United Nations Reform: Minister’s briefing

This premium content has been made freely available

International Relations

31 August 2005
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
31 August 2005
UNITED NATIONS REFORM: MINISTER’S BRIEFING

Chairperson:
Mr D Sithole (ANC)

Documents handed out:
None – Minister did not speak off notes.

SUMMARY
The Minister of Foreign Affairs briefed the Committee on the United Nations (UN) reform process. Consensus between member states existed, especially in the areas of development. However, there were six areas of disagreement around terrorism, disarmament, non-proliferation, the proposed Human Rights Commission, and the proposed peace-building commissions. Open-ended negotiations had begun between member states, although it was unlikely that consensus would be reached before the General Assembly summit on 14 September 2005.

This existing consensus between member states, as well as the initiatives to end the disagreements between states, had been seriously undermined by countries hoping to maintain the status quo. The 700 amendments proposed by America on the existing areas of agreement in the UN reform process also threatened the momentum. The African Union (AU) had appointed a Heads of States team to deal with disagreements on the continent. South Africa hoped that negotiations would once again continue with the G4 and other interested groups. The Minister also stated that Parliament would hopefully play an important role in the campaign for a permanent seat for South Africa on the Security Council and to raise support for UN reform as a whole.

All Parties in the Committee supported the Minister’s opinion regarding UN reform completely. Members were concerned about the disagreements. The outcome of the AU-G4 meeting in Addis Ababa had seriously threatened the reform process. Members also enquired whether steps could be taken against America, as its proposed amendments meant that it had backed out of agreements reached at past UN summits. They also wanted to know about South Africa and the Department’s strategy regarding winning a permanent seat in the Security Council. Lastly, they asked if public opinion could play a larger role in encouraging UN reform.

MINUTES
Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma began by asking what the Committee wished to be briefed on, as UN reform was an extremely broad subject.

The Chairperson requested that the Minister concentrate on the issues slowing down the reform process and how this process could be salvaged. He also asked her to concentrate on what South Africa and Africa’s opinions and responses were to the reform process and the outcome of the G4 meeting in Abuja. How would the outcomes of this meeting pose challenges to South Africa and the rest of the continent when dealing with UN reform? The AU had also set up a team of Heads of State to try to reach consensus in the continent and he requested that the Minister also cover this issue.

Mr M Ramgobin (ANC) further requested that the briefing be extended up to the present day. He requested that the Minister also deal with the role America had been playing in UN reform and to what extent American attitudes leant towards the UN’s initiatives of securing a safer world.

The Minister commented that she wanted to give a proper briefing to the Committee but she could not do so due to the media presence at the meeting. She was guided by the Committee’s invitation to the media on what she would include in her briefing. Today’s briefing would have to be more of a news briefing than a proper briefing.

The Chairperson pointed out that provisions existed to close a Committee meeting and these could be used for a future meeting with the Minister. All the Committee Members agreed that a closed meeting should be held in the future.

Minister’ briefing
Minister Dlamini-Zuma said that United Nations reform had been discussed for more than a decade. The recent phase of reform had largely been a product of the paralysis of the Security Council regarding the Iraqi War. It highlighted the real problem surrounding the structure of the Security Council and it gave momentum to the reform process.

The UN Secretary-General had appointed a panel of eminent members to investigate all aspects of the reform. This panel did so and reported back to the Secretary-General. He had drawn up a paper on this investigation which was distributed to the member states who then responded to it. South Africa worked within the context of the AU. The AU first responded to both the panel’s report as well as to the Secretary-General’s paper.

These responses where then followed by a debate in the General Assembly between mainly the permanent members. The President of the General Assembly had tried to synthesise these discussions in the hope of producing a consensus document that could be adopted at the summit the following week. In order to achieve this, he produced an outcomes document. There had been great reaction to this outcomes document; so he produced another one. However, both documents brought the President no closer to producing a final consensus document.

