Treaty of Friendship & Partnership between Republic of South Africa & Russian Federation: briefing by Deputy Minister & Department & Ratification

Meeting report

Treaty of Friendship and Partnership between The Republic of South Africa and The Russian Federation: Ratification

NOTE: PMG was only notified of the starting time of the briefing after it had commenced

The meeting was addressed by Ambassador Gert Grobler, Acting Deputy Director General: Americas and Europe, Department of Foreign Affairs. He tabled and described the Treaty of Friendship and Partnership between the Republic of South African and the Russian Federation (the Treaty) – see attached presentation.

Discussion
A number of questions were raised by different Members of the Committee. General answers were then given by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ms Sue van der Merwe, to the political questions, and the economic-related questions were responded to by Ambassador Grobler.

The questions posed were as follows:

A Member asked if there was any provision in the Treaty between South Africa (RSA) and the Russian Federation (Russia) precluding RSA from entering into treaties with other countries.

It was queried whether the Department of Trade and Industry (dti) was giving any thought or attention to decreasing the unfavourable balance that currently existed in favour of Russia.

It was questioned whether the Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) had given any thought to, or was making any provision for, the greater beneficiation of South African minerals before these were exported to Russia, or any other country, so that poverty within RSA was eradicated or at least greatly reduced by the creation of jobs within RSA.

It was noted that the question of the production, use and storage of uranium, whether enriched or raw, did not seem to have been addressed in the Treaty.

A criticism was expressed that terrorism was not defined.

It was noted that South Africa’s view tended to be coloured by the media views from the West. The question was then asked whether, other than supporting some pro-liberation movements, South Africa did not seem to be caught in a pro-West relationship rather than a pro-Russian relationship or attitude, and the Member wondered if anything was . being done to correct this impasse.

A Member noted that the perception was that Mr Alexander Putin, Prime Minister and President Dmitry Medvedev appeared to have a cosy relationship, whereby the one moved into the other’s political chair and he asked for an indication of the real state of affairs.

The question was posed that President Medvedev had issued the five Pillars of his administration, but what was the position in International Law when Russia seemed to have a policy of taking action, or intervening, wherever its citizens might be positioned or threatened. This seemed to be problematic.

Two Members noted that this Treaty was signed 5 February 2006 and yet only now, in October 2008, was it being presented to Parliament for ratification. They asked for clarity on the reasons for the time delay. 

Another Member also expressed unhappiness over the delay, and noted that Members had been given insufficient time to study and digest the contents. This was unacceptable, as the Treaty was concerned with International Solidarity, and he had not heard, in the briefing, any reference in Medvedev’s Five Pillars to International Solidarity. He feared that the Cold War was being revived, especially as Russia was so concerned about developments and actions in those areas that Russia regarded as its sphere of influence. He expressed concern also that Russia did not seem to be concerned with African issues. Although it was concerned with Russian spheres of influence it was not, concomitantly, with Africa’s spheres of influence. Although there was reference to Russian action in Darfur, there was equally no Russian pronouncement upon Human Rights in Darfur or elsewhere. There was reference to increases in Russian involvement in African mining and a Russian intention to develop African mining, but this did not go hand in hand with a decrease in African poverty or the development of African peoples. Russia seemed stuck in a time warp, and its efforts are inadequate.

Another Member pointed out that there was apparently another Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Russia and RSA, and yet there would appear to be others hidden in the background, either superceding this MOU or downgrading it.

A query was raised around the trade statistics and the unfavourable balance of R280 million in favour of Russia. The question was asked in what areas South African trade towards Russia could be increased, so that the deficit was reduced.

A question was asked whether the substantial figure of US dollars mentioned included any large sums for poverty eradication or debt relief in Africa.

Ms Sue van der Merwe, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, conceded that there was a bias in South Africa’s trade and economic relationships towards the Western countries. She further said that Governments could only determine foreign policy and relationships and make the ground rules for trade, but that if the actual traders, being the trading companies on the ground, were not prepared to enter the markets, then government had no coercive powers. The Intergovernmental Trade and Economic Committee ITEC was meeting annually at Ministerial level. and bi annually at Directors General level, and  although trading opportunities could be highlighted arising out of such meetings, the traders had to be persuaded that there was a chance of profit before they would enter the markets so created. She added that this as an ongoing process and the aim ultimately was to create jobs in South Africa. Subsequent to 2004 there had been increased activity between RSA and Russia, and trade between the two countries had consequentially increased.

