24 May 2006
South Africaâs president offered his views on trade, Iranâs nuclear
programme and Chinaâs interest in Africa, during a wide ranging interview
conducted in London by Quentin Peel and James Lamont. This is an edited
transcript on:
* skills
* trade â World Trade Organisation (WTO) Doha
negotiations
* Iran
* China and Africa
* Zimbabwe
* Jacob Zuma.
* Relations with United Kingdom (UK) Prime Minister.
Q: Whatâs top of your agenda in talks with Tony
Blair at the SA/UK bi-national commission?
A: We will look at issues that have to do with defence co-operation, arts
and culture, education and human resource development issues to do with home
affairs and the movement of people.
I think the most urgent one for us is really the human resource development
issue. Itâs clear that in regard to whole areas of South African national life
if we want to make better progress we need more people with skills. Whether
engineering skills or management skills. This is a critical area. We want to be
able to reach into the UK, to the capacity of the UK to assist. The problem is
everywhere.
Itâs partly to bring people to the UK for training. Partly to have trainers
come to South Africa. Partly to see whether for a limited period of time we
could take retired people to mentor people on their jobs in South Africa. It
might include one form of assistance or another by the British government. On
retired people: if we need 100 civil engineers to be deployed in our
municipalities to assist municipal government to build capacity for water
delivery, sewerage systems, roads is there a way the two governments can
co-operate to find these people and fund them.
The Japanese have offered to assist in this area and they say you have this
ageing Japanese population. Lots of people are quite willing to assist. Itâs a
very good offer. The advantage with the UK is the advantage of language.
We have done an audit of skills shortage. Weâve taken a very urgent matter
which is a global problem, project managers. You have state corporations with
very major plans for energy, water, transport and one of the questions they are
raising is that there arenât project managers to manage what are going to be
very large projects.
You need those people and that kind of skill with experience to make sure
these ambitious projects happen.
Weâve done an audit. There are skills shortages coming up as people are
investing more. And weâve been assessing what kind of skills is needed on the
government side.
Q: What chances does the G8 have of unblocking the
Doha trade talks?
A: I think itâs unavoidable that we have to discuss Doha there (at the G8
meeting in St Petersburg). It was discussed at the Gleneagles G8 meeting. The
then Director-General of the WTO Supachai, who came to Gleneagles had in fact
said the people who hold key to further Doha progress are the 13 of you sitting
around the table. If the 13 of you agreed to be serious about this matter you
could move this Doha process. We tried to get agreement then to get together on
this but it did not work out.
Itâs quite clear that the process is not going well at all. I really do
think that itâs unavoidable that this matter should be discussed. I know the
British government like us is very keen that here should be progress so Iâm
sure Iâll discuss this with the Prime Minister.
Q: How do you break the deadlock?
A: I think the view of the WTO was correct. There you had the G8, the
European Union (EU), you had Brazil, China, India, South Africa and Mexico and
if you could get a united view these are people who have critical decisions
about agricultural subsidies, agricultural tariffs and all of that. They would
also be critical in terms of what we do with non-agricultural market access
issues. They would all be in that group. If a decision could come out of that
saying let us move. They are the two big issues. The Europeans say if you want
us to move on agricultural market access issues then big developing economies
like China, India and Brazil must move on non-agricultural market issues,
industrial products. And part of the discussion has translated itself into who
moves first. So Iâm saying that you have there the people who would be central
on these issues. If everyone could be motivated and encouraged to come to St
Petersburg with a view to really moving on this there would be movement on this
at WTO.
Q: Is the European Union position the real difficulty?
A: I donât know. One of the problems you have we say Europe and America must
move on agricultural issues. And then sometimes you get a response from
Europeans saying we will move when the Americans move. And the Americans say we
will move when the Europeans move. Even before you get to other matters of
agricultural producing countries will move when you the developed world moves.
Itâs a matter of coming to some agreement. This is where we want to get to even
if A moves first how sure are we that B will move. If u could generate a level
of confidence between all these players it would help the Doha process.
