India-Brazil-South Africa Dialogue Forum: briefing by Ambassador Matjila; Canadian Delegation visit

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
30 August 2006
CANADIAN DELEGATION ASSESSING SOUTH AFRICAN PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT SINCE 1994; INDIA-BRAZIL-SOUTH AFRICA DIALOGUE FORUM: BRIEFING BY AMBASSADOR MATJILA

Chairperson: Mr D Sithole (ANC) and Mr Peter Milliken (Speaker of House of Commons, Canada)

Documents Handed out:
India – Brazil – South Africa Dialogue Forum: A framework for discussion

SUMMARY
Introductions by the South African Chair and the Canadian Chair outlined some of the problems that their respective countries had faced and the historical context in which these problems occurred. The Canadian delegation consisted of the four main Whips representing the respective political parties in addition to Mr Peter Milliken himself (the Honorable speaker of the House of Commons.) The meeting was structured in a way that the South African Committee presented their personal and political views on the progress and problems faced by the parliament of the new South Africa, seeking advice and assistance in some cases and giving thanks and praise in others. The Canadian delegation then introduced themselves individually and addressed some of the issues raised by the South African Committee and submitted their own queries about policy issues. In particular there was much discussion surrounding development and land use in both Canada and South Africa, as well as internal parliamentary issues.

After lunch Mr J Matjila (South African Ambassador in Brussels) gave a comparative analysis of the development of the three contributory countries of the India-Brazil-South Africa Dialogue Forum (IBSA). In this analysis he discussed their growth rates, their population make-up, the state of their government and their industry among other things. Out of this he provided a brief history of the organisation outlining its creation, goals and objectives. The benefits of IBSA for South Africa were then discussed along with the political focus and impact that IBSA had on the world in general. Questions were raised by the Members of Parliament as to the funding and allocation of funds within the IBSA frame work as well as the incorporation of other members into the IBSA triad. Furthermore there was some skepticism expressed by the Members of Parliament as to the impact and success that IBSA would have in achieving its goals and in what ways they intended to accomplish their goals. The discussion also veered towards the topical Israeli – Lebanon crisis and several questions were again raised in connection with the position of South African mercenaries.

MINUTES
After introductions made by both Chairs, Ms M Njobe (ANC) began the discussion with her submission. Ms M Njobe introduced the question as to ‘How far have we (South Africa) gone, and how have we transformed the South African Parliament?’ She firstly acknowledged the Canadian contribution to South Africa's Constitution and its support for the South African Transformation, particularly the support of the Canadian Churches. She then made reference to South Africa’s history, policies and lack of constitutional guidance present pre 1994, therefore highlighting the difficulties faced when trying to improve the life of the South African citizen. From an administrative perspective Ms Njobe highlighted the difficulties faced in many areas, giving the example of the different educational departments where the number had to be reduced from 17 to one during the transition. These problems meant that legislation had to be passed promptly creating an problematic work load for Parliament.

With reference to the Constitution itself, Ms Njobe elaborated on the idea of public participation within South Africa's constitutional process. The question as to how to represent the needs and desires of the population of South Africa via the Constitutional Assembly was a critical issue and one that South Africa successfully addressed. As a result Ms Njobe praised the Constitution for being one of the most broad and all encompassing constitutions. Again she acknowledged the contribution of Canada, particularly in the construction of the South African Bill of Rights.

Ms Njobe noted South Africa’s success in overcoming a further difficulty: the structural change of the pre 1994 South African Parliament. The Parliament needed to be in line with the Constitution as well as give holistic recognition to the new South Africa. She felt that indeed this structural change was successfully enacted and made mention of the further issues faced by Parliament due to the eleven official languages and multi cultural population of South Africa and the need for such to be recognised in Parliament.

The second contribution was made by Dr S Pheko (PAC) who again recognized Canada’s support and contribution to the South African transformation. Along the same vein as Ms Njobe, he noted the multiculturalism within the South African Parliament, however highlighted that this gave rise to much debate and diversity of opinion within Parliament itself. He addressed the sensitive issue of race relations suggesting that there had been ‘tremendous improvement’ made although the situation was far from ‘rosy’.

Dr Pheko introduced the issues of development, mentioning the debate surrounding Section 25 of the Constitution on the Land Issue. He expressed his opinion that an address of this issue would contribute to the alleviation of poverty and with structures in place to provide free education, it would over all benefit the economic growth of South Africa. However he did offer a word of caution that care was needed around this issue in order to avoid a replica of the Zimbabwean situation.

Dr Pheko brought up the contested issues of floor crossing and same sex marriages noting that these had fueled much debate and division within Parliament, noting that further debate must be expected with the recent Constitutional Court rulings.

