International peacekeeping operations: SANDF & DIRCO briefing

Meeting report

The South African National Defence Force (SANDF) and the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) spoke about SANDF involvement in international peacekeeping operations. The brief was particularly relevant as the Joint Committee would visit SANDF members deployed in Goma in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) from the 25 to 29 March 2018.

The SANDF said the Joint Operations Division was established on 1 August 1997 to conduct all operations in accordance with the Interim Constitution and sanctioned in the subsequent Constitution. Joint force employment objectives were threefold: (i) defence of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic of South Africa, (ii) promoting regional and continental peace, security and stability in support of government initiatives and (iii) support to the people. SANDF worked towards the promotion of regional and continental peace, security, safety and stability. This was mainly done in the DRC and Sudan. The South African commitment to MONUSCO (United Nations Stabilization Mission in the DRC) is known as Operation Mistral. Reporting on Operation Mistral, South Africa formed part of the Force Intervention Brigade (FIB), which was created to protect civilians in the DRC against the recurring waves of conflicts in the eastern DRC, stabilise the country and implement the Peace, Security and Cooperation Framework. The Framework forces included the SANDF SPECC, Composite Helicopter Unit (CHU), five Oryx helicopters and three Rooivalk attack helicopters. Force levels were reported as FIB (5 SAI BN), aviation elements, SANDFSPECC, EJVM (Expanded unit) and verification mission.

On finances, the SANDF noted that at the height of South Africa’s involvement in the DRC, the Joint Operations Division was allocated R1 084 831 064. The current budget allocation was R875 303 327. The UN had paid the following amount on claims submitted: Letters of Assist (LOA) was R733 103 693.63 and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was R208 911 027.02. A promise to pay letters had been made. This amount did not reflect in the South African Reserve Bank. Draft LOAs were currently under negotiation with an expiry date of November 2018. The UN has agreed to settle outstanding payments as soon as a relocation of funds in the UN has been completed. Of the five Oryx helicopters, three were funded and two were unfunded.

On human resources, Operation Mistral was a UN mandated deployment and as such was subjected to UN policy on HR policy and regulation. On sexual exploitation or abuse, it was noted that specific lectures were provided during Mission Readiness Training and all deployed soldiers had signed legal undertakings not to commit this crime. Despite actions by UN, all allegations were investigated. Important to know was that high profile military police and legal team were currently deployed. When questioned later about sexual exploitation, SANDF clarified that according to UN principles, peace keepers could not be involved in an affair with a citizen even if consent was obtained. The UN had a zero tolerance approach to this principle. The UN had set out sexual abuse standard which was prescribed to all peacekeepers. Falling in love with a citizen was in contradiction of the UN standard and it was classified as sexual abuse or exploitation. South Africa had to enforce this standard and could not claim that there was a love affair. South Africa was being honest in reporting these. Other countries were not reporting their soldiers.

The SANDF talked about discipline and morale. Morale was not a consistent variable as it could vary from day to day depending on conditions. In general the discipline and morale of the members was high because of support systems. Constructive leisure time utilisation was encouraged and was supported with equipment.

The SANDF briefed the Joint Committee on DRC visit requirements as one needed to adhere to certain requirements before a visit could be made to visit the South African forces deployed in United Nations operations including UN approval of the visit.

The South African forces were deployed as a part of the FIB and it was agreed that the FIB would work under MONUSCO. At the time of deployment, the soldiers of MONUSCO were getting US$108 per day. The FIB somehow took away some opportunities of the MONUSCO and as result the FIB was not well supported by the UN for implementing its peace framework. These challenges were picked up and communicated to the UN and were discussed at SADC level. There was a challenge of protecting the FIB. The DRC had introduced its own peace plan which included a request communicated to the MONUSCO to reduce its forces. The DRC viewed the forces of FIB as effective and sufficient. FIB was composed of forces from Tanzania, Malawi and South Africa and SANDF said they were doing an excellent job. They were supported by both the DRC and SADC. The MONUSCO task force of around 16 000 soldiers were limited to patrolling and could not engage in offensive operations.