Q: Are you sympathetic to Iranâs nuclear
ambitions?
A: The Iranians have always insisted that they have no interest in nuclear
weapons and that their sole and exclusive interest is the development of
technology for peaceful purposes.
We have said it would be very useful if the people who make this assertion
that Iranâs intention is about nuclear weapons if there were some bit of
evidence which says that; âWe say we believe these are their intentions are
producing weapons because this is what they are doing.â
This information is hard to come by. So in the end it boils down to a
suspicion based on earlier years when indeed Iran had run a secret nuclear
programme. The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) â Elbaradei says they have been co-operating with regards to oversight
functions, inspections since 1993. So we accept that in years before that they
hide the programme. Since then they have co-operated.
Currently there are some questions they have not answered and we always push
them to say you must answer all these outstanding questions that the IAEA has
posed. We also say to the Iranians for better or for worse there are these
suspicions. So the matter that has been raised about confidence building
measures is correct. Even if you say suspicions have no foundation the fact of
the matter is that they exist. You have to address matters of confidence
building measures but it is also necessary to respect international
treaties.
By treaty Iran is entitled to enrich uranium under supervision by the IAEA,
you canât arbitrarily take away that right on the basis that I have suspicions
I canât prove.
We have been insisting that we should really strive as hard as we can to
have all of these matters sorted out within the Atomic Energy Agency. This was
not out of disrespect of Security Council of the United Nations (UN) but to
avoid a confrontation that could escalate out of hand that this part of the
world is already so volatile. You donât want to start another flame
somewhere.
The problem is once the matter has been taken to the Security Council, the
council issues a presidential statement that the following needs to be done by
Iran and they donât do it. It puts the obligation on the Security Council to
take another step up. So you could have confrontation that escalates like that,
which is not going to help. It wonât solve Iran and wonât dampen the flames in
the Middle East.
Letâs find a solution in the context of the IAEA. Therefore our own
intervention with the Iranians has been there is a range of questions that you
have not answered and these questions need to be answered. Of course, the
Iranians say confidence-building measures were agreed and the Europeans said in
exchange they would offer us whatever. But when they came back the Europeans
all they said was terminate all work on these nuclear issues even work that
Iran is entitled to engage in as a member of the treaty under supervision of
the Atomic Energy Agency. Thatâs Iranâs argument.
We are worried, very worried about this. At one stage last year to try to
get round this issue of confidence, respecting treaty obligations and the
rights and the concerns of western countries needing to be addressed we said we
would offer to supply Iran with the so called yellow cake under Atomic Energy
Agency supervision.
The scientists would know that if you have a tonne of yellow cake and you
put it into these things to turn it into these gases which is the first stage
leading to enrichment and would know what volumes you would get. We would take
these gasses back to South Africa so that there would be no gases to enrich.
Then everybody would be reassured that nothing has leaked under that processing
that could be enriched in secret. But western countries did not agree. They
said no. They said we are thinking about something else. Well, I donât know
where the Iranians found the yellow cake but they have gone ahead and produced
the gases and enriched them. But itâs a matter of very serious concern. We
donât believe that a route that leads to heightened confrontation is the
correct route.
Q: Is Chinaâs interest in Africaâs resources
an opportunity or a threat?
A: Iâm very glad that China is paying the amount of attention it is paying
to Africa continent. The Chinese took the initiative a few years back to
establish a China/Africa forum. That body is meeting later this year in
November or thereabouts. President Hu Jintao spoke to me and said you must
come. So Iâll be going there. Itâs a fortunate thing that the China/Africa
forum exists. It gives a possibility to African continent and China to discuss
and define the nature of the relationship because you see there is this global
problem that the Europeans have been trying to deal with clothing and textiles
and shoes which impacts on everybody. The fact of the matter is that Chinese
production the lower costs of production would also present the Africa
continent with the challenge of small, weak industrial base on African
continent having to face cheaper goods coming from China to the African
continent. Iâm saying what do we do about that? The forum provides a forum for
that.
