US/South Africa Relations: briefing by Department of Foreign Affairs

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
19 September 2007
US/SOUTH AFRICA RELATIONS: BRIEFING BY DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Chairperson: Mr D Sithole (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Department of Foreign Affairs SA-US Bilateral Relationship
Relations between South Africa and the United States of America

Relevant document: GCIS Bua News article: SA, US mature enough to differ in some areas (Appendix 1)

Compressed audio recording or WAV Recording of meeting

SUMMARY
South Africa’s Deputy Director-General to the Americas and Europe gave a briefing on United States/South African relations. The Bush doctrine had driven the foreign policy that allowed the United States to engage in pre-emptive war in response to perceived threats. It was also driven by the need for natural resources, the continued conflicts in the Middle East and the expansion of their military and economic power.

The United States had a number of security concerns in Africa, for instance terrorism, HIV/AIDS and regional and intra-state instabilities. Sub-Sahara Africa had surpassed the Middle East in exports of natural resources to the United States. There were a number of trade opportunities that Africa had with the United States that centred on natural resources.

To deal with the perceived security concerns that the United States had noted in Africa, the decision was made to launch the Africom. The United States claimed that it was to promote security and stability in the region. However, the countries in the Southern African Development Community, had taken a stand against Africom.

South Africa and the United States had a complex and constructive relationship. The relationship had grown to the extent that both countries were able to accept the fact that there would be differences of opinion. The United Stated was the second largest market for South African goods. In 2005 the trade balance had swung in South Africa’s favour by five billion Rand.

The Committee was not impressed with the fact that the delegation from the United States Embassy had declined their invitation again. There were concerns around the issue of Africom and the true motivation behind a command of this size. Although the Southern African Development Community had made a decision on the matter, it seemed that the African Union had not decided. Members also pointed out that Africa and South Africa were exporting mainly natural resources to the United States and questioned why the United Stated was not assisting by providing technology.

MINUTES
Opening Remarks
The Chairperson expressed his disappointment that the United States of America (USA) had not sent a representative to make a presentation to the Committee. This was the second time that the US Embassy had, for one reason or another that had not been stipulated, failed to accept the invitation extended by the Committee. The Portfolio Committee of Foreign Affairs had the constitutional obligation to perform oversight over the Department of Foreign Affairs, the custodian of South Africa’s foreign policy. The relationship between these countries was coordinated and managed by the Department of Foreign Affairs. It would have been appropriate for the Committee to engage with the US office in South Africa and find out how the US viewed the relationship and how it could be improved. The Chair posed the question that perhaps the relationship with the US should be reassessed: ”Maybe we should decide if these are the friends we want to have that don’t want to discuss with anyone, or have only interests and therefore do not see a reason to build a relationship - but only to seek and pursue their own interests, and not share anything with somebody else.”

Dr S Pheko (PAC) wanted to know if the Chairperson would convey his disappointment to the US Embassy.

The Chairperson replied that on behalf of the Committee he would express the Committee’s disappointment

South Africa and United States of America (US) Bilateral Relationship presentation
Ambassador Gert Grobler (Acting Deputy Director-General to the Americas and Europe: Department of Foreign Affairs) said that relations with the US were comprehensive and constructive in many sectors. The constructive relationship did not imply that there were no areas of disagreement or a difference of opinion on certain issues. South Africa’s relationship with the US had reached a point of maturity that the two countries could agree to disagree on certain issues. Ambassador Grobler added that the US, a superpower, was a key player internationally with significant political and economic influence. Therefore it was important for South Africa to continue to build its relationship with the US despite the fact that there might be differences.

Ambassador Grobler continued that the US Foreign Policy was driven by national interest. The events of 9/11 had shaped the foreign policy and the emphasis had been on security that had led to the implementation of the National Security Strategy. The Bush doctrine strongly informed foreign policy. The doctrine included the right to engage in pre-emptive as a response to any perceived threats. The US argued that the ‘prevailing concept of imminent threat’ was a justification for the use of force under the international law and that prior US foreign policy needed to be ‘adapted’ due to the supposition that these so-called rogue states would rely on terror and potentially weapons of mass destruction to attack the US.

The primary factors that had driven the US foreign policy were: the issue of natural resources specifically oil, exporting democracy to other parts of the world including the Middle East; finding a solution to the Palestine/Israeli conflict; and the expansion of US political, economic and military power.

Ambassador Grobler gave a brief view of the political scenario currently in the US, both houses were in the hands of the Democrats. This made it increasingly difficult for the Republicans and the Democrats to advance their competing agendas. The Bush administration was facing increasingly stronger congressional opposition and were having their policies rejected, for instance the Immigration Bill that was rejected.

Analysts were now saying, after looking at current US State Department and Foreign Policy, that the issue of transformational diplomacy or the ‘new approach’ was more prevalent than the previous approach. Presently, there was a greater embrace of the real politik, it was seen as more pragmatic as opposed to the previously idealistic approach. In that context, although the US has had its problems with the United Nations, there seemed to be a move towards engaging the United Nations and adopting a more multilateral approach as was the case with North Korea.

The US image across the world today was not a good one. Recently the German Marshall Fund did a survey that showed that approximately 60% of people in the European Union now regard the US leadership as undesirable. The reason for this could be that the tenets of the US foreign policy have led to a deficit in morality. In Europe and other countries, there was a lack of trust and a question of legitimacy. The issue of Iraq has caused major problems for US, both internationally and internally. It has diverted attention from the serious situation in Afghanistan and it had actually created a failed state in Iraq. It had become a breeding ground for terrorism and led to a situation where the mobilisation of recruits for terrorism across the world had increased.

The Ambassador moved on to the US in Africa and the security concerns. It was expected that the US would continue to spread its influence to key countries in Africa like South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana and Ethiopia - countries that the US perceived as anchors for regional engagement and thus required focussed attention. The US National Security Strategy clearly states that Africa was a ‘playground for terrorists’ because of the weakening of state control and power. According to the US, this created an environment conducive to terrorism, the laundering of funds and potential undetected attacks.

US security concerns in Africa also included HIV/AIDS which further contributed to the weakening of states and the lack of capacity for control. The US classified HIV/AIDS as a security risk and this was a critical area for support by the US. The other security concern was regional and intra-state instabilities.

The diversification of the origin of resources in Africa had resulted in the US regarding Africa’s resources as safer to access, of high quality and geographically proximate to the US. Sub-Sahara Africa had surpassed the Middle East as a supplier of natural resources. The National Intelligence Council predicted that in less than a decade the US would be importing more hydrocarbons from the Gulf of Guinea than from the entire Middle East.

Trade opportunities between the US and Africa had tripled between 1990 and 2006 mainly as a result of the African Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA). The US viewed South Africa as a strategic country, an economic anchor for Africa and critical to the economic and political stability in Africa. There are flaws in AGOA, although South Africa is one of the beneficiaries, as a lot of the exports to the US are minerals or oil. Africa and South Africa have not succeeded in getting the US to assist Africa in diversifying their economies and to enhance the market access granted under AGOA. Basically to broaden Africa’s economic base, there had to be not a narrow interaction of only exporting oil and only oil suppliers benefitting.

The US had a number of initiatives in Africa such as the Millennium Challenge Account which was currently running at five billion dollars per annum, the African Fund that had about one billion dollars through the African World Bank Account, AGOA, and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), The Women Empowerment Initiative in Africa was currently a fifty-five million dollar fund. The US strongly supported the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) processes, with a focus on infrastructure development.

Ambassador Grobler said that the US intended to establish Africom as a so-called new unified combatant command to promote US security objective in Africa and in the continental territorial waters. According to the US administration, this command would bolster the capability of US partners in Africa and would commit the US to consultation with African leaders on the location and manner in which the command can respond on security challenges and opportunities on the continent. It should be fully operational by October 2008 and would include all African states except Egypt that would remain under the central command of the US (CENTCOM). This establishment of Africom would provide a direct involvement of the US in African affairs. The Southern African Development Community (SADC) had taken a clear position on Africom and had decided that SADC would not host Africom.

