Speaker, hon Deputy President, and hon members, we welcome the opportunity given to us to present this statement and thank the Presiding Officers for their positive consideration of our request in this regard.
As government, our imperative to fully account and report to our people through their representatives in this House remains an important consideration in the execution of our mandate. Since this executive statement follows our comprehensive briefing to the Joint Standing Committee on Defence, we will not dwell much on the issues of background.
However, it is important to note that South Africa signed a Defence Co- operation memorandum of understanding with the Central African Republic, CAR, in 2007. This followed decisions of the African Union, AU, Peace and Stability Council for the member states, in the name of African solidarity, to assist with the postconflict recovery of that country. South Africa therefore did not just decide on its own to go into the Central African Republic.
The initial deployment had ranged between 30 and 85 members over a five- year period. The memorandum of understanding provided that it shall remain in force for a period of five years and can be extended by means of an Exchange of Notes between the parties through the diplomatic channel. It provides further that the termination of this memorandum of understanding shall not affect the implementation of the other agreements, conventions or contracts concluded under this memorandum of understanding, except if the parties have provided otherwise. In line with this, after extensive negotiations, the memorandum of understanding was renewed in December 2012.
When the security situation in the Central African Republic deteriorated earlier this year, government made an assessment that resulted in the deployment of 200 additional troops as a protective force for the trainers and the military assets that were already in that country. This was very important because a contingent of unarmed SA National Defence Force, SANDF, trainers and South African government assets were in the Central African Republic. It was also important to ensure that South African military assets in the Central African Republic do not fall into the wrong hands. We had also taken a decision to continue monitoring the situation in order to inform further action, if necessary, to protect our personnel and our assets. On 11 January 2013, the President of the Central African Republic and the rebels who sought to overthrow him reached a deal to create a coalition government with the country's political opposition. This agreement, facilitated by the Economic Community of Central African States, ECCAS, a regional body, would allow President Bozize to stay in office until 2016 with the provision that a prime minister will be appointed from the country's political opposition. It is important, in this regard, to appreciate that prior to the recent conflict, the CAR was a fragile state slowly recovering from decades of instability and coups d'tat.
Madam Speaker ...
There is no "Madam Speaker," hon Minister. [Laughter.]
Speaker, let me assure all the people of South Africa that South Africa's involvement in the Central African Republic, just as was the case in Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan and elsewhere, has been in pursuance of our international obligation to ensure stability and peace on the continent. As we have indicated before, our foreign policy is fundamentally based and designed for the furtherance of South Africa's national and strategic interest. The Freedom Charter directs that "there shall be peace and friendship; South Africa will respect the rights of other states and will strive for peace." Our foreign policy objectives are based on the need to build a better Africa and a better world and recognise that the future development of our own country is intrinsically linked, first and foremost, to that of the continent. There is no possibility of developmental and economic success for a South Africa that is surrounded by a pool of instability, war and hunger around the continent. A key principle that informs our foreign policy is the diplomacy of ubuntu, reflected in the idea that we affirm our humanity when we affirm the humanity of others. In line with the character of the democratic society we want to build, South Africa chose a diplomatic policy based on the need for peaceful co-existence and friendship with our neighbours.
This is in direct contrast to the apartheid approach of deploying the previous SANDF for cross-border raids, killing innocent civilians within our continent. Some of the members of the Official Opposition who differ with our policy of friendship are former members of this previous SANDF and will wish that their own involvement as members of that Defence Force should be forgotten. They will desperately want to exploit any negativity about the pursuance of our policies to call for this country to dump the plight of the continent.
As part of this, they have used the mainstream media to build a consistent campaign to distort the mission of our soldiers in the Central African Republic. The spokespersons of the DA almost thanked their gods for handing them the gift of the loss of our soldiers so close to the next general elections. [Interjections.]
Order! Order!
This is done without an iota of shame or kindness. When the eyes of the nation were filled with tears, theirs only saw how these tragic deaths will justify the resuscitation of calls for a motion of no confidence in a democratically and popularly elected government.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Hon Minister, there is a point of order. What is the point of order, madam?
Speaker, the Minister stated that the DA is happy about the loss of life, referring to it as a "gift." I think that is unparliamentary and insensitive. [Interjections.]
Order, hon members! I, of course, will study the Hansard and come back with a ruling on this matter. The reference was to a party, not individuals, but I will come back with a ruling. Proceed, hon Minister.
Not once have the reports about this mission emphasised the heroism of our soldiers, rather selecting to deliberately project an image of a defeated force, without giving due recognition to the valour of the 200 SANDF troops who fought for nine hours against a group of 3 000, repelled the threat, killed over 700 and suffered minimal casualties. This urge for a negative slant to distort the record of history and not accord hero status to these soldiers is regrettable. Those bent on this campaign have even advanced to vulgarism by the opposition, depicting our soldiers as mercenaries who were deployed without official status in the Central African Republic.
We will, however, not allow for their memory to be tarnished and be used to score political points. We will, even if the established media refuses to hear this, continue to speak for them, as they are no longer here to represent their own honour. Failure to report the genesis of our deployment to the Central African Republic is complicit on the part of the media. To ignore all recorded facts about the AU Peace and Security Council decisions about the CAR before South Africa's involvement and to choose simply to project the coffee table talk of the opposition is collusion of the highest order in a sinister plot to undermine our policy.