South Africa felt that it would be extremely difficult to gain consensus from such a large discussion by merely sympathising with what people said. Consensus had more hope of being achieved if a negotiating forum was created where groups that held common views could try and negotiate so that proper consensus could be reached. This negotiating panel had only been formed in the last week. A team of 32 countries had been put together to begin negotiations and to try to achieve consensus. However this forum was open-ended so all countries were welcome; yet they had the responsibility of trying to ensure that consensus was created.

These negotiations had started quite late as the UN summit would begin in two weeks. Negotiations aimed at producing consensus would take a long time especially if it surrounded difficult issues that would give rise to deadlocks. So it was doubtful that this consensus would be reached in time for the summit. A number of discussions had been held in the past. However, the consensus reached in these discussions had been undermined by America, who recently raised 700 new amendments. This basically meant that all the documents produced from the discussions had to be amended.

During the previous discussions, the team and the President of the General Assembly thought that there were vast areas of agreement existing between the member states. For example the issue of development enjoyed broad consensus. However, there were supposedly six issues that needed greater consultation. These six areas were around disarmament, proliferation, terrorism, the Human Rights Council, the peace building commissions and the reform of Secretariat management.

However, even in areas where there had been consensus, such as development; America had required a number of amendments. This meant that even the small areas of consensus had been questioned; making the attainment of agreements very difficult.

Two of the major problems that existed were on disarmament and non-proliferation. The real disagreement on this issue existed in three specific areas. Firstly, there had been no agreement on the Non-Proliferation Treaty review. These disagreements had an effect on the UN reform discussions. The second area of disagreement surrounded the fact that nuclear states only wanted to discuss the issue of non-proliferation and ignore the disarmament aspect. In contrast to this, non-nuclear states wanted a balance between non-proliferation and disarmament. The third area of disagreement was around the use of nuclear energy for peaceful means.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty rested on three legs; namely disarmament, non-proliferation and the use of nuclear technology for peaceful means. However the nuclear states only wanted to concentrate on non-proliferation. This meant that the non-nuclear states would not be allowed to gain any nuclear capability. At the same time, the ‘nuclear states’ did not want to begin disarmament.

South Africa believed that no country should proliferate or hold nuclear arms. However non-nuclear states should have a right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

The second area of disagreement surrounded terrorism. Agreement existed on how do deal with terrorism. Disagreement on the issue centred on the definition of terrorism. Many delegations felt that a legal definition of terrorism needed to be created through comprehensive negotiations in the General Assembly. These delegations felt that a distinction needed to be created between terrorism and the resistance of people who were merely fighting against foreign occupation and for self-determination.

However, this distinction only came from experience. Mr Tokyo Sexwale and former President Mandela both had had problems travelling overseas due to both still being classified as former terrorists. Delegations including South African therefore felt that a proper definition had to be created.

The third area of disagreement in the Untied Nation was around the question of the proposed Human Rights Council. This Council was generally accepted. However, there was disagreement over what its mandate and function should be, and whether members should be elected by a simple majority or by a two-thirds majority. Most member states felt that this disagreement needed to be resolved before the Human Rights Council was accepted and signed off. If this did not occur there was the danger of the elections of members excluding the less developed countries.

The Peace Building Commission was a new proposal that aimed at viewing peace from a much wider spectrum that included not only conflict resolution, but also what happened after a peace agreement had been signed. The Commission needed to look after countries involved in all the different phases of the conflict as often peace agreements were signed; yet they were unsuccessful as development was neglected. However some member states were also concerned over the way the Commission was envisaged. They felt that the five permanent members would have undue influence in the work of the Commission and this was not supported.

However there was general agreement on the creation of the Peace Building Commission but negotiations needed to occur on its actual structure. The second problem surrounding the Commission arose when one concentrated on the responsibility to protect. In extreme cases, such as genocide, there was general agreement that collective action needed to be taken against the perpetrators. However the problem arose when there was uncertainty over what the responsibility to protect entailed when protecting civilians. Those opposed to it agreed that there was a responsibility to protect in clear-cut cases but did not agree in unclear cases. They felt that a proper definition of what responsibility to protect should entail in these unclear cases needed to be created. So, general agreement existed but there was uncertainty over the grey areas.

