14 February 2007
Let me begin by saying that there is the very important Franco-Africa Summit
currently underway in Cannes, France. President Mbeki was scheduled to attend �
but when we looked at the schedule � the President is scheduled to respond to
the State of the Nation Address on Thursday, 15 February 2007 and other
party-political commitments, we realised that if the President had to attend to
these commitments, he would arrive in France only as the Summit was ending.
President Mbeki therefore mandated Minister of Foreign Affairs to lead the
South African delegation to this Summit.
The programme of international relations is ongoing although adjustments can
be made from time to time regarding the top of the agenda.
2007 will see South Africa prioritise the consolidation of the Africa
agenda: we will address the strengthening of all African Union (AU) regional
structures, like the Southern African Development Community (SADC). But most
important, the peace support operations and laying the foundations of the
necessary stability for the implementation of development programmes, e.g. the
New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) programme.
We have of course been making commendable progress in stabilising the
continent and our most recent success has been the elections in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo (DRC). This is very high on our agenda since we now need
to proceed with the consolidation of democracy in the DRC. Because of the
nature of the problems experienced by that country for more than 40 years, the
size of the country and the impact on nine other surrounding countries, it is
vital that the processes must be sustained post-elections to continue to be
seized with the situation in the DRC. We will have to exert determined efforts
to persuade national and regional formations that were our partners in taking
the DRC to a successful election. There is obviously anxiety on the part of
some to withdraw from the DRC as soon as is possible. But there is a danger
that too early a withdrawal from the situation could allow for a reversal of
the gains that have already been made. We are therefore seeking to persuade our
partners to sustain support so that the institutions of democracy take firm
hold, that the rehabilitation of the economy and the redirection of the energy
of the populace towards constructive economic and other activities takes firm
hold and that the withdrawal is therefore managed in keeping with the capacity
of the DRC to sustain itself.
Key among these issues will be the strengthening of such institutions as the
defence of the country, the civilian policing institutions, the DRC's public
service and administration. Many will realise that for some time there was not
a national public service throughout the country. Unless one can establish that
kind of government it is always going to be dangerous to withdraw from the
DRC.
South Africa has a number of departments that are doing work and assisting
in these processes. It has taken some amount of national resources to support
that process but we recognise the DRC as the single most important country in
which stability must be assured for the sake of the entire SADC region.
Therefore both national resources and the resources of the region and also
partners elsewhere must be mobilised over a long period. As we told the
National Assembly yesterday, the countries of SADC must remain engaged with the
DRC. Failure in the DRC will mean an absence of stability in many other
countries.
There is also the question of the Sudan/Darfur which is impacting on a
number of countries � Chad, Central African Republic, the northern parts of the
DRC, Uganda and others. Again, this is an issue that is high on our agenda � to
ensure that the AU Peace and Security Council and the United Nations (UN)
resolutions on a hybrid force for Darfur are fully implemented.
This immediately flows into the area of Somalia. With regard to Somalia, I
must add that South Africa is in full and unwavering support for all the
efforts that are underway to rehabilitate Somalia, to support the
re-establishment of institutions of governance, and so on. So we will be
devoting whatever available resources we have to supporting this process. I
must also hasten to say: because of South Africa's commitments to a number of
theatres of conflict elsewhere in Africa, it is improbable that South Africa
will itself, commit troops for the AU force in Somalia. We will provide other
forms of support, including among others, making available space in our
training institutions to train people. But it is not in the interests of
Africa, nor South Africa, that we over commit ourselves seeing that South
Africa is already rather over committed � in Darfur, Burundi, the DRC, the
Comoros. If we over commit we may fail to sustain our successes elsewhere.
Burundi has already taught us this lesson: early withdrawal from theatres of
conflict may result in a recession into that very conflict from which we sought
to seek a solution, and therefore render useless very important investments
already made in Africa.
One of the areas of prime concern for us is Cote d'Ivoire. We place Cote
d'Ivoire very high on our agenda of conflict resolution. Cote d'Ivoire is a big
economy in West Africa and impacts on a number of economies in the region. It
is quite clear, in our view, that if there was a resolution to the conflict an
excellent opportunity would present itself for the stabilisation of the greater
part of West Africa and therefore, it could constitute a springboard for the
launching of development projects in that region.
We were very encouraged to see that the leadership of Cote d'Ivoire has
agreed to participate in the Franco-Africa Summit. We hope that the outcomes of
this will be a better atmosphere of co-operation that will enable us all, the
Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the AU, and France to
assist in the final drive towards the reunification of Cote d'Ivoire and the
preparations for elections. This is a matter that is at the top of our
agenda.
