Committee's report on DIRCO oversight visit & Western Sahara situation: discussion

This premium content has been made freely available

International Relations

12 June 2013
Chairperson: Mr T Magama (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee postponed final consideration and adoption of its report and recommendations on its oversight visit to the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO until it had received a briefing from the Department. The Committee noted possible implications of reported changes to Chapter 7 of the National Development Plan.

The Committee discussed the situation in Western Sahara with reference to its minutes of 20 March 2013 and 24 October 2012.  The Chairperson had received correspondence Ms S Kalyan (DA) in which she asked the Committee to examine the matter of Western Sahara and said that the matter had been engaged with in the Pan-African Parliament, where the Pan-African Parliament had seen videos of human rights violations. She wanted the Committee to engage and recommend to the National Assembly on how to respond. The Committee agreed to invite the Department, various stakeholders, and colleagues who sat in the Pan-African Parliament in order to get full information. The Committee would look at putting its ideas into action in terms of practical programmes.

Meeting report

Committee’s report on its oversight visit to the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO): discussion - final consideration and adoption postponed
The Chairperson said that in the previous meeting, Members had felt that the Committee should compile a set of recommendations before adopting this oversight visit report. However, the Chairperson requested Members to postpone the consideration and adoption of the report, because he felt that it would be impractical to produce recommendations 'out of the blue' as no recommendations had been proposed or extracted from the report.  The report was still in the same form as at the end of the previous meeting.  He felt that it would be better, for the purpose of engaging on the issues, to have a set of recommendations proposed on which Members could deliberate. Instead of considering and adopting the report therefore, he wanted the meeting to focus on proposing a set of recommendations.  

Mr I Davidson (DA) said that Members would recall that in the budget debate he had reflected on the contents of the National Development Plan (NDP) and he repeated many of the observations of the NDP. Chapter 7 of the NDP was highly critical of the DIRCO. He wanted the Minister and the Department to respond to this criticism. The Committee had visited the Department and had seen what was going on. It was necessary to reconcile 'those two'.  Yesterday, he had seen in Business Day that Cabinet had withdrawn Chapter 7 of the NDP, and it was going to be replaced by an updated version. The Committee was in a difficult position, as there was a great deal of strategy and vision put out by the Department, a great deal of which the Committee had learnt at its visit.  On the other hand, there was the NDP. It was now no longer necessary to reconcile what the Committee had learned on its visit, as that Chapter had been withdrawn. However, the Committee needed to know the basis on which Chapter 7 adopted by Cabinet and by Parliament had been suddenly withdrawn. There might well be good reasons. Only that could inform part of the Committee’s oversight visit report.  He explained that he was trying to conflate two issues, as one could not deal with issues in silos.  The Committee must either agree that Chapter 7 of the NDP was not representative, and that what DIRCO had told the Committee during its visit was representative, or else there was a mingling of the two, or else the NDP was right. The Committee could not deal with matters in abstract, but must bring them together at some stage.

Mr M Booi (ANC) agreed with the Chairperson and urged the Committee to deal with its recommendations. This would help the Committee to enhance its oversight visit report.

Mr B Skosana (IFP) was not sure from where the recommendations would come, but if they were to come from the Members then he would agree with Mr Davidson. In the first place somebody should have briefed the Committee on 'that aspect' of Chapter 7.  However, if Chapter 7 had now been withdrawn, it would be appropriate that the new version should be presented to the Committee for deliberation so that the Committee could contribute to it, as Chapter 7 impacted on the Committee’s work and on its oversight report. Furthermore it would impact on the Committee’s recommendations that it wanted to formulate now.

The Chairperson said that, in the broader context, it made sense, but there was a danger that one might conflate the two to the extent that The Committee lost the essence of what it accomplished during its visit to DIRCO. The oversight visit was focused on particular issues, most of which were based on the budget review and recommendations report of 2012. It was important that the Committee agreed on adoption of the report in terms of what happened at DIRCO as matters of fact. That could not be changed, regardless of the change to Chapter 7 of the NDP.  However, to the extent that the Committee’s recommendations would be relevant to matters pertaining to the NDP the Committee would engage with them and deal with them in that context. At the same time it was crucial for the Committee to have an engagement on Chapter 7 of the NDP. DIRCO was not involved in the writing of Chapter 7.  The Committee had not engaged directly with Chapter 7, both old and revised versions, and should allow the Department to make a contribution. As an issue on its own, the Committee should consider how, as far as possible, to incorporate some of the issues in the Committee’s recommendations to be included in its oversight visit report. 

Mr Davidson said that structure followed strategy. The Committee needed to engage with the Department on the basis of certain given facts and certain strategies which DIRCO, or the Committee, had in mind,  and look at the structure accordingly, and say if it was appropriate, and determine what the Department was achieving. Perhaps because the Committee had not engaged in the old Chapter 7, it had not been penetrating enough in its cross examination of DIRCO.  He had read Chapter 7 and found in it glaring criticisms.  The Committee should have studied Chapter 7 prior to visiting DIRCO for the oversight visit.

Mr Davidson said that the Committee should acknowledge what it saw at DIRCO, hear the criticisms of the NDP, acknowledge the new Chapter 7 that was to come, and try to find out why there were changes, thereby relating the new Chapter 7 to the Committee’s visit to DIRCO.  It was a circuitous process and one simply could not aggregate the three, but he thought that the Committee was moving in the right direction. It had to see the new Chapter 7. One major criticism was that there was no clear vision of what the national interest was. He wanted the Committee to formulate its own position.

Mr Booi acknowledged that Mr Davidson was raising valid concerns, but at the same time proposed that the Committee agree with the recommendations that the Chairperson had put forward. 

The Chairperson reiterated the danger of conflating issues and losing the essence of what the Committee did on its oversight visit. He proposed taking those matters of the NDP into account when dealing with the oversight report.  He accepted that there was any number of possibilities. He proposed that 'this report' [the oversight report] should stand over until the Committee had 'engaged with that process' [the NDP].

Mr Skosana said that if the matter was not urgent, then it should deal with the matters next week with the Department simultaneously.

Mr Skosana said that if the matter was urgent, the Committee could deal with its recommendations today, and then wait for the other issues. 

The Chairperson explained the focus of the oversight visit - the strategic plan, the budget and the annual report and the auditor-general’s report. From all those were the issues encapsulated in the BRRR. Hence his cautionary note. To the extent that the NDP issues were relevant to the Committee’s work on the oversight visit, it would deal with them. However, the Committee could not bring new issues into an oversight visit that had already taken place.

Mr Skosana was happy with the Chairperson's view.

Ms L Jacobus (ANC) agreed with the Chairperson's proposal to hold over the oversight report.  The NDP was still referred to as a document in progress. She agreed with Mr Skosana that the Committee should engage with the Department next week so that the Committee could move forward.

Mr Davidson again said that structure followed strategy. He felt that Chapter 7 of the NDP really 'attacked the very basis' on which the Committee had done its oversight. Thus one could not ignore it. One must hear from the Department. However, the Committee could not go about its business as usual when there was a document in the background that said that what the Department was doing was fundamentally wrong. The Department must give a briefing.

The Chairperson said that the Department had a strategy as outlined in its Strategic Plan. The NPD had been issued in 2012. This House had approved DIRCO's budget and strategic plan but not on the basis of the NDP. Therefore the oversight could not possibly have been conducted on the basis of the NDP. When the Committee did oversight, it did so on the basis of the strategic plan, the budget, the annual performance plan, and the annual report, with particular reference to the BRRR and audit findings, which the Committee had scrutinised.  He agreed that the Committee should examine the issue of the NDP; again there was a risk of conflation. Mr Davidson's approach was not the correct approach. The Committee needed to deal with the oversight report and conclude on it. The NDP issues should, thereafter, be dealt with separately. It was unlikely that the Committee could see the new version of the NDP by next week as it was still being finalised. 