Ms S Camerer (DA) corrected Ms M Njobe on the issue of the existence of the Constitution prior 1994. Ms Camerer submitted that the interim Constitution was indeed in place at that time and played a vital role in the formation of the final Constitution particularly with reference to the attachment of the 34 Principles.

Ms Camerer reaffirmed the statement made by Ms M Njobe that Parliament was ‘vastly overworked and underpaid’ during the transitional period due to the speed at which legislation was to be passed. Mrs Camerer also made note of the upcoming anticipated debate around same-sex affairs. She concluded with giving ‘credit where credit was due’ to the Canadian contribution to South Africa's Constitution, particularly on the Bill of Rights.

The final contribution made by the South African Committee was by Mr B Holomisa (UDM) who also thanked Canada for their original and continued support particularly in the arena of policy development. Mr Holomisa however noted the difficulties South African was facing with the implementation of a successful Environmental Policy. He noted that they had learnt a lot particularly in the economic use of land but felt that further understanding was needed in order for the land use to benefit the country to its maximum capacity when the land reform takes place.

The Canadian Representative Committee was then asked to submit their comments by the Chair. Mr J Hill (Whip en chef du government) extended his gratitude to South Africa for their hospitality and openness. He gave a brief explanation of the situation concerning the Canadian parliament in respect to its political representation and functioning followed by a recognition of the success and progress made in the South African Parliament. He noted that no society is without its problems and Canada was not exempt from this with reference to their problems revolving around Environmental and Land policies. He therefore concluded that Canada was not much different from South Africa in these respects.

Mrs K Redman (Canadian Committee) also extended her gratitude for South Africa’s hospitality. She too noted problems faced by Parliament, particularly the specific roles of any elected officials, she submitted that Canada was not exempt from these problems. She concluded with an acknowledgement of Canada’s role in the environmental arena and expressed a hope that South Africa and Canada could work together on these issues.

Mr Y Godin (Canadian Committee) further mentioned problems faced by Canada noting that although they might not be identical to those problems faced by South Africa they were similar, his example was of not the problem of fair trade but free trade faced in Canada. He noted that in Canada too the problem of the divide between rich and poor was growing and that they too could not tackle all the problems with which Canada is faced. He made mention of the time allocations for speaking by Members of Parliament.

Mr M Guimond (Canadian Representative) further mentioned the issue of time allocations noting that in Canada there was a daily question period outside the meeting that lasted for 45 minutes to allow all the parties to air their views and put their questions to the committees.

Discussion

Dr S Pheko (PAC) asked the Canadian Committee whether, in the Canadian Parliament there was any monitoring system or structure in place to allow members of lesser parties to have equal time to speak and be heard as the members of the majority parties. Dr Pheko felt that this was an issue that needed to be addressed within the South African Parliament.

Mr Y Godin (Depute Acadie – Bathurst) of the Canadian Committee answered this question noting that within the Canadian Parliament all the parties are treated equally and were allocated 35 seconds to speak, no matter the size of their party representation.

Dr B Holomisa (UDM) asked the Canadian Committee if they could assist South Africa with investigation into policies concerning the environment and land usage in order to get the maximum benefit from the land for South Africa.

Mr J Hill (C.P Depute) Canadian Representative Whip agreed that Canada and South Africa must work together on this issue of land use as it was not an issue that was foreign to Canada itself. He further noted that Canada was not free of environmental problems and problems of land use, particularly in respect to global warming and other similar concerns.

Gifts were exchanged in gratitude from both Committees and any further questions were to be discussed over the planned lunch to partake after the meeting.

The meeting was adjourned for lunch.

Development and Progress of the India-Brazil-South Africa Dialogue Forum (IBSA): presented by Ambassador Matjila
Mr J Matjila (South African Ambassador in Brussels) presented to the Committee an organization which he proposed as the "South-South Highway to the future." He introduced the organisation by the presentation of some fundamental facts on the three contributory countries to serve as a comparative analysis between the three countries. Facts dealt with included growth rates, populations, type and effect of government, Labour, industry and agriculture. These facts served to highlight the similarities between the three countries and provide an understanding as to why the alliance was initially formed.

Ambassador Matjila discussed briefly the formation of IBSA and their initial and current objectives. The call for ‘South-South’ dialogue was high on the agenda as there is a belief that this will strengthen trade relations, increase maritime and avian transport, improve investment and combines the strengths of the three largest power holders on their respective continents.

Considering the forum in which this briefing was presented, he said that it was critical to highlight the proposed benefits for South Africa. Mr Matjila carefully outlined these benefits highlighting the aspect of trade particularly in reference to sharing expertise. Furthermore he stressed the importance of the organisation for the resolution of development issues.

Mr Matjila presented the political focus of IBSA and elaborated upon the success at achieving these goals and the methods by which they were to do so and continue to do so. He stressed the successful movements taken towards the provision of alternative forms of power in line with the goal of sustainable development, and highlighted the focus on Climate Change and Transport.

