G8’s Commitment Towards Africa: Foreign Affairs Department briefing

This premium content has been made freely available

International Relations

05 March 2008
Chairperson: Mr J Sithole (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Foreign Affairs gave a brief explanation of the history of the G8 and how it had evolved since its inception. The road toward the 2008 G8 summit in Hokkaido was detailed. He explained that although there were several issues on trade that should be broached, because of the coming elections in the United States of America, no major decisions could be made until their leadership was decided. The Committee was concerned with possible exploitation by the developed nations, especially on the issues regarding climate change. The Ambassador had indicated that commitment regarding climate change should be asymmetrically assigned. The Committee was not satisfied that the G8 nations were not bound by the decisions made at the summit. The Committee could not understand the language used and would prefer that instead of nations ‘begging for debt forgiveness’ it were ‘asking for debt cancellation’.

Meeting report

Preliminary issues
Mr T Leon (DA) raised the issue of documents, saying that once again he had only received the documents for today’s present meeting on that morning.

The Chairperson replied that the Director-General had indicated that there was a misunderstanding between the Department and Parliament as to when documents had to be with Parliament. This issue was consistently raised and would have to be discussed with the Director-General.

The Chairperson noted that he had received a letter from Mr T Leon requesting a briefing on Zimbabwe. This would have to be slotted into the Committee Programme. Members were also concerned with the way South Africa had voted at the United Nations Security Council, regarding Iran, and he had written a letter to the Minister and requested a briefing.

G8 Commitment towards Africa presentation: Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) briefing
Ambassador Jerry Matjila, Deputy Director-General: Asia and Middle East: Department of Foreign Affairs, gave an overview of the linkages between South Africa and the G8. He described the evolution of the G8, which was an informal grouping of 8 industrialised countries founded in 1975. It primarily concentrated on dialogue on global economic issues affecting the industrialised world, but now expanded this to consider political issues of peace and security, global challenges such as climate change, and development in Africa. The strategy was based on outreach programmes.  South Africa’s engagement with the G8 was detailed. The Africa Outreach Programmes were described, as well as the challenges (see attached presentation for details) The Heilgendamm dialogue process, which originated at the G8 summit in Germany 2007, was explained and it was noted that this was established as political dialogue on issues of innovation, investment, energy and development, with a particular focus on Africa. It was to last for two years and would report to Hokkaido and Italy in 2008 and 2009. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) platform would be used to host the support unit. South Africa co-chaired the development pillar with France. The G8 summit in 2008 would take place in Hokkaido and the agenda items were listed. These would include boosting economic growth and poverty reduction, the African Action Plan discussing mutual responsibility and accountability, and climate change.

The dynamics of the G5 were explained. G5 had not been formally invited. They key issues were efforts to avert G5 institutionalisation, and marginalisation of the Heiligendamm Process. There was resistance to G5 demands for inclusiveness in G8. There were calls for a G13. Although the form was not important, it must have meaningful engagement based on equality, partnership and mutual respect.

In conclusion South Africa’s engagement with G8 was critical to influence the thinking on development, to generate support for the African agenda, to contribute to the establishment of an equitable global economic system, and to promote mutual understanding and development of partnerships.

Discussion
Mr Leon asked what was the core function of the G8, given the context of the world economy. Furthermore he wanted to know to what extent would the Africa Agenda be dealt with.

Ambassador Matjila replied that the core function of the G8 was, and had always been, macroeconomic issues. There was awareness of the uncertainties regarding the recent economic global trend. South Africa, India and Brazil needed to refocus on their issues. He did not doubt that macro-economic issues would dominate at the G8 summit. There was an understanding that perhaps this issue should be discussed at the Outreach Programmes because of the growth of China and India, whose growth might avert global recession.

Mr Leon commented that the Hokkaido Summit would be six months before the United States of America’s general elections and that the two democrat candidates had both indicated that it was time for the country to step back from multilateral trade agreements. He wondered if a change in the country’s government would alter the extent to which the trade commitments made at the Hokkaido would be adhered to.

Ambassador Matjila replied that the Doha Trade talks were important and still needed intensive attention. The United States was focussed on the elections and therefore the best South Africa could do was to ensure that matters were kept on the agenda. The United States had managed to maintain the trade deal African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). The candidates for the presidency in the United States had to make such comments or they would not be considered for the presidency. It was hoped that after the elections in the United States the leadership would have different notions.

Mr M Sibande (ANC) asked what assistance was offered to ensure that exploitation of developing countries would be avoided, with regard to climate change commitments. 

Ambassador Matjila replied that there were attempts to ensure that all the countries affected understood the enormity of climate change. Every country should take responsibility but commitment should be asymmetrically differentiated.  South Africa accepted that it was one of the twenty most polluted countries in the world, but because of the economy commitment should be assigned accordingly.

Mr Sibande noted that there was a comprehensive commitment by the G8 made towards Africa in 2005, at the Gleneagles summit, to assist Africa with peace and security. He was concerned because there were several African countries that had asked for aid and cancellation of debt and yet the only response they had received was the United States African Command (AFRICOM).

Ambassador Matjila replied that part of the agreement made was that Africa would be assisted in creating a stand-by force of 25 000 men so that there was a quick response when challenges arose on the continent. The European Union (EU) took the initiative by forming the Global Peace Facility Fund. Individual members of the G8 had funded certain programmes though there had not been a collective response to create the stand-by force. Africa did have regional stand-by forces and those had been funded by individual nations as well. AFRICOM was considered a challenge. The African Union summit in January had concluded that AFRICOM should not be allowed on the continent.