Ambassador Grobler then looked that the bilateral relationship between South Africa and the US. Government, business and civil society interaction with the US had grown exponentially. There was the Annual Bilateral Forum that met once a year. The US had 120 to 130 companies in South Africa with huge job creation potential. The US was one of South Africa’s top three trading partners. South Africa did not only export natural resources. South Africa was a supplier of primary products as well as complex manufactured goods. The trade balance between the US and South Africa had swung in South Africa’s favour for the first time in 2005. South Africa had constructive cooperation with the US on technology, agriculture and defence.

In conclusion the Ambassador mentioned that even though South Africa’s relationship was constructive and complex, it needed to be constantly nurtured. The manner of implementation of the US foreign policy and its focus on national interest sometimes caused problems in terms of its bilateral relations with South Africa. Multilateral cooperation was fundamental to South Africa and it was felt that the US should continue to embrace multilateralism in their foreign policy. The relationship with the US was necessary as it was an economic giant. The US added to global economic output an amount of $600 billion which was equivalent to adding one whole new Brazil or Australia into the global economy each year.

Discussion
The Chairperson commented that perhaps the reason the US Embassy did not choose to come to the Committee could be because South Africa was perceived to be the voice of the underdeveloped and yet South Africans sees themselves as a global power. This was said by the Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Ms Jendayi Frazer. The Chairperson quoted her as saying, when dealing with South Africa in the UN on the Security Council vote, “It’s been a rough patch. Partly because they see themselves as a global power. Partly because they see themselves as the voice of the developing world”.

Mr M Sibande (ANC) added his disappointment to that of the Chairperson. He then referred to the issue of HIV/AIDS. He mentioned that South Africa was the first country to be vocal about HIV/AIDS in under developed countries. The response received from the US, instead of assisting, was to sell expensive medication.

Ambassador Grobler replied that in discussions with the US, it had been acknowledged that PEPFAR, an American initiative, to assist Africa and South Africa was to be welcomed. There had been problems and a difference of opinion in South Africa on PEPFAR in the country. It was critical that if South Africa was to interact with an international partner that the assistance had to be sustainable and was in line with South Africa’s objectives. The US Ambassador had had an interaction with the Deputy President of South Africa where these issues were discussed. The Deputy President clearly stated that South Africa wanted to work with the US but it must be done in accordance with South Africa’s objectives. The process was underway and all the loose ends were being brought together.

Mr Sibande referred to the issue of Africom and said that most countries were sceptical. It was alleged that there was a base in Botswana. He was concerned about the US approach of using force, as it had been done in Iraq.

Ms S Camerer (DA) commented that it was clear that the relationship with the US was important. The Bilateral Forum happened once a year and the duration was obviously a day or two. She asked what was the focus at these meeting and if progress had been made on the issues South Africa had raised with the US.

Ambassador Grobler replied that they had a Bi-national Commission (BNC) with the US after 1994. It had started at a very high level with the President and a few ministers. It was later decided that it should be scaled down to senior official level. It was also decided that there should be working groups that would meet from time to time. The overarching body was the Bilateral Forum that would meet once a year to discuss progress. There were three broad issues: bilateral relationships, Africa and multilateral cooperation. In the last meeting there was discussion on law enforcement and there were a number of programmes running such as on trafficking persons, anti-terrorism assistance and immigration officials training. South Africa had always committed itself to the issue of counter terrorism and had worked with the US and other countries on this issue. There were a number of issues dealt with in this way including agriculture and energy.

Mr R Shah (DA) commented that there was a great deal suspicion with regard to the motivation of the creation of Africom. The US claimed that it was to promote stability and strengthen the security capacity on the African continent. However, SADC had taken a stand as a collective against the creation of Africom. Countries in the centre and north of Africa did not share this position. The press had also reported that Liberia had offered the US a military base. He asked if the African Union (AU) would come up with a collective position on it or was it going to left to regions to come up with their own response to Africom. If it were a regional decision, would it be perceived as a contentious and divisive issue in Africa?

Dr Pheko said that he did not see the necessity for Africom as there were already other institutions, such as the AU and the UN, who were promoting stability in Africa. It seemed to be undermining the unity of Africa.

Dr A Lutuli (ANC) asked whether South Africa needed Africom.

