NEPAD Programme: Department briefing; Côte d’ivoire delegation meeting

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
22 June 2005
NEPAD PROGRAMME: DEPARTMENT BRIEFING; CÔTE D’IVOIRE DELEGATION MEETING

Chairperson: Mr D Sithole (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Department briefing on the African Peer Review Mechanism
Cote d’Ivoire delegation briefing

SUMMARY
The Department briefed the Committee on the establishment and procedures of the African Peer Review Mechanism. Officials also discussed South Africa’s review process that would occur in early 2006. The Committee welcomed the development of an African review mechanism as an opportunity for development within the continent and stated their enthusiasm to be involved in the process.

A delegation from the Cote d’Ivoire then presented and expressed hopes for disarmament in their country, as well as thanks for South Africa’s role in the peace negotiations. Representatives stated their wish to be free of French colonial influences and for democratic elections to take place in October 2005. The Committee pledged their support for a peaceful settlement.

MINUTES
Ms J Duarte (Deputy Director-General: Africa Multilateral of the Department) briefed the Committee on the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), developed under the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and the African Union (AU). The aim of the APRM was to foster the adoption of policies, standards and practices which would promote good governance and integration throughout the AU. Participation in the APRM was voluntary and currently 24 countries had joined. It was hoped many more would follow once the programme was seen to be effective. The relatively swift sign-up to the programme indicated African commitment to democracy, accountability and transparency.

Ms Duarte described the composition of the APRM. At the apex was the Forum of Participating Heads of State responsible for considering country reports and making the necessary recommendations. Below this, a Panel of Eminent Persons consisting of independent and illustrious Africans, recognised as experts in their field, would be responsible for ensuring the objectivity and effectiveness of the APRM. The Panel and Forum would be supported by the APRM Secretariat, with country report information and assessments gathered by Country Review Teams.

She explained the first meeting had been held in Kigali on 13 February 2004. Ghana, Rwanda, Kenya and Mauritius had been selected for the first of the reviews and their reports would be discussed at the third APRM meeting in Nigeria in June 2005. South Africa was scheduled for review in early 2006 and in preparation, the government had designated the Department of Public Service and Administration as the national focal point. A formal APRM National Council was also being established. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the United Nations, and National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) meetings were currently taking place to decide their roles.

Ms Duarte explained that the peers would be able to question a country on its programme of action and its ability to deliver. She noted the international interest in the Programme from Western States that had encouraged those states that had been through the review process.

Discussion
The Chairperson explained that due to the arrival of the delegation from the Cote d’Ivoire, there would not be time for a thorough question session. However, a day would be scheduled in October for more comprehensive discussions.

Mr L Joubert (IFP) asked what benchmarks would be used to monitor a country’s delivery, given the huge disparity between the economies of countries within the African Union.

Ms Duarte clarified that each country would set its own benchmark at the first stage of the review process. Ghana had used the concept of economic growth and population growth to evaluate their capacity to deliver. The assessment of countries would be very technical and would consider the capacity to deliver in specific areas as well as the capacity of the private sector. Methods of determining this capacity would also be determined by the individual states in the first phase. However, the current bias was to use institutions such as the African Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for indicators.

Mr D Gibson (DA) emphasised the importance of the APRM. It demonstrated African countries were now making a considerable effort to move towards good governance. Countries could no longer rely solely on aid, and even the ‘dropping of debt was a drop in the ocean’ towards long-term economic development. He asked when the review would happen and what should be done to prepare. His Party would have important comments and hoped the reviewers would interact with members of the opposition.

Ms Duarte was unsure when the preparations for review would begin and suggested the question be referred to Minister G Fraser-Moleketi who was responsible.

Dr S Pheko (PAC) highlighted the importance of country infrastructure and the need for state self-sufficiency. He asked to what extent developed countries would be willing to transfer technologies.

Ms Duarte illustrated that the recent agreements on technology transfers had been mainly ‘South – South’. For instance, between India with Information Technology and Brazil with the West African pipeline. The ‘G8’ countries had shown interest in NEPAD partnerships where profits were expected and related infrastructure investment.

Mr L Greyling (ID) expressed support for the APRM, and asked whether the G8 countries could also use this process.

Ms Duarte expressed interest in the concept of using African review methods for Western institution. However, it would be difficult for countries with large debts to extradite themselves from World Bank and the IMF rules. The World Bank had come on board with the APRM as a knowledge partner. No country had as yet suggested the APRM be used as a method of review for these institutions.

Mr Greyling hoped that the reviewers would be speaking to all opposition parties, and the need to broaden NEDLAC to include all components of civil society.

Ms Duarte clarified that efforts would be undertaken to include groups of civil society not currently represented, such as religious and environmental groups. Under the APRM rules, no significant sector of society could be excluded in the review process.

Mr K Bapela (ANC) asked whether all opposition parties would be grouped together, and whether the ruling party would be excluded as it was the majority in government.

Ms Duarte was unsure whether the ruling party would be separated from the government for the review. The details would need to be discussed with the country focus point department.

Mr Bapela requested reasons for the failure of some countries to join the programme. Ms Duarte responded that some countries feared that joining the APRM might jeopardise their current loans with the IMF and the World Bank. However, many countries had expressed interest and were waiting to see how the reviews proceeded. She hoped that many more countries would join in August after the first reviews were completed.

Cote d’Ivoire briefing
The Chairperson welcomed the delegation and introduced the Committee.

The Parliamentary Speaker of the Cote d’Ivoire, Professor Mamadou Koulibaly, thanked South Africa for its important role in the peace process and reunification of the Cote d’Ivoire. He hoped the country was finally moving towards credible elections. However, he regretted the lack of support from other democracies.

Professor Koulibaly highlighted the ‘universe of conflict’ throughout Western Africa and the different causes for war. Unlike some countries, the crisis in the Cote d’Ivoire had been spawned from resistance to colonial power, rather than religious or ethnic motives. The people of the Cote d’Ivoire had a right to self-determination and wanted an end to French dominance.

The agreement between France and the Cote d’Ivoire in 1961 had allowed the exploitation of the country and the continued influence of Paris. The involvement of the French in the UN peace keeping had been a conflict of interest. The Cote d’Ivoire wanted to be free of the ‘tyranny of protectionism’ and be able to decide on policies not being dictated by patronage.

Professor Koulibaly discussed the defence agreement of 1960 between the France and Cote d’Ivoire that provided France with access to undiscovered natural materials within the country, military bases, training and information. Under a financial agreement between the countries, 65% of Cote d’Ivoire’s foreign currency had to be deposited in National Treasury in Paris. Cote d’Ivoireans were taxpayers of France but did not have French citizenship.

He regretted that despite the peace agreement in 2000 in Paris and the Pretoria Agreement negotiated by President Mbeki, the rebels had not fulfilled their obligation to disarm and continued to attack villages. The French had taken unnecessary reprisals for the killing of nine French soldiers in 2004 and were in violation of United Nations codes. He hoped that the rebels would disarm before the elections in October 2005. They had requested assistance from the United Nations and impartial forces to push towards disarmament.

The Chairperson noted that the people of the Cote d’Ivoire were suffering from a history of oppression. He presented the delegation with a gift of a ballot paper from the 1994 South African elections. The desire for peace felt by the Committee and South Africans was unshakeable, as was their hope that Cote d’Ivoireans would soon enjoy a democratic and peaceful era.

The meeting was adjourned.