Within two weeks, a message would be delivered to the UN by the DRC because South Africa had challenged the policies of MONUSCO. The competitors or enemies or negative forces were estimated at 4 500. It was very sad that the MONUSCO had 16 000 forces who were only spectators. South Africa along with Angola had trained about five Congolese brigades. The silent question was that if all negative forces were about 4 500, why should there be 16 000 UN forces? What was this big force doing? An assessment was needed of what they were doing and what they wanted to achieve.

The year 2018 was the year that DRC should conduct its elections. The DRC had asked SADC to ensure that the elections take place in a peaceful manner. The main challenge was the budget, be it the side of South African forces or FIB forces. There was a need of further assessment to determine what South Africa wanted to achieve in 2018. The SANDF believed that the pending visit of the Joint Committee would bring a significant change on the field. They reminded members to note that the FIB was one mandated to engage in offensive operations in a country which was bigger than South Africa.

There was stability in the area of south Kivu and the only challenge was that civilians were attacking the government police and army due to their dissatisfaction with the incumbent President. Another problem faced in the DRC was that the SANDF had no say on how or where South African forces should be deployed. This had a nexus with the morale of soldiers; but they ensured that soldiers had high morale and discipline. All aspects to boost their morale were considered. There was a consensus amongst FIB forces – South African, Malawian, and Tanzanian – that these forces should be based or deployed in Sake.

The December 2017 attack by Ugandan fighters that killed 15 Tanzanian peacekeepers was discussed. It was unacceptable to see the troop deployed in an isolated area. The principle was that the FIB should be unlocking. Unlocking meant that they should be deployed in places where they would be able to defend civilians, pull back from their positions or be able to defend themselves. They should be in defensive positions no more than 3 km apart so that they are able to watch each other’s back. This incident should not be read to imply that South Africa wanted to pull out. It would not. South Africa was competent to stabilise the country and this could be possible if elections were allowed to take place.

DIRCO explained that it would facilitate the travelling arrangements of Members as it would be in contact with the South African Embassy in Kinshasa. The key issue was the fact that the mandate of MONUSCO was due to expire at the end of March 2018. The current UN Security Council – which South Africa was not a member – was considering a renewal mandate for MONUSCO and the future of the peace keeping mission in the DRC. There were new dynamics. Some countries were of the view that MONUSCO should continue its work until after general elections were held or after it had ensured a smooth transition after elections. The main challenge was political instability. MONUSCO had a two-legged mandate. The first leg was to protect civilians and the second leg was to arrange transitional political arrangements. The second leg included the facilitation of peaceful elections. The question of elections remained unresolved despite MONUSCO being the largest UN peace-keeping mission with over 16 000 forces. There was an outcry that the UN would cut the MONUSCO budget. There was a possibility that 5 000 forces would be cut. South Africa did not however support the withdrawal of all MONUSCO forces. There was a political discussion at UN level about the future of MONUSCO.

Members were concerned about the discipline and morale of SANDF soldiers deployed in the DRC and the implications of "sexual abuse and exploitation". They were of the view that the SANDF was to be blamed because it deployed them for 12 months in which time they were away from their wives - they should be allowed to come back, at least, after three months. They raised concern over unfunded air operations, which should have been funded by the United Nations and asked if the UN had been engaged about reimbursing the money spent by South Africa. Members asked about the travel arrangements, how they would be protected once in the DRC and who they would engage with from a political point of view.

Minutes
International peacekeeping operations: SANDF briefing
Col Peet Strydom, SANDF Acting Director: Operations, took the Committee through SANDF deployments presentation, which focussed on background, mandate, vision, mission, joint force objectives, peace support operatives, air assets, equipment, finance, human resources (HR) sexual exploitation and sexual abuse.