The other issues that relate to our work in Africa will be to strengthen
some of the institutions, to look at the issue of bilateral relations subject
to where needs may arise.
Another top priority for us is to strengthen South-South relations. In this
regard, the Africa-Asia co-operation is a very significant aspect and in that
context the recent China-Africa Summit features significantly. In this regard,
we consider that it is important that we play close attention to relations of
co-operation between ourselves, Africa and China. Presidents Mbeki and Hu
Jintao during President Hu's State Visit to South Africa last week indicated
that this co-operation must be mutually beneficial to both Africa and China. We
have an advantage in that relations between China and Africa have not had the
traumatic impact of colonialism on Africa and other parts of the world. But we
must manage the situation in such a way that there is indeed mutual and
development benefit for both sides.
Still linked to this question of South-South relations, is the
India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) process involving India, Brazil and ourselves.
We will strengthen the IBSA process. We have identified areas and continue to
identify areas of co-operation in various fields � trade, military and so
on.
However, the question of the sustainment of relations between the South and
the North is a matter that cannot be ignored. In that context, we will remain
seized with a very careful servicing of relations between the South and the
countries of the North. I have just mentioned the Franco-Africa Summit,
relations between South Africa and the European Union (EU), the US and North
America, the relations with the G8 � co-operation projects and the
implementation of NEPAD commitments that have been undertaken.
An issue that also looms very high on our agenda is the reform of the United
Nations because it is through the UN that various other areas that require our
attention, or through which we can make a better contribution, i.e. conflict,
tensions, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction,
Palestine, Iraq, etc, it is really through the UN that we have the best chance
to make a contribution. If the reform process is completed we will be able to
make a better contribution rather that being a unilateral player on the
international stage. We see ourselves being able to make a greater contribution
if we are part of the UN structures.
In this regard, we welcome heartily the formation of the coalition
government in Palestine and consider that is would be very wise if the
sanctions of the EU, the US were lifted to encourage the strengthening of this
coalition. We think this would create a better atmosphere for the solution of
the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
We welcome the breakthrough regarding North Korea's nuclear programme. This
now gives the world an opportunity to do away with one of the tensions that was
very ominous. This development is marked as important progress for the whole
world.
Maybe I should at this point, focus attention regarding South Africa's
recent accession to the non-permanent seat of the UN Security Council
2007-2008. Questions and expectations have been raised that South Africa would
want to act miraculously. We do think that South Africa must be seen as one of
the non-permanent members of the UN Security Council and we will use that
position, side-by-side with other countries to advance issues in the interests
of the strengthening of global governance.
We have been very sharply criticised or questioned over our position on the
vote on Myanmar. It has been suggested that we are insensitive to human rights
violations. I'd like to put this into perspective.
Without equivocation, South Africa condemns totally and without reserve the
abuse of human rights, the arrests of pro-democracy leaders. Therefore we do
not hesitate to condemn this in Myanmar as well.
This raises the question � why did South Africa vote as it did? The question
relates first and foremost to global governance. There are various structures
of the UN that have responsibilities to deal with particular issues. Issues of
human rights, correctly speaking, are not issues for the Security Council. They
have to come before the Human Rights Council.
We have observed over some time now that there is an attempt to move issues
from some of the institutions of the United Nations towards the Security
Council, and in this way to cut out bigger numbers of the nations who are part
of the UN from participating and being part of the discussions towards
decisions in how these matters should be dealt with. To take a matter of human
rights to the Security Council is to place it in an area where it becomes
inaccessible to countries, which correctly speaking ought to have a very big
say in it.
Let matters of international peace and security, go to the Security Council.
The majority of countries of the world feel needs to be reformed.
South Africa was, in the first instance unhappy that this matter was being
placed in the incorrect forum. But as to the condemnation of the actions of the
government of Myanmar, we are not doubtful.
Another issue at the United Nations is the condemnation of the holocaust.
The position of South Africa, not starting today, even as a liberation
movement, the African National Congress (ANC) has never hesitated to condemn
the holocaust and what happened in Hitler's Germany. The historical records
speak for themselves in this regard. There has been some suggestion that South
Africa refused to co-sponsor the resolution. No such instruction was issued
from the government of South Africa to the Mission in New York to hesitate or
resist on this matter. There may have been practical matters on the ground and
we are looking into this matter. Even the suggestion that our mission was
ordered to absent itself during the voting is erroneous and has no basis.
On the whole, the approach of the government in the period immediately
before us is predicated on these views and positions.
I would like to end by sincerely welcoming the indication, seeing that it
mirrors our concern as well, regarding the matter of global commitment towards
the issue of the depletion of the ozone layer, we welcome the announcement by
the United Kingdom that during their Presidency they will make this issue of
global warming a key issue and one that they will seek to drive for
international co-operation. This is a very serious issue since climatic
conditions indicate that unless we proceed, as nations of the world, with
caution, there could be serious and dangerous patterns around the world.
Questions and answers
Question: Minister, despite approaches from foreign governments, especially
the United Kingdom, the Anti-Mercenary Bill is still being passed through
parliament, although it has yet to be signed into law. Are you still
negotiating this matter?
Answer: There is no negotiation with regard to the Bill. We have agreed that
when it comes to implementation, we are very happy to engage with, in
particular, the Commonwealth Community, because by virtue of our membership of
the Commonwealth, South Africans are permitted to join Her Majesty's armed
forces. But there are some practicalities into which we will have to look so
that we can agree on the implementation, to ensure we do not create unnecessary
administrative problems, e.g. it is being suggested that some of the South
Africans who are already in the service of Her Majesty's forces will have to
return to South Africa to obtain permission and then return to their postings.
This is unnecessary. We will receive, in the near future a technical team to
work out the practicalities. For the rest, there is no problem whatsoever.
Question: Minister, what kind of assistance are you going to provide to
Somalia, logistical/technical support or only diplomatic assistance? Related to
that, is there a sense that the Somali situation has influenced your thinking
on the matter?
Answer: First of all, with regard to Somalia, the recommendation to the South
African government from Defence has been that we cannot overstretch the armed
forces.
If you take the DRC, if more of the countries currently supporting this
process were to withdraw and if the UN were to take a position that their
mission has been completed, the view of the AU and South Africa is that it is
far too early to withdraw from the DRC. It is therefore better that we
concentrate our strength on a project that we are currently involved in and
ensure it is a success rather than to risk spreading ourselves too thinly and
ultimately not being successful anywhere.
This is the recommendation that we have made. Nevertheless, we have
recommended that we should begin a process of supporting the training in some
numbers of Somalis themselves who can then, as citizens of their country, deal
with the situation on the ground.
We are encouraged that an assessment we made of the situation in that
country shows that the traditional leaders are at one on the matter of the
rehabilitation of the institutions of government. There is some level of
dissatisfaction with regard to the activities of some of the Islamic Courts
which seem to be acting even in conflict with what the traditional leadership
wants.
The atmosphere does allow for us to be able to provide assistance of the
nature we are proposing.
In any event, the Ugandans right from the beginning pledged military
support. They are more familiar with the situation there. Somalia has been in
conflict for a considerable amount of time. When you consider all logistics and
practicalities it is important that countries who get involved are not caught
up in the tensions that are already there. All participants in this process
must understand fully the dynamics of the situation there.
Question: Minister, does it worry you that the United States has created a
High Command Structure for Africa that may allow for military intervention in
Somalia?
Answer: If I may venture a personal opinion, given the history of the United
States in Somalia, it would seem to me that it would be better to introduce in
that situation countries who do not come with historical baggage. I do not
think it is helpful when you bring into that situation countries whose motives
may be questioned. If you really want resolutions it is better to have fresh
players who are untainted by the past.
Question: Minister, it is apparently quite imminent that the US are
deploying troops to Somalia. Could this be another Black Hawk?
Answer: I have already said that our sense is that given the history of the
situation in Somalia, it would really be better if the US were not one of the
players there. It is worse when you receive reports that suggest that some of
the people who have recently lost their lives were ordinary civilians or
tribesmen who were herding their cattle. Mistakes of that nature can only
exacerbate or bring up the wounds of the past. We are very very doubtful that
this kind of role can be helpful. It is not sensitive to the emotions that
persist over time.
Question: Minister, regarding Myanmar, the point of South Africa's vote did
not come through very clearly. Did South Africa look for friends in the
Security Council to help us communicate our message as a bloc, rather than
standing on our own?
Answer: Naturally, when an issue comes up in the Security Council and the
General Assembly generally, there is always caucusing and countries try to
persuade each other one way or the other.
Regarding matters such as this one, we could not have gone into the voting
without making our voice heard without at least making our voices heard amongst
members of the current Security Council.