Assuming that the allegations by the opposition are true, that will mean that the South African government, the AU and the United Nations, UN, went into the CAR under the guise of helping the recovery of a country that was not really experiencing effects of decades of civil wars, to support a peace deal that was not signed, to ensure the stability of a Great Lakes region whose fragile peace was never at risk, and to protect the rights of the vulnerable citizens who were not living with the threat of fear, hunger and violence. Of course, battles and military operations, particularly in foreign lands, are naturally fraught with negative aspects. So, if you are in the game of negativity, you will always have plenty to go around and plenty to twist to suit your context.
Nowhere in the world has a government ever been asked to bear its security plans so nakedly to the point of compromising its strategic defence capacity. We have seen a disturbing trend where members of this House and some remnants of the old order have leaked strategic information about our troop movements and strategic positions which were widely broadcast in the media. The question we ask is: For whose benefit was this release of information? It was certainly not for our country, as this information puts the lives of our deployed soldiers in danger. Whatever our differences, is it not possible for us to restrain the salacious love for headlines so as to protect the integrity and security of our own country? [Interjections.]
Hon members, as you would recall, during our briefing to the Joint Standing Committee on Defence, we did indicate that when the security situation deteriorated in January and after the signing of the peace deal, a UN representative - I repeat - Margaret Vogt, called on SA and the other foreign troops not to withdraw their respective deployments in that country. Recently, I was shocked to be approached by Madam Vogt, the UN representative, who expressed shock and concern that she received an e-mail from the DA's hon David Maynier who is investigating whether I, as Minister, had lied when I indicated that the UN representative had asked South Africa to remain in the Central African Republic. [Interjections.]
Order! Order, hon members!
It is a desperate attempt at finding something, anything at all, to embarrass the South African government and its respected standing in the UN system. [Interjections.] This is not how we are supposed to engage with problems in our country. I am here in the same country as hon Maynier, but he has never asked me for evidence of this call as made by Madam Vogt. For evidence of Madam Vogt's statement on 24 January 2013, he could have simply googled her name, and he would have found the statement.
South Africa will continue participating in the multilateral partnerships to ensure peace and stability in the region. While the loss of our soldiers is regrettable, it is important that we learn the lessons from such a loss but not abandon the cause to build a better continent and end the human suffering of fellow Africans. This mistake has been made before. In 1993, the world watched in horror as 18 American soldiers were killed and dragged through the streets of Mogadishu by Farah Aidid's rebels. They were part of a team that provided security for humanitarian relief in Somalia. The United States, US, government was then forced to withdraw its soldiers as people demanded to know why their soldiers died in some insignificant African country not linked to the US interest.
We know now that before that withdrawal, the US special forces had been successful in their mission of capturing Aidid's top generals, despite the unfortunate loss of 18 members. We also know now that although Americans at that stage did not see how Somalia was any of their business, the withdrawal of US forces resulted in Somalia degenerating into a failed state. As a result, over the past 20 years, the Al-Shabaab militia grew more powerful, and piracy activities along the Somali east coast developed unwatched.
This, as we know, has resulted in the capture of goods and abduction of people in boats and ships, including Americans. The dumping of Somalia by the US troops in 1993 has resulted in the single biggest maritime security issue for the whole world today, simply because someone convinced them, wrongly so, that Africa was not worth their attention and sacrifice. [Interjections.] Our people, who have benefitted immensely from the generosity of human solidarity, should not now be taught to be indifferent to the suffering of others and to distrust their own government.
The South African government will always endeavour to adhere to the Constitution in executing its mandate. We believe that we have done so even with the troops' deployment. However, if any administrative mistakes are identified about the flow of communication, particularly with Parliament, it will be a pity for that to be exploited to vilify this mission or our work on the continent in general. We stand prepared to take the lessons of the Central African Republic mission, both in terms of operational planning and communication, to ensure that we strengthen ourselves in future deployments.
Today, it is true - it is a fact - that now there is a call on South Africa to redeploy to the Central African Republic because of the deteriorating humanitarian and security situation in that country. We shall not ever go back to what the apartheid regime did on the African continent. We will not raid the frontline states; we will not violate the sovereignty of states within the continent. We are part of the globe. I thank you. [Applause.]
Speaker, one month ago soldiers from 5 Special Forces Regiment were caught in an ambush outside Bangui in the Central African Republic. So began the battle of the Bangui which caused the lives of 13 of our soldiers all of whom served in the elite 1 Parachute Battalion. These soldiers fought well when the fighting began, killing scores of rebels according to the terrible logic of battle which is: Kill or be killed. We extend our condolences to the families of the soldiers who lost their lives in the Central African Republic, CAR.
But, we must now begin to ask the hard questions about why 13 of our soldiers died in the country so strategically insignificant, that not one of our 126 ambassadors and not one of our 39 defence attaches, were even located in the CAR. We began asking hard questions about this deployment and calling for special hearings weeks before the authorisation letter from the President was published in Parliament. We were told that the deployment was in fulfilment of an international obligation.
However, the memorandum of understanding which the exchange of diplomatic notes signed on 31 December 2012 purported to be extending, had already lapsed on 11 February 2011 - ten months previously. The exchange of diplomatic notes, also surprisingly, contained no replying diplomatic note from the CAR as required for bilateral international agreements. This raises the very serious questions about whether the bilateral agreement, in terms of which the SA National Defence Force, SANDF, was deployed to the CAR, was even valid.