He then presented the trade benefits for South Africa and the Southern hemisphere as a whole and the attention that has been given to hunger alleviation through the implementation of certain IBSA and United Nations Development Project (UNDP) plans.

His presentation was concluded with an outline of the upcoming IBSA events and side events leading up to the IBSA Summit.

Discussion
Mr M Soskana (IFP) made favorable mention to the fact that the Portfolio Committee was now being included in these types of discussions. He queried the IBSA Fund however and asked about the proposed plans to lessen the gap between rich and poor. He furthermore criticized the allocation of funds with reference to Palestine, submitting that the conflict could have been avoided if the correct allocation of funds was enacted prior to the conflict. Mr M Soskana queried decisions surrounding fund allocation in relation to United Nations sanctions of Palestine.

Ms S Camerer (DA) noted the issue of the growing gap between rich and poor. However she pointed out that in Mr Matjila’s comparative analysis of the three countries, the gap between rich and poor was only mentioned in South Africa’s facts. She queried this and asked for clarification. Furthermore she questioned the figures for the annual growth rates of the three countries suggesting that they perhaps be investigated further and updated.

In response to these questions, Ambassador Matjila stated that the guidelines for development adopted by IBSA were based upon the African Union guidelines. However the issue of the reduction of the gap between rich and poor was being addressed in the attention given to the development of technology and agriculture therefore attempting to protect the most vulnerable of our society. However overall, he felt that the ‘three year old IBSA’ would not have a particularly large impact on this problem.

With reference to the incorrect provision of growth rate statistics and the lack of statistics for the gap between rich and poor in Brazil and India’s factual analysis, as submitted by Ms Camerer, he argued that the statistics that were given were those in accordance with World Bank statistics, and in some cases necessary statistics were not included.

Mr L Joubert (DA) posed the question of the possibility of increasing the membership of IBSA particularly with reference to the inclusion of China in the alliance. He queried the requirements and restrictions for admission and whether there had been any interest in that arena.

Ambassador Matjila acknowledged that in fact China had expressed an interest in joining IBSA, however due to historic differences between India and China this union had been complicated. He mentioned the nature of the alliance was on a voluntary basis and this unfortunately had caused a debate as to how to admit new members. The conclusion was that the decisions must be left to the Presidents of the respective countries.

Advocate Z Madasa’s (ANC) questions were proposed from an international law perspective. He queried the extent to which these IBSA agreements were state binding rather than government binding and further queried the economic benefits to accrue to South Africa as a result of this relationship.

The economic benefits that would accrue to South Africa would be numerous according to Ambassador Matjila, particularly in the arena of trade. Furthermore the projects associated with the investigation of new methods of agriculture and technology could potentially impact on South Africa at a grass roots level. Further more the alliance would provide a stronger front against the global leaders and against the United Nations Security Council. Ambassador Matjila felt that this was important to the overall benefit for South Africa.

Mr M Sibande (ANC) revisited the questions raised at the previous weeks meeting on the Israeli-Lebanon Crisis, querying the position South Africa takes towards South African mercenaries, and the position South Africa might take to avoid South African participation in such activities. Furthermore he questioned the measures that were being taken by IBSA to alleviate the problems of hunger and poverty and how far they were in achieving their destination. Finally Mr Sibande expressed a concern about the rumored Brazilian mafia and what steps South Africa and IBSA were taking to avoid these individuals from jeopardizing their South Africa’s operations.

Ambassador Matjila exercised much diplomacy in answering these questions. Firstly, the issue of South African mercenaries is an issue that the Legislature must deal with, and there are no structures at present to discourage such activities. Secondly the measures taken to alleviate hunger and poverty (as outlined in the handout) can be seen in the projects in Guinea – Bissau, Haiti and Laos. Finally the question relating to the Brazilian mafia groups, South Africa has taken the stance to remain as detached from other countries affairs as possible. The issue of the supposed Brazilian mafia is therefore out of the jurisdiction of South Africa and therefore no actions have been taken to counter act this.

The final question was posed by the Chair Mr D Sithole (ANC) on Lesotho. Considering the interest in improving development in Lesotho, the Chair questioned whether it would be possible to allocate IBSA funds towards this development and indeed make Lesotho one of the IBSA projects.

Mr J Majtila did not directly answer this question however he mentioned that such issues would be brought up in the IBSA summit and discussions.

The Chair mentioned that if South Africa were to send a delegation to attend the IBSA Summit referring, he would like the minutes to reflect that there was a Committee decision made to send this delegation.

The Chair asked the Committee to give this issue some thought and requested that the minutes reflect this query.

The Committee praised Ambassador Matjila for his diplomacy and thanked him for sharing his views.

The Committee agreed and the meeting was adjourned.