Department of Foreign Affairs Budget: Analysis by Experts

Meeting report

Institute for Global Dialogue
Dr Siphamandi Zondi, the Institute’s Programme Director: Africa and Southern Africa, addressed the Committee as in the powerpoint presentation attached. He began by pointing out that he would comment on the budget and relate this to the way South Africa was positioning itself.

He stressed that the way South Africa communicated its foreign policy to the world and to the media was poor. The policy needed to be articulated clearly. If South Africa did not articulate its policy clearly, others would do it for South Africa. This was addressed in Programme 3 of the budget which dealt with public diplomacy and protocol. Even though this was the biggest challenge it took a small part of the budget. This programme also showed a decline in the 2009/10 budget.

South African Institute of International Affairs
Mr Tim Hughes, Programme Head at the SAIIA, addressed the Committee as in the powerpoint presentation attached. He added that overall, the DFA was in better shape than it had been in a long time. He pointed out that the budget was largely aligned to the DFA's strategic objectives. It appeared that the DFA had achieved stability and program clarity and was also more transformed. It was therefore more efficient and effective. Two years ago, certain recommendations were made to the DFA and these recommendations were now seen in the Department's strategic plan.

It was concerning however that the activities, especially in Programme 2, were many and also very complex. These activities also have many objectives, deliverables and indicators. The measurement of these objectives, deliverables and indicators was not clear. The Committee would therefore need to more involved with the DFA.

Regarding the vacancy rate at the DFA, Mr Hughes said that this was dropping quite markedly. In the critical positions, the vacancy rate was still above 30%. This needed to be brought down. The DFA also seemed to be making good progress as far as transformation was concerned. At the top however, there was still 70% males.

Mr Hughes expressed concern about the Policy Research and Advisory Unit (PRAU) within the DFA. This unit was the brains of the DFA and where individuals learned their state craft. This unit should be producing high calibre officials and should be world class. The Committee should therefore engage with this unit and assess it.

He also stressed that there needed to be greater co-operation between the DFA and the Department of Trade and Industry.

The activities and role of the foreign missions should also be investigated especially those in African countries.

Discussion
The Chair thanked the presenters and said that the points raised went to the heart of the Committee's oversight work.

Mr B Holomisa (UDM) said that many of the concerns raised by the presenters had been raised by the Committee before. It was good that outsiders were seeing the same concerns. He expressed concern at the lack of co-ordination between the DFA and the Presidency. This affected all state departments. Strategic interests regarding foreign policy were based at the Presidency. Although the Committee engaged with the Director General of the DFA, someone from the Presidency should also engage with the Committee. Even though much of the foreign policy was coming from the Presidency, this was not reflected in the budget. It was therefore not clear who was accountable. Foreign policy could not be changed overnight and the new president would have to follow the policy.

Mr W Seremane (DA) asked what the presenters felt the balance should be between the DFA, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Home Affairs when it came to foreign policy.

Mr M Skosana (IFP) referred to the relationship between South Africa, the United Nations and Zimbabwe and asked whether it was possible that the UN would move into Zimbabwe considering the violation of human rights that was taking place there. He also asked whether the presentersthought it would be a good idea for the Committee to meet with PRAU. He was also concerned about the recruitment of people from the diaspora as part of JIPSA or ASGISA. Regarding the co-ordination of foreign policy, he said that the Committee should consider meeting the provincial legislatures, especially those who had gone overseas to seek bi-lateral agreements. He expressed concern that South Africa was becoming a reluctant hegemony in Africa. He felt that South Africa needed to be more aggressive.

Mr M Malahlela (ANC) questioned Mr Zondi and asked whether South Africa should insist on getting a return on its investment when it got involved in other countries. He suggested that perhaps South Africa should just see that democracy is established and not insist on getting something out.