The final area of disagreement centred on the reform of the management of the Secretariat. At the present moment the General Assembly enjoyed an oversight function over the activities of the Secretariat. There was disagreement over the proposed reform of the Secretariat as many felt this intergovernmental process was important but the new ideas entrenched the influence of the richer countries. For example, there was the proposal of an Ad Hoc Advisory Committee. This would be a small Committee within the Secretariat and countries felt that it would increase the influence of a few rich countries by removing the oversight function of the General Assembly.

These were the six areas of disagreement where further discussion needed to be held in order to try and reach some consensus. However the seven hundred amendments called for by America had backtracked all the other previous agreements. This meant that negotiations had to start from scratch. This made the future of a consensus very uncertain. It was highly unlikely that consensus would be reached before the UN summit starting on 14 September 2005.

A general reason for all these disagreements and problems was that some countries wanted to maintain the status quo. These countries would do anything to maintain this status quo. However, they were not courageous enough to come forward and announce that they were against UN reform. They rather put forward proposals that slowed down and even halted the reform process.

Some of these countries were part of the five permanent members. Other countries had bi-lateral issues with different countries. They wanted to keep the status quo as they felt that full reform, including the expansion of the Security Council, would help the countries they had issues with. For example in Africa, certain countries did not support the creation of permanent African seats. They rather wanted an increase in the number of rotating African seats. They therefore hoped to maintain the status quo by creating problems where consensus was virtually impossible.

With regards to Africa; the last meeting agreed that Foreign Ministers had not been able to sell the idea of a veto as well as an additional non-permanent seat for Africa. However the Foreign Ministers were also accused of giving up too soon. It was felt that Africa needed to continue to pursue these ideas and the Heads of State hoped to influence this process positively. The Minister was unsure if any progress had been made. It was possible that this progress could take place in the actual UN meetings so it was definitely not a lost cause. The Chairperson of the AU would in the future ask for a report from the Heads of State to see if they had succeeded and would then take it from there. The real worry was American amendments that undermined all the areas of agreement.

Discussion
Mr D Gibson (DA) said that the Democratic Alliance supported South Africa’s position on UN and Security Council reform entirely. He asked if the reform process had not become a dead duck. He commented that China’s refusal to include Japan in the Security Council, America’s reluctance and their new conditions, the weakening of the Secretary-General’s position and especially the rejection of the AU-G4 compromise were very unfortunate events. Would these events not delay the reform process for years to come? The AU-G4 problem was especially unfortunate as it converted the negotiation stance into a matter of principle and wrecked the possibility of reform. It meant that it could take a decade before reform could occur. He enquired whether something could not be done to solve the AU-G4 disagreement as well as some of the other problems mentioned above. If these were solved the spotlight could then concentrate on those trying to undermine the reform process in order to maintain the status quo.

The Minister responded that one would like to think the process was not a dead duck but agreed that some elements in the reform process had rendered it so. On Africa’s position; it was important that the arguments were that Africans had not done enough. The stakes had also increased by appointing the Heads of States to sell Africa’s position. If this belief was correct, South Africa hoped that these Heads of State would then do enough in the future. Africa could then collectively assess if they had done enough to convince the world of its position. Africa had not reached a dead end yet and the Minister was confident that progress could be made in the future

On the question of the other countries such as China, Japan and Germany; it was an extremely difficult situation. However what was certain was that if this opportunity were missed, this generation’s age would go down in history as one of missed opportunities.

It was also important that all excuses be removed so that those who were against reform could be recognized as at the moment the situation was extremely clouded. However a solution was possible if tactics were adopted that appealed to those countries blocking the process; and made both the non-powerful and powerful countries realise that democracy contained certain elements of accountability and responsibility. No government could claim these elements if not chosen by the majority of the population. In other words members of the UN needed to realize that for the whole world to tie itself to its decisions; it had to represent the entire world. This was especially important regarding the decisions of the Security Council which were binding on all. The UN membership and agenda had to be representative and reflective of all. Some of the five permanent members had realised this.

