Department of Foreign Affairs Annual Report 2006/07

Meeting report

The Committee asked a full range of questions. Their concerns about some South Africans being refused entry into the United States and about the Africom concept would be put to the US Ambassador during a closed meeting on 14 November. The Department assured the Committee that communication lines had been reopened with Angola. The problems to do with Western Sahara and Morocco were also being resolved.

MINUTES
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) Annual Report 2006/7 presentation
Dr Ayanda Ntsaluba (Director-General: Department of Foreign Affairs) listed the strategic priorities of the reporting year: consolidation of the African Agenda, South-South cooperation, global governance, political and economic relations as well as organisational strengthening.

The annual financial statements reflected revenue with its budget allocation of R3 042 billion and other revenue of R46 million. The Department utilised 96,80% of its budget. The factors contributing to the under spending included vacant funded posts and capital works projects. Major highlights included progress with Financial Management improvements, corporate governance arrangements with the Audit Committee, financial systems developed for all missions, the scope of the head office building project and the management of fixed assets.

The Auditor-General’s report had given an unqualified audit opinion, however it also included matters of emphasis. The matters of emphasis were inadequate debt management, inadequate asset management, the vacancy rate, delay in the finalisation of the audit and performance information. Programmes of action were developed to address these issues.

The African Renaissance and International Cooperation Fund annual financial statements reflected the revenue and expenditure. The Auditor-General’s report had no matters of emphasis but there were highlighted areas such as payables by the Department as well as payables by the 23^rd African Cup of Nations Soccer Tournament. Programmes of action were developed to address these issues as well.

The presentation also looked at the following issues:
- Human Capital Management (HCM) involved a description of the organisational establishment.
- Talent management included employer branding to assist in retention strategies and the introduction of the Cadet Programme.
- Employment equity and organisational culture included a focus on increasing representation of women at senior management level.
- Employment wellness involved appointing a senior manager to develop and manage the Departmental integrated Health and Wellness programme.
- The Labour Relations framework was developed.
- An investigation of a new Foreign Service Dispensation (FSD) was concluded and approved by the Minister.

The Foreign Service Institute (FSI) programmes included taking a leadership role amongst the other FSIs on the African continent. The FSI and the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) was providing training for the Southern African Development Community (SADC) in multilateral negotiation. Several other projects were listed. The challenges facing Human Capital Management included the increased capacity of the Department in terms of numbers and competencies as well as the accreditation of the FSI.

Dr Ntsaluba concluded by detailing the action taken by the Department on its key strategic priorities.

Discussion
Mr M Sibande (ANC) asked about the plane that was supposed to be purchased and then managed by the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) as mentioned in the last Annual Report.

Dr Ntsabula replied that last year the DFA had received a letter from National Treasury, stating that in principle Treasury approved, but the money would only be released in April 2009. The National Air Force through discussions was advising the Department.

Mr Sibande asked about the Committee trip to Palestine that was approved yet nothing further had been indicated.

Dr Ntsabula replied that he did not know how to respond to this issue in an open meeting but accepted the blame if there had not been a formal letter of notice given to the Committee regarding the trip to Palestine.

Mr Sithole had found it difficult to explain to members why the Committee had not gone on the trip to Palestine as he had trouble getting an explanation.

Mr Sibande noted that the United Stated of America (USA) had formed a structure called Africom, even though most leaders on the African continent had rejected it, he then asked for further clarification.

Dr Ntsabula replied that there was a clear decision by regional organisations such as SADC and the AU against the creation of Africom. South Africa has agreed with this approach. The dilemma was that in multilateral institutions, sometimes there could be agreements between individual nations. There had been rumours of two or three individual nations who had agreed to the proposal of Africom.

Mr Sibande asked if any further development had occurred with the proposal that a mission be opened in Timor-Leste.

Dr Ntsabula replied that there was a discussion around the invitation of the leadership in Timor-Lester to South Africa. The Department was having difficulty with this because of issues surrounding economic and human resources.

Mr Sibande asked for clarification in the developments of the intervention in Western Sahara and Morocco as well as Swaziland.

Ms M Njobe (ANC) was interested in the progress made in Western Sahara in terms of moving towards real independence for the country. She asked if support was being received from the French speaking countries.