Mr Sibande referred to the G8 Summit that took place in Germany and that had seen the launch of Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) and he wanted to know if there had been any development in the cancellation of debts.

Ambassador Matjila replied that the debate shifted to assisting countries to comply with stipulated processes for the cancellation of debt. There were consultants who provided assistance, and thus far over nineteen countries had complied with the basic requirements. The amount of debt owed amounted to $40 billion and less than half had been forgiven. The post-debt forgiveness processes were also analysed as those funds were supposed to be used in social programmes in the country.

Mr Sibande asked if there was any development of the inclusion of South Africa in G8, in terms of setting the agenda and influencing the outcome. Usually the developed countries would use this platform as an instrument of imperialism. 

Ambassador Matjila replied that the issue of the G5, (China, India, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa), being included in the G8 was a difficult issue. There had been several meetings on this and there had not been good results. The G8 would normally have a document agreed a month before the summit, and two weeks before the summit this document would be adopted as an outcome. They would then be invited to a summit where there had already been an agreement. The G5 wanted to be involved in the setting of the agenda and the outcomes. They had engaged with the G8 and hoped that there would be positive outcomes.

Adv Z Madasa (ANC) asked if the decisions made at the G8 summit were binding.

Ambassador Matjila replied that he was not sure whether these issues would bind the United States Congress. He felt that it was a platform to sensitise nations and attempt to work together toward a common goal. The member states in the G8 had a common interest although it was dominated by the United States. They had hoped that some of the issues would be binding, particularly with the African Agenda, however it had not been so.

Adv Madasa asked if the G5 wanted membership in the G8 or did they just want the ability to influence the agenda.

Ambassador Matjila replied that their approach had been toward partnership. French President Nicolas Sarkozy and the English Prime Minister Gordon Brown had both indicated that there should be an inclusion of nations such as China, whose economy would grow larger. It was the content of the discussion that was important and therefore the ability to influence it equally important.

Adv Madasa thought that a complicated issue was the absence of trade authority in the United States.

Ambassador Matjila replied that because of the general elections in the United States they would rather leave certain issues on the agenda but not emphasise them until they were certain of the leadership in the country.

Mr M Ramgobin (ANC) commented that in order for South Africa to move toward global co-existence, this should not be the task of  government alone. He insisted that non-governmental organisations (NGOs), people’s organisations and professional organisations must also appropriate these programmes as their own. His justification for this was the diverse and competitive nature of the nations and the geo-political manoeuvring of the G8 nations.

Ambassador Matjila replied that South Africa was the only country on the continent that was a regular at all G8 meetings and summits. NGOs had always been at G8 summits although they were uninvited. There was a suggestion that there should be an organised forum for the NGOs to present their issues to the G8.

Mr Ramgobin asked if Africa had a mechanism that strengthened the existing monitoring systems of the debt forgiveness. He felt the monitoring of these programmes within Africa should become an African Union responsibility.

Ambassador Matjila replied that as there was a demand for debt forgiveness there should also be a monitoring mechanism in place.

Mr Ramgobin asked why the rest of the debt had not been forgiven.

Ambassador Matjila replied that there was a plea for 100% debt forgiveness. It was only Africa that could benefit from debt forgiveness so African nations should comply with the requests. An interesting dynamic between the two different types of debt, government and private sector debts, had emerged. There seemed to be more private sector debt than government debt.

Mr Ramgobin asked if there was a possibility of an expansion of the India, Brazil and South Africa development initiative IBSA.

Ambassador Matjila replied that there was a view that there should be a G8 of the South. In the last few years Mexico and China had joined South Africa and Brazil in their approach to the G8 of the North. South Africa was also approached by Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) to perhaps form Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICSA). South Africa had claimed strategic ambiguity.

Mr M Skosana (IFP) commented that his view was the United Nations Security Council had a similar outlook as that of the G8. Their outlook was mainly centred on international power and security, whether it was through military intervention, or the strength of their economy, or through political dominance. He thought this was the reason that the G8 nations did not find the decisions made at the summits binding. The South-South dialogue would be an answer to that sort of resistance.

Mr Skosana thought that there was tendency not to see that domestic policy had a bearing on foreign policy. For instance the issue with Eskom and the lack of electricity, and the post-Polokwane events could lead to fluidity and instability in the economic system, and then the regional economic system and ultimately the global economic system could also be affected.

The Chairperson felt that it was a comment that Members had to engage on and that it was a provocative statement.  It dealt with the issue of whether or not democracy in the country was underwritten by events that had happened. 

The Chairperson agreed that the Committee was concerned with the content. However sometimes the content was shaped by the format. The format could cause the content to be derailed. Another concept that caused concern was the fact that debt-ridden countries should beg for debt forgiveness. It gave the impression that they had committed a wrongful act by borrowing and therefore should ask forgiveness from the developed countries.

The Chairperson suggested that the AFRICOM and IBSA reports be deferred to next meeting.

The Chairperson insisted that reports were given to the Committee in a timeous manner. He also insisted that political accounting officers should be present at all meetings. If they were unable to attend then the Committee should receive an apology.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.



 


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: