BRICS 10th Summit outcomes; Zimbabwe & Mali recent elections, with Minister & Deputy Minister

Meeting report

Introduction
The Chairperson said certain Members needed to leave as there were various committee meetings taking place at the same time, and requested that the presentations start immediately. He asked representatives from the Department to introduce themselves.

Presentation on BRICS
Ms Reginah Mhaule, Deputy Minister of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), said the topic of this year’s BRICS summit was African Shared Prosperity in the 4th Industrial Revolution. South Africa invited other African economic zones as well as leaders of SADC. The Department held various outreach projects for youth, women and the business sector. She invited the Deputy Director of the BRICS desk to proceed with the presentation.

Ms Tania Canelas, Deputy Director: BRICS Desk, DIRCO, said the BRICS summit was hosted from 25-27 July at the Sandton International Convention Centre.  On the margins of the summit outreach events were held which would be continued going forward and a wide list of African nations were invited. The theme of the summit reflected South Africa’s core priorities for the creation of an inclusive society and global prosperity for all with key focus on the trend of the 4th industrial revolution. The summit sought to align previous agreements, specifically Strategy for Economic BRICS partnership. South Africa was elected in 2015 to lead on two sectors, namely Manufacturing and Mineral processing as well as Science and Innovation frameworks. Since 2011 South Africa used its place in BRICS to advance the interests of Africa and the global south. On 26 July BRICS leaders adopted the Johannesburg declaration which had been the outcome document of the summit and had been negotiated during the fourth Sherpa meeting. The ministerial meetings which took place between January and June provided a strategy and set goals for members to reflect on for the Johannesburg Declaration. The declaration contained the three pillar of BRICS cooperation namely:

• Global political-security situation
• Global governance of financial, economic and political institutions
• People-to-people relations

In the declaration BRICS members agreed to reaffirm:

• the centrality of the UN and the role of multilateralism in global governance institutions,
• the importance of an inclusive multilateral trading system as embodied in the World Trade Organisation
• A commitment to strengthen multilateralism, which was also supported by BRICS outreach partners through their engagements.
• Advancing the development of promoting and protecting human rights to build a shared future
• The comprehensive reform of the UN, including the UN Security Council
• Their commitment to the WTO
• Implementation of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals, with focus placed on social, economic and environmental aspects of development, which notably included their commitment to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change
• BRICS industrial cooperation to foster greater convergence on industrial capacities and policies, new industrial infrastructure and standards, as well as small, micro-and medium-sized enterprises given the context of the fourth Industrial Revolution.
• Enhancing cooperation on peacekeeping
• Commitment to enrich dialogue on the global security environment, counter terrorism, ICT, major hotspots, transnational crime, peacekeeping and national security and development

The outcomes of the BRICS summit were informed by South Africa’s chairship priorities which included the establishment of a BRICS working group on the fourth industrial revolution through the BRICS Partnership on New Industrial Revolution and its Advisory Group consisting of representatives from the BRICS Ministries of Industry. In addition, the BRICS Network of Science Parks, Technology Business Incubators and Small and Medium Enterprises had been established. South Africa put forward the proposal of establishing a BRICS Vaccine Research Centre in the country to address common challenges in the field of health. Women were key to the development of society and the ongoing work of the BRICS Women’s Forum and the women’s alliance in this area was appreciate.
The next meeting of the forum would take place in the latter half of 2018. Member countries agreed to enhance mutual communication at the UN through a Working Group on Peacekeeping. There had been an initiative to establish a BRICS Working Group on Tourism to increase economic development and people-to-people relations, further contributing to increased intra-BRICS tourism. A BRICS Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Platform was acknowledged by leaders. This would ensure a consisted channel of communication between leaders even in period outside of the summit.

In line with the tradition of outreach first set by South Africa in 2013, the chairpersons of the African Union and leader of African nations were invited. Through the BRICS+ initiative leaders met with Argentina, who will be chairing the G20 summit, Jamaica as CARICOM chair and Turkey as chair of the Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation. Discussions on the global south with outreach partners included BRICS support for Africa’s industrial and infrastructure as contained in NEPAD and the AU Agenda 2063. As well as the implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development.

