important but ultimately government must do what it needs to.
- In Canada entry into the Foreign Service required sector specific examinations which needed to be written. A candidate in Canada had to be 32 years of age, have a degree and be a citizen of Canada in order to qualify. A further requirement was that the candidate had to be proficient in a language of the country to which the person was to be posted to. In Canada the Foreign Service was taken very seriously.80% of persons in the Foreign Service were career diplomats in Canada.
- In Canada the Inspector General oversaw issues of compliance in foreign missions. The Inspector General made timely interventions where needed. It was a highly respected office.
- In Canada the Foreign Service Institute prepared Foreign Service personnel for service.
- Citizens of Canada were eligible for Foreign Service postings. A person with dual citizenship could however not become a head of a mission ie ambassador. Vetting was an important requirement.
- Canada prioritised the posting of career diplomats.
- Global Affairs Canada was in control of immovable assets of missions.
- The Public Service Commission trained all individuals but did not perform the same service as the Foreign Service Institute.
- Think tanks like academia played an important role in the training of Foreign Service individuals.
- An effective Foreign Service should be based on national interests. One message should be communicated to the world.
- In Canada there was close cooperation and harmonisation between departments like Finance, Public Service, Home Affairs and Trade etc.
- On matters of recall of personnel the ambassador would decide on who would be recalled. Global Affairs Canada would deal with the issue.
- The oversight role of the Canadian parliament was important for the Foreign Service. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was accountable to Parliament.
- The Minister of Global Affairs was tasked with drafting regulations governing the Foreign Service in Canada. These regulations would have to be passed by parliament.

The Chairperson additionally observed that Canada had a one-pen policy. The head of the mission made a decision on what would be done abroad regarding Canada. He noted that the findings would inform the Committee’s recommendations to Parliament and would be captured in the Draft Report.

Discussion
Mr L Mpumlwana (DA) pointed out that SA was in a different situation than Canada. Canada was a western country and there was no disagreement in the country about what constituted national interest. In SA depending on who was in power that party would determine what SA’s national interest was. On foreign policy what was the interest of the nation? In SA one would get different answers. This was not the case in countries like the USA, Canada, China and Russia. In these countries everyone towed the line. When a person was considered a career diplomat he/she had to choose on which side of the coin they wished to be. The government at the time would determine what was in the national interest. He disagreed with the Chairperson and said that China did have Foreign Service legislation in place. He felt that SA had a huge problem when it came to deciding on what the country's national interest was.

The Chairperson said that there was a standalone document available which spoke to SA’s national interest. The document was different to the Foreign Service Bill. It was not entirely correct to say that countries like Canada did not disagree over what constituted national interest. At party level politicians in Canada differed on what was in the national interest. Political parties did not always agree. National interest was not necessarily party interest. The advantage of being the ruling party was that you could advance a party interest as a national interest as the ANC did in supporting Palestine and joining the Brazil, Russia, India, China and SA (BRICS) Bloc. He did not believe career diplomats to be controversial. Since 1994 SA had career diplomats in place even though the presidency had changed many times. There was no issue with career diplomats. It could be interesting if the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) could provide the Committee with a breakdown of how many political and career diplomats SA had.

Mr Mokgalapa, on national interest, pointed out that in Canada there were only five politically appointed diplomats ie appointed by the Prime Minister whilst the rest of the 168 diplomats were career diplomats. These individuals were trained on what the national interests of Canada were. In SA there was a need to clearly define what national interests were. He added that in Canada there were ten provinces which traded internationally but collaborated with national government. There were common trade mission objectives. SA too needed a common Foreign Service.
Mr Mpumlwana, responding to the Chairperson’s response, said that lets agree to disagree. It was not a big issue. He was merely trying to elaborate on how global politics worked. There were those who sided with the west and those who sided with the east ideologically. There was a western bloc and an eastern bloc. SA did not side with either. No matter which party was in power in Canada the foreign policy remained the same.

Mr D Bergman (DA) stated that the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation had said that foreign policy and defence policy should be for national interest and not party interest. Governments did tend to change over time.

Mr M Maila (ANC) said that the Canadian example of an Inspector General was a good one and perhaps it should be factored into the Foreign Service Bill to have an Inspector General to do oversight. He proposed that the Committee adopt the Draft Report.

Ms Raphuti stated that national interest should not be politicised.

Ms Mosala pointed out that the recommendations coming out of the Draft Report would be incorporated into the Foreign Service Bill.

The Draft Report was adopted as amended.

Draft Report of the Portfolio Committee on International Relations and Cooperation on conducting oversight on the implementation and execution of SA’s international relations policy in Ottawa, Canada
The Chairperson said that the oversight visit was done to measure the mission’s performance in Canada. Some of the things that the Committee took into consideration were asset management, the asset register and staffing. Was the mission doing what it should be? He placed the Draft Report before the Committee for consideration and went directly to the observations of the Committee. The observations of the Committee informed its findings.

Committee Observations
- The Ottawa Mission was a Category 4 Mission. It was considered a hardship mission. The weather conditions were bad and the winters were long. Everything was expensive for mission staff and currency fluctuations made things worse. Missions in Germany and the USA were considered to be ice cream missions and were considered to be easier postings.
- One advantage for SA was that the Chancery building was owned by SA and that there was no rent to pay. The official residence of the Ambassador was located right next to the Chancery which was a security concern. The good thing was that the Governor General of Ottawa was located close by and that the precinct in general was secured.
- The mission was well staffed but there was no trade attaché and no official from the Department of Home Affairs (DHA). There were ten locally recruited Canadians who were all vetted.
- Consular services were being provided to South Africans who visited Canada.
- Economic diplomacy was lacking as there was no trade attaché.
- The mission’s asset register was up to date and was online.
- Information Communication Technology (ICT) was a weakness and was last upgraded in 2010.