Of course, there are many elements in the UN � among the permanent members
for instance, there are certain blocs that exist and we have no pretensions of
being able to intervene simply because we are South African. This is so because
their interests go way beyond Myanmar and we were therefore not successful.
In the end we had to follow our conscience and we voted accordingly. We
remain firmly convinced that we were right.
Question: Minister, regarding the DRC � is South Africa going to take a leaf
out of America's book and send in our private companies?
Answer: The DRC is now a democratic government. They had their first sitting
of Parliament yesterday. The new Cabinet has been nominated.
In the same way in which the South African government has contributed
towards the resolution of the tensions, we do expect that South African
business people must support the efforts of government to rehabilitate the
economy in that country alongside business people of other countries to go into
the DRC, once they are satisfied with elements of safety and security, to open
up businesses, to give the people of that country jobs, the possibility of
rebuilding their lives in their motherland, to make it possible for those who
have migrated to return to their country and rebuilding their homes, their
communities.
We think that South African business people must not be shy and hesitate to
support the people of the DRC. As they make profits there, they will also
contribute to the upliftment of the society through development projects �
schools, roads, healthcare.
There are huge opportunities that require injections of capital not just in
aid but from the private sector through business.
Question: Minister, regarding Myanmar, should the situation arise again
where we find ourselves faced with a contentious situation, will South Africa
consider abstaining?
Answer: No, we will not consider abstaining. Our position was very well
considered. I say again, we cannot support a situation in which questions and
issues that need to be considered by relevant institutions of the UN are hived
off and become the special preserve of a few privileged nations within the
United Nations Security Council.
This principle is important and at this time of the unipolar world it is
increasingly important that more nations are heard on issues rather than fewer
because this in itself weakens democracy at international levels. This is a
very dangerous formula.
We have no hesitation in condemning the abuses of human rights that are
happening in Myanmar. The issue on the voting on the matter in the UN has to do
with the matter of affording more countries of the world to have a say. This is
in the interests of the people of Myanmar, that more nations of the world are
participant in what happens in that country. When people own a decision there
will be greater support for it.
When the issue of apartheid came up, it was important for it to be heard in
a greater body so that the whole of the UN, having participated in the decision
were most loyal in ensuring it was implemented fully.
If this is a decision of few, then it will not be possible to predict how
other countries will respond to it since they may feel it was not their
decision.
Question: Minister, it is interesting to note that countries like Somalia,
the DRC, Cote d'Ivoire rate very highly on South Africa's agenda. Yet no
mention is made of Zimbabwe? Or is it simply that the South African government
does not consider the economic meltdown and increasing humanitarian crisis very
important?
Answer: It is impossible for South Africa to consider its work in Africa
without standing within the SADC community of nations since this impacts
immediately on ourselves.
The issue of Zimbabwe continuously enjoys our attention.
There has been for some time now, an attempt to make Zimbabwe the problem of
South Africa rather than that of the SADC region. We are uncomfortable and
refuse to take an approach that we should be the ones to be seen to dictate
what must happen with the problems in Zimbabwe.
We are one of the countries of SADC. We have, because of our position, taken
extra responsibilities to try and get an all round acceptable resolution to the
situation in Zimbabwe. But we cannot make this our own property. And within the
councils of SADC, we will continue to make our positions known so that when
decisions are taken, ours is a voice amongst others. And if we make special
commitments ourselves, outside of the councils of SADC, we are falling into the
trap of maybe throwing ourselves into confrontation with Zimbabwe. This is not
a position we would like to take.
We are very keen that Zimbabwe is able to confront its problems, to confront
the reality that some of the problems it is experiencing is impacting on her
neighbours. They are not impacting on South Africa any more than any of the
other neighbours.
We have said before, that prior to our democratisation, countries of the
region more specifically, and the continent as a whole, were quite united in
dealing with the problem of supporting liberation struggles and we benefited
greatly from the unity of countries of the region.
Therefore, when we became a democracy, we saw it as a responsibility and
continue to do so now, to reinforce the unity of the countries of SADC, rather
than to be seen as a player that having benefited from that unity, we now
destroy that very unity.
It was in that context therefore, that even when it came to the question,
that there must be respect for the will of the people and we would therefore
need to have regular elections, SADC adopted the Principles and Guidelines for
Elections and we all periodically go to elections where we give the people of
our countries the right to vote. It was in this spirit that we went to SADC and
said, let's agree that nobody should recognise in SADC anyone who comes to
power by unconstitutional means. This was agreed.