Ms Canelas, said the current President of the African Union, Mr Paul Kagame, highlighted the role of BRICS in bringing benefits to youth on the continent, stimulate change of free trade agreements, and transform how Africa does business with itself and the rest of the world. BRICS held promise to address challenges of environmental change, illegal trafficking of resources, need for human development and the development of job creation. BRICS had the potential to be a driver for infrastructure development and social cooperation between economies in Africa. The spill over of world markets made it important to focus on the expansion of the BRICS+ initiative, forging partnerships in innovation as well as driving complementarity, utilising the existing favourable environment of the BRICS Dialogue and building a new type of international relations based on mutual respect and consensus among partners. Three agreements were concluded on the margins of the summit, including the Memorandum of Understanding on Regional Aviation, the Memorandum of Understanding on the Environment and the host country agreement between Brazil and the New Development Bank on Brazil hosting the Americas regional centre of the bank. 

Discussion
The Chairperson congratulated the Department for making South Africa proud of what it is doing through the international events. Up to 2010 the country had not yet hosted such events and was not aware of the benefits and opportunities that these events would bring.

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) commended the Department on hosting the BRICS Summit. Parliament was not involved in the programme and not part of the discussion. He asked why that was the case. He asked if the BRICS members had discussed the trade deficit between member countries. What was the impact of incorporating as many members as possible through BRICS+. He asked if South Africa was remaining aware of the trade war between China and the USA in order to avoid becoming part of proxy wars through BRICS. What would this mean for South Africa’s relations with the USA given sensitivities around the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.

Ms D Raphuti (ANC) said it was an honour for South Africa to have hosted such an event. She commended the development of a women’s forum in which South Africa could take the lead in making women’s issues a priority. She said n peace keeping missions there were less women involved in operations and requested that the Department work to rectify this disparity, especially given the 100 years celebration of Albertina Sisulu. She applauded the MOU on Aviation to enhance the efficiency of the sector.

Ms T Kenye (ANC) reiterated sentiments of Mr Mokgalapa on the Committee not being invited to attend the BRICS Summit. She commended the commitment to multilateralism by BRICS members expressed in the Johannesburg declaration. She was concerned that there was no mention of the African Peer Review (APRM) Mechanism, and asked why it was not being taken seriously?

Ms S Kalyan (DA) said the presentation lacked detail on implementation. She added that the committee needed to provide oversight at the BRICS meeting and therefore should have been invited. She asked what the peacekeeping working group’s relation would be to the African Union and its mandate of peacekeeping.
She asked what the foreign affairs spokesperson platform would do and whether it was not a duplication of the function of heads of state. Would this be a dual function? Would it be a decision-making platform?
She asked what the expansion of BRICS through the BRICS+ does to the original agreement between member countries.
She asked for clarity on what the presentation meant when it mentioned combatting protectionism. She asked how much progress had been made towards the reform of the UN and what South Africa had done to contribute. She pointed out that the presentation mentioned the need for a political solution in Syria; was that discussed and what steps would be taken?

Ms R Lesoma (ANC) asked how crude oil in Africa could be used for economic development to ensure that African citizens benefited.

The Chairperson thanked the Minister for her leadership in hosting a very successful event. The 2010 big events showed South Arica’s ability and capacity. He asked why the theme of the summit had been BRICS in Africa? He found it odd that many African states were invited. Would there be a BRICS in Asia as well? The African continent was an important market for other powers around the world. Sovereign African states had an opportunity to dictate the mandate within organisations such as these. Within BRICS there were large markets which any country could take advantage of and the African continent made up a huge part of the market given Continental Free Trade Area (CFTA). Each of the BRICS members needed to take BRICS to the people, particularly young people. It was important that young people were drawn from the population to send out to the world as representatives of South Africa. The Minister had the necessary resources to lead such a project. He asked whether South Africa was able to pursue its national interests in business through taking BRICS to the sector, albeit for mutual benefit from trade.
He said in the SADC parliamentary forum it was discussed that the industrialisation pace of Africa had been too slow. It had been suggested that regional markets pull together and specialise in their comparative advantages to bring skills together and pursue development. Within BRICS, South Africa had not even reached the third industrial revolution hence the country would only be consuming what other were producing.

