Madam Speaker, with regard to this question which deals with World Trade Organisation, WTO, negotiations, I would like to start by saying that South Africa is indeed a strong proponent of multilateralism, and our core objective in the Doha Round of the WTO negotiations has been to strengthen the global rules-based trading system in a manner that supports the development aspirations of the developing countries.
In our view, an equitable and balanced trading system that fully takes into account developmental prospects would enhance the legitimacy and stability of that trading system. South Africa supported the launch of the round on the basis of the mandate of the Doha Declaration that aimed to place the needs and interests of developing countries at the heart of its work programme. This approach and mandate has guided our participation in these negotiations.
Many milestones and deadlines have been missed in this complex negotiating process and it is not immediately clear when the date for the next WTO Ministerial meeting will be set. There is indeed some impetus towards convening the meeting in July, next month, but many issues still need to be resolved to ensure that the meeting of the trade Ministers has the essential elements for a successful outcome.
It is our view, which is shared by many other WTO members, that while it is of great importance that we conclude the negotiations as soon as possible to achieve the objectives agreed to in Doha, this must not be at the expense of the developmental content of the round. In this respect, we require significant progress in the agricultural negotiations as this is the measure of the development content of the round, given that most developing countries rely on agriculture for their development.
Recent reports in the international media suggest that the slow progress in negotiations on the industrial tariffs is holding up the conclusion of the round. But this is not the case. Agriculture remains the key to the round, setting both the pace and the mission for the other important issues for negotiations.
While important progress has been achieved in the agricultural negotiations, several key issues are outstanding. These include securing meaningful reductions in trade-distorting domestic subsidies in the developed countries so as to open up production and trade opportunities to more competitive farmers in the developing world, including those in Africa. This has become more urgent with the emerging global food crisis and, paradoxically, easier to achieve because global food prices are at record high levels. We also require an outcome that offers greater clarity and precision on the level of tariff reductions in agriculture.
Currently the range of outstanding issues and loopholes built into the negotiations give little comfort that the outcome of tariff reduction negotiations will result in significantly enhanced access to the markets of developed countries for agricultural products of export interest to developing countries. Progress on these agricultural issues at the next ministerial meeting is vital, and will determine progress in other negotiating areas, particularly industrial tariffs.
In the industrial tariff negotiations, also referred to as Non-Agricultural Market Access, Nama, negotiations, South Africa has played an important role. Since the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference in December 2005, we have convened the Nama 11 group of developing countries to work towards ensuring an outcome that supports our industrial developmental objectives.
In this respect, we recall and reaffirm the principle of less-than-full reciprocity because we have witnessed attempts to have it inversed with a range of demands that would result in developing countries, including South Africa, being required to accept tariff reduction commitments in excess of those to be borne by the developed countries. These demands are inconsistent with the Doha development mandate, and cannot be a basis for the conclusion of the round.
Indeed, I must say that South Africa is unique in the industrial tariff negotiations because of the historical injustice committed during the apartheid era that led to our country being classified as a developed country in the Uruguay Round. This means that South Africa and other members of the Southern African Customs Union, SACU, maintain levels of industrial tariffs that are uniquely lower than would otherwise be the case. The application of the agreed tariff-cutting formula in this round would result in deep cuts in applied industrial tariffs on a scale that is greater than the tariff cuts that would be made by other WTO members in either Nama or agriculture.
While we welcome the recognition by the WTO members that the situation of South Africa and Sacu is unique, this recognition should be meaningfully translated into agreement to extend the full scope of flexibility for South Africa and Sacu. Indeed, we are prepared to make a positive contribution to the negotiating outcome, but this must respect the developmental principles of the round, and it must be proportional and support our industrial policy and employment objectives.
One of the most positive aspects of the round has been the emergence of alliances and groupings that collectively seek to achieve development- supporting outcomes. These alliances have made an historic contribution to the global trading system, and have positively shifted the negotiating dynamic in favour of the developing countries. We would, therefore, expect that these alliances continue to demonstrate their strength in unity at the next WTO Ministerial meeting and, in this regard, we will continue to work closely with the G20, the Nama 11 and the Africa group. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
I was expecting the follow-up question to be from the member who asked the question, but I have on my list here the hon Frolick. [Interjections.] Hon Mfeketo?
