South Africa’s participation in High-Level meetings of the 77th Session of the UN General Assembly; with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

SA's participation at UNGA 77

Deputy Minister's opening remarks

Mr Alvin Botes, Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), said that Mr Zane Dangor, Director-General (DG), would be presenting to the Committee. The presentation would reflect on a range of high-level meetings in which the DIRCO had participated during the 77th Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA 77), from 19 to 26 September, in New York. It was the first in-person session of the Assembly since 2020 due to COVID-19. The high-level participation of member states provided the opportunity to deliberate on common challenges facing all countries, including the prevailing geopolitical contestations and new and emerging threats.

The theme for UNGA 77 was "A Watershed Moment: Transformative Solutions to Interlocking Challenges." The theme resonated with the multitude of global challenges that all member states faced. The high-level meetings and site events that South Africa had engaged with were aligned with its foreign policy priorities for the entirety of the UNGA 77 sessions and the general debate. Within this context, the South African delegation participated and contributed to the high-level discussions on education, global health, sustainable development, climate change and peace and security.

He said that there had been interdepartmental collaboration with the Department of Health, the Department of Education, the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment, and the Presidency, who formed part of the high-level delegation. The DIRCO had participated in a number of high-level meetings and side events, including a meeting on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, which was co-hosted by South Africa, Sweden, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Foundation. This event was on re-imagining health workforce development for Africa’s health security, and was co-hosted by the African Union (AU) and South Africa.

South Africa also participated in the ministerial meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), an informal meeting of heads of state and government on climate change, and a Brazil-Russia-India-China-SA (BRICS) ministerial meeting that South Africa hosted. There was also a meeting of the AU’s Peace and Security Council, and an interactive dinner hosted by India for a cross-regional group of foreign ministers to informally discuss the global political situation and issues of common interest. UNGA 77 was concluded by South Africa’s participation in a Ministerial Committee meeting on Palestine and a meeting on Women’s Leadership in Multilateralism.

He pointed out the context in which UNGA 77 was convened. It had been convened against the backdrop of unprecedented geopolitical contestations, which had very serious repercussions on the UN development agenda and multilateral cooperation. The general debate was overshadowed by the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine which had widened divisions at the UN, and heightened the levels of uncertainty globally. On a positive note, he noted that there was a fortified voice that had arisen from the developing south, notably Africa, Latin America and Asia, which deplored the polarisation of the United Nations and called strongly for the upholding of the principles of the UN Charter and efforts to strengthen multilateralism within the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The developing south had opposed the mounting pressure on member states to take sides and had advanced strong calls for peaceful negotiations towards a political settlement to end the war.

Despite the outlined institutional challenges facing the UN, including the need for reform -- in particular, the reform of the security concept -- it was the submission of DIRCO that the UN remained the most viable global mechanism for advancing a multilateral engagement to address the challenges that threaten global peace and security. It was the most able instrument and organisation to address the impediments to sustainable development, to be the proponent for the promotion and the protection of human rights, and act as the divine guard of international law upon which the UN Charter was predicated. Therefore, South Africa would continue to participate actively in the UN system to contribute to discussions towards the revitalisation of the UN and to advance efforts to make it fit for purpose and to strengthen its results to build a global system of government based on standardised international norms and predicated on the rule of law.

In conclusion, he said, it was the submission of the South African Government that the UN was the most important global vehicle to address the South African triple challenges of poverty, unemployment and inequality. These were challenges that had a universal effect, affecting the less developed countries in the global south and most developing economies. South Africa maintained the view that international peace and security had a dialectical relationship between the cessation of hostilities and sustainable development, and DIRCO believed that the resolution of international conflict should be peaceful and in accordance with the tenants of the UN Charter and the principles of international law which underpin its significance in the global system of government. The UNGA was thus a critical forum for heads of state and government, ministries of foreign affairs and international relations and amongst other stakeholders to engage deeply in the advancement of a foreign policy dispensation that was based on social justice.

DIRCO report-back on UNGA 77

Mr Zaheer Laher, Acting Chief Director: UN Peace and Security, DIRCO, said the presentation would serve as a report of the General Debate and High-Level Meetings of UNGA77 that took place from 19 to 26 September at the United Nations Headquarters in New York.

In the general debate, South Africa engaged on the following issues:

• UN reform, and the strengthening of a rules-based international multilateral system;
• The economic and socio-economic impact of COVID-19; 
• The impact of climate change;
• International peace and security; and
• Palestine, Western Sahara, Cuba and Zimbabwe. 

He listed some of the meetings and side events in which South Africa had participated:

• Transforming Education Summit;
• Foreign Policy and Global Health;
• Meeting of the Committee of African Heads of State on Climate Change (CAHOSCC);
• Ministerial meeting of the NAM;
• Ministerial meeting of the African Union Peace and Security Council (AUPSC) on combating terrorism and violent extremism;
• Ministerial meeting of African Women Leaders Network.