Mr M Nkosi (Deputy Director-General: Africa: DFA) replied in reference to Western Sahara, that there was currently ongoing dialogue between representatives from the Saharwi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) and the Royal Kingdom of Morocco. The dialogue was aimed at resolving the long-standing impasse between the SADR and Morocco. These negotiations illustrated a positive development in this situation that was gradually becoming the forgotten issue of decolonisation. The major issue was the future of Western Sahara with the SADR wanting independence. There would be talks later this year in Geneva and then again in February. In reference to Swaziland, the Department would be engaging with the Kingdom of Swaziland at a high level. It was part of their diplomatic foreign policy programme. Discussions would cover a wide range of topics especially relations between Swaziland and South Africa.

Mr M Shah (DA) asked for elaboration on the role of the Department in terms of the troop deployment. There were serious concerns that the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) were not taken into consideration in terms of troop deployment. He asked what processes were followed.

Dr Ntsabula replied that there were procedures that had to be followed. The AU would write stating that they needed troops for a peacekeeping mission. That letter would come to a unit in the Department. The Director-General would then write a letter to SANDF and ask for guidance. The decision of troop deployment would ultimately remain with the SANDF.

Mr Shah asked about the upgrading of the guesthouse. He assumed that it was similar to what other countries referred to as presidential guesthouses, and that another guesthouse was going to be built. He asked if land was purchased for these guesthouses and what would happen to the guesthouse that was being refurbished.

Dr Ntsabula replied that in Pretoria there was only one hotel that had a presidential suite. If there were two delegations it would be very difficult to accommodate both delegations. This was the reason for establishing two guesthouses.

Mr Shah referred to debt management due interdepartmental debt to the Department of Foreign Affairs not being honoured timeously and asked how much of the Department of Defence’s debt was being paid back.

Dr Ntsabula replied that they would provide the figures, as they did not have it presently. They assured the Committee that the Department of Defence was not the worst debtor that the Department had. He suggested that the outline of the debts be sent to the Chairperson of the Committee.

Adv Madasa referred to DFA’s management of challenges and asked about the tension that existed between the ambassadors and their managers and the fact that the tension existed because of transformation or lack thereof.

Ms M Nompozolo (Acting Deputy Director-General: Human Capital Management: DFA) replied that it was an issue that had been dealt with often. To a large extent it had to do with execution of the work with reference to business plan implementation even though there was a lack of resources to proceed with the implementation. It was a two-way issue from both the ambassadors and the corporate services managers. It included the matter of to what extent corporate services managers had been involved in processes.

Adv Madasa asked about foreign languages and noted that Swahili had been omitted from the Annual Report. He thought that Swahili should be taught to diplomatic candidates.

Ms Nompozolo replied that the DFA did offer Swahili training.

Adv Madasa referred to the backlog of disciplinary issues and asked how bad the situation was.

Mr M Malahlela (ANC) asked for the content of the grievance lodged against the Department.

Ms Nompozolo responded that there was progress and that currently there were only twelve cases left. The bulk of cases concerned negligence and failure to comply with procedure whether it was at the Department head office or in missions abroad.

Adv Madasa referred to Angola and was concerned with the lack of progress and thought that there should be a better relationship with Angola.

Dr Ntsabula replied that Angola’s relationship was very important to South Africa. These relations had a bearing within the context of regional unity and that it was important to open the lines of communication.

Adv Madasa asked about the Pan African Parliament (PAP) and thought that there should be a deeper issue that should be looked into. South Africa was the host of PAP and if it was not functioning, it was problematic. He asked to look at the strategy to improve PAP.

Mr Sithole asked about the issue of security that had not been resolved and suggested that perhaps the PAP should be thoroughly discussed.

Dr Ntsaluba replied that there was a dilemma regarding the PAP. PAP had signed agreements with the AU and there were certain agreements that the Department was not informed about. It was the Department’s view that as a member state it contributed to the budget of the PAP. It was constantly expected of South Africa to continue to add to the resources because PAP was hosted in South Africa. Certain concessions were made to the PAP and because of this, other African countries had been claiming that South Africa was setting a precedent that could be used as a basis for other African countries. There were rules of the AU that applied to the PAP. If there were a determination that certain allowances given to PAP did not fall under the rules of the AU, then South Africa would support such a decision. The primary agreement was between the AU and the PAP and South Africa was only a subsidiary to the agreement.

Adv Madasa mentioned the consolidation of the African Agenda and that it could not progress without unity but there were clear challenges of diversion. He would like to know what was the strategy to create unity.