We were not told the truth about the reasons for the deployment of the SANDF in the CAR. First, we were told that the reason for the deployment was to assist with capacity building, disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration. But, the forces which were deployed, including 5 Special Forces Regiment and 1 Parachute Battalion, were elite combat units and hardly suited to this task. But then we were told that the soldiers were in fact not trainers, they were in fact, deployed as a protection force to provide protection to the 26 trainers already in the CAR. But, the 26 trainers did not seem to want protection. They reportedly were elected to remain in their offices in Bangu and were eventually protected not by the SANDF protection force, but by French armed forces stationed in Bangui.
The real question however is not why the SANDF was deployed in the CAR, but why was it not withdrawn from the CAR. The Minister, herself, stated in an interview on 25 February 2013 that:
... if anything, in fact, we should be thinking about reducing the numbers once there was stability in the CAR.
The answer to the question as the Minister has told us here today was that Margaret Vogt, head of the United Nations, UN, in the CAR, requested the SANDF to stay in the CAR to create a firewall to protect Bangui. The SANDF, it appears, was also deployed or ended up being deployed in the CAR trying to prevent the Seleka rebels from entering Bangui and seizing power in the CAR. That is the truth. This seems to be confirmed, rather obliquely, in the exchange of diplomatic notes in which South Africa clearly undertook to, amongst other things, save lives in Bangui. This is what Parliament and the public were not told about the SANDF deployment in the CAR.
The deployment, no matter how you look at it, was a monumental failure. Francois Bozize, the former President of the CAR, who we supported, has fled the country. Michel Djotodia, the Seleka rebel leader, who we opposed, has assumed power in the CAR. The CAR's defence force, who we trained, turned against us and may have been responsible for luring soldiers into the first ambush which triggered the fire fight. Military equipment, including weapons, ammunitions and vehicles which we were supposed to be protecting, have been abandoned in the CAR. In the end, South Africa was outsmarted, outmanoeuvred and outgunned in the CAR. That is why we need a full scale parliamentary inquiry to investigate the deployment.
We need to know how it is that President Francois Bozize, who was a dubious character at best and a very unlikely convert to ubuntu, became the mainstay of our foreign policy. How it is he became our most important client in the region? We need to know how is it that the International Relations and Co-operation Minister, who increasingly seems to have been relegated to playing the role of social secretary for the local diplomatic corps, was isolated from decision-making on the CAR.
We need to know the real reason the SANDF was deployed in the CAR. But, above all we need to know how it is that we were drawn into a battle which we could not supply, without the right equipment, despite desperate requests for armoured patrol carriers, light aircraft, transport helicopters and attack helicopters. The fact is that our soldiers were left dangling with both hands tied behind their backs in a deadly fire fight which eventually led to the loss of 13 of our soldiers in the CAR.
In the end, Parliament is responsible for oversight of the deployment of the SANDF. We were told that the SANDF was being deployed to assist with training in the CAR. But we were not told that the SANDF was being deployed to provide protection in the CAR. And, we were definitely not told that the SANDF was being deployed to prevent the Seleka rebels from seizing power in the CAR.
This is incontrovertible evidence that President Jacob Zuma, who is the commander-in-chief of the SANDF, did not fully inform Parliament about the reasons for the deployment of the SANDF in the CAR. If there is a full scale inquiry and we have access to all the relevant documents including the presidential minutes, the employment papers and force directives the full horror of what happened in the CAR would be exposed here in Parliament. I thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Speaker, can I dare start by saying that the Minister has missed an opportunity? I had thought that she was coming to explain what actually transpired in the Central African Republic, but she has chosen to do some cheap politicking and try to justify herself in front of the South Africans. I am glad that at least sanity has prevailed on the Minister. She has stopped looking for a cheap scapegoat in the form of Mr Lekota, saying: "It was you; it was you who signed the agreement. That's why our soldiers are there." The truth of the matter is that the agreement that was signed by hon Lekota expired in February last year, and for a period of about 10 month our soldiers where on a foreign soil without any legal and contractual backing. So, if that is not mercenarism, I do not know what it is.
The Minister of Defence and the South African government should not be expecting us to blow kisses to her or offer her sweets and chocolates for what has transpired in the Central African Republic recently. [Laughter.] I don't want to kiss you, Minister. To the Minister herself, the sweets of war are mortars and heavy weaponry. You do not go into someone's backyard and expect them to hug and kiss you when you are not welcome.
Minister, Cope would like to emphasise that you failed our soldiers dismally. [Applause.] You failed in the most fundamental expectation and you decided not to take this country into your confidence by telling us the whole truth, and nothing else, but the truth. It would seem, when the story of President Jacob Zuma's disastrous leadership is being told to the future generations of our country and that of the continent, that the good name of D V Mapisa will be mentioned alongside his name. [Applause.]
You do not need to be reminded that it was under your watch as the Minister of Correctional Services that a convicted fraudster, Schabir Schaik, was released on a frivolous parole. Yet again, it is under your watch that 13 of our young soldiers have lost their lives in a foreign country, without any legal backing or contractual basis. Again, you are taking them to the Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC, where M23 rebels have already cautioned us that this time around they will not be dealing with child soldiers, but true rebels and true rebels indeed. Oh help us God!