Ms C Dudley (ACDP) agreed with the Chairperson.

Mr Davidson said that the Committee failed in its interrogations to ask where the NDP was in the context of all the presentations that it had received from the Department. He therefore suggested dealing with the oversight visit report as an interim report and then, when the new NDP was ready, engage with it and 'tie the two together'.

Ms C September (ANC) agreed with Mr Davidson.  At the same time she agreed [with the Chairperson] that the oversight report should be dealt with separately. Later the Committee should call the Department to brief it on how far it was in implementing the NDP. 

Mr Booi said that the Committee should give the Chairperson time to look into and 'preside over' the issues.

Mr Skosana disagreed with Mr Booi. No one was trying to derail the meeting. Members were dealing with hindsight. He agreed with the Chairperson that the Committee should look at the oversight report and recommendations, and at some point the Committee should deal with that hindsight as the Committee had not had a briefing on the NDP. It should have called for a briefing as Mr Davidson had said.  Also the Committee’s recommendations, whether the Committee liked it or not, would have some impact on the NDP. He fully supported the Chairperson.

A Member said that the Committee should not react to the newspaper article as it was not official.

The Chairperson proposed to hold over the report until it had received briefings from the Department and could assess the possible impact of those briefings on those recommendations or on the report itself.  He had received a letter from Mr Davidson asking the Committee to invite the Minister.

Members agreed. 

Western Sahara situation: discussion
The Chairperson said that the minutes included in Members' packs were to remind Members of the previous discussion. They were not for adoption. The minutes included were those of 20 March 2013 and 24 October 2012.  In both these engagements a number of issues had emanated.  He said that he had received correspondence Ms S Kalyan (DA) in which she asked the Committee to examine the matter of Western Sahara and said that the matter had been engaged with in the Pan-African Parliament, where the Pan-African Parliament had seen videos of human rights violations. She wanted the Committee to engage on the matter and recommend to the National Assembly on how to respond to the issue of the Western Sahara. This was a matter that was receiving much attention all over. The Department had given a briefing, and the Committee had asked it what Parliament could do. The Department had proposed, among others, that South Africa would engage in bilateral and multilateral negotiations and engage in international advocacy.

Mr Skosana said that the Committee should look at the practicalities on all available platforms, for example humanitarian aid. It was necessary to make the public aware of the human suffering in Western Sahara. The Committee needed to know how the Department achieved with aid.

Ms Jacobus said that the Committee needed to invite the Department, various stakeholders, and colleagues who sat in the Pan-African Parliament.

Mr Davidson said that Ms Kalyan sat in the Pan-African Parliament. She was looking for guidance from this Committee. The International Court of Justice had made a ruling and did not recognise Morocco's right over the Saharan people. This was a critical point of departure. This impacted on the human rights agenda that was enshrined in South Africa's Constitution.  It was not only a legal case, but a moral and human rights case for South Africa to be an advocate of the independence of the Saharan people.

Mr B Elof (DA) said that the Committee must get the full information from the Pan-African Parliament. How much aid was being given?

The Chairperson noted Members' consensus. He said that the Committee would look at putting its ideas into action in terms of practical programmes and would make known its position on the issue.

Other business
Mr Skosana noted discussion in the African Diaspora Forum on xenophobia. In 2008 the Chief Whips' Forum had made recommendations on the same subject.  He suggested inviting the Forum.

Ms Jacobus said that there were many proposals as to what the Committee should do. She wanted these included in the draft programme for the next term.

The Chairperson agreed. This was exactly what he wanted to say. The Committee would deal with the subject in the context of the Committee’s programme.

The meeting was adjourned.
 

Documents

No related documents

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: