A Pahad: Briefing notes on current international issues

20 November 2007

President Thabo Mbeki to lead South African Delegation to Commonwealth Heads
of Government Meeting (CHOGM)

Good afternoon and welcome. Let me start with the usual announcements.

CHOGM

President Mbeki will leave to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government
meeting in Uganda. He will leave on Friday and the meeting will take place from
Friday to Sunday. The theme this year is "Transforming Commonwealth Societies
to achieve political, economic and human development." Deputy Minister Sue van
der Merwe will be attending the Ministerial segment of the meeting. The Heads
of State have got a very huge agenda. Let me just outline it:

* global challenges including terrorism, conflict prevention and
resolution
* 'Commonwealth's fundamental political values which includes democracy and
democratic processes, good governance, separation of constitutional
powers
* economic liberalisation and global economic stability including debt relief,
aid architecture, poverty eradication and the negotiations at the World Trade
Organisation (WTO)
* developmental issues including capacity and institution building and this is
a very important element of the Commonwealth's work
* development through strategic partnerships: that's how the Commonwealth
interacts with other international multinational institutions
* significantly, climate change following the United Nations latest report on
climate change. This will be high on the agenda.

CHOGM will also appoint a new Secretary-General who will succeed the present
Secretary General Rt Hon Donald McKinnon. And we would like to take this
opportunity to thank him for the excellent work he has done as
Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. As you are aware the People's Forum,
which has over 1 300 delegates meetings, have already started and the Business
Forum will also take place on the margins, both very important aspects of the
Commonwealth trying to bring in the people and the private sector.

SA-Angola Joint Commission

Minister Dlamini Zuma as you know has left for Luanda Angola where she will
co-chair, together with her Angolan counterpart, the Foreign Minister of
Angola, the second session of the South Africa–Angola Joint Commission for
Co-operation which will take place from today till tomorrow. During this
meeting three agreements including an agreement on cooperation in the petroleum
sector will be signed. The other agreements, an agreement on the promotion of
tourism and a Declaration of Intent on the waiving of visas for ordinary
passport holders will also be signed.

Minister Dlamini Zuma will be accompanied by Minister Buyelwa Sonjica of
Minerals and Energy and Deputy Minister Malusi Gigaba of Home Affairs and very
many senior officials from various departments like the departments of Health,
Agriculture, Defence, Trade and Industry, Minerals and Energy, Social
Development will all form part of the Joint Commission.

As you know this Commission for Co-operation was established in the year
2000. We give it tremendous importance because of the role Angola plays in
Southern African Development Community (SADC) but also overall in Africa. Since
peace has come to Angola, Angola is one of the countries with the greatest
potential, not only through its oil and other mineral resources, but generally
the potential in Angola to make a major contribution to African development is
understood. Angola plays a major role in the Democratic Republic of Congo
(DRC).
And therefore this Joint Commission will be an important opportunity to discuss
how we co-operate further. You also know Angola is planning for elections in
2008 and this will be a good opportunity to get an understanding from the
Angolan Government about their preparations and see how if any we can
contribute to helping the elections taking place.

Sudan

Increasing reports of violence in Darfur, there are more reports coming out
of increasing tensions between the South and the North, the government of
National Unity that was formed after the Comprehensive Peace Agreement has
still not been re-instituted. The South Ministers are still boycotting it and
therefore it becomes very important to try to ensure that we get a solution to
the Darfur problem which is impacting negatively on the broader Comprehensive
Peace Agreement in Sudan.

We have briefed you on several occasions about the deployment of United
Nations (UN)-African hybrid operation. And once again the UN Under
Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations has again indicated that if they
do not get the necessary pledges from countries especially on heavy equipment
it will be very difficult to deploy the hybrid force as scheduled. And for us
this is very difficult because you cant continuously raise the issue of
increasing violence without taking the necessary steps to ensure that there is
a sufficiently strong force to create the climate for violence to subside and
end, and therefore create the climate for the political processes to unfold.
And so we are concerned about the Under Secretary-General's view that there has
not been enough commitment for ground transport unit, which includes 18
transport helicopters, air support and six helicopters for light tactical
purposes.

We agree fully with him and it tells a sad story on the commitment to
Darfur, and he says, "Frankly I think there is an immense tragedy that has
unfolded in Darfur and now it's up to the countries that care about Darfur to
really make a commitment that will make a difference" and that he calls for
concrete actions. We have on really many occasions stated the same that we
cannot keep talking of a crisis in Darfur and keep talking of the violence that
is increasing without ensuring that those that have the capacity do provide the
capacity so that the hybrid force can be in place as scheduled.

Of course there is still problems arising about the nature of the hybrid
force. Thailand, as we said last week, has offered to provide an infantry
battalion, Nepal is willing to contribute a force reserve and sector reserve
unit and the Nordic countries of Sweden, Norway and Denmark have offered to
send an engineering unit. There is clearly according to the Under
Secretary-General no agreement between the Sudanese Government and the African
Union (AU) and the UN of utilising these forces. As I said last week, the
argument still is very strong that see what we can get from the African forces
before we can look at other contributions. We would urge all sides, and that's
the three sides, the UN, the AU and the Sudanese Government, to really resolve
that outstanding matter of the composition of the forces as soon as possible.
The UN has requested South Africa to contribute a battalion that's 800 troops
to UNIMED and Cabinet will be discussing this issue. Generally I think, as you
heard Minister Lekota saying during the visit of President Bashir, South Africa
in principle is committed to meeting the requirements of UNIMED in Darfur.

The UN has also requested South Africa to make a contribution of helicopters
and ground transportation for UNIMED. This is an issue that is being discussed
by the Ministry of Defence. I'm sure Cabinet will discuss that soon and see
what we can contribute because without that sort of contribution the force
cannot be deployed. At the moment the UN is now discussing the proposals for a
budget of 1,4 billion to cover the period between July 2007 and June 2008. And
again we are calling on the more developed countries to make a contribution to
this budget that has been worked out by the Secretary-General and his
experts.

Before the Human Rights Commission and now the Human Rights Council
condemning human rights in China comes every four years. And we don't know
whether it's a coincidence that the four intervals also happen to coincide with
Presidential elections in the United States of America. And therefore we do ask
the question, does this mean that China only violates, if they are accused of
violating human rights, in intervals of four years? We don't understand why it
coincides with the elections in the United States America (USA).

Specific questions

For reasons of its unique history of the struggle for human rights and human
dignity, the issue of human rights continues to occupy a major political space
in South Africa's foreign policy priorities. Because of different approaches
and influences differences will arise in the Human Rights Council, the General
Assembly (GA) and the Security Council (SC):

* South African human rights policy is based on the four pillars of respect
for, promotion, protection and fulfilment of all human rights and fundamental
freedoms.
* Some countries never talk of the issue of fulfilment of human rights, i.e.
practical enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
* South Africa believes in the inextricability between economic, social and
cultural rights and civil and political rights.
* Some countries only emphasize civil and political rights and do not regard
the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights as an
instrument elaborating basic human rights. For these countries economic, social
and cultural rights are not rights but merely basic needs of nations and
peoples.
* South Africa believes in the justifiability of economic, social and cultural
rights.
* Some countries believe that only civil and political rights are
justifiable.
* South Africa strongly believes that the enjoyment of civil and political
rights is not possible if not accompanied by a corresponding commitment to and
practical enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights.

In the past 10 years, South Africa has been one of the leading countries in
championing the cause for the realisation of the right to development and that
we believe is an element of human rights for all peoples anywhere. And that for
us the fundamentals of South African human rights law is for the achievement of
equality and human dignity through sustainable development, eradication of
poverty and underdevelopment and the primacy of achieving the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs).

Given this factor there is not sufficient understanding of how the Human
Rights Council works and there's always concentration only in one of the ten
items and this is when some countries decide to bring up what is called country
resolutions. And for a long time the Human Rights Commission and now the Human
Rights Council gets bogged down into serious differences because of the
perceptions of the countries of the south that countries of the north are
selectively bringing countries onto the table and there is not sufficient
discussion of what outcomes has to be of what issues are being brought into the
Human Rights Council and increasingly being taken into the Security
Council.

And so we are arguing that if we look at all the ten separate items within
the Human Rights Council you will see there are many other issues on human
rights that all the countries that are committed to defending human rights and
enhancing human rights are involved in South Africa's track record can never be
challenged on those issues. And so we've had some interesting experiences and
we'll mention in passing a few which keeps coming and keep being country
positions being taken up by the more developed countries.