Dr Ntsabula replied that the SADC countries were fragmented on the Indian, Pacific and Africa (IPA) negotiations and this was cause for concern. There was fragmentation because some member states of SADC belonged to Common Market Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) also. The route that South Africa had proposed forced member states to make decisions early in the path towards regional integration and thereby not hamper proceedings in a later more critical stage. The debate was how to attract countries to SADC and therefore regional integration.

Mr Nkosi added that it was a big challenge and that it had to be dealt with on an ongoing basis. The African identity was contingent on a number of factors. It had to be realised that most of the African countries economies were linked to their former colonial powers. Severing the link between the African countries and their colonial powers was a continuing process.

Mr B Holomisa (UDM) referred to labour relations and suggested that the Department and the Public Service Commission should seriously consider working with one of the universities to obtain interns to expedite the process of disciplinary issues.

Mr Holomisa remarked that in future he would like to be informed of the benefits that people in the country would achieve by the ratification of the international conventions.

Dr Ntsaluba accepted that this was an issue that needed to be looked at.

Mr Holomisa mentioned that the Department was run by the Department and the Presidency and hoped that in future annual reports, there was a section that mentioned projects or programmes in conjunction with the Office of the Presidency.

Dr S Pheko (PAC) asked about projects in design in six countries. There also asked about recent foreign purchase of land and asked how much money was paid for the land.

Adv Z Madasa (ANC) referred to property management and asked for an update regarding the risk of purchasing land. He asked if the property difficulties that the DFA had experienced was to do with the integration of administration and if these issues had been addressed.

Dr Ntsabula replied that each time a piece of land was identified for use by the DFA there were procedures that had to be followed. Public Works and the Land Board would go to the specific country where land had been identified and assess whether the value attached to the land was market related. The DFA could proceed only with the approval of Public Works and the Land Board’s permission.

Dr Pheko asked for elaboration on the Departmental Integrated Health and Wellness programme that was supposed to include programmes on HIV/AIDS.

Ms Nomopozolo replied that training on HIV/AIDS specifically focussed on the Know Your Status campaign. Recently they had conducted Knowledge Attitude and Perception studies to be better informed.

Dr Pheko asked if there was any controversy with its national strategy for the New Partnership for African Development (Nepad) and the integration of NEPAD with the AU.

Dr Ntsaluba responded that the problem arose with the secretariat and the relationship between the infrastructure that supported Nepad and the AU. For instance, South Africa contributes R30 million to the secretariat of Nepad, and was the only country to contribute such a large amount of money. For the second year in succession, South Africa was expected to bail out the secretariat. Some member states were making contributions to Nepad, but other countries insisted that certain administrative problems had to be resolved before making a contribution.

Dr Pheko asked if some influence could be used with regard to the former South African freedom fighters that were being refused visas to enter the USA.

Dr Ntsabula replied that the issue of approval of visas to enter the USA had not become easier. Another aspect had been introduced where if a male was applying for a visa the question was posed if the applicant could use a firearm and if the answer was yes the system automatically triggered alarms and the visa would then be rejected. On the other hand the South African system of visa waivers was not aligned with the country’s foreign policy. This process driven by the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) was not privy to many inputs from Department of Foreign Affairs. The Department was trying to work with the DHA so that issues of reciprocity could be highlighted.

Mr Sithole mentioned that perhaps Dr Pheko’s question could be posed to the USA Ambassador on the 14^th November where there would be a closed meeting.

Mr Sithole asked to what extent was there an agreement between countries and South African ambassadors to allow for certain privileges in foreign countries and then South Africa allowing for the same privileges for foreign ambassadors. In South Africa all foreign diplomats were given the same access.

Dr Ntsabula replied that DFA was always faced with the possible embarrassment due to matters being discussed with line departments that the Department did not know about. For instance an embassy would approach the Department and inform them that they had been trying to have a meeting with a specific Minister and the Department would be unaware of the situation. The Department had to find a balance between the systems of engagement in terms of the execution of the country’s international relations. A system had to be designed that was not too bureaucratic and therefore stifling.

Ms Nompozolo mentioned that in government there was a principle that benefits were available but if the benefits were not used, they were then forfeited.

Mr Sithole disagreed and thought diplomats should be treated better in South Africa. He added that it was regulations that prohibited diplomats from certain benefits.

Mr Malahlela assumed that the Department was well conversant in foreign languages. He asked if the Department provide translators in the context of intergovernmental relations.

Ms Nompozolo replied that translating was a scarce skill within South Africa. The Department had explored several avenues but would continue to look into it.

