United Nations Millennium Review Summit: Department briefing

This premium content has been made freely available

International Relations

15 November 2005
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

 

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
16 November 2005
UNITED NATIONS MILLENNIUM REVIEW SUMMIT: DEPARTMENT BRIEFING

Chairperson: Ms F Hajaig (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Briefing on the Outcome of the UN Millennium Review Summit dated 15 November 2005

SUMMARY

The Department of Foreign Affairs presented a briefing on the outcome of the United Nations Millennium Review Summit. Countries in the northern hemisphere were mainly concerned with issues of security while development issues were mainly re-affirmations of previous decisions. Issues of disarmament and the expansion of the Security Council were not prominent. Members asked about the status of the Human Rights Commission, opinions on African representation on the Security Council, the right of veto and the role of the United Nations in addressing the special needs of Africa.

MINUTES

The Chairperson welcomed the delegation from the Department, who were to present a briefing on the outcome of the United Nations (UN) Millennium Review Summit. She said that she would also announce the names of the delegation to travel to Israel and Palestine. She advised that a delegation from Rwanda would arrive during the course of the meeting. They were on a study tour to observe how the South African Parliament conducted its committee work. She introduced Ambassador Nene, who in turn introduced his delegation. The members of the Portfolio Committee (PC) then introduced themselves.

Department of Foreign Affairs Presentation

Ambassador Nene discussed some of the recommendations to emerge from the Summit. He said that a trend had emerged that the countries of the north were mainly concerned with issues of security and terrorism. As regards development issues, decisions taken were merely re-affirmations of decisions taken at previous conferences.

Developing countries had had high expectations in the process leading up to the summit. Some had thought that these expectations were realistic, but others thought them too high. Different positions had been taken. A lot had been achieved in terms of development and security. The outcome document was the result of a series of consultations. The South African view was that there was something for Africa, and most outcomes reflected a balance.

He felt that peace would come through negotiations. He thought that there would be a benefit from the upgrading of human rights. There had been agreement on the special needs of Africa. He welcomed the decisions of the G8 countries, especially in the area of debt relief. He said that the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) had been affirmed.

However, he said, there were two glaring omissions. Firstly, the summit had failed to mention issues of disarmament. Secondly, any mention of the proposed expanded membership of the Security Council (SC) had been deferred. Continuing discussion would be held on this matter. Other issues had also not been discussed. He did mention that South Africa was co-chair of the Commission on Human Rights.

The African Union (AU) had mandated a committee of ten to discuss the issue of the SC seat. They met on 31 October and broad guidelines had been established. The AU disagreed over the question of veto rights. The committee of fifteen had been reconstructed and was working on the issue. A resolution would be re-entered at the appropriate time.

Discussion

The Chairperson welcomed the delegation from Rwanda. She congratulated them on the large percentage of women in their Parliament, which set a precedent for Africa. She then invited the PC Members to pose questions.

Ms S Camerer (DA) asked about the Human Rights Commission. By upgrading the title to a council indicated an elevated status. She asked how this was to be achieved, and asked about controversial appointments that had been made.

Mr SP Sibande (ANC) asked about the SC representation. He asked if there would be two permanent members from Africa as well as 2 non-permanent members. He said there was some uncertainty in this regard. He also noted that there was a dilemma on the disarmament question, especially in terms of nuclear disarmament.

Dr AN Luthuli (ANC) asked what South Africa’s position was on the issue of SC representation.

Ms MAA Njobe (ANC) asked about the endorsement of the lagging countries initiative. She asked that if the expectations had been so high, did South Africa do enough to get support; or was the normal resistance encountered from the powers that be?

Ambassador Nene said that the UN had many commissions, one of which was the Human Rights Commission. He said that there would be no security without development, and that there would be no development without human rights being enforced. He agreed that the title of "Council" was more important than "Commission", and did indicate an elevated status. The General Assembly had been mandated to set up the Human Rights Council, and he hoped it would be in place by the end of December.

He revealed that the African position was that there should be two permanent African members on the SC, and that these countries should have the full functions associated with the other permanent members. There should also be five non-permanent members, which would represent the five regions of Africa. There were currently three non-permanent African states on the SC.

The Ambassador said that the disarmament issue was the subject of a standing conference in Geneva. He said that this conference had spent the last seven years arguing over the agenda, and had never started working. There was a meeting on the Non-Proliferation Treaty every five years, but there had been minimal progress. In fact, he felt that this aspect had been a total failure. Nuclear weapons were a highly technical issue. Many African countries did not have the technical expertise to take part in these discussions, especially given the number of meetings of various natures which were held at the UN.