Itâs clear that the Chinese will invest on Africa continent in all sorts of
ways. In the first instance in raw materials, energy and other things. And that
will constitute development for the African continent. Itâs clear also they are
making capital and expertise available for general infrastructure development.
In that situation, it becomes possible to say that this co-operation results in
our development and that is correct. But Iâm saying there would be other
elements to that economic co-operation that might have obverse result. Iâm
hoping that in China/Africa forum that it would be possible to say that we
welcome Chinaâs involvement and interest in Africa but is there a way that we
can together say that these are outcomes the co-operation must produce.
Q: Could you envisage Chinese companies buying South African ones? Would
that raise strategic concerns for South Africa?
A: We actually have very good relations with China at government level and
in instances where a matter of that kind (a foreign takeover of a South African
company) would arise Iâm absolutely certain that the two governments would
engage. I suspect that in the event that the South African government would say
to Chinese we do not believe this kind of action with regard to South Africa is
in our interest and it can only spoil relations, Iâm quite certain the Chinese
would respond positively to that.
I am sure that they (the Chinese) would be in interested in South African
companies. But Iâm saying that in event of some (M&A) action to translate
that interest into something else Iâm sure engagement between us and the
Chinese would produce sorts of results with which we would be comfortable.
Q: What is your latest thinking about Zimbabwe?
We detect a change in mood in South African approach.
A: Iâm sure you are aware that Secretary-General of UN Kofi Annan has been
talking to Zimbabwe and intends visiting Zimbabwe in July, August. Kofi Annan
was in South Africa earlier this year he told me about this and we agreed. We
are all awaiting outcome of his intervention. The Zimbabweans have agreed to
receive him and engage in the preparatory process to his visit. We all await
the outcome of the intervention of the secretary general of UN with regard to
Zimbabwe.
Q: What form might the intervention take?
A: What Annan is interested in is that the circumstances must be created for
Zimbabweans to address real problems that they face; falling standard of living
of the people and so on. That something must be done. You have to do something
to turn around the economy. You have to do the other thing that is necessary to
make the climate for that and you need to normalise relations between Zimbabwe
and the rest of world. So his interaction with the Zimbabwean government would
be intended for those sort of outcomes including indicating what sort of
assistance the UN would give.
Q: Youâve had a difficult time with your former
Deputy President, Jacob Zuma, facing rape and corruption charges. Are you in a
no-win situation?
A: The matter is quite simple. He is the Deputy President of the ANC. When
he was charged with rape both the national executive of the ANC and he himself
felt he would have to step aside as the case was heard. He approached the
leadership to say I canât carry out functions as Deputy President of ANC.
Of course, he gets acquitted. Then he wrote back saying Iâve been acquitted
and can I come back to resume my duties. We met and indeed said this is a
matter that you decide under the constitution of the ANC and under that, of
course, he has to come back.
Itâs not a matter about individual wishes or whatever. Itâs not a particular
burden on the president of ANC.
In 1997, the ANC expelled one of its members. He was a Deputy Minister at
the time. And it had to do it very correctly respecting the rules and
regulations. In contesting General Holomisa, the matter when to court. He took
us to court on basis of administrative law violations. So the matter was judged
by the courts, which said the ANC had handled it correctly.
Q: Was it a political plot to try to get rid of Zuma?
A: We all accepted including him that charges had been laid against him with
regards to the rape matter and that all of us should respect judicial process
and the outcome.
Q: What about the corruption case?
A: The same things would happen in regard to corruption case. The National
Prosecuting Authority (NPA) will not go to court to realise some conspiratorial
objective. They must go to court and represent evidence before a judge and the
judge must make a determination whether this is evidence sufficient to secure a
conviction. Iâm quite sure that in case of corruption case all of us will say
the same thing. Let the judicial process take its course.
Q: Has your relationship with Tony Blair
recovered from the Abuja period?
A: Weâve always been very good friends with the British Prime Minister. We
might differ about some things. We do differ about some things. But the
relationship has never ever been strained. We differ but it doesnât result in
turning into one anotherâs enemies.
Issued by: The Presidency
24 May 2006