The government of Central African Republic did not make a formal request to the sovereign state of South Africa via Parliament to ask for troops to be sent there. We learnt of our support long after the fact. The ousted President of the Central African Republic, Franois Boziz, made a personal request directly to President Zuma also without having gone through his own country's national passage. It is the same with love letters that were exchanged between our Minister and the Minister in Central African Republic, her counterpart. They call them diplomatic notes.
An expert of constitutional law in Central African Republic, Matre Zarambaud Assingambi, has been reported saying that any such agreement that is purported to have been signed between the two countries must have been ratified by their National Assembly. Neither President Boziz nor our President did that.
We hear that the SA National Defence Force's, SANDF, Chief Lieutenant General, Solly Shoke, has issued a root-them-out order that all the soldiers who have actually spilled the beans on what happened on that fateful Sunday should be brought to book and be rooted out of our defence. Cope would like to know ... [Interjections.] It is none of your business. Cope would like to know the secrets that were leaked if the deployment was publicly known and passed by our Parliament according to the President?
Similarly, Article 28 of the Central African Republic's Constitution required that President Boziz gets his country's National Assembly to pass any defence agreement before he goes out shopping for assistance. He did not do that. [Time expired.]
Hon member, your time has expired.
That can't be true. [Applause.]
Hon Speaker, I rise on a point of order: Would you please tell him that his lips are so ugly that I can't really be kissed by him. Thank you. [Laughter.]
That is not the point of order, hon Minister; it is a point of affection. [Laughter.]
Speaker, I rise on a point of order: Maybe the Minister should realise how serious this debate is. We are talking about 13 people who died. She should take her job a lot more seriously than she is doing ... [Interjections.]
Hon member, please take your seat.
Hon Speaker, I hope you will excuse my voice. It is the work of some witches who go around during the stealth of the night trying to kill us. One of those is none other than the hon Dr Blade Nzimande.
It was Joseph Campbell who remarked that, and I quote: "A hero is someone who has given ... [Interjections.]
I rise on a point of order: I am just worried about the articulation that has been made by the hon member here. Even if it can be a joke, it's really not a good taste of a joke - for a member who is sitting in a serious debate. I think the member must withdraw it. You can't call a member a witch.
Hon member, you can't call another member a witch. Even if it was not the hon member, you can't call somebody in the Chamber a witch. Please withdraw.
Mr Speaker, I didn't actually call my hon Minister a witch. I said it is the work of the witches that go around in the stealth of the night, and I said the hon Nzimande ... [Interjections.]
Hon member, please withdraw.
Mr Speaker, I withdraw. Well, it was Joseph Campbell who remarked that, and I quote: "A hero is someone who has given his or her life to something bigger than oneself". Thirteen South African soldiers gave their lives in the Central African Republic. There is no doubt that they died heroes - and all of them.
There is a major controversy though over the cause and reasons for sending those brave young men to die on a foreign soil in the first place. The government appears to be playing cover-up with conflicting reports emanating from the Presidency, the Department of International Relations and Co-operation and the Department of Defence and Military Veterans, such as the statement made by the Minister of Defence, stating that our soldiers were there to provide specialist military training to the Central African Republic's defence force. Furthermore, she said that the soldiers were there to be deployed as part of a post conflict reconstruction, development and support programme, which, by the way, is not covered anywhere in the Memorandum of Understanding, MOU, of 2007.
The Minister of International Relations and Co-operation then entered the foray with Operation Morero in her reply to the question asked on 10 February 2011, which is also a surprise, surprise! - not covered in the MOU. Our Minister of Defence and Military Veterans feigns no knowledge of any VIP protection for that tinpot despot, Francois Boziz.
We want to know the truth about why our soldiers were sent to the Central African Republic? Was it because they were protecting certain South African mineral rights and business interests? Was it to provide a private security force for President Boziz or to provide specialist military training as the MOU states or all of the abovementioned?
The Minister said initially that they were there protecting certain South African assets which were unspecified. The President was at best vague when he provided Parliament with reasons for the extension of the deployment. The Minister was just clueless. The incongruencies continue to stack up in this matter. Can you actually provide training through operation vimbezela which by its very definition means a pre-emptive strike?
Uvimbezela kanjani uma uya koqeqeshwa? [How do you perform pre-emptive strike when you are going to be trained?]
The deployment was at its very best shockingly planned. There were numerous oversights, many of which could have directly or indirectly played roles in the death of our soldiers. It is reported that our soldiers were not properly equipped. They had only one medical doctor and were in no way in a state of combat readiness in which to engage on such a huge contingent of rebels. There are further reports that our boys had to beg for essential equipments from French paratroopers. What kind of poor operational planning is this? Or is it just that this government considers the lives of our soldiers expendable?
This entire saga has been fraught with inconsistencies and anomalies. The net result being that 13 South Africans lost their lives. Our boys fought fiercely even though they were largely outnumbered. The fire fight lasted for 18 hours. One continues to hear horror stories of how our soldiers decried the fact that they were forced to engage mere children who were firing upon them. This is a tragedy in all sides and must be answered for by our government. I thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Speaker, the whole of South Africa was shocked to hear about the death of our 13 brave and heroic soldiers in a country that many had never even heard of before. I do in fact know the central African region, having travelled through it many years ago, and it is a region that has seen a tragic interplay of wars, coups and powerful outside interests fuelling conflicts over a bounty of resources.
It is dangerous for South Africa to be picking sides in this procession of conflicts, and if we do it needs to enjoy the support of the African Union, the United Nations and most importantly, this Parliament. It is therefore downright scandalous for the ANC to say that we are desecrating our soldiers' graves by asking questions around our military involvement in the Central African Republic, CAR. The burden of proof lies on the government to convince both Parliament and the public at large that our motives in this conflict were honourable and not seeking to protect commercial interests. We have an absolute duty to question what assets the Deputy International Relations Minister claimed South Africa has in the CAR, and whether our soldiers were in fact sent there to protect them.
When our soldiers' blood is spilt on foreign soil, we as representatives of the public are compelled to ask whether proper parliamentary procedures were adhered to when we sent those brave men and women to fight in a conflict that was not our own. We must also seek answers to the questions of whether that force was provided with an adequate amount of reinforcement, and why we had to rely on the French military's medical supplies as ours were apparently inadequate.
We are now told that South Africa is even considering sending more of our troops to the CAR, while President Zuma outrageously claims that the public must stay out of military affairs and simply let the government make its own decisions as it sees fit. [Interjections.] President Zuma, we are talking about the lives of our brave soldiers, and we will never give you a free hand to simply send them off to fight for any interests besides that of the country and the continent as a whole. [Interjections.] We will be desecrating their honour and their graves if we did not do our jobs as public representatives in asking the hard questions of government, and ensuring that the ideals that our army is fighting for are indeed noble ones. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker and hon members, two weeks ago the hon Minister told the nation;
They had gone to the CAR to assist. We never anticipated that we would be attacked. When I was being interviewed, somebody asked if it wasn't that we might have been failed by our intelligence that had not picked up that we were going to be attacked.
The Minister would have given better answers had she demanded an operational report from her commanders. The Minister's argument, that we did not anticipate being attacked, is incomprehensible considering that she visited the CAR towards the end of last year to assess the situation in that country. The CAR government briefed her about the imminent attack by the rebel forces and they requested the reinforcement from South Africa. She came back and briefed the President about this request.
Subsequently, we know that President Zuma announced the deployment of an additional 400 troops in the CAR with the mandate to disarm and integrate the rebel forces and to protect the 26 trainers of the SA National Defence Force, SANDF, in the CAR. Given this unambiguous mandate, it is puzzling to hear the hon Minister say that she and her commanders did not anticipate being attacked.
The existence of the operational report that I mentioned earlier, would have helped to shed light on details regarding who failed our troops in the CAR and in the process disgraced our country. This same report would further establish who provided a passage for these rebels to march towards the city centre. This report is important if we are to avoid making similar mistakes in future, and to ensure that we take punitive steps against those who did not carry out orders. The same report would speak to the allegations that our troops were deployed in that country to protect former President Bozize and the business interests of some politically connected South Africans.
Former President Bozize made a startling revelation in December last year when he publicly complained that his government was being targeted for giving mining rights to South Africa and China. The question now remains as to what extent these mining rights have been diverted away from South African state-owned mining companies in favour of a selected few politically connected individuals and companies such as Chancellor House, as reported. [Interjections.] It is becoming a norm in the African continent for countries to help other countries in exchange for their resources.
We should therefore ask ourselves whether our presence in the CAR served national interests or narrow party political interests. Given the government's reluctance to establish a commission of inquiry to investigate this matter, we are compelled to agree with those who claim that our troops in the CAR were used to ensure that the looting spree in that country continued unabated. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Agb Speaker ... [Hon Speaker ...]
I think it is insensitive that hon President Jacob Zuma, as the supreme commander of the SANDF, is not present here today to explain to Parliament why we were deployed in the CAR. I think the fact that President Zuma is not present is a slap in the face of those 13 soldiers who were killed in the battle of Bangui. [Interjections.]
Ek s dit omdat die Grondwet van Suid-Afrika bepaal dat die President as opperbevelhebber die Parlement moet inlig. Hy moet kom verduidelik hoekom hy toestemming gegee het dat ons troepe in die Sentraal-Afrikaanse Republiek, SAR, ontplooi word. Dit is 'n klap in die gesig van daardie 13 soldate wie gesterf het, en die President is nie eers teenwoordig om te kom verduidelik nie. [Tussenwerpsels.]
Dit is 'n baie belangrike vraag.
Hoe kon dit gebeur het dat die kontrak wat in 2007 gesluit is, in Februarie 2012 verstryk het, en 10 maande later word daar weer 'n kontrak gesluit. Dit is dan 'n feit dat ons troepe onwettig in die SAR was. Ons moet 'n antwoord kry. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[I say this because the Constitution of South Africa states that the President, as the supreme commander, should inform Parliament. He should come here and explain why he gave permission for the deployment of our soldiers to the Central African Republic (CAR). It is a slap in the face of those 13 soldiers who died there; yet the President is not even present here today to explain. [Interjections.]
It is a very important question.
How did it happen that the agreement that was signed in 2007, expired in February 2012, and an agreement is signed once again 10 months later? Then, as a matter of fact, our soldiers were indeed illegally based in the CAR. We should be given an answer.]
My information is that, with regard to the new agreement, the general of the SANDF said and warned that we should not be deployed because we do not have the efficient, logistic, intelligence and other support for a deployment. [Interjections.] There is another question that needs to be answered, and that is, did the general of the SANDF give the go ahead, or was it a political decision for a political image that we have as big brother in Africa? We must get answers to these questions.