Adv Z Madasa remarked that it might seem as if the Committee was belabouring the Africom issue but there were legitimate fears. There were serious concerns by legitimate countries, given the strategy of regime change employed by the US. The proximity of these military institutions posed imminent threats against legitimate governments. He raised more concerns regarding the fact that there were the AU stand-by forces and other institutions, the lack of cooperation with those institutions posed problems as well.

The Ambassador replied that Minister of Defence, Mr Lekota, had dealt with the issue. South Africa had consulted with its SADC partners and agreed in principle that they, as SADC, would not host Africom. Although it was a collective decision, there were those countries in SADC that did not agree with that position. With regard to the future location of Africom there had been rumours but there was no confirmation. There would be a conference hosted in Washington DC where more information would be released on Africom and on where it would be located. Regarding the AU, it was assumed that the majority of the AU countries would probably adopt the same position as that of the SADC, however the AU had not had an in-depth discussion on the issue. Some analysts were saying that Africom could lead to a further radicalisation of the continent and it could lead to Africa being the target of terrorist attacks.

Prof P Turok (ANC) said that he understood that although the US had enormous military power and was increasing its capacity, they did have a problem with personnel. This meant that Africom would not be personnel-heavy but instead would be primarily a surveillance tool on the continent. He suggested that the US claims that it was to promote stability and so forth was a cover for the US to exercise surveillance on Africa and this could have negative consequences.

Ambassador Grobler replied that perhaps it did not entail putting a lot of troops on the command. It probably was going to create a facility for intelligence gathering. It seemed that it would be a huge inter-agency presence. It would also be an injection of military forces onto the continent.

Dr Pheko asked to what extent was the US helping to transfer technology to Africa so that it could be capacitated to process the raw materials into products instead of exporting them.

Ambassador Grober replied that it was a valid point. He mentioned that South Africa was not happy with the way AGOA was functioning at the moment. It focussed mainly on petroleum products and South Africa would prefer a broadening of the agreement. That would include the US assisting in creating productive capacity. At a recent AGOA meeting in Ghana these issues were discussed.

Dr Pheko mentioned the issue of reciprocity with regard to diplomacy, as South Africans have to deal with problems of getting visas into the US.

Mr Sithole cited an example of someone trying to get a visa. The Chairperson had sent a letter regarding the issues of visas to their embassy and had not received an acknowledgment from the embassy of receiving the letter or that the embassy officials were working on the problem.

Ambassador Grobler replied that there was a huge emphasis on homeland security and that obtaining a visa was extremely difficult. It had been raised with the US embassy on an ad hoc basis. However these problems were not isolated to the US but were experienced with countries like the United Kingdom and Canada. The Department of Foreign Affairs in consultation with the Department of Home Affairs were working together to take this issue forward.

Mr M Ramgobin (ANC) commented that the disdain with which the US diplomatic corps had treated the Committee left something to be desired. He felt that it should be brought to the attention of the South African Minister of Foreign Affairs. Another dimension to Africom was the militarisation concept and he pointed out that this militarisation was not expressed in the presentation.

Mr Ramgobin wanted to know if there was any mechanism in terms of South Africa’s relationship with the US, to consult with Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and the South African Communism Party (SACP) in determining South African foreign policy relationships.

Ambassador Grobler replied that it was a topical issue and that there had been some ideas on it.

Prof Turok said that he appreciated the importance of strengthening the relationship with the US. He commented that the Ambassador had understated the financial situation in the US. The view was that the sub-prime debt crisis was penetrating deeper and there most likely would be financial contagion across the world. This could be quite serious for Europe, Africa and the rest of the world.

Ambassador Grobler replied that the Department was watching the situation closely. In 2001 many loans were extended to marginal borrowers in the US. Six months ago those loans accounted for approximately thirteen percent of the mortgage stock. The interest rates in the US went up and it caused many of those borrowers to default. Initially it was confined to the US. As a result of wider liabilities held by a range of pension and hedge funds and by foreign banks all went into default triggering huge losses on foreign markets. Financial markets were reeling under the impact of the situation and it was affecting the availability of credit. The broader implications for South Africa and emerging markets were being watched.

Dr Luthuli asked if South Africa was in anyway involved in the US rendition policy.