Prof P Turok (ANC) had made a list of the economic institutions that linked to the Department and there were ten institutions. It was clear that because of the changing nature of the world’s systems political relations were increasingly linked to economic relations. It was also clear that the DFA was becoming immersed in relationships that were more economically orientated than political. He thought that it would be valuable if the Department could produce a document on South Africa’s economic international relations as they were well place to produce such a document.

Prof Turok was pleased that a South African strategy was being developed for Nepad and that it should be developed with extreme urgency.

Dr Ntsaluba responded that the Department had begun considering this strategy as a matter of urgency.

Mr M Skosana (DA) asked if South Africa had been invited to the USA sponsored peace conference and whether representatives of Gaza would be present.

Dr Ntsabula replied that South Africa would be invited if they had not been invited already.

Mr Skosana asked if there were any discussion at departmental level regarding Sudan and if the Committee Report produced on Sudan had been taken into consideration.

Dr Ntsabula replied that they were aware of the Committee Report. He added that as part of the preparation for the visit of the Sudanese president, the Department was required to draft a report on issues concerning South Africa within Sudan. Their report would have included points of clarity as mentioned in the Committee report, however the Department had not received any feedback from the Minister or the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Mr Nkosi replied that since there was a new government, there were challenges of implementing governance. These included the regulatory framework and the laws necessary for governing the use of state resources.

Ms A Njobe (ANC) asked if there were any deadlines regarding the payment of debt owed to the Department.

Dr Ntsabula replied that that the Department had improved their system to show what debtors owed on a monthly basis. However, the Department did not have a system that compelled their debtors to pay their debts.

Ms Njobe asked if any deadlines had been established for the building of the new headquarters for the Department and the PAP.

Dr Ntsaluba replied that it would take approximately four years before the building would be constructed for PAP. In reference to the new headquarters for Department, they had agreed to be relocated by middle of March 2009.

Ms Njobe referred to the South-South cooperation, particularly the Indian, Brazil and South Africa (IBSA) cooperation, and the fact that there had been progress. However some negative issues had been noted and she asked if these negative issues had been discussed.

Dr Ntsabula agreed that there were some negative issues. There had been an interdepartmental meeting that was coordinated by the Department of Home Affairs to discuss some of these issues. There had been a gap in terms of communication and there was an attempt to resolve the problems.

Mr Sithole referred to the R31 million that was unaccounted for and asked if this meant that money could be lost. He asked how this would affect the Department.

Dr Ntsabula replied that debt write-off would in essence have to be funded. National Treasury would only write-off debt if a certain amount of money was sent to close the said account and all correct procedures would have to be followed.

Mr Sithole mentioned that Department’s Human Resource Plan did not comply with legislation. He asked why there had not been compliance.

Ms Nompozolo replied that the vacancy rate played a huge role in the lack of compliance. However the Department were drafting a Marshall plan to deal with the issue.

Mr Sithole mentioned that the Minister of Sport and Recreation had stated that Sport and Recreation South Africa (SRSA) did not owe the Department of Foreign Affairs any money. He asked if this money was recoverable. It gave the impression that the Department gave more than they were supposed to.

Dr Ntsabula replied that DFA was the conduit of funds received from the African Renaissance Fund into a programme designed by the SRSA. The SRSA modified its plan after a certain amount was given and then the amount significantly increased. He maintained that when the money was released from the African Renaissance Fund it was motivated by SRSA. The SRSA was satisfied that the money was legitimately spent. The Auditor-General wanted clear evidence of this and an audit occurred which showed some lapses. The Department communicated with the Minister of Finance stating that the issue had to be finalised. The audit did not state that funds had been misappropriated but rather that documentation required to provide clear evidence of legitimate spending was not in the DFA’s possession.

Mr Sithole wanted more information on the position created for the family support structure in reference to diplomats.

Ms Nompozolo replied that there was focus on family and spousal support structures. Before individuals were posted to foreign missions, counselling was offered and when they returned, counselling was offered for reintegration purposes.

Mr Sithole asked about the coordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and the DFA particularly in reference to economic entities.

Dr Ntsaluba agreed that such a document should be produced. He added that the relationship between the DFA and the Department of Trade and Industry was not as it should be but had vastly improved.

Mr Sithole commented that the Committee would have to look at the Budget Vote and compare it to the Annual Report to ensure that all issues had been addressed. He added that business had proposed that the Minister inform them of the foreign policy of South Africa so that it could be intertwined with their investment in foreign countries.

The Chairperson then adjourned the meeting.