Ngokucacileyo, andililo ilungu elihloniphekileyo uFrolick. Ndiyabulela kuMongameli ngengcaciso ecacileyo. Andinawo umbuzo, kodwa icacile kum into yokuba kuza kufuneka ukuba siqinise idolo abameli bethu kuthetha-thethwano xa sele ibiziwe intlanganiso. Kukho izinto ezimbini ebalulekileyo ngezi ngxoxo zothetha-thethwano, zezolimo kunye nerhafu. Okokuqala, iyimfuneko into yokuba babenalo ugunyaziso olusuka kule Ndlu, oluza kwenza ukuba bazi ukuba zeziphi izinto abangenakugqitha kuzo, ngakumbi ngokubhekisele ekuncitshisweni kwerhafu. Okwesibini, njengoko usitsho, Mongameli, kufuneka siqinise umanyano lwamazwe asahlumayo ukuze sithethe into enye ngelizwi elinye. Enkosi. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[Ms N C MFEKETO: Obviously, I am not hon Frolick. I thank the President for the clear explanation. I do not have a question, but it is clear to me that we should do something to strengthen the hand of our negotiators for the negotiations. There are two important issues with regard to these negotiations, namely agriculture and industrial tariffs. Firstly, the representatives must get a mandate from this august House regarding the scope of their negotiations, and more especially the question of the reduction of industrial tariffs. Secondly, as you said, President, we must strengthen unity amongst developing countries so that we speak with one voice. Thank you.]
Indeed, I would agree, Madam Speaker. I am sure the House understands that this is a very complex process of negotiations with the number of countries involved and the issues on the agenda.
It would indeed be very important that the National Assembly and Parliament as a whole take a view on these matters, because they are indeed of critical importance to everybody. So I do support the point that the hon Mfeketo is making, that this House should say something about all of this to strengthen the hand of our negotiators.
I agree with that. Indeed, it would be good if that could happen, understanding the complexity of all this, of course, and understanding that when you get into a process of negotiations, you don't go there to present demands that everybody must accept or reject, but you go there to negotiate. But it would be important that there is a view of Parliament on these matters.
Most certainly, we will continue to seek the maximum unity of the developing countries with regard to this. It is critically important that, and as we are trying to indicate, the emergence of these groups like the G20 and the G11 had indeed made a very important impact on the manner in which negotiations take place. So it's a central matter that we have to pursue.
I would hope that, in that context, our Parliament would also find a way of interacting with other parliaments of the developing countries, and also with the European parliament, to make sure that we keep to the developmental objectives of this round, because that is a matter that is very hotly contested. It would indeed strengthen the hand of our negotiators if we had other parliaments in the developing countries and the developed world speaking in the same language, particularly with regard to ensuring that we respect the developmental objectives of this round. Thank you. [Applause.]
Madam Speaker and hon President, as was pointed out, the House will consider a motion later this afternoon that calls upon our negotiators and World Trade Organisation members in general to ensure a balanced, fair and developmental outcome of the WTO negotiations.
In view of the previous failures in this regard, particularly regarding the continued distortion of the agricultural sector to the disadvantage of developing countries - as you pointed out - how will our and other negotiators seek to achieve this goal which is critical in view of the current global food prices?
President, you did touch on that, but in other words, how will we ensure that the commitments undertaken by developed countries in cutting export and production subsidies as well as providing new agricultural market access to developing countries will be prioritised at the next round of talks? Thank you.
Madam Speaker, it is very good indeed that the House is debating this matter this afternoon, as suggested by the hon Mfeketo, but we can't guarantee all of these things. That is why I was saying that it would be important that our own Parliament interacts with other parliaments in the developing countries and parliaments in other countries in the developed world, really to make sure that this focus is kept, and, therefore, these matters of the agricultural tariffs, protection measures and all those topics are dealt with.
In a sense, what I am saying is that we have got to try and build up some pressure from below on the governments that have to take these decisions. We are dealing here with the West Europeans and the United States. They have got to get a sense of the feeling and the mood and so on of their populations. I think it is a part of our responsibility to mobilise those populations in those countries to say the same things as we are saying.
Everybody talks about the struggle against poverty. Everybody talks about the struggle to defeat underdevelopment. Let it find expression. These negotiations give a possibility for that to find practical expression with regard to these trading matters that have been negotiated. So, we can't guarantee that the developed countries are going to respond properly in terms of their obligations, but at least what we can do is to try and influence their populations to communicate the same message that we are communicating and, therefore, to give a mandate to their own negotiators that the people of Western Europe, the European Union and the United States are of the same mind that this challenge of poverty and development is a global challenge, and they must contribute to this; their governments must contribute to this. I think that is the only way that perhaps we will be able to get the kind of progress and movement that we need. Thank you. [Applause.]
Madam Speaker and Mr President, I wonder if I could ask you to comment on three brief aspects of this very troubled Doha Round which, as you have correctly said, has been going on for seven years. It has missed its deadline already three years ago for concluding the round.
The first is that the point has been made that in some ways the Doha Round could actually increase the volatility of food and agricultural prices, if it's concluded, on the basis that what's currently in the Doha Round proposals will further restrict the tools government might be able to use to ensure trade support for food security objectives. That, of course, is counterintuitive, but perhaps it is something that you'd like to comment on.
The second issue, as you correctly said, is that the G20 has been, in this case, a third force for the good - occasionally we find third forces for the good - and it has obviously been able to lift the weight of the developing nations. I wonder, however, if the President would care to comment on a report which came out of Geneva on 9 June. If I could just read to you from it. This deals with the Nama section of the trade round -
While some developing countries such as Brazil and South Africa argue that the controversial chair for the Doha-Nama negotiations, Ambassador Stephenson, had included some of their proposals, they reckon the text is flawed with regard to the range of cuts it has proposed in the Swiss formula.
Then it says, and this is the material point -
But Brazil is prepared to accept a low coefficient of 19 among the Nama 11 coalition of developing countries if it secures adequate flexibilities, which is not acceptable to other members such as India, Argentina and South Africa.
I mention that, President, because I think you are right. The developing world does require a unity of approach. But in view of these cracks or fissures which appear to have now emerged, is that possible going forward into the next stage of negotiations?
The hon Leon is asking that we enter into very detailed discussions about these negotiations: all these coefficients, this, that and the other, which you and I don't understand and Minister Mpahlwa does.
It is true that if you take the nonagricultural market access negotiations, as would be led by the Nama 11 group, which South Africa convenes, the situations in the different countries with regard to those industrial tariffs will not be the same.
That is why I was raising the issue about a special dispensation for South Africa and the Southern African Customs Union countries because of a situation that arose out of the agreement that came out of the Uruguay Round, which classifies South Africa in a particular place and therefore imposes a particular regime on us to lower our tariffs. If we go ahead with what might be a generally applicable coefficient with regard to the industrial tariffs, that means that we have to cut down to levels that would have a very negative impact on the South African industry.
Fortunately this has been recognised. The Director-General of the WTO, the European Union and the Americans have said that they understand the special place of South Africa and Sacu with regard to this matter because of what had happened. Therefore, we might say that these are the coefficients, generally, that we require from the developing countries but an exception will have to be made. We are saying that that has got to be translated into an actual written, concrete agreement.
It illustrates the point about the differences that would exist among the group. But, nevertheless, what the Nama 11 are saying is that it is indeed possible for the Nama 11 to agree. First of all, let me say that we are committed to making our own contribution to the success of the Doha Round. We are therefore not saying that other people must make commitments and sacrifices while we do nothing. We are committed to doing that, but we address this matter in a way that addresses the issue of nonequivalence in order to keep consistent with the objective of a developmental round.
So, certainly, as convenors of the Nama group, we are confident that it is possible to present a united view of the Nama group on industrial tariffs, bearing in mind that there will be differences in what needs to be done; because even if you take the agricultural tariffs, what the EU has to do and what the Americans have to do with regard to those tariffs is not necessarily exactly the same thing, because of the varying changes, differences and conditions among them. We think it is necessary and possible to maintain the unity of the developing countries with regard to this.
With regard to the matter of increased volatility in food prices, I would need to listen to that argument. I hope it is not an excuse not to act on these matters of the reduction of tariffs and domestic protection and all of that, by saying that if we do those things, then we are going to have increased volatility with regard to food prices. I hope it's not an excuse to avoid that.
Let there be movement to deal with all of these issues that are outstanding with regard to agricultural prices, and I think if we can do that and agree, then perhaps you could ask whether there are any negative consequences, and then we could consider those.
But, certainly, from the point of view of South Africa, fortunately with regard to the nonagricultural market access issues, there is agreement. Everybody recognises the fact that we stand in a special place, and when we say that there has to be particular treatment specific to us, it is not out of selfishness. It is in recognition of the objective reality that exists. What I am saying is that fortunately everybody recognises that, but it needs to be translated into a formal agreement within the context of the negotiations. Thank you. [Applause.]
Steps to identify and deal with causes of xenophobic attacks
7. Mr L M Green (FD) asked the President of the Republic: (1) Whether the factors or causes that gave rise to the xenophobic attacks have been identified; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details;
(2) whether any steps have been taken to deal with the causes identified to build social cohesion among different foreign and ethnic groups; if not, why not; if so, what steps?