Everybody wanted a peaceful world and a peaceful world needed co-operation between all countries. On the basis of this belief UN reform stood a chance. However momentum had to be rebuilt. Countries that wanted to maintain the status quo did not want to be seen or stand up to the tide of other countries. So they were rather employing tactics to ensure that none of the proposals put forward would be agreed on by a two-thirds majority. However, there was a small window of opportunity to get reform back on track and if this opportunity were missed it would take more than a decade to rebuild the momentum the reform process once had. It was therefore important not to lose hope.

Mr S Huang (ANC) was concerned over the permanent seat for Africa. South Africa had hoped to win a permanent seat but had also faced competition from Egypt and Nigeria. What was South Africa’s strategic plan to gain confidence and support from the rest of the continent to gain a permanent seat? How was the Department planning to assist South Africa to achieve this goal?

The Minister answered that there was an important reason why South Africa had not promoted itself for a permanent seat. The reason was that the country felt it was much more important to first secure two permanent seats for Africa in the Security Council. It would not be useful for South Africa to begin a campaign for a permanent seat before these seats had actually been secured. South Africa and the Department definitely had a strategy and the capacity to win one of these permanent seats. Once the seats had been secured it would launch its campaign. The Minister hoped that Parliament was ready to play its part in trying to win a permanent seat for South Africa.

Ms S Camerer (DA) enquired about America’s amendments. Was the Minister able to indicate what the general thrust of the 700 amendments was? Was there a definable motivation behind them? She then asked why the consensus reached at the Ezulweni meeting had rejected the expanded role of the proposed Human Rights Commission.

The Minister responded that the only real thrust of the amendments was that they reflected American Foreign Policy. Eight amendments had been proposed for just the values of UN reform. There were basically amendments proposed for every paragraph in the document. So it was difficult to pinpoint a particular thrust. However if one used the issue of development as an example; America had never really supported multilateral initiatives. It preferred doing things bilaterally. Even their view on the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) pointed to this. America had always supported only certain countries, even taking G8 agreements and applying it bilaterally to only these countries.

Mr L Greyling (ID) commented that America’s seven hundred amendments were hugely disappointing. He commented that along with these amendments, America had also put forward demands. These demands were around the spread of democracy, terrorism and the opening of markets. To what extent was America pushing these demands and using the amendments as a bargaining tool to further them? Secondly, the negotiations on UN reform highlighted the hypocrisy of some countries. America had called for the spread of democracy around the world but their amendments prevented this democracy from spreading. His questions were; how did one negotiate with such a strong power? What particular levers of power did one have to negotiate with these types of tactics? Were there any pressure points facing America that could get them to back down? Lastly, America had gone back on agreements that had been reached at previous summits and conferences; was this legal?

The Minister highlighted the fact that South Africa did not disagree with the Americans regarding the issue of democracy. However South Africa did not agree with a "one size fits all" democracy. The type of democracy to be introduced in a country depended on the fault lines that existed in that country. Countries could not fit into specific democratic systems; for example the British and American systems. South Africa was a good example of this belief. It had come from a particular history and had particular fault lines it had to address; so a specific type of democratic system had to be introduced. However it was possible that in a hundred years’ time, future generations would realise that these fault lines had disappeared and the democratic system needed to be changed. In other words, South Africa did not disagree with the idea of democracy; just how it should be implemented.

The Minister also stated that any agreement that was not a Security Council resolution was not legally binding. It was obviously not desirable for countries like America to back out of their agreements; but there were no legal instruments that could be used to enforce these agreements reached at summits and conferences. Only Security Council agreements tended to be binding. The Security Council could enforce the implementation of their agreements through the use of a number of mechanisms such as sanctions.

Mr K Baphela (ANC) enquired if the AU was still involved in negotiations with the G4; or had these negotiations been abandoned after the Addis Ababa meeting? Were the Heads of States hoping to pursue this matter?

The Minister commented that it was unfortunate that the negotiations with the G4 ended up being seen as the South African-G4 negotiations. It was unfortunate that these negotiations had been portrayed as South Africa receiving something from the G4 and vice versa The only reason why South Africa pursued negotiations with the G4 was because their position was the nearest to that of South Africa. When one looked at the position of Uniting for Consensus one could see that they wanted to no permanent seats; only an increase in the rotating seats. The G4 was the only other group that, like South Africa, wanted two permanent seats and an additional non-permanent seat. South Africa felt it would have been wrong to invest all of its time in discussions with other groups that clearly did not have the same wishes for new permanent members.

