Department of International Relations & Cooperation Annual Report 2008/9

Meeting report

Dr Ayanda Ntsaluba, Director General: International Relations and Cooperation (DICO), supported by the Department’s senior staff members, Mr Asogan Moodley, Chief Financial Officer, Ms Mathu Nompozolo, Deputy Director General: Human Resources, Mr Mxolisi Nkosi, Deputy Director General, Africa Bilateral and Ambassador Lucaf Mukhubela briefed the Committee.

Dr Ntsaluba told the Committee that the key strategic responsibilities for the reporting year were: – Consolidation of the African Agenda
– South-South Cooperation
– North-South Dialogue
– Participate in the Global System of Governance
– Bilateral Relations
– Organisational Strengthening.

The Department had received an unqualified audit report. It had an R 5,569 billion budget and had utilised 98,3% of it. The under expenditure was a result of the postponement in the construction of the Pan African Parliament, due to irregularities in the procurement processes.

One of the major points of discussion in the meeting was the issue of accommodation. Members wanted to know what measures were taken by the Department to ensure that there was no wastage in the Department.  Members were concerned that the Department was allowing its missions to stay in five star hotels for a year such as the mission in Dubai. One of the major challenges in Dubai was that even the residential buildings were way beyond the norms and the standards of the Department. The Department was facing difficulty in finding accommodation for the person that they had deployed to Dubai.

When asked why it had a high number of resignations and vacancy rates, the Department responded that it was a deliberate move not to fill in all the vacancies, as that meant that they had to employ support staff.

The Department was assisting the Local Organising Committee for the FIFA 2010 World Cup to develop its protocol arrangements. The Department was involved in the training of volunteers for the FIFA World Cup, because the Local Organising Committee did not have sufficient capacity to respond to the challenges.

Despite the Department’s efforts, the Committee was not really satisfied with the support that the Department was giving to the Pan African Parliament. The Committee called for more measures to be taken by the Department to show South Africa’s commitment to the success of the Pan African Parliament.

Discussion
Dr G Koornhof (ANC) told the delegates that he was impressed by what he had seen in the presentation. However with regard to Memorandums of Understanding that the Department had with other departments, Mr Koornhof wanted to know if the Department wrote off monies that were owed to it by other departments, or if it still managed to find a way to recover the monies.

Mr Asogan Moodley, Chief Financial Officer, said that there was a recovery rate of 75% for monies owed to the Department by other departments and they had measures in place to recover the balance.  The Department had a debt management system and a section committed to the collection of debt.

Dr Ayanda Ntsaluba, Director General, added that some of the debt related to provincial and local government. There were some improvements in the debt collection. The matter had a lot to do with coordination. Instead of making arrangements on time, the departments would book accommodation through travel agencies and thus could not access the discounts offered to the International Relations and Cooperation Department.

In reply to Dr Koornhof asking if the Department leased or owned its new head office, Mr Moodley said the Department owned it. However they had a 25-year concession with a company to maintain the building. After 25 years the Department would maintain the building.

Dr Koornhof noted that there was a saving of R92 million related to the Pan African Parliament. He asked what was going to happen to the funds. Were they going to carried over to the next financial year?

Mr Moodley replied that the Department had commenced with arrangements to build the Pan African Parliament. The Public Works Department was in charge of the construction. However there were certain irregularities with the procurement process and thus the project had to be halted.  The money would be rolled over to the current financial year and the Department was also looking for alternative funding models to construct the Pan African Parliament.

Dr Koornhof asked how the Department was involved in the preparations for the 2010 Soccer World Cup? Was the Department assisting the Local Organising Committee in its preparation for the 2010 World Cup?

Mr Lucas Makhubela, Chief of State Protocol: DICO, told the Committee that the Department had measures to assist the Federation Internationale de Football Association’s 9 (FIFA) Local Organising Committee to deal with protocol arrangement. The Department was also assisting the Local Organising Committee to develop its own protocol arrangements.

The Department was also involved in the training of volunteers for the FIFA World Cup, because the Local Organising Committee did not have sufficient capacity to respond to the challenges.

Mr S Mokgalapa (ANC) said that when the Committee met with the Auditor General, he told the Committee that there were issues with regard to skills and capacity in the Department. He asked the Department to explain why it had many resignations, especially with highly skilled employees. This was despite the fact that the Department was the first choice of employment for social science students.

Ms Mathu Nompozolo, Deputy Director General: Human Resources, DICO, said that there were differences between skilled and highly skilled workers. The salary scale that a person was placed on was dependent on how they had been classified.

What the Department had established was that people were willing to leave the Department because other government departments paid entry-level people differently compared to the Department. Many people were leaving to join other departments because they would be paid better. The Department was looking at changing its categorisation methods so that it could pay the employees more and be in line with the trend that was adopted by others.

However not many senior managers were leaving the Department, it was those people at the lower levels. Some people would even move for R400 more than what they were earning.

Ms Nompozolo added that there was a deliberate move by the Department to not fill some of the posts that were vacant. This was because for every post filled as there would be additional costs involved such as the employment of support staff.

Mr K Mubu (DA) referred the Committee to the section of the presentation that focused on disciplinary action and asked how many of those disciplinary hearings were instituted against executive employees and ambassadors.

Ms Nompozolo replied that one in the last financial year was a senior manager. However most of the cases tended to be employees at the bottom of the scale.

Mr Mubu asked the Department to explain what it was doing to resolve the issue of accommodation for people it deployed to other countries. There were people who were housed by the Department in five star hotels throughout the year, rather than the Department finding them reasonable accommodation. He made an example of the ambassador who was living in a hotel in Dubai.

Mr Moodley said that one of the major challenges in Dubai was that the buildings were way beyond the norms and the standards of the Department. The Department was facing difficulty in finding accommodation for the person that they had deployed to Dubai. The department had thought that it had found suitable accommodation for the diplomat placed in Dubai, however the landlord cancelled the contract and thus they had to look for another suitable accommodation.

Ms T Sunduza (ANC) asked the Department to explain what steps it had taken to recover dues that were owed to it by other state departments.

Ms Sunduza said that the Department did not have a sufficient number of disabled people, and asked what the Department was doing to try and attract disabled people to join the Department.

Ms Nompozolo replied that the Department had in place a strategy to attract disabled people to join the Department. Government in general also had a strategy to attract disabled people into the public sector. The Department was also working with the Office in the Presidency in dealing with the matter. When the Department conducted recruitment drives at tertiary institutions, they were on the lookout for physically challenged individuals.

Ms Sunduza noted that the Department had a very unique structure due to the fact that it had offices and missions in other countries. She asked what financial implications did the structure have on the Department and how did Treasury deal with the Department.

Rev K Meshoe (ACDP) referred the delegation to the section in the presentation which focused on Memorandums of Understanding the Department had with other state department. He asked what they meant by “ formalised”.

Mr Moodley said that the word “formalised” referred to the implemented memorandum, which was signed by the departments affected. 

The Chairperson asked what measures had the Department undertaken to ensure that there was no wastage in the Department given the financial crisis that the world was facing.

The Chairperson said that he had seen stories in the newspapers about corruption in the Department. What worried him was the impact that it would have on the Department’s reputation in the international community. What measures had the Department taken to deal with the issue?  He knew that the matter was complex and thus the Department could answer the question in the next meeting.
 
Dr Ntsaluba told the Committee that the Deputy Minister, Mr Ebrahim Ismail, had been delegated by the Minister to deal with the matter. A series of recommendations had been made by one of the people who was assisting the Deputy Minister. The Department was following the recommendations.  The process was ongoing and there were also disciplinary measures being taken.