The Joint Operations Division was established on 1 August 1997 to conduct all operations in accordance with the Interim Constitution and sanctioned in the subsequent Constitution. Joint force employment objectives were threefold: (i) defence of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic of South Africa, (ii) promoting regional and continental peace, security and stability in support of government initiatives and (iii) support to the people. SANDF worked towards the promotion of regional and continental peace, security, safety and stability. This was mainly done in the DRC and Sudan. The South African commitment to MONUSCO (United Nations Stabilization Mission in the DRC ) is known as Operation Mistral. Reporting on Operation Mistral, South Africa formed part of the Force Intervention Brigade (FIB), which was created to protect civilians in the DRC against the recurring waves of conflicts in the eastern DRC, stabilise the country and implement the Peace, Security and Cooperation Framework. The Framework forces included the SANDF SPECC, Composite Helicopter Unit (CHU), five Oryx helicopters and three Rooivalk attack helicopters. Force levels were reported as follows: FIB (5 SAI BN), aviation elements, SANDFSPECC, EJVM (Expanded unit) and verification mission.

On finance, Col Strydom noted that at the height of South Africa’s involvement in the DRC, the Joint Operations Division was allocated R1 084 831 064. The current budget allocation was R875 303 327. The UN had paid the following amount on claims submitted: Letters of Assist (LOA) R733 103 693.63 and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) R208 911 027.02. A promise to pay LOA had been made. This amount did not reflect in the South African Reserve Bank. Draft LOAs were currently under negotiation with an expiry date of November 2018. The UN has agreed to settle outstanding payments as soon as a relocation of funds in the UN has been completed. He noted that of the five Oryx helicopters, three were funded and two were unfunded.

On human resources, Operation Mistral was a UN mandated deployment and as such was subjected to UN policy on HR policy and regulation. On sexual exploitation or abuse, it was noted that specific lectures were provided during Mission Readiness Training and all deployed soldiers had signed legal undertakings not to commit this crime. Despite actions by UN, all allegations were investigated. Important to know was that high profile military policy and legal team were currently deployed. The mission entailed court martials.

Col Strydom talked about discipline and morale. Morale was not a consistent variable as it could vary from day to day depending on conditions. In general the discipline and morale of the members were high because of support systems like commanders, senior NCOs, chaplains, and other key personnel present. Multi-disciplinary teams were deployed to debrief and assist members that contributed to high morale. They included social workers, psychologists and chaplains. Constructive leisure time utilisation was encouraged and was supported with equipment.

Committee visit requirements
Col Strydom briefed the Joint Committee on DRC’s visit requirements and general information. Those who visit the South African forces deployed in United Nations operations for official purposes needed to adhere to certain requirements before such visit could be made. The UN authority had to approve the visit. A letter should be sent to the UN authority requesting the visit and should clarify: (i) aim of the visit; (ii) objectives, requirements and expectations; (iii) period of visit; (iv) date of envisaged visit; (v) confirmation of availability of funds; and (vi) means of travel to and from DRC. At least 6 weeks prior to date of departure, a detailed name list of the delegation that included ID/Force number, title/rank, initials and surnames, gender, attached passport copies, expiry date, office and cell phone numbers and emails. Unless otherwise instructed in writing the Joint Committee was responsible for the payment of the flights to and from the DRC, accommodations, meals and allowances. They should ensure that they had valid official or diplomatic passport, yellow fever immunisation certificate and valid visa. The DRC was a declared malaria area and the members were encouraged to go on malaria prophylaxis. Each deployment site had a medical facility that would manage emergencies. During their visit, members should ensure that they had chronic medication, Tabard and sunblock with them. Members were warned not drink water from the tap; drink only potable water and put on appropriate clothing to project from the sun and mosquitoes. The Joint Operations Division would make available two accompanying officers to the Committee during their visit.