Minister of the DIRCO, Ms Lindiwe Sisulu, said that she had been a member of Cabinet since the launch of BRICS but had never been invited to the summit. Only ministers relevant to the mandate of the summit were invited, namely telecommunication, trade, finance and health. The only individuals who were part of the closed BRICS meetings had been herself and the President of South Africa. Summits were by their nature a closed community. However, because South Africa hosted the event it ensured that forums were created for relevant stakeholders e.g. an academic forum for heads of all academic institutions, a women’s forum which was not concluded and a youth forum which resulted in a youth declaration. She suggested that a parliamentary forum should be stablished for BRICS at future summits. But only heads of states were invited to BRICS.

South Africa had taken the opportunity of hosting to popularise BRICS and the new paradigm of equal cooperation in the multilateral system that it operates on. Even the UN Security Council did not have that level of equality which was dominated by powerful nations. She said in the next BRICS summit there could be a portfolio committee suggestion that a parliamentary session be hosted as well. The first priority for South Africa was that the guests were looked after. She suggested that the Committee could perhaps take the responsibility of protocol in future due to their expertise in that area.

She said the question on women would be answered by the Deputy Minister as she was not in the room when it had been asked.
The APRM had been institutionalised in the AU and South Africa had been a driver in this area. A competent person had been appointed to run the initiative and she said a report could be presented to the Committee on the APRM. In time the APRM could become measuring stick that could more authentically rate African countries, rather than simply external rating agencies. An implementation programme would be compiled and submitted to the Committee.

On the spokesperson’s platform, the Sherpa meeting happened first to put together documents to prepare ministers for the summit. Ministers then met to refine the agenda. The discussions which take place in between summits would be assisted by the spokesperson’s platform.
Protectionism was the opposite of multilateralism, such as America first policy with everything else as secondary. South Africa believed in multilateralism with mutual respect and benefit without punitive measures. Tariffs were negotiated with those affected. Small countries suffered from trade wars and protectionism and this was not good for the world. SADC had a session on the UN reform process particularly in the Security Council because the majority of issues that were discussed related to Africa. Every region in the world had to be equally represented at within the organisation. Various African countries were finding crude oil. South Africa relied on other countries for its oil. Ghana and Nigerian had given South Africa favourable terms for acquiring oil resources without which consumers would suffer.

South Africa needed to take ownership of the place it held in international organisations like BRICS and include Africa to expose the world to the continent. To make foreigners understand what Africa and South Africa has to offer. In BRICS the development of Africa remained central to discussions. She said the country gained attractiveness and partnerships through the BRICS summit. A BRICS bank and virtual vaccine centre were some of the gains made. The world was in the 4th industrial revolution and South Africa had to leap frog. In most countries robotics had taken over the work done by people, hence the country needed to take a protectionist approach so that jobs could be protected and to prevent ‘gadget dumping’. The African Free Trade zone had been established.

Ms Kalyan interjected and said the trade agreement needed to be ratified for the agreement to become effective. She asked if the Minister had received a note on this matter.

Minister Sisulu said she had received a note and the topic had been discussed at the SADC meeting. South Africa was ready to ratify the agreement and would do so once the Pan-African parliament had given its approval. She said that she would like to present to the committee on the discussions which were had in the Pan-African parliament.

Ms Kalyan asked what South Africa’s plan was now that it had been elected to the UN Security Council?

Ms Raphuti asked the Minister to comment on the women’s forum.

Minister Sisulu said that the women’s forum did not complete its work at the summit, but this could still happen in future and submit its report.

The Chairperson was reminded by the Content Advisor that there was a parliamentary forum which was attended by the Thani Modise in 2016. He said the committee was not always aware of all the existing structures.

Presentation on the Zimbabwean elections
The Minister said that the information provided came from South African election observers. South Africa had been represented in the observer mission by three former officials.  SADC deployed an electoral advisory council to Zimbabwe in March and subsequently launched the observer mission.  According to the Zimbabwean constitution elections were required to take place no less than 30 days of end of the 5-year presidential term. The president set the date by proclamation following consultation with the Zimbabwean IEC. President elect Mr Emmerson Mnangagwa set the date of 30 July for presidential, parliamentary and local elections to take place. The observer mission found that right of political parties to function and campaign had been upheld, peaceful elections were free, fair and transparent. State owned media had afforded free opportunity for divergent views to be expressed. The mission concluded that the elections had been free and fair. One party had since launched a complaint with the constitutional court and the verdict had been expected to be released the following day.

SADC was led by its own constitution and abounded by the outcome of the mission findings. The AU, EU and commonwealth missions all had come to the same conclusion respectively. She expressed disappointment that a member of a contesting party had declared themselves the winner independently, resulting in protests and deaths. The Zimbabwean president had apologised for the deaths and pledged to establish a commission of inquiry into the incident. SADC awaited the outcome of constitutional court case, however, according to the law Emmerson Mnangagwa was the president elect of Zimbabwe.

Mr M Maila (ANC) said due to the court case the Committee was limited in what could be said about the matter. He asked what the work permits status of the advocates dealing with the case was. The candidate which declared themselves the winner needed to be condemned in the strongest terms. Another candidate had claimed to be tormented by Zimbabwean authorities when nothing was happening, to make it appear that all was not well in the country. The court case would clarify what had taken place. He expressed concern about the trend of candidates in elections stating that they would not accept the election outcomes; this contributed to unnecessary chaos after elections. SADC and the country needed to have a strong stance on such cases.

Mr D Bergman (DA) expressed concern over the behaviour on both sides. There seemed to be a ZANU-PF ANC story and a Movement for Democratic Change alliance story. How many votes were cast and how many were counted? Can these numbers be released? Were all V11 forms collected and signed by all party agents in the polling stations? When would the inquiry into the killings be made? He pointed out that South Africa had a non-interference policy except in the case of Israel, but should South Africa be judging the issue to quickly?

Ms Raphuti asked what the SADC and AU position was on the candidates who had declared themselves the winners which had contributed to the chaos that followed.

Ms C Dudley (ACDP) appreciated South Africa’s usual neutral stance but said that for the sake of peace incoming governments were legitimised as in the case of the military coup. She recommended that the issue be dealt with diplomatically. People were fighting for themselves. South Africa wanted the voice of the people to come through.  South Africa had placed itself in a good position and could assist the new president in pursuing a peaceful mandate.

Ms Kenye also asked what the stance of SADC was on candidates that disputed election results. The leaders of the MDC had said that they had not signed the V11 forms.

Ms Kalyan said the SADC summit called for the lifting on all sanctions on Zimbabwe and asked how South Africa would assist in facilitating that process? She said in the preliminary mission statement South Africa supported the motion for 60 quota seats for women in the National Assembly, but that quota expired after the term of the incoming parliament. If Zimbabwe did away with this quota, what would the implications of that be? The candidate who had declared himself the winner had sought asylum in Zambia but was refused. If he came to South Africa, what would the outcome be? She asked when reports were submitted to Members that they did not include comments indicating emphasis on certain parts over others.

Ms L Mpumlwana (ANC) asked if all external observers agreed that the elections had been peaceful, were there any differing voices?

The Chairperson said that parties in elections needed to submit themselves to the electoral board. It could not be so that some candidates declared themselves winners independently. He asked whether the ZANU PF, MDC and others had signed a document stating that they would accept the ruling of the court. How had the AU, SADC and other forums already made their pronouncements if there was still a court challenge? If the MDC alliance rejected the court pronouncement it could lead to civil war and severe clamp down by the government. What would happen if the ZANU-PF refused to accept the court ruling if it was not in their favour, they could refuse to leave office. He said parliament should support the South African executive in creating conditions of peace by accepting the outcome of elections. If the elections do not favour them political parties could become rebel groups. Parties were opponents, not enemies, it should be the superiority of ideas that win the hearts and minds of people. Enemies were not citizens of the same country and could only be removed by violence, but strategic opponents needed to defeat one another other politically. South Africa needed to assist in that regard because the country had a similar history. He emphasised that the continent called out for the leadership of South Africa.

