African Union and Nepad: briefing

Meeting report

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AD HOC COMMITTEE
1 June 2004
AFRICAN UNION AND NEPAD: BRIEFING

Chairperson: Mr K Asmal (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Department presentation on the African Union and NEPAD

SUMMARY
In this joint meeting between the African Union and Foreign Affairs Sub-Committees, Ms Jessie Duarte, Department Chief Director: Africa Multilateral, briefed the meeting on the African Union and NEPAD. Members were concerned about how the business of the old Organisation for African Unity (OAU) was being wound down; and if there would be overlaps between the African Court on Human and People's Rights (ACHPR) and the African Court of Justice. They also wanted to know more about the Pan-African Parliament (PAP) and the Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOC), and the related costs for South Africa.

Minutes
Mr Asmal explained that the African Union and Foreign Affairs Sub-Committees were meeting together so that the Department of Foreign Affairs would not have to give the same presentation twice.

Department presentation
Ms Jessie Duarte, Department Chief Director: Africa Multilateral, briefed the meeting on history of the African Union (AU) since 2001, its aims, principles and structures, as well as relevant upcoming events.

Discussion
Mr S Pheko (PACA) asked how the business of the old Organisation for African Unity (OAU) was being wound down; for more details on the conflict in Eritrea and Ethiopia; and the "Renaiscent Pan-Africanism".

Ms Duarte explained that the OAU's commitments were being wound down and its understandings and protocols were being integrated. The conflict in Eritrea was of long standing. Currently Sudan was accusing Eritrea of hosting the Sudase Democratic Liberation Army (SDLA). There was discord around the border but communication had not broken down and all sides were discussing the problems. The Department would not take sides. Mr Pheko remarked that Kenya had been hosting the SDLA for longer.

Ms L Jacobus (ANC) asked for the composition of the interview panel for the 17 posts mentioned; the size of the African Court on Human and People's Rights (ACHPR); what countries where nominating judges for it; and about the financial implications of hosting such institutions.

Ms Duarte said South Africa's permanent representative would nominate South Africans for various AU panels once these had been established, but the invitation had not yet been extended. They had nominated five South African judges for the ACHPR that an African committee would select from. The host country bore some of the costs of hosting institutions. In the case of the Pan-African Parliament (PAP), for instance, South Africa would build the Parliament buildings and also pay for the business of the presidium.

Dr R Davies (ANC) requested that, since the programme of the PAP was being discussed, could the debates regarding its programme be made available? He also asked how the Department saw integration of gender into the programme of NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa's Development); for the Department's insight into the debate on the "development integration" versus the "one currency" approaches; and whether the Department was discussing the proliferation of Regional Economic Committees (RECs) within the European Union.

Ms Duarte undertook to make two AU documents available on the strategic framework and the proposed vision/mission. The Department was discussing an integrated approach but each region was taking a different approach. With regard to the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the Department believed that each region should look at its own resources. Member states, however, had bilateral relations outside of the region. SADC had not even begun to discuss a common currency, but in West Africa there was already a "sort of" common currency.

Best options were being discussed with the European Union (EU) but it was very difficult to separate the overlaps in the Regional Economic Committees as countries were all leveraging their own interests. She offered to present more on this in depth at another stage.

Prof B Turok (ANC) requested regular briefings on the Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOC), the smallest and most marginalised section, and the PAP as they were most important.

Ms Duarte said that South Africa was fairly unique in Africa in having a fairly robust civil society. In most African states, the church was the first organ of civil society. Trade unions, business groups, education interest groups and NGOs with a focus on food and agriculture might be included. In January, 116 such groups had attended an ECOSOC meeting. This indicated that ECOSOC could become a lobby group.

Ms Duarte acknowledged that ECOSOC might have a modest status in the end.

Mr D Gibson (DA) said that having two courts (the ACPHR and the African Court of Justice) followed the European model. He suggested that the latter would have little to do and would be an unsupportable expense. He asked how the AU would link with the EU and if there would there be delimitation of functions.

Ms Duarte said that many shared Mr Gibson's opinion that there should be one court. The one would be more administrative while the other would deal with cases where an individual (or group's) rights had been denied by his or her own country.

Sixty civilian observers and 300 military observers were supposed to go to Darfour and the Chair of the AU had been there for discussions. The Sudan and Chad governments had both had stated in reports that they did not want war. This indicated room for hope, but there was grave concern about the 150 000 refugees in Chad. It was unknown at this stage if the AU would have a formal link with the EU, but the former was likely to be some sort of linking instrument.

Dr P Mulder (FFP) whether only members states, or also civil society, would be part of these bodies.

Mr Asmal added that the courts did not replicate the European model exactly and the first court wasn't exactly entirely administrative - it would deal with breaches of treaties. For the time being therefore, the second court would be needed. Regarding the ACPHR, an important question was whether it could interpose between an individual and his or her own country. In the South African constitution, its own courts were the highest judgement structures.

Dr Mulder asked for some European parallels or comparisons. Mr Asmal said that the first complaint in the EU was against Ireland. There were some clauses that were optional for members, Russia and other countries had not ratified all the clauses. States were reluctant to bring actions against other states. If a country did not have a strong civil society, there was always more difficulty in accessing court.

Mr Duarte then continued with the presentation. Having covered with the African Union in 26 PowerPoint slides, she gave a presentation on NEPAD for another 20 slides. She identified flagship projects in the NEPAD Programme of Action and long-term goals for the next 20 years, as well as proposed new partnerships with the international community.

Prof Turok expressed doubt that Africa would be able to raise its own income - the success of NEPAD depended on this. Regarding national development strategies, he was not sure that South African leadership would be adequate because at the moment, South Africa co-ordinated rather than led. NEPAD critics said the structure was too technocratic. He wondered whether a broader development programme was built into its technical projects.

Ms Duarte said they did not generate policy, so other departments would have to answer whether leadership was adequate. NEPAD hoped to move strategy debates in the right direction, through cluster committees focused on human resource development, water, energy, agriculture etc. NEPAD had shifted its focus to costing programmes that would result in broader economic development. The World Bank was only interested in investments that promised a good return, and took communication, transport and infrastructure into account. There had been a lot of discussion around the developmental approach that needed foreign investment.

A Member asked how NEPAD envisaged ending poverty and inequality, given that the provision of food would create dependency. Member countries were encouraged to find resources in their own countries that would provide opportunities for all the population. 'African marketing' was very important.

Mr Pheko asked if foreign debt could be written off as it hindered poverty eradication. Ms Duarte said that many European countries had written off debt, but not private debt. These debts would be on both the EU and AU agendas.

The meeting was adjourned.