MONUSCO (United Nations Stabilization Mission in the DRC)
Major General Mlandeli Kula, Chief Director: Joint Operation Division SANDF, said that South African forces were deployed as a part of the FIB and it was agreed that the FIB would work under MONUSCO. At the time of deployment, the soldiers of MONUSCO were getting US$108 per day. The FIB somehow took away some opportunities of the MONUSCO and as result the FIB was not well supported by the UN for implementing its peace framework. These challenges were picked up, defended and communicated to the UN and were discussed at SADC level. There was an issue about the protection the FIB.

The DRC had introduced its own peace plan which included a request communicated to the MONUSCO to reduce its forces. The DRC was saying this because it viewed the forces of FIB as effective and sufficient. He assured the Joint Committee that the forces of FIB composed by forces from Tanzania, Malawi and South Africa were doing an excellent job. They were supported by both the DRC and SADC. MONUSCO forces of around 16 000 soldiers were limited to patrolling and could not engage in offensive operations.

Within two weeks, a message would be delivered to the UN by the DRC because South Africa had challenged the policies of MONUSCO. The competitors or enemies or negative forces were estimated at 4 500 forces. It was very sad that the MONUSCO had 16 000 forces who were only spectators. South Africa along with Angola had trained about five Congolese brigades. The silent question was that if the negative forces were only 4 500, why there should be 16 000 UN forces? What was this big force doing? An assessment was needed on what they were doing and what they wanted to achieve.

The year 2018 was the year that DRC should conduct its elections. The DRC had asked SADC to ensure that the elections take place in a peaceful manner. The main challenge was the budget, be it the side of South African forces or FIB forces. There was a need of further assessment to determine what South Africa wanted to achieve in 2018. The SANDF believed that the pending visit of the Joint Committee would bring a significant change on the field. They reminded members to note that the FIB was one mandated to engage in offensive operations in a country which was bigger than South Africa.

There was stability in the area of south Kivu and the only challenge was that civilians were attacking the government police and army due to their dissatisfaction with the incumbent President. Another problem faced in the DRC was that the SANDF had no say on how or where South African forces should be deployed. This had a nexus with the morale of soldiers; but they ensured that soldiers had high morale and discipline. All aspects to boost their morale were considered. There was a consensus amongst FIB forces – South African, Malawian, and Tanzanian – that these forces should be based or deployed in Sake.

He referred to the December 2017 attack by Ugandan fighters that killed 15 Tanzanian peacekeepers. The killing of the Tanzanians really touched his heart. They were deployed in a thick forest where there were no civilians and one wondered why the Tanzanian troops were deployed there. UN said the FIB forces were deployed to protect civilians. He was advised that engineers were sent there to repair a bridge and Tanzanian troops were deployed to protect these engineers. The Tanzanians were attacked in terrain where it was very difficult to defend themselves. It was unacceptable to see the troop deployed in an isolated area. The principle was that the FIB should be unlocking. Unlocking meant that they should be deployed in places where they would be able to defend civilians, pull back from their positions or be able to defend themselves. They should be in defensive positions no more than 3 km apart so that they are able to watch each other’s back. This incident should not be read to imply that South Africa wanted to pull out. It would not. South Africa was competent to stabilise the country and this could be possible if elections were allowed to take place.

Discussion
The Chairperson welcomed presentation and expressed his happiness about the excellent work being done by South African forces.

Mr S Marais (DA) was interested in knowing what the reality on the ground was. Members were in full support of the South African forces because it was in the interest of South Africa to see the realisation of stability in the DRC. This would put a stop on the migration of people from the north to South Africa. He asked for clarity on who was involved in the deployment of forces in the DRC, whether South African troops under FIB were deployed alone or were mixed with Tanzanians or Malawians. How long would the deployment under the FIB take and how were they dealing with deployed soldiers who had problems at home if they were deployed for 12 months? Why was the UN not funding the FIB forces or did the FIB request a refund from the UN? Did the FIB have financial capacity to use its helicopters and vehicles in the operations? This information was necessary for the oversight visit.