On the question of the veto, he said that South Africa’s position was in accordance with the Harare document. He believed that ultimately the UN would do away with the veto. In the meantime, the five veto-holding powers would need to agree on this issue, and he thought this would take a lot of time. South Africa would want the right to veto, should this still be in force.

He said that countries needed to be extracted from the trap of poverty. The provision of water and combating of disease were major issues. The world had the resources and a quick impact was needed to support the developing countries. The international community needed to provide this, but some countries were being left behind. Whether enough had been done was a question of interpretation.

The Ambassador said that there was a problem in formulating policy positions. Many meetings were held in quick succession, and by the time the resulting report had been analysed, the next meeting was already happening. Expectation often followed pressure. There was also the structural problem associated with the analysis being done by the AU. Issues in this regard had to be resolved before the sitting of the General Assembly in September 2006. Most issues coincided with the outcome document, and most issues enjoyed comparable results.

M Njobe said that the Department emphasised South African and Nigerian leadership. She asked if African countries were that united.

Ambassador Nene replied that Africa was the only continent on which all countries shared a common position. The Summit had emphasised that a united front was being maintained. Heads of State would like to preserve unity, but some states could change their minds.

Dr Luthuli said that there was a view that South Africa should take any opportunity to get onto the SC first. More powers, such as the veto, could be negotiated after this had been achieved.

The Chairperson said that she supported the MDGs and G8 decisions regarding development goals. These had re-affirmed the special needs of Africa and the ten-year capacity building program. She asked who monitored these initiatives, and if money was forthcoming from the G8 nations to finance this. She felt there was a lot of talk, but little money was flowing to where it was needed.

She said that the concept of terrorism could still not be defined. Thousands of people had been killed on a premise.

She said that the AU’s position was understood. However, some countries had been campaigning actively for the African SC seat on the strength of being the most populous countries on the continent. She asked about the role of the Pan African Parliament. This was a new body, and she wondered how it could be utilised. It could facilitate UN reforms and assist in support of quick impact initiatives.

The Ambassador said that there were many views. The Summit had shied away from decisions, and one would have to see what happened at the General Assembly. A summit had been held in 2000, but he wondered what had happened since. From an informal review it was apparent that clear guidelines were needed for developing countries, and he quoted sanitation as an example of an area to be addressed. Different solutions were needed for different countries. These solutions could be referred to specialist agencies.

The special needs of Africa had formed 60% of the discussion. British Prime Minister Tony Blair had adopted a special focus on Africa’s problems, and the UN had picked this up. Officials of five countries had been invited to join the G8, and information would be received on all the decisions reached. He wondered if South Africa featured in debt cancellation and many other issues. A detailed report would be available in 2006.

He agreed that some countries were campaigning for the SC seats. There were both positive and negative approaches undertaken. These moves had boomeranged against these countries as they were not abiding by agreements. This trend was working in South Africa’s favour. There was a role for regional organisations to play.

Mr Sibande asked if the Ambassador could elaborate on development. African states largely focused on agriculture. The European Union’s own agricultural sector was heavily protected by subsidies. This made it hard for African countries to compete.

The Ambassador said that the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was working towards hosting a conference in December. He said that often at similar meetings judgement was not passed until the closing minutes. Multilateral agreements were common, and President George Bush was pushing this issue. The WTO was making a serious study of this issue.

The Chairperson thanked the Ambassador and the delegation from the Department. She then continued with the second item on the agenda. She said that she would not be able to lead the delegation to visit Israel and Palestine as she would be at the Pan African Parliament. The following persons would form the delegation: Mr DJ Sithole, Ms KR Magau, Dr Luthuli, Mr Malubeki, Mr Sibande and Mr Skosana. An additional person would go along to represent the smaller parties, and the Chairperson was still waiting to be advised who this would be.

She said that another visit had been planned to Sudan. There was not enough money at present to finance both visits. The delegation had been formed and one would go, while the other might still materialise. Even the visit to Israel and Palestine was not 100% certain. Members would be informed of the situation.

She pointed out that this would be the last meeting for the year. The program for 2006 had not yet been drafted, and there was no time that day due to a caucus meeting later that morning. She urged Members to think about issues which should be addressed and any trips which should be undertaken. She drew the Members’ attention to the various South African peacekeeping troop formations in Africa. She felt that the PC’s oversight duty should be extended to investigate their situation. There might be invitations from other countries. She asked Members to submit their proposals to the Secretary by 23 November for inclusion in the draft program.

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: