International Relations & Cooperation Portfolio Committee Action Plan & Programme; Five-Year Legacy Report

Meeting report

Chairperson’s opening remarks
The Chairperson started by expressing his concern and dissatisfaction with poor attendance, and late-coming to the meetings, noting that the latter had caused this meeting to start 45 minutes late. He expected such behaviour to cease. He noted the apologies and welcomed new Members and an observer from the Pan African Parliament.

Briefing by Parliamentary Content Adviser
Ms Dineo Mosala, the Parliamentary Content Advisor, briefed the Committee, noting that she would address only the main points, in view of the fact that time was now short.

She noted that the purpose of Portfolio Committees was to perform the bulk of Parliament’s work. They had been described as the “engine room”. They shadowed the work of the national government departments, although the work of the Committees was not restricted to government, as they may investigate any matter of public interest that fell within their area of responsibility.

She described the role of the Committees. These should monitor and oversee the work of national Government departments, hold these departments accountable, and oversee the accounts of national Government departments and State Institutions. They were to consider Bills, and may initiate legislation themselves. They would also consider private members’ and provincial legislative proposals and Special Petitions, may be called upon to consider and ratify international treaties and agreements and give attention to domestic Parliamentary issues. She noted that Committees had the power to summon any person to appear before them.

The mandate specifically in regard to the Portfolio Committee on International Relations included consideration of legislation referred to it, exercising oversight over the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) and its entities, considering international agreements referred to the Committee, considering the budget vote of the Department, and facilitating public participation in its processes. It must also consider all matters referred to the Committee in terms of legislation, Rules of Parliament or Resolutions of the House.

Ms Mosala moved on to describe the main issues that had been considered by the former Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs. These had included voting patterns by South African delegations to the United Nations (UN) on Human Rights issues, the effectiveness of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) as an economic program of the African Union (AU), the state of readiness by the Continent for a Union Government, and elections in Africa as a true reflection of entrenchment of democratic principles. It had also considered the political crisis in Zimbabwe, the Israel/Palestinian conflict, the AU’s response to the warrant of arrest issued against President Omar Al-Bashir of Sudan by the International Criminal Court (ICC), and xenophobic attacks. It further gave attention to South African foreign policy in the new multi-polar dispensation, disarmament issues on non-proliferation of small arms and light weapons, the conduct of South Africa's envoys abroad (including issues of alleged sexual harassment and other issues), the conduct of South African companies abroad, the peace processes in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the handling of the Dalai Lama’s issue, the crisis in Madagascar, commendable intervention by South African in the Sudan and DRC, and South Africa’s foreign policy shift in focus and alignment with the South.

Ms Mosala noted that the Parliamentary Programme for the second term comprised seven or eight weeks. Oversight and legislation period was two weeks. The time therefore translated to one visit per province per year for domestic oversight, which would include Public Diplomacy programmes. If nine provinces were to be covered in five years, this meant that two provinces must be covered per year, which meant that there was not enough time to undertake oversight visits.

Ms Mosala noted that there were outstanding issues from the Third Parliament. She again referred to the legacy report. The last Portfolio Committee had dealt with one piece of legislation, and there was nothing still outstanding, nor tabled for the current year. This Committee would need to follow up on the presentation of the Annual Report. There had been only one oversight visit to Departmental Headquarters in Pretoria. She referred again to the problems around attempting to cover all the provinces in five years. The Parliamentary Research Unit had suggested that there was a need to  monitor policy implementation in priority areas.

Insofar as the Department of International Relations was concerned, the Committee would need to look at their Strategic Plan, and would therefore need to see the finalised version of this. The strategic plan of the Committee must be aligned with that of the Department, and the Committee must decide what key areas it must oversee.

Ms Mosala moved on to the topic of the Committee’s budget for 2009/10. She noted that the remainder of the budget for this financial year would be advised at a later stage, as each Committee had started with R450 000. The amount allocated was not sufficient to achieve the Committee’s yearly objectives, which included the IBSA October conference, international study tours to the DRC and Guinea, a visit to all provinces every year, and the need to cover at least 1% of cooperation projects locally. The Committee needed to prioritise and cost all activities to be done in a year.

Ms Mosala noted that the previous Parliamentary Strategic Plan applied from 2004 until 2009. The new Plan for 2009 to 2013 was due in September. This Strategic Plan would include setting out the vision, strategic objectives, mandate, mission, core objectives and areas and programme indicators.

The recommendations for the 5-year programme included that there be two meetings outside Parliament per year, two overseas study visits during the 5-year period, and two local oversight visits per year. The programme must set out the details of the intended oversight work, details of the anticipated legislative programme, details of accountability work, details on training needs, and costing of the programme. The deadline for submission was 28 August 2009.

Discussion
The Chairperson suggested that as the Committee needed to discuss four topics, the Committee should be divided into two sub-Committees, each of whom should tackle two topics, then present their conclusions to the other group at 11:30, which would necessitate another session after hours to finalise the other two topics.

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) suggested that Members should attempt to finalise the discussion today, as there might be a problem of non-attendance if this meeting were to be postponed.

Mr K Mubu (DA) suggested that since everybody was present now, the Members should rather discuss each topic in turn, taking input from all.

The Chairperson agreed to this.

The Chairperson said that, in regard to the African Agenda, it was very important to include a visit to Zimbabwe to see how the people on the ground were experiencing the Political Peace Agreement. A visit to Sudan would be as important as a visit to Zimbabwe. The Committee must therefore decide which of the two to visit, or whether to try to visit both. He suggested that next on the agenda would be a visit to the Middle East to see how the two state regimes between Israel and Palestine were progressing.