It was in this spirit that we then adopted the Mutual Defence Pact between
the countries of our region so that none of the countries of our region,
however powerful, feel that it is entitled to attack another. Therefore the
problems of the region can be solved through negotiation and not conflict.
These kinds of agreement are intended to consolidate unity amongst the
countries of the region and at the same time, unity based on a respect for
human rights, etc.
Although people have been unhappy about the progress in this regard, there
is greater appreciation that the SADC community is moving in an increasingly
stronger and stronger implementation of democratic practice. We have elections
in Lesotho this weekend. We support each other. We are going to fly ballot
papers to remote areas to ensure that the people of that country are given an
opportunity to express their will through the ballot box.
Therefore, even with Zimbabwe, although painfully slow, we are advancing in
that direction. We do not want to stick out as a better than thou in a
community in which we are one of the partners.
Question: Minister, are negotiations ongoing between South Africa and
Zimbabwe? What is the view of the South African government of the problem in
this regard? Is the historical relationship between Zanu-PF and the ANC a
stumbling bloc and hindrance rather than a support?
Answer: South Africa has well represented relations with Zimbabwe. We talk
to each other all the time and explore ways of addressing challenges. We are in
continuous discussions, probably more than with most countries.
This must necessarily address all challenges in Zimbabwe � how best to deal
with economic challenges, how best to deal the humanitarian crises, the
management of the opposition, etc.
The economy of Zimbabwe impacts on our economy, we have to discuss this.
There is no question that we do not discuss.
I am however, not prepared to discuss the outcomes of these discussions � we
must respect the confidentiality of these discussions.
The friendship between the Zanu-PF and the ANC is indeed a factor, in the
same way in which it is a factor when we discuss with Namibia or Frelimo. This
does not mean that while we were fellow freedom fighters we always agree.
Question: Minister, has the South African government raised its concerns
regarding Somalia with the US government? Are you concerned that potential US
involvement will be playing into the hands of the Islamic Courts?
Answer: I am not aware that we have had the opportunity to discuss this at a
bilateral level as yet.
Question: Minister, does your decision to not deploy troops to Somalia since
you do not want to overstretch your resources indicate that you will not be
able to accept any further requests for assistance?
Answer: This will not be a situation of one size fits all. First of all,
Somalia, because of the long hard road that the country has come through and
the difficulties experienced, any country who commits to Somalia will have to
commit for a very uncertain but certainly long commitment. At a time when we
are already committed to the DRC, which for more than 46 years has been in
turmoil, we must consider whether we want to make our involvement in the DRC a
success before committing to another theatre of conflict that will require the
same if not more than the DRC has needed.
Recently however, the Comoros have requested assistance with the forthcoming
elections in terms of their security. This is a small project with a specific
timeframe. We have been there before and we know we can do it again.
If there were another mission of a similar nature, we would consider it.
We are also expanding the contingents of our armed forces that should be
available for peace support operations. Commensurate with the expansion of our
capacity, we can undertake more commitments.
As we deal with the SADC Brigade, one of the things we are doing is to
encourage within the SADC Community that the SADC Brigade must become actively
involved in deployment so that requests should be directed at SADC and not
individual countries. Then the Community can also share the commitments.
Question: Minister, regarding Zimbabwe � when you say that this is a matter
for the SADC Community as well, what is the SADC Community doing?
Answer: I have just been discussing the agreements that have been made,
non-recognition of people in power not installed democratically, the mutual
defence pact, the guidelines and principles on elections, the African Peer
Review Mechanism are all agreements of the Community and AU.
This stands as a benchmark for the governments and intended to create a
common approach, an atmosphere that reinforces democracy, human rights for the
countries of the region. This is what we are all doing. Even when there are
elections, a SADC observer mission is deployed which then reports back.
Question: Minister, at the World Economic Forum, President Mbeki was quite
strong on Prime Minister Blair regarding the Saudi arms deal. Is this matter
being discussed at all?
Answer: I am afraid that we are unable to respond to this matter. This is in
the hands of the British government. I am not sure how they will choose to
handle this matter further.
Question: Minister, I understand that the Secretariat of Defence has hired a
British company to revamp the Defence Force. Can you tell me how much this is
going to cost and why we need it?
Answer: You may recall that when we democratised this country, there was no
defence secretariat which was abolished in 1966 by the old regime. We worked
with a British team when we restructured the Defence Force and re-established
the Secretariat. I am not sure how much this is going to cost but can let you
know.
The Defence Secretariat is a civilian unit.
Issued by: Department of Foreign Affairs
14 February 2007