China

On China, it is our experience that the Chinese resolution on human rights
before the Human Rights Commission and now the Human Rights Council condemning
human rights in China comes every four years. And we don't know whether it's a
coincidence that the four intervals also happen to coincide with Presidential
elections in the United States of America. And therefore we do ask the
question, does this mean that China only violates, if they are accused of
violating human rights, in intervals of four years? We don't understand why it
coincides with the elections in the USA.

Iran

Another example that we've been experiencing relates to the European Union
(EU) resolution on violation of human rights in Iran for the last 20
consecutive years and this has been sponsored mainly by the European Union. And
then suddenly it was discontinued without consultation or agreement with other
members of the Commission. And they then decided at this stage that there
should be a bilateral forum between Brussels and Teheran on this issue. It is
only when these discussions between the EU and Teheran failed, that then Canada
introduced a resolution on Iran.

This resolution was not taken to the Commission in Geneva, but it was
introduced to the Third Committee of the General Assembly in New York. And
we've been consistently arguing that we should keep it where we must that is
with the Human Rights Commission in Geneva and we cannot understand why it has
been taken to the Third Committee of the General Assembly in New York. I give
these examples because this indicates the difficulties we have in dealing with
such issues in the multilateral institutions. What has now happened, I tried to
indicate it's linked somewhat to the Durban Conference on Racism and now the
Review Conference.

There's been a concerted effort in some sectors to demonise South Africa for
its strong resistance to the double standards, selectivity and politicisation
of the approach of human rights which has now been taken in the entire UN
system of human rights. And so it is our view that the current trends to
demonise South Africa's human rights record emanate principally from our total
rejection of an approach which protects some violators from the developed
countries and only works to identity specific countries they identify to bring
in what we call country resolutions within the Human Rights Council. And so let
me give an example:

Accreditation of gay and lesbian non-governmental organisations (NGOs)

Even our papers run many articles that South Africa opposed the
accreditation of gay and lesbian NGOs to gain consultative UN status. Nobody
checked with us and therefore was completely ignorant of the UN methods of work
and rules of procedure. The issue that was brought to vote on the gay and
lesbian NGOs getting consultative status was not on the accreditation but
specifically on whether the correct procedures were followed.

And it was on this technical vote that South Africa voted in the affirmative
and indeed we were correct in voting in the affirmative on processes rather
than the substance. And so therefore we did not vote to exclude gay and lesbian
NGOs from accreditation. Our Constitution commits us to defend this position;
we will always defend that position. But we are always clear that we must
always follow correct procedures in order to achieve the objectives.

Myanmar

On Myanmar you've heard our position before that this issue was brought to
the Security Council and we've argued that it came to us without any
consultation and we've argued that it must go back to the Human Rights Council
which is the right forum for handling this matter. As you know there's been
significant developments on Myanmar since the Security Council, what I can only
call misunderstanding of South Africa's position. The Human Rights Council
convened a Special Session on Myanmar on 1 October 2007.

The outcome of the Special Session was a consensus document which ensured
that the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Commission (HRC) on the
situation in Myanmar was allowed entry into the country and as we know his been
visiting Myanmar, visiting all the different forces in Myanmar. And I believe
this is a correct approach, depoliticising the issue in that sense that it
doesn't look as if countries are bringing in what is called the interests of
that particular moment and trying to force two resolutions. We can get
consensus which can lead to results.

And this is also proven by the Security Council statement on Myanmar which
was made just a few days ago on 14 November which welcomed the positive
development that have been taking place like the release of some detainees, the
contacts between Minister Aung Kyi as liaison officer and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
and the decision to allow Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to meet with key members of her
National League for Democracy Party. The visit of Gambari to Myanmar has opened
up space for some movement in this context. And indeed we are now able through
the UN structures to raise the issues with the prisoners and those jailed and
continuing protest and continue to argue for the democratisation process to be
accelerated. The security also has called on the authorities in Myanmar to
create conditions for dialogue and reconciliation, removing conditions for the
detention of Aung San Suu Kyi and by ensuring that other prisoners are released
and detainees are released.

Again the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) group has been
meeting and the ministers have adopted a resolution on human rights which the
Heads of State are supposed to endorse which will again give us a framework to
begin to see how we can intensify our efforts to get movement and solutions for
Myanmar. So we were never opposed as we've been attacked for being against the
democratisation process in Myanmar. We had argued that it must go to the right
structures and since we've played a leading role within the right structures to
get movement.