Ms R Magau (ANC) mentioned that when the Committee’s programme was completed the Committee would also pay a visit to the Department’s headquarters to see how their programme fitted in with Parliament.

Dr G Koornhof (ANC) mentioned that it was important to see how the Regional Economic Integration into the Southern African Development  Community (SADC) was progressing.

Ms Mosala noted that the Members firstly needed to specify the international visits, then the local visits, and then identify the oversight issues.

Mr Mubu indicated that the visit to Zimbabwe should also focus on the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and how it was progressing.

Mr Mokgalapa suggested a need to focus on the African Renaissance Fund Projects and the specific progress made.

Mr H Magama (ANC) was of the opinion that the DRC, because of its geo-political location, had the ability to plunge the whole continent into war. He felt that this, together with the fact that such a large amount had been invested into the resolution of conflict, made a visit to the DRC of the utmost importance.

Ms Mosala suggested a need to visit their Parliament to see how the voluntary cooperation agreement was working.

The next point on the agenda related to local visits. The Chairman wanted to know exactly what the reason for the local visits was, and what the public diplomacy sought to achieve.

Ms Magau indicated that the visit to universities would engage students in the form of imbizos, and engage with various other experts and stakeholders.

Mr Magama indicated that voting patterns reflected on human rights, and there was a need to understand why people would vote in a particular way and the impact of issues on voting patterns.

Mr Mishu indicated his view that the Committee should visit the refugees in Limpopo, even more importantly than visiting those refugees from Zimbabwe.

Mr Mokgalapa indicated that there should be a clear relationship between the Department of Home Affairs and the refugees in order to address the issue of xenophobia.

Mr Mubu agreed with these views, and suggested a visit to the Beit Bridge border post, in order to see how people were entering South Africa, whether legally or illegally.

Mr M Manana (ANC) suggested a visit to the Pan African Parliament.

Mr Mubu said that it would be useful to visit the SADC headquarters, since South Africa was the biggest contributor in SADC.

Dr Koornhof suggested that a way be found to fuse all the issues of xenophobia, migration, immigration and border posts and control.

The Chairman suggested holding a two-or three-day conference at University of the North, which would also enable the Committee, without too much further traveling, to plan a visit to the Beit Bridge Border post. The sessions could deal with various issues such as xenophobia, migration, why South Africa had become the centre of attention, the issues around the South African Revenue Protection Association and Absolute Return Fund, the Pan African Parliament, and issues arising in Nigeria and the DRC. This would have to be a well-coordinated and planned conference, and, provided the budget allowed for this, experts from the Department of Trade and Industry and Department of Defence could also be brought in to workshop practical and topical issues and suggestions.

Ms R Magau (ANC) took over as the Chairperson for the remainder of the meeting.

She requested that the Committee allocate timeframes and prioritise the different issues to be covered over the 5-year programme, to coincide with the Parliamentary programme and other matters of importance. This had to be included as part of the final plan.

Mr Mubu asked what the status of Egypt was regarding IBSA (India / Brazil / South Africa). It appeared that Egypt had obtained a back door entrance, which effectively meant that the group of 5 would become 5 plus 1.

The Chairperson suggested that, since there was to be a conference on the issue in October, the Committee should ask to be briefed on all the issues.

Dr Koornhof suggested that as part of the South-South agreement, the Committee should also look at working together with the relevant stakeholders on issues such as health, education, land and other initiatives as identified.

Mr Mokgalapa asked that the Committee also clarify and define the relationship between non-stakeholders such as China and Thailand, specifically regarding trade agreements and related areas.

Dr Koornhof, in relation to North-South agreement, indicated there must be a higher degree of cooperation as part of multilateralism. This was especially true of cooperation with the European Union (EU), France, Russia and the Japan / Africa initiative, which also included Germany, United States of America and the EU. 

Mr Mubu concurred, indicating that America was also part of the agreement as part of the Africom Initiative.

Mr Mubu requested that the Committee be consulted on the implementation of foreign policy, and meetings with foreign delegates. He also suggested that the Committee be involved in the appointment of ambassadors, even if this extended only to the new ambassador being required to brief the Committee on his or her role and aspirations in a foreign country.

The Chairperson indicated that the Committee could communicate with the Director General or Minister in this regard, and raise its concerns and expectations by way of a question and answer session. However, the Committee could not be directly involved in the appointment of ambassadors, as this was the responsibility of the President. She also indicated that the Committee could send a group of observers to see how the appointment process worked. She would investigate and give feedback to the Members.

The Chairperson suggested that, in regard to multilateralism, the AU reforms, the Bretton Woods Institute, the financial restructuring of the World Bank and climate change issues could all the included in the project plans, and prioritised.

Dr Koornhof mentioned that US $300 million were made available to South Africa as part of the China building agreement. The Committee had to investigate if these monies had been used.

The Committee deliberated the issue of oversight visits, and agreed that those responsible for the projects mentioned would be called to account. The Committee would also produce quarterly reports. The Annual Report would include the Strategic Plan, the budgets and all other information mentioned in the meeting.

The Chairperson requested that the Minutes of this meeting be made available by 12:00 on Friday, and that Members should be prepared to discuss and adopt them on the following Wednesday.

Ms Mosala finally noted that the Committee would have to indicate, in its next meeting, what its training needs were.

After deliberating the issue, the Members agreed that they needed some training in French, Portuguese and Swahili. They also required training in State protocol and diplomacy.

Adoption of Minutes
The Chairperson then tabled the Minutes of the previous meetings, which were adopted.

The meeting was adjourned.