Ms van der Merwe said that there were never any specific African questions discussed at meetings, or indeed human rights issues. She added that in her opinion Articles 1, 2 and 3 contained sufficient references to International Solidarity and were solidarity measures in themselves. Article 2 was an African issue and raised the question of African debt relief and poverty eradication. She conceded that the Department was not happy with the trade imbalance but felt that the ITEC meetings would work towards reducing the unfavourable balance against South Africa.

With regard to the questions around the time lag Ms van der Merwe explained that after a treaty such as this one was agreed upon in principle, and signed, it would thereafter need to be referred to the State Law Advisers, who would test the potential impact upon South African and International laws, both internally and externally. Because such great attention was paid to the minutiae this process accordingly would take a long time. Any perceptions that the matter had been lying dormant were false, as the lawyers had been busy with the treaty over the intervening time period.

Ambassador Grobler said that this treaty would neither accelerate nor preclude RSA from entering into any other treaties, whether they were bilateral or multilateral, with other countries. He noted that Russia was extremely keen to attain membership of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and RSA was doing its utmost to facilitate Russia’s joining of the WTO. In reciprocation for this assistance, Russia was favouring RSA interests in other areas, including the bilateral position between the two countries. Russia had a positive impact upon RSA and RSA recognised that Russia was a vibrant economy.

He highlighted that in regard to trade between the two countries, both were engaged in an exchange of information and there had been two Trade Missions to highlight the opportunities that each could have in the other’s sphere of activities. He reiterated the point made by Ms van der Merwe, that although governments could highlight the opportunities it remained for the actual traders to take advantage of those opportunities identified by Government’s agencies. Opportunities had been flagged and ongoing attention was being given to them.

Ambass Grobler noted that the fact that Russia was a major producer of uranium, both enriched and ordinary, was perhaps not brought out strongly in the briefing. There were ongoing discussions between Russia and RSA on the storage of the unused and used uranium. The current thinking was that Russia would have a “storage facility” for Europe and RSA would have a similar facility for Africa. The Regulations and Rules were being discussed and formulated, and this was to be regarded as a work in progress.

He added that the question of beneficiation was constantly on the agendas and receiving attention from everyone at all times. As an example he stated that the Russian and RSA diamond-mining interests were discussing the issues constantly, with an intention of beneficiation of the raw minerals before they left the areas where they were mined.

Ambass Grobler too conceded that, as a result of colonization, Western interests had had an enormous and even untoward impact upon RSA and its political-economic policies. However, he assured Members that this was  changing and that there was now a swing to a Brazil / India / China axis and even a South/South axis of Southern Hemisphere interests. In this regard he stated that trade statistics revealed that RSA’s trade figures with Europe were declining, from 40% down to about 36%, and although this was not significant as yet, it was an exciting development and an indication of the change from colonisation. It was a work in progress, and he assured Members that Russia supported this tendency.

With regard to the comments around International Solidarity, he outlined that after the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) – not to be regarded as synonymous with the Russian Federation – the USA had taken every advantage it could find to establish itself in those areas or countries from which the USSR was formerly contracting. Now that there was an increasing degree of stability in the Russian Federation, Russia was re-exerting and re-establishing itself in areas where the USSR was formerly dominant. These included, for instance, Cuba and Venezuela, and this was in line with the Medvedev Declaration of Five Pillars or Points. In Africa there was an ongoing re-assessment of Russia’s interests. Russia was a member of the G8 Group of Nations, and Africa was always on the agenda.

Members raised further questions about the trade imbalance, Russian reserves, and Russian attempts to uplift its own poor, lift its Gross Domestic Product to 12% yet making little effort to contribute to the eradication of poverty in Africa. He also noted that another member had referred to the Russian invasion of Georgia, Russian disillusionment with the West, and the effect of the McCain electioneering, which was viewed as simple war-mongering, especially in the light of the stationing by America of missile plants in Poland and Czechoslovakia. These were ostensibly to be used in the war on terrorism, but were more probably directed to intimidate Russia.

Mr P Gerber (ANC) reminded Members that three weeks before the invasion of Georgia by Russia, Georgia had embarked upon military maneuvers with American participation, and that Russia had viewed this as interference in a Russian sphere of influence. When it finally came to the crunch, the USA had not assisted Georgia, other than with humanitarian aid. He added that Russia was a proud nation and did not wish to be taken for granted. In consequence Russia could prove difficult to deal with unless it was approached, consulted, and negotiated with in advance.

The Chairperson asked whether Africa, and especially RSA, was not being excluded in the negotiations between the European Union (EU), the African Union (AU), and the Brazil, India and China axis.

A Member raised the fact that Russia was increasing its export of manufactured goods, chief among which were small arms, especially the AK 47 rifles, which criminals obtained and used with impunity. He wished to know whether Russia could be prevailed upon to reduce the trade in the AK 47 weaponry.

Another Member commented that there did not seem to be agreement upon the definition of terrorism – one man’s hero was another man’s terrorist. He wondered whether Russia could not be persuaded to adopt a similar definition of terrorism to reduce terrorist activity.

The same Member questioned, in regard to the Uranium centres, who would have ultimate control over such centres and whether there would there be agreement on who was not to have access to them.

Another member wished to know whether the Cold War had not been revived, by way of surrogates.

The question was also asked how the Russians viewed RSA, and particularly whether it was not regarded as another expendable small African country, which might be the reason for the proliferation of the AK47 in this country.

Ms van der Merwe said that the ITEC meetings were now taking place with regularity.  She mentioned that the Brazil /India / China (BRIC) axis was getting underway but that there was also a very real danger that RSA could be squeezed out. Even in this time of economic turmoil in the West,  the Chinese GDP was advancing at 9%, and there was a bi- lateral India / China agreement. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France was working to expand the G8 to the G14, which would benefit RSA. Simultaneously, however, President Sarkozy was also working towards a Mediterranean Union, of the nations on the Mediterranean Littoral, which could also form an economic power house of Africa. By its very nature, this would exclude RSA and was a potential danger to the AU. RSA’s interests were firstly Africa, then the South / South interests followed. The BRIC was not yet finalised but it also could pose some challenges for RSA.

Ms van der Merwe agreed that there was no standard or final definition of terrorism, and currently terrorism was being used as an excuse for unilateral action. She was pleased that the question of small arms had been raised, as she agreed that the indiscriminate sale and supply of small arms was a blight upon mankind and control of this was very important to RSA.

Ambass Grobler said that RSA had viewed Russian engagement as a priority, and all departments were being advised accordingly.

Ambass Grobler noted that the Uranium Centres were proving difficult to monitor and control, but an answer would be found. The apparent revival of the Cold War was giving rise to a great deal of comment and attention. It was necessary to bear in mind that a historically deeply-rooted and proud people had interests that had been ignored or trampled upon. There was indeed a need for sensitive engagement.

A Member noted that it seemed to him that those countries that had retained controls, such as Russia, still seemed to have a degree of order, but where there had been the removal of controls, such as in the American financial areas, there was now chaos, and recession bordering on a depression. He suggested that RSA should seize the initiative and work towards another Bretton-Woods type of ordering of the world, in order to avert the current crisis

The Co-Chairperson stated that, judging from his experience elsewhere, the Russian Ambassador had been agitating for this treaty to be ratified by this Committee and Parliament and he commented that he had found the long delay embarrassing. This joint meeting was an attempt to bring the matter to the fore. He personally felt that situations such as this vulgarised foreign Policy.

The Chairpersons felt that Russia’s insistence on developing mining was not, in his opinion, aiding debt relief or the eradication of poverty. All it was doing was promoting mining, and the people on the ground were actually receiving little benefit. He also drew attention of the Members to the Middle East, where, notwithstanding Russia’s concern with Russia’s interests, little had been done to improve the lot of the Palestinians. He reminded Members that Russia today was not the direct successor of the USSR and had very distinct and different interests from those held by the USSR. Russia was first and foremost concerned with Russia’s strategic interests and policies, which it would put above all other interests and concerns. He noted that Russia took action against Georgia when Georgia’s actions impacted upon Russia, and yet RSA had not taken action against its neighbouring countries when activities there impacted upon the RSA economy; surely what was acceptable in one situation ought to apply to other similar situations.

Despite the concerns he had raised, he recommended the adoption of the Treaty.

Members agreed unanimously to recommend the adoption of the Treaty.

The meeting was adjourned.