Bilateral meetings were held with the foreign ministers of France, the Netherlands, Cuba, the Russian Federation, Nicaragua and Latvia.

See presentation

Discussion

Ms T Msane (EFF) said she had hoped that the presentation would go into detail on the UN reform. She asked how it could be expected that the countries with veto powers would have the political will to make these changes, despite being the oppressors. Why did they, the countries that wanted the UN to reform, not amend whatever was blocking the UN reform? Could the structure of the contract that would allow for UN reform not be restructured? On the United States’ disregard of the law in South Africa, she asked what DIRCO’s stance on this was. Why were these threats of terrorism being allowed?

Mr T Mpanza (ANC) referred to the warning of terror attacks in Sandton and the trend of the United States to make pronouncements on behalf of South Africa, and asked if, when engaging as members states, there was a sense of mutual respect amongst them, irrespective of whether they were developed countries, developing countries or super powers? He said that theory and practice were two separate matters, and that there was an element of not respecting the sovereignty of other countries. The United States had been imposing sanctions on people suspected to be linked to ISIS, particularly in Durban. How could this type of conduct continue while these bilateral and multilateral discussions and engagements were taking place amongst member states?

Mr D Moela (ANC) took over chairing the meeting, as the Chairperson was experiencing technical difficulties.

DIRCO's response

Mr Dangor responded to Ms Msane’s question on the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (P5), and said they may have many differences, but they did share a collective interest in keeping the status quo and preserving the Security Council and the power dynamics as it was. This was why the issue of political will was so important, because if the political will could be galvanised amongst the P5 around reform, it would be an important step. The issue of the rules of the Charter then came into play. This was why the text-based negotiations were so important, as they allowed for negotiations to emerge not only from the African common position and other blocks' common position, but also to look at how the Charter could be changed to avoid a situation where changes to the Security Council could be done only if there was unanimity among the P5. He said they would eventually need to confront the fact that those clauses may need to change if they were actually going to move substantively with UN Security Council reform. A document was submitted in 2019 or 2020 at the request of the Secretary-General, where some of these issues had been raised specifically around the international legal dimensions. He agreed that there needed to be engagement with the political issues, but also with the legal issues associated with the Charter.

On the recent alerts on terror by the United States, he said the Department was engaging with the United States government. It understood that the US had a legal obligation from the side of the mission that if they came across any information that they deemed may to be a threat to United States citizens, they had to get an alert out to US citizens in any country, including South Africa. Notwithstanding this legal obligation, they had to liaise with South African agencies to ensure that evidence was packaged in a way that was credible and did not cause undue alarm. In the week they issued the terror alert in South Africa, they did the same in Ghana and Nigeria. He assured Members that the Department did engage on these issues, asking for some alignment.

He asked Mr Laher to comment on the consequences for South Africa -- the evidentiary threshold of the Security Council, which was very low to act in a preventative way. This threshold was much lower than what would be required domestically.

Mr Laher said the United States placed individuals and entities on the terror list, and this was the first time South Africa had been placed on the Office of Foreign Assets Control list. This was a national issue, so they had not been placed on any international list. Member states had no obligation to implement any of the sanctions, but United States businesses and government entities would have to implement those sanctions. The United States had now indicated that they intended to list the same names of those individuals on the UN terrorist list, which had very different implications in terms of the obligations of member states. Any member of the P5 could put forward the names of individuals or entities they wished to place on the list, and member states would then be obligated to implement the sanctions. Unlike the South African legal system, where an accusation would require proof tested in a court of law, there was no such mechanism within the United Nations Security Council. All that was required was for a member state to present the names and the allegations, and if no other Security Council member objected, the name of that individual or entity would be placed on the terror list. As a result, the UN terror list had been there for a long time without these individuals having gone through some kind of legal process to test the allegations that had been brought forward. The implication of this was that despite the fact that South Africa was not a member of the Security Council, any member state of the UN would be required to implement the decisions of the Security Council. This reflected the challenges that member states faced -- the undemocratic nature of the UN Security Council and the urgent need for reform.

Deputy Minister Botes reiterated the importance of multilateral and bilateral relations to ensure the hegemony of South Africa in terms of its foreign policy disposition.

On the Russia-Ukraine war, he said that South Africa had been non-aligned in terms of its posture, which had come with a degree of criticism. In October, South Africa was elected to the Human Rights Council of the UN, receiving 182 votes, which was the highest vote any country had received for that particular purpose. That implied that South Africa’s principled posture was appreciated. South Africa, at all times, needed to earn its stripes concerning the advancement and implementation of its foreign policy disposition. Members would appreciate the contribution that the DIRCO had made with India at the level of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) concerning the temporary waiver of intellectual property rights so that Africa would be able to manufacture its own vaccines.

He added that South Africa did not simply err on the side of caution, but on the side of the most vulnerable. It stood on principle, even when criticism was against some of its foreign policy. He added that it was also important to ensure that South Africa's national interests were not put on the back burner while advocating for a just and fair world system.

The meeting was adjourned.