I have heard about all the other countries, especially those in central Africa, that are begging South Africa to go back. Of course they will beg us, and we will be the useful idiots who use our taxpayers' money to protect them. [Interjections.] I think the time has come for the central African countries to ensure their own safety and stability. Don't use South Africa's taxpayers' money to give that to them. [Interjections.] Thank you. [Applause.]
Speaker, too many contradictory statements have been made about what really happened in the Central African Republic, CAR, where we lost 13 soldiers, and the reasons why the SA National Defence Force, SANDF, troops were there in the first place. The ACDP is on record for calling on President Zuma to institute a judicial commission of inquiry to look into allegations that include whether the SANDF acted outside their mandate when they were allegedly protecting business interests of some politically connected individuals in the CAR, and whether they protected the regime of the now deposed, former President, Francois Bozize, from his own people.
Subsection (3) of section 201 of the South African Constitution states, and I quote, "When the Defence Force is employed for any purpose mentioned in subsection (2), the President must inform Parliament promptly and in appropriate detail of (a) the reasons for the employment of the defence force ..."
The ACDP argues that unless government produces proof from the Hansard recording that this has been done, we will continue to maintain our opinion that the President did not inform Parliament in appropriate detail of why troops were in the Central African Republic.
The ACDP agrees with the SA National Defence Union's position that if government, particularly the SANDF, had nothing to hide, they would have answered the questions. Reports that there is now a witch-hunt driven by military intelligence to identify defence force personnel who spoke to the media are raising suspicion of a cover-up. Is this alleged witch-hunt not illegal and an abuse of power? How different is this alleged witch-hunt from apartheid-style tactics?
Have any of the media reports we have seen so far endangered military operations or troops in the Central African Republic? Is there someone in the military chain of command who gave an illegal order to our soldiers to protect some business interests? These are some of the questions that need to be answered. This witch-hunt must stop and we must get the answers.
The ACDP reiterates that a judicial commission of inquiry must be established to get to the whole truth behind what we believe is a CAR fiasco. Only transparency and honesty will bring this matter to closure, and not any form of intimidation and witch-hunts by whatever intelligence operatives.
The truth must be told. If anything illegal was done, then an apology must be given to the nation, particularly the families that lost their loved ones in what appears to be either a bogus mission to the CAR or a legitimate mission that was hijacked by individuals with personal agendas.
Hon Speaker and hon members, South Africa as a democracy is supposed to be transparent and answerable to the citizens. It is unbecoming that when citizens ask questions and call for details, we are told that we all want to govern. All governments govern in trust for the citizens. They don't have carte blanche control. The Constitution has inbuilt checks and balances to call for accountability.
The biggest problem that the citizens of this country face is the fact that we have a government elected by the people, but withholds vital information from its people, and the crisis regarding the deployment of our troops to the Central African Republic testifies to that fact.
We have a government that continues to omit sharing vital information with its people, yet when the media reports on these matters, they then turn and attack the media and throw all sorts of threats, including legislative measures.
If the military trainers that were deployed in 2007 were only sent under a military co-operation agreement, why then did it become necessary to send more troops in December? Why did we not withdraw our troops then if they were only there as military trainers? The President's utterances rejecting insinuations to a hidden agenda on his part are baseless and intangible when they cannot be supported by factual evidence and satisfactory explanations. Instead of rejecting criticism, he must rather account for his decisions.
The failure of the Defence Ministry to produce the second memorandum of understanding between South Africa and the CAR also suggests that underhand tactics were employed in the decision.
There is also no mention of the memorandum of understanding in the very detailed Defence Secretariat Third Quarterly Performance Report on Performance Against Plan for 2012-13 over the period 1 October 2012 to 31 December 2012, which was approved by Dr Sam Gulube.
With the new developments of South Africa intending to send troops to the CAR, we urge the Ministry and the President to be upfront on the purpose of further deployment and what is likely to be achieved through it. I thank you.
Mr Speaker, our soldiers indeed have fought a good fight. Our condolences go out to the families that lost their loved ones. However, we must be reminded that there was an agreement during the hon Lekota's time. Nobody had an issue with it at that time. Why should there be an issue now, except for cheap petty politics? [Applause.]
It seems as if the whole issue of the deployment of the South African Defence Force has a new motivation. Only this government, in this political era, has put Africa on the map and made it a central part of foreign policy. [Applause.] We are correctly in Africa and, indeed, have a duty incumbent upon us to lead the African revival. Let us be reminded that even Mr Thabo Mbeki said that the 21st century must be an African century. So, how do you go about building that? It's by getting involved, giving leadership and supporting our foreign policy. The ousted individual we are referring to, came into power not in any unacceptable way; but there was an election and he got elected. He was a democratically elected leader. Therefore, we have every right and duty to build relationships and to meet agreements.
The Mail & Guardian rolled out a very huge analysis of the whole matter. It would be quite interesting to know what the role of the French is in all of this - by act or omission. Surely, it is the whole issue of African politics at that level. It was accordingly the French-speaking countries that were influenced by France, in the main to try to oppose hon Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma's chairpersonship of the African Commission. [Applause.] Hon Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma was chosen from amongst our best to go and lead this critically important task of African revival.
Indeed, we have been very consistent on the basis of building democracy, good governance and economic development of Africa. Even the whole issue of South Africa's involvement in the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, Brics, is on the basis of South African leadership and of Africa as a whole. That's why there were so many African Presidents here because we were in the Brics, not just as South Africa but representing Africa. [Applause.] So, in the context, we have absolutely every responsibility and duty to be engaging in the support of that policy and to be wherever we can, giving support. It comes back to the part that this was a democratically elected leader, whom we reached agreements with.
The most recent news was that South Africa is considering a request by the African Union and other leaders to go back to Central African Republic. If that is so, we were correct to be there. [Applause.] Our government must be encouraged to continue its remarkable work which was started by Mr Thabo Mbeki in a very, very, strong way.
We must continue to push and march forward with courage, conviction and determination to build a greater African continent. I thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Speaker, hon Deputy President and hon members, while we appreciate the briefing by hon Minister, it is Azapo's view that the right person who should be briefing this National Assembly is his Excellency, President Jacob Zuma, as the commander in chief of the armed forces. [Applause.] He is the person authorised by law to deploy members of the SA National Defence Force.
Azapo supports the participation of South Africa in peacekeeping and other operations, provided they are done under the auspices of, and pursuant to a resolution by, either the United Nations or the African Union. The Central African Republic deployment was done in line with the bilateral agreement between the two countries under reasons and circumstances that are dubious in our view. We want to emphasise that this was not done by countries, but by Presidents who entered into agreements without the approval of their respective Parliaments.
If the SA National Defence Force was there to train the Central African Republic's army, why is it that junior officers seem to dominate the list? Shouldn't we have heard about commissioned officers, colonels, generals, etc? Or why do we even deploy soldiers to an area where there are elements of a civil war? Why was it necessary to establish a South African base? Surely, the Central African Republic's army has enough bases; and the training could have taken place in those bases.
We said this in this House before, and we are saying it again - there are concerns in certain quarters in the continent; that South Africa would like to be to Africa, what the USA is trying to be to the world; an international policemen and law enforcement agency. There are concerns that in South Africa, the continent is breeding a bully. We can choose to ignore these concerns.
There are serious allegations levelled against our Defence Force. They are alleged to have acted as a VIP unit to the ousted president. They are being accused of propping up a dictator who was deserted by his own people. Words such as mercenaries have been used to describe our National Defence Force. This should keep this House very worried.
There are also theories that our Defence Force members were there to protect business interests of individuals. Unthinkable as this may be, it seems to be the only explanation that makes sense. How do we explain the fact that they acted in isolation and were not part of the Economic Community of Central African States and the Central African Multinational Force? South Africa must continue to be involved in peacekeeping operations. Azapo believes that everything possible and legal should be done to establish lasting peace, and we should do this a part of a multilateral force.
We're cautioning against sending our young men and women to fight illegitimate and unjust wars like the one we did in the Central African Republic. We convey our condolences to the families that lost their loved ones in the Central African Republic. Thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Speaker, hon Deputy President, hon members, after having listened to the hon Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and the hon Bhoola, I thought this is a journey we should all be joining in - to respond to what the Organisation of African Unity, OAU, Summit, held in the last millennium in Algeria in 1999 called on our leaders to do as they met: The end of the second millennium represented, for Africa, the demise of an era characterised by colonisation and its tragic trail of domination, plunder and negation of the African personality. ... It is therefore with most profound respect that we bow to the memories of all the martyrs of Africa whose supreme sacrifice has paved the way for the continent to regain its freedom and dignity.
We can repeat the same words today, as we remember our soldiers who paid the supreme sacrifice in the Central African Republic in the service of peace and development on our continent, Africa.
It was no accident that, as we were closing up the era of the OAU and charting in the African Union, AU, the Algiers Summit declared 2000 as the Year for Peace, Security and Solidarity in Africa. This was so because of the recognition that, with the era of decolonisation concluded in the last millennium, save still for the Western Sahara, peace and security was to feature high in the 21st century, not only because of the hardship and suffering it causes, but also because of its dialectical linkage to our development.
Since South Africa's readmission to the international community, our engagement on issues of global peace and security has been informed by our understanding that we cannot be an island of peace and stability in a continent of wars, conflicts and strife. We are not, hon Groenewald, a homeland. So, we cannot just mind the business of our own backyard. We are an integral part of this continent. [Applause.]
This is in line with of our vision of an African continent that is prosperous, peaceful, democratic and united, and which contributes to a world that is just and equitable. So, therefore, peace, security and development shall remain inseparable. That which is good for the French, American, British and all citizens of the developed world is also good for Africans, particularly on African soil. [Applause.] We will continue to say no to political partitioning of this continent according to which colonial powers countries were under. Wherever one finds South Africans, we will continue to fight to demolish these imaginary borders that still want to refer to us as former British colonies, former French colonies, and former this and that. We will say no.
This perspective is derived from foreign policy imperatives, speaking to South Africa's national interest and the vision of a better Africa in a better world, championed by the diplomacy of ubuntu, which this administration, under President Zuma, had brought to the Cabinet and which was adopted - and I am happy that I hear some members here quoting the diplomacy of ubuntu. [Interjections.]