The Chairperson said that he was more concerned about the cooperate image of the Department. The issues of disciplinary actions being taken were internal matters. As a person who went to other countries, the corporate image of the Department was very important to him.

Dr Ntsaluba said that the issue raised by the Chairperson was very important. The issue was how did the Department protect its integrity.  The function of protecting the image of the country was the Department’s mandate. The task was extremely sensitive. However the matter could be discussed in a closed session.

Mr Mubu said that the Director General had said in the presentation that there were 292 accredited foreign offices in the country. This made the country the second largest diplomatic community in the world. He asked what measures had been taken by the Department to ensure that proper security measures were in place to protect those foreign offices and officers.

Mr Makhubela replied that in 2006/2007, the South African Police Service had a unit of 10 to 15 police officers in charge of the diplomatic community in Pretoria. During 2008/9 the South African Police Service had increased the unit by approximately 93 people. The diplomatic area in Pretoria had been divided into 4 zones. They had developed enough capacity to police these zones and thus there had been a decrease in crimes committed against diplomats.

Together with the South African Police Service, the Department had introduced best practice measures taken from the Americans, Austrians, and Indonesia. The police had set up a unit led by a senior superintendent to take charge of protecting diplomats. The South African Police Service was rolling out panic buttons in diplomatic centres so that they could respond quickly to attacks on diplomats. The Department also took internal measures to increase its own capacity in the protection of diplomats. However the units had not been set up in Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban.

Mr Mubu asked what advice was offered to South African citizens travelling to Zimbabwe in light of the reports about South African citizens being harassed by security forces in Zimbabwe.

Mr Mxolisi Nkosi, Deputy Director General, Africa Bilateral, DICO, said that South Africans travelling to Zimbabwe were not treated differently to South Africans travelling to other countries. The onus was on them to register their names on the register of people abroad.  Registering on the register meant that the Department would be able to assist anyone who needed assistance abroad.

Mr Mubu said that there had been a wide range of media reports about women and youth being raped in the Democratic Republic of Congo. What was the South African government doing about the situation?

Mr Nkosi said that indeed there were violations of human rights in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The area was very volatile with a number of armies such as the Mai Mai fighters. The United Nations was monitoring the situation. South Africa could not act on its own, as it did not have the capacity to deal with the challenges.

Mr Mubu said that the South African government had been very slow in advocating for change in Swaziland. What was the South African government doing to ensure that there was democracy in Swaziland?

Mr Nkosi replied that the Department had been in talks with a number of players in the Swaziland political equation. There was going to be further consultation on the matter, which should make it possible for South Africa to deal with the situation.

Ms F Hajaij (ANC) asked what implications would the developments that were occurring in the African Union have on the African economic community.

Mr Nkosi replied that different people interpreted the transition differently. The Department’s view was that the African Union was a union of sovereign and independent states. The Department did not see the African Union as a super national body. It was an interstate coordination mechanism. So he did not think the transition had any serious implications on the nature of the body.

Ms Hajaij asked what projects were in place in the African continent, and where were they situated and what was the status of those projects.

Ms Hajaij asked how South Africa was facilitating the African Code of Justice.

Ms Hajaij asked what could South Africa do to assist in the administration of the Pan African Parliament, as it was a very important institution for Africa. The Chairperson added that it was important for the Committee to know how the Pan African Parliament worked.

Mr Nkosi replied that the Department felt that it was important to avail support to the Pan African Parliament.  That would be done to help bolster the secretariat of the body, so that it could execute its responsibility with efficiency. The Pan African Parliament had recently advertised senior positions and there were South Africans who had applied for the positions.

The Chairperson said that it was very important for the country to support the Pan African Parliament, as people outside the country and within would start saying that South African was not serious about the institution.

Ms Hajaij asked what were the implications of South Africa’s new status in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

A member of the DICO delegation said the country belonged to the Development Committee, however the OECD had invited the country to have an enhanced status. South Africa decided to have its own internal workshop to look into the pros and cons of having an enhanced status relationship. The country had thus not yet accepted the status at the time of the meeting.