The Ambassador replied that the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Aziz Pahad, had on a number of occasions expressed South Africa’s concerns with the US rendition policy. In this context of US foreign policy and the war on terror, there had been many issues that South Africa had been unhappy about such as Guantanamo Bay. South Africa had taken a strong stand against those practices.

Mr Sithole asked how strategic was South Africa to the US in the context of the natural resources that were being exported from Africa.

Ambassador Grobler replied that there was no doubt that there were countries on the continent that the US saw as strategic players. South Africa must be of strategic importance to the US because of its achievements and its potential economic importance. Furthermore the US must have noted the role that South Africa played on the African continent. To the US, South Africa was a strategic country.

Mr Sithole asked why the free trade negotiations had not progressed as much as anticipated. He wanted the Ambassador to touch on the some of the issues that caused problems with the US and the South African Customs Union (SACU).

Ambassador Grobler replied that there were some concerns and issues. The US wanted a more detailed agreement. There were issues of access to services called new generation issues, issues of intellectual property rights and so forth. SACU could not agree with the US and they had to protect their interests and their economies. South Africa had entered into a much broader agreement that served as an interim agreement until they could engage the US on the new generation issues.

Mr Sithole responded that it was an important issue and that the Committee intended on having joint discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry on this issue.

Mr Sibande was concerned about the issue of Zimbabwe and the fact that the US employed psychological warfare by imposing sanctions. He wanted to know what role the US played in the Zimbabwe issue.

Ambassador Grobler replied that the issue of sanctions in whatever form against Zimbabwe were constantly raised. The response was that the sanctions were not aimed at the people but at President Robert Mugabe. South Africa’s consistent position had been that indirectly they were economic sanctions in the sense that few people would do business or invest in a country that was being sanctioned. There was progress in the mediation with Zimbabwe and it should be the responsibility of the international community to tone down and to allow the African institutions to complete their work.

Mr Sibande was also concerned about the conflicts in the Middle East and sought clarification on the issue.

Ambassador Grobler replied that US had declared that finding a solution to the Palestine/Israel issue was a priority. The US had announced that in November there would be a conference to restart the peace process. There was very little information as to how the process would be put together and other countries in the region were very sceptical. The other issue that concerned South Africa was the split that had taken place in the Palestinian ranks. It was important to the peace process to ensure that Hamas was brought back into the peace talks, as the process would not be successful without them. Obviously Hamas should be urged to move closer to Fatah. Every country in the region should be brought into the peace processes.

Mr Shah was concerned that Africom had become a fait accompli, and that it would be discussed at AU level when already the SADC had made a decision. He thought that it would have first been discussed at the AU and then filtered down to the other institutions. He wondered how this could have happened.

Ms K Magau (ANC) suggested that as the Committee, they should support the SADC position.

The Ambassador responded that the points that had been made about Africom were all legitimate. The question often posed was the world a safer place after the US invasion of Iraq. If the situation was analysed, one could conclude that in fact the world was not a safer place. With this information in mind, the question arose whether an expanded presence of the US military was needed on the African continent. The idea of Africom was not new to the US, they had been talking about it for quite some time. It had not been discussed in detail at the African Union. The feeling was that there should be a discussion within SADC so that a collective decision could be taken before the conference on Africom took place in Washington.

Mr W Seremane (DA) asked who set the agenda for the Bilateral Forum that met once the year.

Ambassador Grobler replied that the issues discussed were informed by the principles that had been decided so there were set themes for the forums. Perhaps they needed better coordination and consultation.

Mr Sithole asked if in the bilateral relationship, the issues of the continued subjugation of Cuba and the violation of human rights at Guantanamo Bay Prison were raised as international concerns and the cause for anxiety. Some of the worst problems experienced in the world today were partly caused by the US. It was important to raise these issues, so that the US could shape their foreign policy with a more humane dynamic.

Ambassador Grobler replied that Cuba was dealt with in a multilateral context through the Human Rights Council. It had been raised by South Africa on a bilateral level with the US and with the European Union. There had been a variation of views within the European Union. South Africa would like to see stability return to Cuba. Latin America should be engaged by the US, as it was important.

The Chairperson thanked Ambassador Grobler and adjourned the meeting.