The Chair followed up on Mr Malahlela's point and said that in the case of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), South Africa had been involved in conflict resolution and had then withdrawn. Yet the USA was involved now for a very specific return. South Africa on the other hand got nothing yet it had done all the dirty work and had spent money there. He also said that the return on investment should not be at the expense of the local people. South African businesses should be aware of this when they go into other countries. He also wanted to know how domestic policy affected foreign policy. What did the presenters consider as the threats to South Africa's foreign policy?

The Chair referred to money that the DFA had not received from Treasury and said that the Committee had asked for a meeting, but Treasury could not meet at the time. Treasury did say that they would come to a meeting in the future. He asked the presenters how the Committee should interact with Treasury. Referring to the co-ordination between the DFA and the Presidency, he said that the Presidency formulated policy and the DFA implemented it. He did feel however that other departments needed to be engaged such as DTI and the Department of Defence. He pointed out that the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) with the EU went beyond economics and was more political.

Mr Zondi said that he would not be able to answer all the questions. For him, the most important question was what South Africa's interests were. South Africa knew what its supreme interest was, and others knew that as well. The supreme interest related to South Africa's friends. Its supreme interest seemed to be to help populations and not governments. What was hidden however was of more concern and of more direct interest. The ultimate interest was of more concern. He made the example of Nigeria that was very close to South Africa and helped to establish NEPAD and the AU. When it came to the interests of its own people however, it put its people's interests ahead of its relationship with South Africa and withdrew from the relationship. He felt that it would be in South Africa's interest to export its experience of bringing about a peaceful resolution from a situation of conflict. They should not support other countries’ interests. In the example of the DRC, South Africa helped to support Belgium's interests in the country and not its own. South Africa did not push for an inclusive government, etc. South Africa did therefore not return with return on investment but rather return with investment. Regarding the threats to foreign policy, he felt that the interest of the USA and the EU in the region was of concern. He also felt that the moral authority that South Africa had due to ex-President Mandela might be difficult to maintain. He said that the Committee should interact with the PRAU as it had seemed as if it had ceded its power to the Presidency.

Mr Hughes commented that the Committee had posed quite challenging questions. He added that it would be good if the Presidency interacted with the Committee as it was accountable to it. He felt that the relationship between the DTI, DFA and the Department of Home Affairs related to the institutional arrangement of the departments. He did feel that if things got worse in Zimbabwe, the role of the UN would increase there. It was imperative for the Committee to meet with PRAU. South Africa should recruit from the diaspora, but it should be careful whom it recruited. It would not be helpful to the country to recruit people who did not transform and were still racist. The skills should rather be developed internally. 

Mr Hughes also felt that it would be helpful for the Committee to meet with the provincial legislatures so that they understood their roles and responsibilities. This should be a matter of priority. He felt that the DRC was the new scramble for Africa. South Africa had taken the lead here and had come out with a bi-lateral. The DRC was however a very complex and complicated area. This was made worse by the regional players in the east of the country who were not being kept accountable. Referring to Rwanda, he said that South Africa had no real influence of its president as there were other countries such as the US who were donors and therefore had more influence. He suggested to the Committee that it should organise a national convention on foreign policy. This would bring all the key policy makers from different departments together and hopefully bring about a common understanding. He felt that the key threat to foreign policy was the fact that South Africa did still not know what its interests are. All the other players such as the US, EU and China knew what theirs were. These countries’ interests were very clearly defined whereas ours was not. He pointed out that there was concern internationally around the succession in the Presidency. He agreed with the Chair that sentiments had changed toward Mr Zuma. More could be done however and the role of the International Marketing Council needed to be looked at. He strongly urged the Committee to engage the Treasury about how the budget was designed. This could also be covered in the convention mentioned previously. He ended by emphasising that the foreign missions abroad delivered excellent service.

The Chair noted that the Committee had hosted a meeting a few years before in Pretoria on foreign policy. It had concentrated on the role of business. He felt that perhaps they should go back and look at it and try to ascertain the key concepts of the policy and what South Africa's interests were. He pointed out that they were planning a workshop on the South Africa-China policy. The issue of African governance was also one that needed to be looked at. It would be useful to look at the EU model and see how it could be used to assist the AU. The meeting was adjourned.