Mr Meshoe said that South Africa was having relations with countries that were notorious for human rights violations, and those relations included giving donations to those countries. He asked what measures were taken to ensure that funds given to countries that had human rights violations did not get into the wrong hands and that money was not used to buy guns.

A member of the DICO delegation replied that when the Department saw a need for South African to assist a country faced by an humanitarian crisis, the money was normally channelled through United Nations agencies, Resident Coordinators or to credible Non-Government Agencies. These were the only guarantees that the Department had.

Mr Mokgalapa asked the Director General to explain to the Committee what the status of the Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance was in South Africa and what was the country doing to promote the charter domestically and regionally and internationally.

Mr Nkosi told the Committee that the Charter was the result of ongoing efforts to promote democracy on the continent against the insurgence of coups on the continent. The charter was there to deal with the phenomena of unconstitutional government change on the continent. It was also there to deal with the issue of presidents changing or elongating their term of office. The Charter call for the establishment of an independent electoral commission and a human rights commission and South Africa had all the instruments recommended in the charter. The standard of those institutions in South Africa was even higher.

Dr Ntsaluba said that the Department was supporting the instruments and would continue to support the implementation of the charter.

Mr Koornhof said that when the South African President visited Brazil, there were a number of South Africans who had been jailed in the country’s prisons for drug trafficking. He asked what role did the Department play in assisting those prisoners.

Dr Ntsaluba said that there were a number of South Africans in Brazil prisons, and Brazil was not the only country, there were many South Africans in South American prisons. The main issue was drug trafficking and there has been a build up to 2010. The Department’s missions did provide consular support to the prisoners. They were provided with basic consular support.

The unique issue about the Brazil situation was that in Brazil there was a parole system, and the Department was trying to work on the issue of South Africans getting paroles in Brazil. However the prisoners if they were foreigners were not given tickets to go home to their countries.

The Department’s Ambassador and Consular General were dealing with South Africans roaming around the mission station seeking help. It was not the Department’s responsibility to buy people tickets to go home.

Mr Koornhof referred the Committee to the financial statements of the Department. He noted that assistance to the Democratic Republic of Congo was reduced from R 81 million a year to nothing, and he asked the reason for that.

Dr Ntsaluba replied that in 2006/7 and in 2007/8, there was a decision taken to make the Democratic Republic of Congo a priority. In 2006/7 a substantial amount of money was given to the Democratic Republic of Congo. In 2008/9 a decision was taken to support the agricultural programme in Zimbabwe and thus the funds could no longer go to the Democratic Republic of Congo.  There had also been a debate on the amount of money that the country could afford to give to another country.

The DRC was however a very strategic country, and it was a very big prize to give up on. The big problem in the Democratic Republic of Congo was the lack of systems of government and the size of the country. The army could not provide security to its citizens.

Secondly, there were weak political formations in the DRC to deal with the problems of the country, even President Joseph Kabila was running the country within a coalition government.

South Africa was not going to give up on supporting the Democratic Republic of Congo. The challenges that existed in the DRC were challenges for South Africa, however South Africa was going to stand firm. On 30 October, President Jacob Zuma would be hosting the President of the Democratic Republic of Congo in South Africa.

Mr Mubu asked the Department to in future outline in its Annual Report the international organisations that South Africa was making contributions to and how the country was making those contributions. He asked what interest rates were charged on the loans given to countries.

Mr Moodley said the loans were interest free, and the Minister of Finance decided on the terms of repayment in line with international relations norms.

Mr Mubu asked how much of the R 5billion donated by China to Africa did South Africa receive. He noted that there was a lot of alcohol given to the Department as gifts and asked what criteria the Department used to accept gifts.

Dr Ntsaluba said that he did not think that there was any conflict of interest in the gifts, and that alcohol oiled the wheels of diplomacy.

The meeting was adjourned.