Minister on Madagascar: briefing

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
18 June 2003
MINISTER ON MADAGASCAR: BRIEFING

Chairperson: Dr. Z P Jordan

Relevant documents
Madagascar Briefing Notes

SUMMARY
South Africa's Foreign Minister explained to the committee how the crisis in Madagascar had developed and the role that the African Union had played in the crisis. It emerged that this crisis had raised important questions about the African Union and its mechanisms. The situation remained an area that the African Union would have to continue to monitor.

MINUTES
Briefing on Madagascar
The Minister of Foreign Affairs. Ms. N Dlamini-Zuma, addressed the committee on the situation in Madagascar and the African Union's role there. She explained that Madagascar had no limit on the number of terms a president could serve and that the previous president, Mr. D Ratsiraka, had been in power for 33 years. The current president, Mr. M Ravalomanana, who had no political party had participated in the presidential elections. In the first round, there was no clear majority. The constitution stated that if there was not a 51% majority, the election had to be rerun. There was thus a dispute over who had won the election. The high Court decided that there was no clear winner and that the election had to be rerun. Mr. Ravalomanana's supporters however installed him as president of the country.

South Africa was at the time involved in telephonic discussions with Madagascar and advised that the elections be rerun. Mr. Ratsiraka then cut the capital off, which created more tension. The AU appointed the President of Senegal to intervene and mediate in the crisis. An agreement was reached but was not followed through. Mr. Ravalomanana took over some of the ministries which further isolated Mr. Ratsiraka. The High Court then decided that Mr. Ravalomanana had won the election. The French government advised him to leave the country, which he did. Mr. Ravalomanana had some of Mr. Ratsiraka's supporters imprisoned on the basis that they had committed acts of violence. The situation in the country was almost normal except for the problem around these political prisoners. It was also apparent that the population supported Mr. Ravalomana.

The Minister pointed out that the AU had to decide who it would support. They could not support Ravalomanana as he was not elected according to the country's constitution. He was self-installed at the time when the High Court had made its first decision. The AU was also not sure about the will of the people. After Mr. Ratsiraka had left, it was felt that Mr. Ravalomanana had to be accepted. The AU decided to follow the will of the people once the legislative election was held. It emerged from the elections that Mr. Ravalomanana had overwhelming support. It was therefore recommended that the AU recognise the president. The Minister suggested that reconciliation still needed to take place as things could still explode in a few years time. The situation at present was relatively stable. Madagascar had ratified the AU's constitutive act. It was important that the AU keep an eye on the situation.

Discussion
Mr. C Eglin (DA) referred to the fact that the High Court which had declared Mr. Ravalomanana the winner had judges from the old government. He pointed out that the AU needed to learn a lesson from this since the court decision was done soon after the election. In the case of Zimbabwe and Zambia, the courts had taken long to take a decision. How this could be speeded up? The Minister said that citizens responded to the electoral law and the constitution and then complained. There needed to be a period between election and inauguration in which disputes could be dealt with. Electoral commissions needed to address this.

Mr. Bapela (ANC) pointed out that the AU had only recognised the president after the legislative elections. He wanted to know if this was not a flaw. He added that there had been work done by various organisations including the IEC on different electoral systems for Africa. Would these recommendations would be considered by the AU?

Mr. Hajaij (ANC) referred to the trade figures between Madagascar and South Africa and noted that it was in South Africa's favour. Could this be improved? Had Madagascar been encouraged to join SADC since it did not belong to a regional block? The Minister replied that Madagascar belonged to COMESA although this was not strictly a regional block. There was the feeling that it was keen to join SADC, but SADC had put a moratorium on accepting new members.

Ms. F Mahomed referred to corruption in the region and wanted to know what the AU's response was. How strong were civil society organs in the country? The Minister said that she was not an expert on corruption in the region and would not be able to comment. She suggested that the Pan-African Parliament should look at this. She felt that one issue to be addressed was the one concerning life presidents and what should be done about it.

Mr. Mackintosh (DA) asked for comment on bi-lateral relations with Madagascar since the South African embassy was closed there and they had a consulate in South Africa. He also wanted to know whether there was any arrangement with the DTI concerning investment in Madagascar.

The Minister said that South Africa would like to have missions in every African country, but that it was costly. Expansion was taking place, but it was slow. The closing of the embassy was done before she took office, but she added that it did send a wrong message out. South Africa could do more to encourage investment. It was not possible however to get a balance which favours Madagascar as it had no raw materials to export. Madagascar was however keen to have business links with South Africa.

Mr. Zita (ANC) suggested that the French system, where one had a president and a prime minister, might be a good one for leaders in Africa who wanted to remain in power for long periods.

The Minister said that some African countries had this system. It worked in only in instances where the two parties had good relations. In this case a good balance could be struck. Problems arose however when the president appointed the prime minister

Mr. Mokoena (ANC) asked if Madagascar had ratified the AU protocol. The Minister replied that they had ratified the Constitutive Act of the AU. The ratification of the protocol was however a slow process since countries seem to wait on each other. There was also dysfunctional governments and financial implications which further delayed the process.

Mr. Sithole (ANC) commented that it was important that the committee interact with other MPs and civil society from other countries. The Minister said that it was important that the committee interact with other MPs so that they had an idea of the different contexts, but that their work was primarily at home.

Mr. Bapela (ANC) asked if the AU was influenced by the US and France in recognising the new president since they had done so long before the AU.

The Minister said that it was true that the US and France had recognised the president first. It was important to realise though that the AU was independent.

Ms. Hajaij (ANC) enquired what the Minister's view was on the Cote de Voire since it was still unstable. The Minister replied that the AU was encouraging the present government and was keen to see the cessation of violence. The situation was very complex and economic integration was important.

Mr. Makanda (ANC) said that Africa had a history of non-interference in neighbouring countries. He asked whether there was resistance to interference as this would increase as part of the peer review mechanism of the AU.

Mr. Eglin asked if there was a mechanism to monitor the peer review system.

The Minister said that this was a process and emphasised that countries were interdependent. The Constitutive Act of the AU stated that the AU could intervene and that it was part of the Peace and Security Council's work to monitor the peer review system. Civil Society and neighbouring countries could report to the AU about any problems in countries.

SADC Protocol
The Chair pointed out that the committee had not yet ratified the SADC protocol on defence and security since it was not sure which protocol, the SADC's or the AU's took precedence. The Minister explained that the problem existed since regional blocks had been established before the AU. The SADC's one was thus more advanced. She pointed out that if there was any contradictions between the two, it had to be sorted out and that the AU's one should take precedence.

The Chair then asked the committee whether he could go ahead and sign the protocol so that it could be sent to the House for ratification.

Mr. Ramgobin (ANC) said that there was no need for a debate in the House, but rather just a report be given.

Mr. Eglin (DA) said that his party wanted a debate around the protocol. He added that a debate should not be a problem.

The Chair said that this would be sorted out later.

Meeting was adjourned.