However the discussions were not a contest between South Africa and the G4. Nothing was meant to be gained by either country from these discussions. South Africa would only have gained its wishes if the General Assembly had agreed on them with a two-thirds majority vote. Both South Africa and the G4 rather aimed to discover what type of package could be put together from their discussions that would gain the support of two-thirds of the General Assembly. The Minister felt that discussions should continue not only with the G4 but with all the other groups involved. These discussions would hopefully bring about a resolution that would benefit the continent. However these discussions could not take place until the Heads of State had carried out what was expected of them. If they did not reach some sort of consensus then future discussions would obviously be needed.

Mr Labuschagne (DA) acknowledged that one was faced with a relatively dismal picture at the moment with regards to UN reform. It seemed that one was faced with a package of reforms. However, was there any possibility of achieving a long-term solution by adopting a piecemeal approach? It was obviously not desirable to tinker with the reform process but would this not at least keep the momentum going?

The Minister replied that a piecemeal effort would be difficult as different countries wanted different things. For instance, some developed countries wanted an agreement on human rights issues in order for them to move in and protect citizens and then neglected the issue of development or non-proliferation. At the same time Western countries felt that if they helped countries to develop they might lose out on achieving their human rights aims. It was therefore difficult as countries disagreed over the issues they believed were important. These countries obviously felt that the issues they deemed important should be attended to first by the reform process. If all the countries agreed on which issues were important, one could begin trying to solve the less difficult issues first and them move on to the more difficult ones. However, there was always the danger of the developed countries abandoning this initiative before the more difficult issues had been dealt with; as they had already got what they had wanted.

Prof B Turok (ANC) enquired about the lack of legal enforcement that existed regarding agreements. The Anti-Apartheid movement realised that International Relations did not just consist of inter-state relations but also included public opinion. The impression one got from the G8 meeting in Edinburgh and when meeting people in Europe was that there was a ground swell of public opinion in favour of Africa. The evidence of public campaigns and collection of money for poverty in Africa seemed to strike a stronger cord for public opinion all over Europe. Public opinion could therefore be an important public arena. To what degree was there developing country unity around these issues; and how would this unity tap into to and foster international opinion on these matters? He had a feeling that America was painting itself into an isolationist corner with the attitude they had as massive international opinion would object to the undermining of the UN reform process. He asked to what extent arm-twisting was occurring by the big powers in the UN regarding these issues.

The Minister recalled that a previous G8 meeting in Genoa had a number of demonstrations with some of them turning violent. African leaders were asked what their opinions were regarding these demonstrations. They responded that they viewed these demonstrators as their allies although they did not agree with the violent methods they had used. This recognition highlighted the importance of public opinion. South Africa was a prime example of the important role public opinion played. The ground swell of opposition to Apartheid came from the ordinary citizens and the greater involvement of public opinion made it extremely difficult for the powers to act.

However everyone, including Parliament, could be blamed for not doing enough to mobilize public opinion around the issues of UN reform. Everyone, including the South African and Pan-African Parliaments could do more to put pressure on issues to move forward as long as this pressure remained peaceful and legal. Public opinion on Africa had changed slightly. Seven to ten years ago the view of Africa was that it was a bleak and hopeless continent but this had changed. Public opinion had acted as a catalyst for States to begin acting in the continent.

The Chairperson thanked the Minister for taking the time to come out of her Cabinet meeting to brief the Committee. He noted that this was the Committee’s second briefing on UN reform and a third briefing by the Department was planned for October. The Department would then brief the Committee on the outcomes of the General Assembly meeting and the compromises that hopefully would have been made. Future arrangements would also be made that would allow the Minister to give a proper briefing to the Committee. He urged the media to take into account what had been said and then report responsibly on these issues. Hopefully this would be balanced so that future meetings would not have to be closed to the media.

The meeting was adjourned.

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: