Mr Chairman, the Minister this afternoon delivered a glowing report on her Ministry. I have been in Parliament for 14 years and, in respect of her officials, such a glowing report is really well deserved.
In respect of policy development and the positioning of South Africa in the geopolitical world, there is, however, another view. That is the view of the National Development Plan, NDP.
President Zuma, in the state of the nation address, unequivocally endorsed the NDP, indicating that it would be the country's roadmap and be front and centre of government policy going forward. He also indicated that all departments in their planning would have to align themselves with the NDP. The DA welcomed that.
Yet the Minister mentioned the NDP once, and that in the context of making a contribution towards the NDP at a future date. I searched the strategic plan for the years 2013 to 2018 for a mention of the NDP and there was not a mention of it.
It is little wonder, because in chapter 7 of the NDP the commission puts forward a very different view of our foreign policy, which I think the Minister needs to respond to. In the section reflecting on South Africa's status in the world, the report, in the context of South Africa as a middle- income country overstretching itself diplomatically, states that: Notwithstanding our drive to open up new embassies, "South Africa has experienced a relative decline in power and influence in world affairs." This is not my quote, but that of the NDP. The document goes on to say that:
South Africa lost a great deal of moral authority as a power resource that the country enjoyed in the period immediately after the 1994 elections.
After reflecting on the international fora which we are members of, particularly our once regular invitation to the G7, the report again states:
When all of these issues are considered, South Africa's foreign relations are becoming increasingly ineffective and the country is sliding down the scale of global competitiveness and overall moral standing.
This is not me, but the NDP. The Minister needs to interrogate why the report comes to these conclusions. Is it because most of the current constructs that theoretically underpin our foreign policy are either overblown, inconsistent or incoherent? Is it that they don't appropriately define, advance or prioritise South Africa's national interests abroad? Or is it that they do not at least acknowledge the tensions embedded in the clash between value-driven policies embedded in our Constitution and those driven by the country's national interests? Or is it because we raised expectations in the world when Nelson Mandela, on the eve of his Presidency, said, "Human rights will be the light which guides our foreign policy?"
This human rights base of the ANC's founding fathers has been undermined through several of the country's foreign policy decisions. Our voting record during the last two terms, as a nonpermanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has often been widely decried for sometimes siding with rogue regimes. [Interjections.]
Our position on the Arab Spring dashed expectations with contradictions and somersaults. And here is the real irony: We turned our backs on long- oppressed citizens under the heel of various fiefdoms and tyrannies when they began to demand and demonstrate for basic democratic and economic rights, just as their compatriots in South Africa had done two or three decades before. Democracy and freedom were what they were demanding and we walked away behind other resolutions.
Let me immediately acknowledge that human rights cannot be the sole determinant of international relations. South Africa's national interests are also of critical importance. The problem, as the NDP suggests, is that South Africa has yet to define appropriately what these national interests are. The White Paper, under the broad umbrella of Ubuntu, defined our national interests as:
... the development and upliftment of our people; stability of the Republic and constitutional order; growth and development of the South African economy; growth and development of Southern Africa; a stable and prosperous African continent; and a just and equitable world order.
This sounds like a combination of a summary of South Africa's constitutional premise and a normative pitch for a new world order. Nowhere in the Ministry's definition of national interest, the department's mission or in the Department of International Relations and Co-operation's six strategic priorities that flow from its vision do we get a clear understanding of goals, priorities or trade-offs that need to be made.
I think the commission of the NDP recognises this, as in its paragraph of Proposals to Reposition South Africa in the Region and the World, it states clearly that South Africa needs clarity on its national interests. They go so far as to recommend that there be an urgent convening of a high-level and high-impact task team to investigate South Africa's foreign relations. It says the task team should produce definitive studies on, firstly, South Africa's national interest; secondly, South Africa in the context of African geopolitics; and thirdly, South Africa's role in the world, especially in Brics and in multilateral relations.
In fact, what they are saying is that we need a whole revamp of our position as far as foreign affairs is concerned. What an indictment!
The problem is that when you abandon your human rights base, you abandon your moral compass ... [Interjections.] ... and when you have no clarity as to what your national interests are, you end up being perceived in international fora as inconsistent, incoherent, flip-flopping and even end up fighting battles in countries where we have no place. [Interjections.]
On a different note, I want to commend the department for of late placing great emphasis on economic diplomacy, even though it is not listed as one of the department's six priorities. Economic diplomacy encapsulates the broad international policy-making process, not to be confused with commercial diplomacy, which refers to the work of bilateral measures aimed at marketing the country and promoting trade and investment. But, here again, there is criticism from the commission. It notes in this context that:
South African diplomats have great skill in drafting memoranda of understanding, policy statements and agreements, but lose momentum when it comes to implementing agreement terms or following up on promises of benefits.
A further important note they make, echoed by business, is that there is a marked dislocation between the efforts of South African business leaders on the one hand and government leaders and officials on the other. Government, they correctly observe, may negotiate trade deals, but it is private companies that actually trade across borders. They make the point that the South African business community must be drawn more closely into our foreign policy-making process.
The National Planning Commission, NPC, observes that joining Brics is an important development in the history of South Africa's international relations. It is in this connection, in the run-up to the fifth Brics summit, that we were assailed with a great deal of hype as to the benefit of Brics, what its potential was and what was about to be achieved.
The outcome has been a lot more sober. One positive potential outcome, which we welcomed at the time, was the imminent creation of a development bank, possibly even sited in South Africa. Well, in this context, the summit was all bricks and no mortar. We still await an announcement, some three months later. But, it is clear from the statements made by the respective participants at the end of the plenary that in practice there are major hurdles in putting together a common vision for this organisation. Not only is there a lack of a common underlying value system, but there are also divergent national interests that inform its role in a changing global landscape. Clearly a lot more thought has to be given by each member as to where its country's self-interest begins and where the interest of Brics as a geopolitical bloc starts.
One of Dirco's six strategic priorities has been the strengthening of political and economic integration of the SA Development Community, SADC, region. This has always been unquestioned, believing that such an integration would clearly enhance South Africa's status in Africa, in Brics and in the greater geopolitical world.
Clear integration milestones were set for deepening integration. They included a preferential trade area by 2000; a free-trade area by 2008; a customs union by 2010; a common market by 2015; and a monetary union by 2018. Of course, nothing has been achieved, notwithstanding the priority. The NPC, in its paragraph on Co-operation and Integration in Africa, makes the point that:
South African policy-makers tend to have a weak grasp of African geopolitics. Because of this, foreign relations with African states are often tentative, with policy-makers vacillating between leading and muddling through on issues of integration and co-operation.
That's not me, but the NPC. More importantly, the NPC makes a very important shift of emphasis - which I don't think has been picked up by many - in respect of SADC integration, when it argues for a move from regionalisation to regionalism. Here the emphasis is on a free-trade area which has the potential to significantly increase South Africa's trade and investment, but where the country remains in full control of its political destiny.
It argues specifically against political integration. It says:
If as recommended earlier in its report, South Africa's national interests are well defined and there is a proper understanding of the geopolitics of Africa, South Africa will have clarity on the important difference between co-operation and integration, on the different types of institutions and organisations it wants to be part of, and how the country should position itself over the next two or three decades.
The NDP has many more interesting observations, some of which I know the Ministry will not enjoy. However, it is clear to me that before we come with glowing reports to this House, the department needs to go back, reread the NDP, engage itself with that NDP, do a bit of introspection, appoint the task team that the NDP actually said it should do and then come back with a glowing report. Only then will the Minister's department comply with President Zuma's injunction for all departments to align themselves to the