The crisis in the Central African Republic is a microcosm of Africa's challenges of the 21st century. It is an open secret that in the Central African Republic, every other government that came in came in after a coup d'tat, then some elections and some dealers later. So, therefore, that is what we will continue negating and we will do so working with the Economic Community of West African States, ECOWAS, working with all other regional bodies, working under the African Union and the United Nations.
Our involvement in peace interventions in Africa has been linked to peace- keeping, peace-making ...
Hon Speaker, I rise on a point of order: Will the hon Minister take a question? [Interjections.]
Hon Minister, will you take a question?
Unfortunately, not, Mr Speaker, because I am on my way to New York straight from this House ... [Interjections.] ... to debate the African Union's 50th anniversary at the UN, and that is where I will be. [Applause.] So, I will not waste my time by taking frivolous questions. [Interjections.]
We will also continue working on mediation and preventative diplomacy ... [Interjections.] ...
Order, hon members! Order!
... where we work through all these bodies that I referred to. We will not walk away after peace-making. We will maintain that in post-conflict reconstruction and development, because, had South Africa not intervened in Burundi, the people of Burundi would not have been free, as they still are today. There would have been no peace in Burundi. [Applause.] We were there. We worked with the regional body in the Great Lakes region, we worked with the African Union. We worked with the UN. In fact, the UN was the last to arrive when we finally found peace, and ironically, at that time, President Zuma was the Deputy President of this country. We helped, from mediation to peace-making, peace-building, post-conflict. If you walk into Burundi today and mention South Africa, you will find them singing the praises of the sacrifices of the people of this country. [Applause.]
We will continue championing this diplomacy of ubuntu, working for peace and security for this continent, without shame, because that is what we are about. We will start here, in our own region, in SADC. When the mediation process started in Zimbabwe, we were given all sorts of unsolicited advice, but today we have been proven to have done the right thing - to respect the Zimbabweans, and to make sure that there is a proper, made-in-Zimbabwe solution - and that is what the ANC-led government will continue championing.
We will do the same, as we continue doing in Darfur, where we still have our peace builders. In South Sudan, every single official of government was trained by this country in our mission of post-conflict reconstruction and development. Only South Africa did that. [Applause.]
South Africa has expended significant resources and time in all these areas. In our view, the maintenance of peace and stability are critical to the achievement of a holistic foreign policy agenda. The hon President, Jacob Zuma, spoke to us from this podium earlier this year in his state of the nation address about our unwavering and unapologetic commitment to a peaceful and prosperous Africa.
Our participation in the United Nations has focused on the twin challenges of security and development on our continent. It is for this reason that in the 19 years of our membership of the United Nations, we have been mandated twice by the members of the African Union - and indeed, of the world - to serve on the Security Council, in 2007-08, and recently in 2011-12. During the last term of our stay on the Security Council and under the chairmanship of President Zuma, we adopted the historic Resolution 2033, that which now compels the international community under the UN to continue to co-operate and always consult with Africans first about issues of Africa; that there will be co-operation clearly under a resolution of the Security Council.
Just two months ago, the UN General Assembly elected South Africa again to the Peace Building Commission, PBC. All five countries that are on the Peace Building Commission agenda are African Countries. The Central African Republic is both on the agenda of the Security Council and of the Peace Building Commission.
The primary mandate of the PBC is to assist countries emerging from conflicts not to slide back into conflicts. The biggest challenge in this respect is Security Sector Reform and Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration, DDR. In the Central African Republic, Security Sector Reform and DDR have been identified by the United Nations as part of these challenges. For any country to have a clear and actionable development programme, it needs a strong and professional security sector and rule of law.
Hon members heard earlier on from the hon Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and the hon Bhoola - and those who really cared to read that which is positive - that, in Ecowas... what is very interesting is that none of us here is asking questions as to why other countries are manning airports in an African country. [Interjections.] South Africa must then be asked what it is doing there. We are an integral part of this continent and we will continue doing exactly that. [Applause.]
Recently, the UN General Assembly elected us again to the Economic and Social Council, Ecosoc. Our membership of this crucial organ of the United Nations is informed by our understanding that there cannot be any development without security, and vice versa.
As I said earlier, referring to the historic summit in Algiers, it is also worthwhile, remembering that the stance that summit took in rejecting unconstitutional changes of government on our continent, which resulted in the Declaration on the Framework for an OAU Response to Unconstitutional Changes of Government, which was adopted in Lome in 2007, needs to be given support. That is, we need to strengthen the intervention brigades, hon Minister of Defence - it has to happen, like yesterday - so that we defend these decisions, we make sure that we put a stop to these unconstitutional changes of government, in whatever form.
It should also be shameful that hon members should come here and start saying we should have felt scared of mercenaries. As a democratic country, we will continue working with other democratic governments on our continent to defend peace, security and democracy on our continent. [Interjections.]
We will not walk away; we will not be scared of mercenaries, because mercenaries derive their mandate from no one. So, please do not ask us to be scared of mercenaries. It is shameful that hon members can come into Parliament and start quoting mercenaries on how they will stop legitimate ... [Inaudible.] ...
Order, hon members!
... into an intervention that is sanctioned by the AU and the United Nations.
We should say no to coups. We should also be saying no to rebels. [Interjections.]
Order!
We have to work with the AU in strengthening our central and continental peace and security architecture. Thank you very much, hon Speaker. We will continue on our march to defend this continent. [Time expired.] [Interjections.] [Applause.]