Mr T Motlashuping (ANC) asked if the South African forces had enough equipment and human resources to achieve what was achievable. Would the FIB achieve what it was mandated to achieve. With respect to morale and discipline, he spoke of the woman who gave birth and claimed that she conceived through sexual exploitation or abuse. Was she raped? Sexual abuse had several meanings and interpretation. The presentation did not mention this or provide the sexual violence circumstances around it. What really happened? The gravity of the matter should be made clear.

Mr S Esau (DA) remarked that the entity responsible for peace-keeping mission was the United Nations in that it was appointed the Head of Mission. FIB was a joint operation and he asked if there was a good collaboration between UN and South Africa. There must be due cooperation and collaboration and the UN could not just give instructions. Soldiers could not be deployed in terrain where it was unsuitable for them to conduct their mission. Soldiers should have equipment suitable for the terrain. Soldiers could be set up to fail if the equipment was not suitable. Was there no intelligence? What were they doing? Who was responsible to investigate whether the equipment was suitable for the terrain?

Referring to the 2013 SANDF tragedy in Bangui in the Central African Republic, Mr Esau asked if capability was a problem. If yes, why were they committing the same error that might cost them in terms of evacuation? South Africa had deployed five Oryx helicopters but they were not all funded. Was South Africa prepared to cover the burden imposed by using these helicopters if were to be used in the protection of our soldiers. How was the decision made about this? South Africa was the only continental deployment. Was there any equipment being withdrawn from Sudan? Was it realistic to deploy our troops for a year whilst we know that men could not be away from their wives for a year? Why did you set our men up for problems when you know that they could not be this long away from their spouses and children? Are we not creating problems ourselves? Are we looking for trouble or are we protecting civilians from sexual exploitation? Did they believe that psychologists and social workers would prevent them from having sexual desires? If someone was pregnant for nine months, this implied that the impregnation did not happen yesterday. It happened a long time ago. When did it happen? What did the SANDF do about this or was doing about similar situations? Why did they not have a policy that would minimise sexual incidents, rather than deploying judges or legal teams when these incidents happened? During the ANC liberation struggle, women were impregnated all over the world. They had babies here and there. There were South African children in many countries where South Africans had sought refuge. His view was that some people were exaggerating the situation to give South Africa a negative image. This view did not take away the fact that sexual abuse was taking place. He proposed that any soldier involved in sexual abuse should be blacklisted. He should not be deployed in the peace-keeping mission. Teachers were blacklisted too in order to protect children. The SANDF should work on ensuring that South Africa had a positive image. It was their duty to ensure peace, security and stability for South Africa’s economic interests.

Ms N Dambuza (ANC) asked about the human resources policy which she believed ought to be in accordance with the UN policies. The presentation indicated that there was an effort, but it did not state clearly whether there was a policy or not. There was no indication when a human resource policy would be developed and finalised. Some of the five Oryx helicopters were not funded and she found this to be a big problem. How are these helicopters managed without funds? From where was funding coming to ensure their operation?

The Chairperson said some of these questions would be relevant to ask when they were on site. They should meet our soldiers deployed in the DRC and engage with them. They should be honest with themselves that our soldiers’ morale was not low but high. The SANDF was doing everything in its power to keep soldiers’ morale high. Soldiers were committing adultery because of the long period of deployment. That was an honest observation. He was worried that the UN was not coming to the party. He listened to Lt. Gen. Kula about what South Africa could and could not do in the SANDF peace keeping mission. Worth noting was that South Africa did not have money to fund all these operations and the UN was not intervening.

Mr Marais, referring to the funding of R1 billion, asked how the budget was allocated and what index was used to measure the costs in relation to progression. It was not a CPI measurement that was being used. The used index would give them an indication of what the cost was in real terms. Ten years ago, the budget was R1 billion compared to R4 billion. If one looked at the nominal value one could see what the problem was.

Maj Gen Kula responded that all five Oryx helicopters and three Rooivalk helicopters were not flying at the same time. Two Rooivalk helicopters were operational whereas one was reserved. This could be used whilst one of the two was being serviced or being repaired. The UN paid for that. The Rooivalk was deployed as assistance. The UN had made a call to withdraw the Rooivalk helicopters due to the money they paid South Africa. They think they could source cheap helicopters somewhere else. However, the fact was that these helicopters could not be withdrawn due to their effectiveness and this could not be disputed. There was no replacement for them. They were a vital asset. The UN had written to South Africa to withdraw its Rooivalk helicopters. However, he had engaged with the UN and, as a result, the Rooivalk would never be withdrawn. The Committees' oversight visit would confirm whether they should be withdrawn. He expressed his concern at the withdrawing of Tanzanian helicopters and stated that should Rooivalk helicopters be withdrawn, they would be sacrificing their troops.

The deployment of military judges or legal teams were of assistance because soldiers’ wrongdoings could be investigated and deliberated on. This ensured the discipline of soldiers.

Maj Gen Kula took note that Members understood what sexual abuse or exploitation was in a peacekeeping mission context. According to UN norms and principles, peace keepers could not be involved in an affair with a citizen whether consent was obtained or not. The UN had zero tolerance approach in its application of this principle. The UN had set out sexual abuse standard which was prescribed to all peacekeepers. South Africa had to enforce this standard and could not claim that there was a love affair. Rather, if there was an alleged love affair, due process had to be followed. The conduct should be first investigated and a soldier could be withdrawn from mission if he was found to have committed what he was being accused of. It was not only South Africans who were implicated such misconduct as other forces were implicated too. However, when the court martial found that a soldier was not guilty, the SANDF could report this to the UN.

South Africa was being honest in reporting these because other countries were not reporting their soldiers who were involved in sexual abuse or exploitation. Although they were implicated, the countries kept quiet. It was not every soldier who could be deployed on a peace keeping mission. There were subjected to health assessments, there were various processes a person to be deployed went through to determine whether they had been involved in misconduct. He should be screened but this did not mean that they could be 100% sure that he would not be involved in misconduct. In any event if, at later stage, a deployee had made certain wrongdoings and this was on record, he was recalled and another person was deployed

Maj Gen Kula replied that the FIB was established by SADC. It was composed of South African, Tanzanian and Malawian forces. On its inception, it was agreed that the FIB would be composed of countries from SADC. There was a discussion on whether troops from other regions should form part of the FIB. South Africa, Malawi and Tanzania were committed to continue their peacekeeping mission. FIB forces were deployed for one year but previously they were deployed for six months. It was the UN that had changed this policy and stated that they should be deployed for 12 months. Resources were involved in deploying troops for six months. The UN declared that it would be paying once and other costs would be covered by the country concerned. It was not all who were deployed for 12 months because pilots and doctors were deployed for three months. Only troops were deployed for 12 months. Specialised contingents were deployed for six months.

Above all, the problem that confronted the SANDF was the Concurrent Health Assessment because of changes in health conditions. The frequency of utilising the same troops in the same mission was problematic. The fact was that whether soldiers were deployed for three or six or twelve months, the same soldiers were recycled.

What was important was that the SANDF become zero-tolerant to sexual abuse or exploitation. However, what was problematic was that there was no sexual exploitation or abuse, rather they were relationships. All the soldiers were not married. Some were single and they would tell you that they were in love and that they were prepared to marry those ladies they were in love with. Falling in love with a citizen was in contradiction of the UN standard and it was classified as sexual abuse or exploitation. What would you do if a soldier is not married at home? SANDF was trying to find a way of dealing with that type of situation.

The Chairperson said that the information was enough. Members would get more information on the oversight visit.

Department of International Relations (DIRCO) briefing
Mr Zaheer Laher: Director: International Coordination: DIRCO, said DIRCO would facilitate the travelling arrangements of Members as it would be in contact with the South African Embassy in Kinshasa. The key issue was the fact that the mandate of MONUSCO was due to expire at the end of March 2018. The current UN Security Council – which South Africa was not a member – was considering a renewal mandate for MONUSCO and the future of the peace keeping mission in the DRC. There were new dynamics. Some countries were of the view that MONUSCO should continue its work until after general elections were held or after it had ensured a smooth transition after elections. The main challenge was political instability. MONUSCO had a two-legged mandate. The first leg was to protect civilians and the second leg was to arrange transitional political arrangements. The second leg included the facilitation of peaceful elections. The question of elections remained unresolved despite MONUSCO being the largest UN peace-keeping mission with over 16 000 forces. There was an outcry that the UN would cut the MONUSCO budget. There was a possibility that 5 000 forces would be cut. South Africa did not however support the withdrawal of all MONUSCO forces. There was a political discussion at UN level about the future of MONUSCO.

Discussion
Mr Booi asked how the oversight visit was structured from from constitutional mandate lens. Was it to go and ask soldiers about their conditions? What were the political problems involved in the deployment of soldiers? Why were South African forces involved in political problems occurring in the DRC?

Mr Esau asked if they could be updated on political transitions in the DRC in case political stability was not achieved. Political instability had continued for years and years. Could Members be updated on the political settlement and negotiation processes taking place? How many years this should take? The Joint Committee needed a report on the negotiation processes to find a solution to the political problems in the DRC.

Mr Marais said that the DIRCO should provide the Joint Committee with the political arrangements for the Members' visit. There were three weeks to go for the visit to South African troops in the DRC. Were the principles and protocols being met?

The Chairperson responded that Mr Marais should not worry because it was the duty of the Committees to instruct DIRCO to make travel arrangements for the purpose of conducting an oversight visit. DIRCO – along with the Department of Defence – ought to act in accordance with those instructions.

Mr Laher replied that political arrangements would be provided. There was a political arrangement. The instability in Kinshasa was of concern. Peacekeeping was not a solution to political problems, but it was utilised to facilitate peace processes. Peacekeepers could not be involved in political arrangement processes. Sometimes they were detrimental to political negotiations. Peacekeepers should be neutral in political situations. There was an African Union engagement with regard to elections. Peacekeepers were neutral as they were not supporting any political party and rather worked to ensure that their mandate was achieved.

Mr Booi had political questions in mind. South Africa as a country played a particular political role and he would like to know who South Africa was accounting to. Should Members go to the DRC, who would they talk to: FIB soldiers, South African troops, the UN troops? Who would they engage with politically?

Maj Gen Kula advised that the first point would be Kinshasa where they would engage with people in the South African embassy. It was given a brief by the FIB from time to time. The representative of the UN Secretary General was in Kinshasa and the South African ambassador was the one engaged in political advocacy. In Kinshasa, they would be briefed on what was happening in Kinshasa. The SANDF would be ready to protect them once they arrived in Kinshasa as the UN would not protect them fully. They would be protected by the South African forces, but he would suggest that they be protected by the FIB forces. This suggestion should be communicated to the Minister.

Mr Esau said that they were advised on what they should expect when visiting DRC, but it was clear that there were no practical arrangements. Another point of concern was that there was no itinerary provided to Members so that they would know where they were staying and when they were coming back.

Mr Booi commented that once they arrived in DRC, they would not be protected by the South African Police Service and asked who would be protecting them wherever they go.

Mr Siphiwe Dlamini, Head of Communications: Department of Defence, responded that they would meet the UN and South African officials in Kinshasa. Once they have done with political discussions, the SADF would take over from DIRCO. They would be under the protection of SANDF the entire visit.

The Chairperson said that they would engage with the Minister to ensure that all aspects were looked into and all necessary arrangements were made.

The meeting was adjourned.