The Minister emphasised that the Committee should not focus on parties but see themselves as representatives of the South African people. A culture had been created in South Africa where if an election was lost it was accepted. She pointed to the example of the ANC’s loss of the Nelson Mandela Bay metropolitan to the DA. The defeated party needed to work harder. Africa had to begin responding to the democratic processes in that way.

She apologised to Ms Kalyan for issuing a document which highlighted certain points. The document referred to had not been a government document but was put together by the DDG of Africa for the SADC conference. She said that work permits for the advocates working on the case had been issued in due time. She said the Portfolio Committee had to take the lead in accepting what the court decided. South Africa did not want sanctions on Zimbabwe and wanted peace and development. The country deserved the democracy that South Africa had. The court case limited the committee’s outcomes. But should there be any serious repercussions after the case was finalised the government would take lead from the Committee.

In terms of the constitution of Zimbabwe the South African government recognised the new president until the court gave reason to think otherwise. The candidate which declared himself a winner was an impediment to the peacefulness of the process and she expressed her regret at the violence. She suspected that people who had gone out into the street were rejoicing but then found that their party had not won which resulted in anger and violence. According to the law no one could declare a winner other than the judicial body. She did not comment on the MDC’s contestation of the election because there was a court process still underway. Political overflow into a discussion like that should be limited. She said in India there were no party affiliations in the defence and international relations committees, everything was guided by national interest and security. It was not an ANC ZANU-PF situation but had been a concern for South Africa for a long time and the world had ignored it.

She responded to Mr Bergman and said Israel was not on the table for discussion. She expressed regret that live fire had been used during the protest and hoped that the inquiry would find the root of this issue.

The Minister requested to take leave for a Cabinet meeting.

Presentation on Mali presidential elections
Mr G Tswenge, Chief Director at DIRCO, said Mali run-off elections were held on 12 August between leading candidates of first round. On Monday 20 August the final results were announced. The incumbent president received about 57% of the votes and the opposition leader had received about 33%. On 29 July 24 candidates had taken part in the first general election. The security situation remained fragile in the country, with a perpetual state of emergency in place. Key observer missions from AU, ECOWAS and the EU took note of the context and in their announcements concluded that elections were held under acceptable conditions with now tangible evidence of gross irregularities. Both sides had launched complaints of irregularities, and the constitutional court concluded that it would make the final announcement. Some complaints were rejected. The turnout had been 42% of the voting population during the first round and 32% at the second. There had been 8 million eligible voters but only 3.5 million voters participated. This had reflected the security situation, but elections also took place during the raining season making it difficult for voters to get to voting stations. The new president was set to be inaugurated on 4 September. Announcements had also been made by political parties that they would reject the election results, however this had not translated to fatal protests, only one polling station manager had been killed.
Mali has a strategic position in the region politically. Up to five terrorist organisations were based in the central and northern part of the country and these were heavily affected by low voter turnout. Mali shares its borders with seven other countries in the region. Instability in the country has repercussions for all other stakeholders in the country. South African relations with Mali had been cordial and conducted through a joint commission for cooperation. The situation in the country was not ideal for expanding economic activity however South Africa’s economic diplomacy initiatives had continued. Several South African countries were operating specifically in the gold and minerals sector. This cooperation could be further deepened once security in the country improved. He said South Africa was guided by the positions of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the AU on the election outcomes.

Ambassador EX Makaya, Deputy Director General of DIRCO, highlighted the importance of Mali to South Africa. The security situation had resulted from the collapse of Libya which contributed to arms flowing into the country. The continent needed to ensure that Mali did not fall. The UN peacekeeping forces were present and all countries needed to provide support. South Africa had played a critical role to assist the government in Mali. Malian elections were held under abnormal security conditions and it was important to ensure that the instability did not move down to the south of the continent.

Mr Bergman said terrorism was already in Mozambique and close to the South African border. He applauded ECOWAS for its progression and milestones, particularly with the advent of Sahel. He said the court case for the election had been lost due to a technicality because the complaint was filed after the timeframe. He said the international community needed to ensue everything was done to ensure peace in the country. Since both parties had complained about irregularities it should be the responsibility of the African community to ask both parties to support their constitution. South Africa had to play a greater role of mediation so that Mali could face the real threat of terrorism.