Appendix 1:

Compiled by the Government Communication and Information System
Date: 20 Sep 2007
Title: SA, US mature enough to differ in some areas

By Shaun Benton

Cape Town - South Africa's relations with the United States have reached a point of maturity where the countries could "agree to disagree" while still working together on common programmes.

Acting deputy director-general in the Department of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Gert Grobler said this while briefing MPs in parliament's Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs on Wednesday on state of South African-United States bilateral relations.

He described South Africa's relationship with the US as "comprehensive and constructive" in many sectors, while adding that this "does not imply [that] we do not have areas of disagreement ... differences of opinion in certain areas".

"Our relationship is a constructive one but remains a complicated and complex one that we have to work on all the time."

Economically, South Africa's relationship with the US is crucial and important, he said, pointing to the fact that the US is the second-largest market in the world for South African goods.

South African exports to the US in 2006 amounted to R41 billion - an R11 billion increase on 10 years ago, according to Ambassador Grobler's presentation.

The value of imports from the US in 2006 amounted to R35 billion, turning the balance of trade into South Africa's favour by R5billion, MPs heard.

Foreign direct investment (FDI) from the US into South Africa is the second-largest after the United Kingdom, hitting US$5 billion as measured in December 2004, making it nine percent of total FDI into the country.

And from 2005 to 2006 US tourist numbers in South Africa increased by 7,4 percent - from 68 334 to 73 406, Ambassador Grobler said in his presentation.

These figures aside, the US remained hugely important to South Africa in terms of the potential for job creation here, with a "constructive approach" to doing business in South Africa seeing between 120 and 130 US companies operating in South Africa.

And aside from business ties, South Africa has seen about US$255 million budgeted to be spent here this year by the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS relief (PEPFAR), which Ambassador Grobler said was operating in all nine provinces of the country.

The US regards the threat to countries posed by HIV and AIDS as a "national security risk" for countries on the continent and as a critical area for support, the former ambassador added.

Apart from this US initiative, there is currently about US$5 billion being spent per year in Africa out of the US's Millennium Challenge Account, which Ambassador Grobler was making a "huge contribution" to development and technical assistance and was benefiting a number of African countries.

Then there is also the US$1 billion African Fund, as well as benefits from the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and the Woman Empowerment Initiative in Africa, with a $55 million fund.

South African - US bilateral relations are good, and symbolised by a "good personal relationship" between the leaders of the two countries, with having had two recent meetings, in 2005 and 2006.

The expansion of business, civilian and governmental links between the two countries has indeed "grown exponentially" in recent years, said Ambassador Grobler.

In terms of the continent as a whole, Ambassador Grobler described US involvement in the continent as "constructive" in many cases.

Of course, South Africa remains of major strategic importance for the US, said Ambassador Grobler, given its advanced level of economic development and its influence on the continent.

The US is and has been a strong supporter of Nepad (the New Partnership for Africa's Development), and has supported this key continental initiative in "a number of ways".

South Africa is also committed to working in the international arena to combat terrorism, which is a major priority of the Bush administration.

The US-SA bilateral forum meets once a year and has a number of working groups, including one on human rights, MPs heard.

Economically, South Africa is pushing the US - as it is China - to assist Africa with productive capacity, most notably the increased value-addition or beneficiation of goods sourced on the continent.

Such assistance would require a higher level of technology transfer and skills development, he said.

Other areas for the enhancement of co-operation between the two countries include the objectives of building peace and security in the world, expanding democracy and freedom, and spreading economic growth and wellbeing, MPs heard.

Putting the size and power of the US into the context of it as an important partner in South Africa and Africa's development, Ambassador Grobler said that current US gross domestic product amounts to $13,13 trillion.

This GDP is now 30 percent higher than that of the European Union, with a rate of growth would see the US economy double the size of Europe's economy in 15 years.

This means that last quarter figures show that the US added to global economic output an amount of $600 billion, which is equivalent to adding "one whole new Brazil, or Australia, to the global economy each year.

Inflation in the economic giant sits at around 2.7 percent, unemployment at around 4.6 percent, and annual GDP growth at two percent, Ambassador Grobler said.

As such, the US is a valuable partner of South Africa, he said. – Bua News