"Rape" resolution in the General Assembly

Now let me deal with an issue that has been totally misunderstood or
distorted and that's the adoption of a resolution in the Third Committee of the
General Assembly entitled "Elimination Rape and Other Forms of Sexual Violence
in all their Forms and Manifestations, including in Conflict and Related
Situations" that's a compromise agreement that has come. The background to all
of this was that the draft resolution which was introduced by the United States
of America (USA) and many countries saw it as having problems because it was
condemning rape when perpetrated for political or military purposes only and
asserted that rape was used as an instrument of State Policy in these
situations.

For many delegations they saw this as another attempt to politicise issue,
in this case rape and also as a selective targeting of certain countries. And
it is within the Africa Group, that many countries took exception to the views
expressed in the draft resolution. It was not South Africa leading this frontal
attack as has been said. Our view was essentially that the draft resolution
created two categories of rape, that is rape by military and militia groups and
rape by civilians. It was our view that a more comprehensive resolution was
required on such an important issue of rape.

South Africa, together with other Africa delegations requested the USA to
amend its draft resolution to include the elimination of rape in all its forms
and manifestations and not just where rape is perpetrated for political or
military purposes. The African delegations were supported by Latin America and
Asia who also called for a balanced text. So it was not a rejection of the
resolution, it was an attempt to ensure that we have a balanced approach on
this so we can get movement on this.

Angola on behalf of the Africa Group (chair of the month) introduced
amendments to the text that sought to balance the text by making certain that
there was no politicisation of rape. A number of other organisations also
proposed changes to the text, such as the Organisation of Islamic Conference
(OIC), who sought protection from rape for women and girls living under foreign
occupation.

Indeed we, the Africa Group, argued supported by Latin America and Asia that
it is important for the General Assembly to send a strong and non-politicised
message that rape is a brutal, despicable and violent act whether perpetrated
by civilians, the military or armed groups and that the UN must avoid sending
out a message that could be misunderstood as suggesting different categories of
rape. We also wished to address the issue of assistance to victims of rape
which was omitted from the USA text.

Because it is our view that resolutions like these are passed and if they
are very limited do not have the impact they should and after those resolutions
are passed victims of rape are quickly forgotten and their ordeals after
they've been raised in resolutions are completely ignored. And as I say we then
with many other countries sought to change the initial US draft. And it is I
think credit to the initial drafters that after lots of discussions, the
African draft was then the basis on which a more substantive resolution on rape
was adopted by the General Assembly. It was by consensus which meant following
the correct position, the correct tactical approach.

Having a more comprehensive approach to rape we were able to have
comprehensive resolution which brought in every country in the world including
the major developed countries. And so this resolution adopted by the Third
Committee on 15 November 2007, we believe is correct because it condemns rape
in all its forms and manifestations, including in situations of conflict. And
now we've sent out a clear and unequivocal message that rape cannot be condoned
under any circumstance rather than a narrow resolution which would allow for
interpretations that would not enable us to deal with it in a holistic.

So it is our view that despite the rape furore in South Africa's media
largely picked up from what was said in the United States and the NGOs I
referred to our positions were completely misunderstood. And since there's been
now a consensus resolution adopted by all the countries, we've had no
explanation to our people about the position we took in trying to ensure that
we get a better resolution on rape rather than what was seen by many country as
a very narrow and politicised resolution on rape.

So it our feeling that on this and other matters it is in the interest of
the media to seek, you don't have to follow our explanation, rather than to
follow what some representative of the USA government is purported to have said
at any particular time and what certain NGOs have been propagating through
their websites. It is in the interest of us in ensuring that we do have a world
system that respects human rights and deals effectively with violations of
human rights. So seek clarification from Foreign Affairs, you don't have to
accept our views but at least in the end on position we've taken at least two
issues have become such hot issues in South Africa, the Myanmar issue and the
rape issue.

I believe because South Africa was part of the group that wanted a better
approach how we handle these issues, that we are far more advanced on these
issues than we have been if we had taken the direction of having no input and
just accepting what is proposed by some countries rather than trying to improve
the resolutions. And this will be our case, South Africa will never accept a
position that if its big countries that propose resolutions we must accept them
as given.