Ms Kenye said South Africa was a champion in peacekeeping. Weapons were coming from outside the country from Libya, which highlighted the role of the international community. Given that the complaints had been rejected dates needed to be clarified when opposition parties would take further action.

Mr Mpumlwana asked if rebels were against the Malian government or just using the country as a base, were they working for its downfall? Given the French influence in Mali and the economic interest France had in the region, were the rebels anti-France? Who would benefit if Mali fell?

Ms Raphuti said there was pattern of ungovernableness on the continent, who was perpetuating that? What was the role of AU, ECOWAS and the UN? Africa was in a state of emergency. The rebels also threaten South Africa. What were the consequences for presidential candidates who disrupted the electoral process and incited war. She suspected external influences for the chaos. The electoral candidates in question were still young. Nelson Mandela entered government at 76 and brought years of wisdom with him. The wisdom of matured leaders on the continent was being undermined. If rebels were allowed to undermine elders it would spell danger.

The Chairperson emphasised the importance of leadership and strong democratic institutions and a respect for electoral systems and human rights. South Africa needed to criticise itself for a lack of self-criticisms in Africa where there was a governance deficit. He asked why a second round of elections were held in Mali? Did one of the candidates contest the results and had they accepted the ruling of the constitutional court? If Mali was in a state of emergency there could not be development and a misuse of power. He recommended that all intergovernmental bodies such as the AU, ECOWAS and the UNSC to flesh out a strategy to eliminate the terrorist threat in Mali. The threat often became an excuse for governments to exert power without impunity.

On the point raised by Ms Raphuti, he suspected a third hand behind the conflicts in the country. Why would the leader of a party reject the outcomes of elections and subsequently become armed to exert control? Where had this support come from? Leadership of the continent was vital.

Ambassador Makaya said terrorism and extremism were big challenges for the continent.  As well as those who were demanding certain powers from national government that they believed were not being afforded to them. In Nigeria Boko Haram arose because certain areas of the country felt underserviced and rose up. Extremists used legitimate grievances to exploit power. If ISIS was outrooted in the middle east would they come to Africa? In Mozambique there had been reports of extremism. People in the northern part of the country felt they were not heard hence that was fertile ground for extremism. South Africa had to be very concerned about what was happening in Mozambique.

He responded to Mr Bergman’s proposal that South Africa should play a role in the Mali peace process; historically the process had been led by Algeria and South Africa has supported that. That process had led to a ceasefire agreement but that never held. How could better governance be ensured? Countries needed to strengthen institutions for democracy which were credible and respected, which were not seen as working for the ruling party. There were mechanisms for conducting democratic election of the AU and SADC which could act as guidelines.

He responded to Mr Mpumlwana and said that there was no information on whether the rebels sympathised with France. France had arrested the situation through deployment of forces even before ECOWAS. For 15 years South Africa made Mali a priority, and Mali had purchased police and army equipment from South Africa at favourable prices. In the case of Zimbabwe, political parties had signed a code of conduct and a peace pledge, however politicians violated agreements and make comments which were inflammatory. But South Africa took a dim view of these comments which could lead the country into severe conflict.

Mr Tsengiwe explained that Mali had an electoral system which worked to allow a second round if there had been no outright winner in the first round. Complaints were launched after the first round, but they were rejected because the deadline for submission was now met. However, if the first-round issues were not dealt with it could be expected that there would be problems with the second. The candidate which said they would reject the outcome had done so after the first round.

The Chairperson asked if that candidate had accepted the court ruling?

Mr Tsengiwe responded that no report had been received yet. The candidate’s response has been paralyzed due to public holidays in Mali. The timing of the constitutional court announcement did not allow the candidate to take initiative by inciting protest. He did not believe there would be significant protest against the ruling by the opposition.

Committee business
The Chairperson asked that the Committee Secretary to get the programme for Parliament so that it could be sent to Members. He also asked that adoption of minutes be brought up to date.
The draft report of the joint oversight mission to Namibia would be sent to Members and the Committee would look specifically at the terms of reference and outcomes. That would allow the committee to make an informed recommendation on clause eight of the public property act. The planned joint meeting was not possible at that point as the Portfolio Committee on Public Works had not discussed the matter yet.

The meeting was adjourned.