Committee Findings
- The Chancery and official residence of the Ambassador was providing a good diplomatic service.
- The mission was implementing its online asset register.
- The mission needed additional capacity in light of the increase in delegations to Canada.
- The mission’s ICT should be upgraded.
- The Committee noted that maintenance plans were not always adhered to due to budget and administrative issues.
- Currency fluctuations eroded allowances of staff. It was an issue which needed to be addressed by the Department of Public Service and Administration and National Treasury. This issue applied to all missions where currency got eroded.
The Chairperson added that economic diplomacy had to be strengthened. Canada was working on many peace keeping missions in Africa and SA needed to work with it.

Draft Committee Recommendations
- The DHA needed to deploy officials to deal with visa issues.
- There was a need for a trade attaché to be deployed to the mission as Canada had good opportunities for trade. SA had a trade deficit with Canada.
- The security concerns about the Chancery and the Ambassador’s residence being located right next to each other needed to be addressed.
- The Committee needed to do more oversight to other regions/parliaments.

Discussion
Ms C Dudley (ACDP) agreed with the recommendation that the Committee needed to do more oversight visits. On a recent visit to London with the Chief Whips Forum nobody from the London mission had met the delegation at Heathrow Airport. She had also experienced a haphazard welcome from the mission in Ghana when travelling there. She pointed out that there were some serious problems at the mission in the UK. The Chief Whips Forum would have details on who headed up the mission in the UK.

Mr Mokgalapa agreed that more oversight visits should be done. On a recent visit to Senegal the mission was located in a small office block when the Senegalese had donated land to SA to build a mission. The donated land was located in an upmarket type of area. Why had the mission not been built? He was not surprised by the state of affairs in the UK. There was no new ambassador appointed to the UK as yet after the previous ambassador had been recalled. He agreed that security was lax at the Ottawa mission complex. It was unacceptable that no trade attaché was appointed at the mission. The Ottawa mission also did not have secure communication because ICT was lacking. Maintenance at the mission was a problem. No DHA official at the mission was another serious shortcoming.

Ms Raphuti recommended that protocol for politicians when they visited missions abroad should be designed. It should speak to how members should be received. The Director General of the DIRCO needed to come up with the protocol.

The Chairperson pointed out that the Vienna Convention stipulated that all embassies had to provide consular services. He added that there was also the DIRCO initiative called the Registration of South Africans Abroad (ROSA) which required members to inform the DIRCO that they were going abroad. Embassies needed to prioritise people according rank. He responded that protocol was in place. It was the heads of missions that were negligent.

Ms Dudley said that she got a feeling that there was underlying protest action by staff in both Ghana and the UK linked to the funding of missions.

Mr Bergman suggested that perhaps certain missions could be downgraded to save costs. Some of the properties were vast and were located in upmarket areas. Downscaling should be considered. Perhaps SA even had too many missions. In Brussels the mission had a huge place but there was not so much staff to justify its size.

The Chairperson asked what members should do when they observed things at missions that did not reflect well for SA. To whom should members report these things to? When members observed things perhaps the Committee should write a letter to the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation about the things observed whilst members were travelling with other parliamentary committees.

Mr Mokgalapa was pleased that the Chief Whips Forum and the House Chairperson had firsthand experienced things as they were in the UK. He agreed with the Chairperson’s suggestion.

The Chairperson said that the oversight role could only be enhanced if matters were brought to the Minister’s attention.

Mr Maila agreed that the suggestion was good but cautioned that perhaps members should first obtain a party position over the matter.

Ms Kalyan said that there was no need to get a party position as members were deployed to the Committee by their parties. She felt that it would be a dereliction of duty by a member not to report what was observed abroad. Explanations needed to be obtained. She did point out that there were embassies that performed well even though an ambassador had not been appointed. The Delhi mission in India was one such mission. If mission staff could disrespect Members of Parliament then how badly would they treat the day to day traveller? She proposed that the Director General of the DIRCO be asked to provide the Committee with an overview of embassies that members were aware of that had issues or those that had been mentioned in the present meeting.

Mr Maila retracted his request to obtain a party position over the matter. He did ask that the Committee not take a decision on the matter as yet. He felt that the matter should be treated as a standalone matter.

The Chairperson replied that all he asked members to do was if they observed things at missions abroad whilst on oversight with other committees that such matters be brought to the attention of the Committee. The Committee in turn would write a letter to the Director General of the DIRCO highlighting the matter and make recommendations. All that members were doing was bringing matters to the DIRCO’s attention.

Ms Kalyan said that the member in question would write to the Chairperson so that the matter could be placed on the Committee’s programme.

Mr Sigwela said that parliamentary practise was that the member would write a letter to the Chairperson about the issue. The Committee would then in turn write a letter to the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation.

Ms Raphuti suggested that the Committee endorse what Mr Sigwela had stated.

The Chairperson said that the matter had been exhaustively discussed. He placed the Draft Report before the Committee for adoption.

Ms Kalyan asked if the Draft Report was adopted with recommendations would members have oversight over the final recommendations included.

The Draft Report was adopted with amendments.

Committee Minutes
Minutes dated 31 May 2017, 7 June 2017, 14 June 2017, 23 August 2017, 11 October 2017, 20 October 2017, 25 October 2017, 1 November 2017, 8 November 2017 and 15 November 2017 was adopted unamended. Minutes dated 21 June 2017, 4 October 2017 and 18 October 2017 was adopted as amended.

The Chairperson asked Committee Staff to have the Committee’s six month programme ready when the Committee next met.

The meeting was adjourned.