We will not be intransigent but we will discuss our own understanding of
limitations to draft resolutions and get a comprehensive resolution that will
address the victims rather than resolutions that go into records that satisfy I
don't know what. This is our appeal to the media, that on many of these issues
it's not useful to take what has just been fed and in our view wrongly fed to
the South African media and to the international media generally about many of
these fundamental issues that we are confronting. And for your own credibility,
be constructively critical of what you are now receiving from sectors that
sometimes put it one-sidedly and don't identify the totality of what we are
trying to achieve in the United Nations and the Human Rights Council. Thank
you

Questions and answers

Question: I must quite honestly say that I didn't quite follow what it is
you say was the motivation for these people who are demonising South Africa.
And what it has to do with the racism conference.

Answer: Well this is the problem. There is now a huge campaign against the
2001 Conference that was held in South Africa. You know that at that time,
there were some NGOs by and large funded by many of the major countries who
were supposedly taking an anti-Semitic position. The USA and Israeli
delegations walked out, and since then there's been a systematic campaign to
challenge the 2001 conference and our positions. We've been referred to as the
greatest bastions of anti-Semitism in the world since that conference.

The same forces that are now opposing the processes are the ones that are
leading the campaign denigrating South Africa's position on human rights. It is
very difficult to attack us simply on the basis of the Durban conference but if
you attack us generally on the human rights issues you then create conditions
for them to accept that we are also crazy in becoming strong supporters of the
review process of the Durban Conference. So it links up in that sense. But they
are not the only ones, if you look at what the South African media was
reporting, it was absolutely wrong interpretations.

The under-secretary of the USA for international affairs was purported to
have said many things. Nobody looked at the full context of the speech. The
impression was given that the South African representative to the UN opposed
the resolution on rape. So it all is beginning to intertwine in what we call is
a very complex terrain of struggle on human rights issues. Now, we are being
attacked on human rights issues also as in not a foundation to attack us being
strong proponents of the Durban review process and that's the three NGOs I
mentioned are leading that campaign.

Question: Are you saying that these three NGOs that you mentioned are not
credible organisation? Are you saying that they are acting as a front for, dare
I say, America and the West? What exactly are you saying?

Answer: Well I'm saying they are playing a very negative role. We are
consulting with them on all the occasions of human rights issues on our
constitution but they are refusing to accept that and they are still purporting
to suggest that we as government ran the 2001 Conference on Racism in a way
that has led to the greatest manifestation of anti-Semitism since Fascism.
That's the general tone in which they are working their websites. And I think
in that sense they are playing a very dangerous game because that has never
been our position.

We've always tried to ensure that we handle conferences in a way that is
balanced. So, yes, in this particular aspect I think they got it absolutely
wrong. And I think South African media are picking up a lot of that stuff. That
is my view.

Question: You've also indicated earlier on, it's a bit difficult to follow
(inaudible)

Answer: I'm saying our NGOs that were demonstrating at the 2001, all of them
by and large are funded by western powers. I was trying to show that despite
what government was trying to do the NGO by and large now that we are being
attacked by and larger are funded by Western powers.

Question: Within the UN structure do you think the South and the North
interpretation's of Human Rights is so divergent?

Answer: I think myself as I tried to show in our experience in the Human
Rights Commission, was Human Rights Commission could not progress much, because
it become a polemical institution, some countries of the developed, which means
the North, always in item of ten the countries position always came with
certain country positions and inevitably the rest of the world who are not part
of the developed countries will then unite against that resolution on many
counts. And I tried to indicate on why on the China resolution, how on the Iran
resolution.

We also have difficulties .At the same time we also had difficulties on the
approach, why they bring things in on certain times into the human rights
commission then, very selective and always been, countries of the South are
responsible for human rights violations. Then if then that is the case
countries of the South responsible for human rights violations, one can justify
that it is not only countries of the South. Issues of Iraq never come to the
agenda, issues of Afghanistan never come to the agenda, and issues of the
Middle East never brought on to the agenda.

So it is a selective approach and a way in which some of the countries in
the Human Rights Council approach these issues that led to the immobilisation
of the Human Rights Council. The one item that deals with country specific, we
thought the transformed Human Rights Council now, will be a bit different,
there will more consultation, between the developed and developing countries so
that we avoid the perception that it is just selective bringing issues, but it
continues.

The EU leads on many on many of the country resolutions; the United State
leads on some. I've given two examples on Iran and with China. So we would
rather want a situation with the Human Rights Council where we work together
because the basic values of human rights we do not challenge, it's our tactical
approach of what we try to do in the various UN institutions to achieve what,
that we differ with some of the countries.

Question: For the record Minister, do you disagree with the statement by the
human rights watch that South Africa votes consistently in solidarity with
perpetrators of Human Rights abuses instead of victims and would you say that
it is a coincidence that it happens that way?

Answer: I strongly disagree because I said that they are only looking at the
country resolutions and indeed do not acknowledge our arguments on why we voted
on the Myanmar issue and I tried to indicate that since then we have made
considerable progress. We are not there yet on the Myanmar issue. In terms of
involving the UN Human Rights Council, we have now the special rapporteur
Gambari; he is there as a special envoy, certain movements have taken place
within Myanmar. I think we still need to up the international attention so that
we can ensure we get further movement because clearly we must restore Myanmar
to democracy. And therefore we've always insisted that we'll fight for
democracy in Myanmar.

So this allegation that we've consistently voted on the wrong side is based
on absolute, nobody has explained to us concretely what it is we've voted on
that we've not tried to explain. And the rape issue is the latest, which I
believe there was massive distortion on what had actually happened and sadly
our papers followed suit with that understanding of the rape resolution.

I am convinced that there is something happening that we are being
denigrated to undermine our own position because we are quite consistent on
this issue so as to ensure that they are not politicised so that we seek
results. I do believe that there are some consistent efforts to denigrate our
position. I have said this and am saying it again, when these things happen ask
us to explain what we doing at the UN, within the Security Council and outside
the Security Council to ensure that we do get what we have now achieved, a UN
resolution on rape which is far better than the original draft which was being
proposed.

Question: A couple of questions if I may. The one is you mention that you
thought that the rape resolution as proposed by the US was selectively aimed at
certain countries, no countries were named in the resolution, I wonder if you
could specify who you had in mind. The other thing is on Darfur, whether you
could indicate if you see any progress being made with persuading Sudan for
example to accept the joint Nordic Engineering unit and the other one that you
mentioned, I know this came up last week, I believe that President Mbeki might
have tried to persuade President Bashir to accept some of these things.

I know you've put the emphasis on the helicopters and the armoured personnel
carriers (APCs) but there are other contributions that have been offered and
have been rejected. Do you find this acceptable? And also on the rape
resolution, I would just like to say by the way that at least from our point of
view and from the point of view of most newspaper articles that I've seen in
South Africa, we have sought the Department of Foreign Affairs view, we've
sought the view of Dumisani Kumalo our ambassador to the UN, we've sought the
view of Ronnie Mamoepa or whatever here. But in any case when it comes to that
resolution Ambassador Kumalo himself said that at the Security Council, a
couple of months ago there was a resolution that particularly condemned the use
of rape as a political weapon which South Africa had supported.

Now he offered that as a defence against the argument that we opposed this
new resolution on principle. But what it also illustrates is that in certain
circumstances under certain conditions we seem to support the idea that you can
introduce a resolution which is specifically directed against rape used as a
political weapon. Again South Africa seems to get itself into these kind of
procedural debates about 'yes you say it in this assembly but you can't say it
in that assembly'. And surely that is why the perception is being created
internationally that we oppose these things because our position is based on
very complex procedural issues when the issues themselves are much more
emotional.

Answer: (inaudible) because what appears procedural has a lot of political
undertones. But I'll back to that. No I think that in all the negotiations it
was quite clear what was being referred to in that particular resolution was
the identification of the Sudanese government in Darfur and that was clear in
all the negotiations. So we would rather broaden that whole thing to deal with
as I said in a holistic which I believe now the consensus resolution has got.
So it was Sudan that it was directed to. On the question of the Hybrid force, I
did say and it's in the briefing that the Undersecretary of the UN Gaynor has
indicated that there are some countries that have made proposals but the
Sudanese government, according to the Undersecretary, has certain problems with
these countries and would rather want to be confident that African commitments
do not meet those needs and the needs of the Nepal as a battalion and
Scandinavian three countries is engineering.

They have been arguing that the Egyptians have offered substantial force
with a lot of equipment and why are we not accepting the commitment? These are
matters that we hope will be resolved between the three, the AU, UN and the
Sudanese government. As I said last week this is an issue that belongs to an
agreement between the three and the quicker they resolve the composition in
concrete terms and explain to us publicly why this is not acceptable and why
this is acceptable, the better we will be able to help deal with it and get the
force in as soon as possible. Our argument is yes, in eastern Europe rape was
effectively used in Bosnia and elsewhere and it was totally not raised in that
way. And we've said this is happening in Afghanistan, this is happening in
Iraq, this is happening in many other countries.

So we should rather move for the not distinguishing between a particular
type of rape and a general rape. Because everybody will understand and we will
continue to condemn rape in whatever form including where it is used as a
political weapon. Sometimes resolutions must not be underestimated. When they
come in particular way, you are abounding by it in totality for many decades.
So we are very careful with many other countries and I want to stress, the vast
majority of African countries, the Asian countries, the Latin American
countries indeed accept that the first draft was too narrow in attempting to
deal with what is a very serious problem and this is why we are happy that
after discussions there is now a consensus resolution. So it's not one side or
another side opposing each other ideologically, it's just trying to ensure that
whatever emerges as a UN resolution has taken into consideration the viewpoints
of many other countries. And I believe this is what has happened.

Question: (inaudible) I'm just trying to find out why you think Minister,
why is South Africa, for what and purposes is South Africa being sort of
denigrated? What do you think people hope to accomplish, is it to knock South
Africa off its moral high ground? And you've also made much about the fact that
South Africa has been sort of denigrated as being anti-Semitic, do you think
that the powerful Jewish lobby within America is behind this?

Answer: I don't know about that. But I think the understanding and
interpretation of the Durban Conference is absolutely wrong. It still continues
now if you get into the web sites. There are massive campaigns depicting this
as the worst anti-Semitic experience since Nazism. Now that is not totally not
true in light of our own experience in what were trying to achieve with the
conference in the end.

We cannot be held responsible for the actions of the few NGOs. And that is
why I said that those who fund those NGOs must talk to those NGOs. We didn't
mobilise those NGOs and we explained this to people. Now there is a Review
Conference coming. We believe too many of the UN Conferences and it goes with
the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the Secretary-General last week, I
briefed you on what he was saying. There is a major gap between commitments and
implementation we believe on many Resolutions this is now becoming an
experience.

South Africa would be one of the many countries that would stand up and
publicly state our position. South Africa be it in the Security Council, United
Nations Human Rights Council where we are members and in all our bilateral
interactions, we will consistently argue for a non selective politicised
approach to dealing with human rights violations that we believe exists in many
countries.

We will be much happier if the developed countries were to come to the table
putting some countries of the South but also bringing in violations of human
rights in the developed countries. And then you will get a balance approach in
dealing with an issue that we are all confronted with all the time. We are
driven by our constitution and we cannot compromise on human rights. And so we
will consistently stick to the defence and protection of human rights. We will
argue against any attempts politicise it and take us into directions that will
not help us to achieve results in solving the problem.

I do not know why they are denigrating us. I do not know why they criticise
us on our votes. Every time we explain why we voted it seems nobody believes
our arguments. Peter called it procedural, it's not procedural. It is a very
political position we are taking in the Security Council whether it is in
Kosovo we would be one of those countries which say if you impose solutions you
create conditions for a massive civil war in a few years time. So rather
continue the process of getting all parties to agree what the UN wants to
achieve.

So in Kosovo we would take different positions from some countries. And
unfortunately we cannot be in the Security Council and take the tactical
decision of just shutting up. Once you are in there you have to outline what
you believe to be your position, you might be wrong, and on many of these
occasions we have not been proven wrong.

Question: It's on the Darfur hybrid force. I'm interested in how you
envisage the Hybrid force coming together? It looks as though people are
playing brinkmanship on this. Minister Lekota was saying that we will be
holding back until we see what other countries are going to produce, which
sounds like a good position. The developed countries which have far bigger
resources than South Africa, so it seems a good position to hold back, see what
others produce and see what South Africa can contribute at the end of that.

But at the same time, with Sudan wanting African forces, the government
might come to a position at some stage where it's got to choose between
committing our own personnel carriers and helicopters and putting pressure on
developed countries to produce. At the end of that process which position would
the government take?

Answer: I think you heard what Minister Lekota said that we can wait. I
think we have a cabinet memo that we have to discuss. The United Nations has
asked us to have a battalion which is 800. I think myself in principle we have
agreed to producing a battalion for Darfur which will mean blue-hatting what
we've already got with the United Nations Advanced Mission in Sudan (UNAMIS)
forces, that's the AU forces and increasing the numbers at the appropriate time
when we can get more numbers.

I don't think there's a problem with the personnel. On the request for
equipment, this I think as Foreign Affairs we don't have the capacity to
determine whether defence can provide what has been requested. My own view will
be that if we can provide equipment we should provide equipment because we
cannot keep saying this is such an important problem we must contribute to
finding the solution and then if we can contribute we don't contribute.

So I think the Ministry of Defence will be reflecting my views and saying
they are looking at what we can contribute in terms of equipment and then we'll
determine exactly what we do contribute. We can't wait for other forces but the
reality is we are not such a major military power who has all the major
equipment that is needed for such a hybrid force. This is a unique force, we've
never had 25 000 UN forces in a hybrid form AU and UN with an African command
and by and large agreed by the Security Council should have an African
composition.

I just said its budget for one year is 1,4 billion. Now that's a huge
undertaking and the type of equipment that they need has to come from the
bigger military powers clearly. Because my view and I'm repeating it, we can't
continue to say there is a major crisis in Darfur and then we are slow in
making the commitments with equipment. At the same time of course the
Secretary-General has raised that they are having problems in getting the
composition of the force sorted out as well as some bureaucratic problems of
how they can get the heavy equipment in. But my problem is, if you don't have
the commitment yet why you are worrying about what are the bureaucratic
problems that are preventing the equipments.
Get the equipments and then we'll all put pressure to ensure that if there are
any bureaucratic problems we can overcome the problems. But they are talking of
bureaucratic problems before even knowing what they got; they don't have the
equipment to put into the field. The key challenge is that the developed
countries must move decisively to provide the equipment that is needed. And
that's only those with major military equipment and that includes Russia, it
includes China, includes the USA and includes some of the EU countries.

Question: I don't think you indicated in the very beginning, you said that
President Mbeki is to leave to Uganda for the Commonwealth meeting, when is
that?
Answer: He leaves on Thursday.

Question: He leaves on Thursday. Will he be attending the Dakar meeting?

Answer: No. He won't attend the Dakar meeting.

Question: Any particular reason why?

Answer: I think his programme is becoming too many Heads of State are all
going to the Commonwealth as well. So I think they are trying to re-schedule
it.

Question: Just with regards, because it is a New Partnership for Africa's
Development (Nepad) meeting and there has been some friction between President
Wade and President Mbeki with regards to the implementation of Nepad. What do
you think the implications will be then for Nepad, is Nepad still going to
work?

Answer: Yes. Nepad is a major problem. I think the differences, there is no
friction. President Wade has felt that implementation has been too slow. And
this meeting was called as a summit to discuss how we can accelerate
implementation. But now with the commitments of many of the leaders to various
other summits etcetera, it is our view that they must try to ensure that this
is re-scheduled as soon as possible. If they continue with the meeting, then of
course the President will ensure that some senior representation from South
Africa will attend.

Question: (inaudible)

Answer: No. No. No. Definitely not. He was going, it was only scheduled
until new pressures have emerged that he has indicated that he won't go. But we
will, I think you should check with his office specifically why he is not going
to the Senegal one, because they are best able to indicate that. But it's
definitely not a snub.

Question: This one is on Zimbabwe. The president of the Chamber of Mines in
Zimbabwe has expressed concern about the 51% holding of foreign companies, in
particular a 25% free shareholding to government of Zimbabwe. Is South Africa
concerned regarding the foreign investment confidence implications it might
have?

Answer: Yes I saw it today in the papers. We hope that we can get better
understanding of what this law is. It was talked about previously and we will
now try to meet with our mining companies who are quite involved in Zimbabwe to
get an understanding of how they are reading this particular law. And I hope
that our Ministers of Finance and who are dealing in trade, who are dealing
with the overall economic recovery programme of Zimbabwe will look at all these
matters in the context of seeing what we can do or not do to help the economic
situation.

So we will try to get more information on what this is. We are hoping to
meet our mining companies in the next few days. We've been in touch with them.
But this was when this was still talked about but now its become definite that
a law is going to be passed, so we will have to talk to our mining companies to
get a sense from them what do they think the implications of this is.
Obviously, previously they did suggest that any such law will affect their
confidence in investments and further investments. We will have to talk to them
again to see now that this is becoming law what do they propose our approach
must be to the Zimbabwean government on this issue.

Issued by: Department of Foreign Affairs
20 November 2007
Source: Department of Foreign Affairs (http://www.dfa.gov.za)