MINISTRY MEDIA BRIEFING
29 August 2007
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, PEACE AND SECURITY CLUSTER

Relevant document:
Notes following IRPS Cluster Media Briefing

Audio recording of meeting

SUMMARY
The International Relations, Peace and Security cluster briefed the media on developments as far as its activities within the Southern African Development Community and the rest of the African region. It touched on issues related to the Middle East as well as South-South cooperation. Journalists asked questions on Africa’s response to the United States Africa Command, Africa’s apparent reluctance to get involved in the Somali conflict, developments in negotiations with Iran about its nuclear activities, the future of the Rooivalk fleet and the scope of South Africa’s deployment on the African continent. Despite efforts to steer the discussion away from the recent dismissal of the Deputy Minister of Health, questions persisted. On South Africa’s response to the international outcry following the dismissal, Minister Lekota commented that her dismissal had not violated the Constitution and that the situation had been blown out of proportion.

BRIEFING
The cluster was represented by Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Aziz Pahad, and Minister of Defence, Mr Mosiuoa Lekota, who led the briefing. He outlined the outcomes of the recently held SADC Summit of Heads of State and Government. The issues discussed there related to the status of regional integration, infrastructure development in the region, and the situation in Zimbabwe. Agriculture and food security, gender issues, HIV and Aids as well as the outcomes of the African Union Summit and the latest NEPAD Heads of State and Government Implementation Committee also featured on that agenda.

The briefing touched on the relationship between the African and European Unions, efforts in contributing to African peace, security and stability as well as post-conflict reconstruction and development. Efforts to strengthen South-South cooperation would also be continued. The cluster urged international partners to play a more active role in promoting cooperation between Israel and Palestine.

Questions and Answers
Q: A SABC journalist said that African countries had so far been reluctant to send troops to stabilise Somalia and to bring about lasting peace there. An update was sought on any new developments, and whether troops that had returned from countries that had now been stabilised, would be sent to Somalia.

A: Minister Lekota thought the perception of African reluctance to get involved incorrect. The African Union (AU) supported the stabilisation of Somalia. One had to bear in mind that however willing many African countries were to assist, their assistance had to be balanced against their capability to assist. South Africa had for a very long time been the only country that could deploy troops in Burundi. Mozambique and Ethiopia made troops available at a later stage, but these countries had no resources to carry out such a mission. It was only with additional support from countries like the United Kingdom, that they were able to deploy troops there. The reality was that any of the countries to the North of South Africa were not able to make such contributions. Countries like Ghana and Nigeria had deployed in Darfur. They were able to do that because they had much more experience of peace keeping. They also had troops deployed in other parts of the world other than Africa. Inability and lack of capacity should thus not be interpreted as reluctance.

Any country that committed itself to deployment in Somalia had to bear in mind that the conflict had been going on for many years and thus had to prepare itself for a long and protracted engagement. For countries with meagre resources that would be very difficult. South Africa had committed itself to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

From its involvement in Burundi, South Africa had learnt that although getting involved in a “theatre of conflict” looked very easy at times, one could get sucked further into the situation than initially anticipated. Going into Burundi had looked fairly easy, but the engagement had been long, and troops had had to be returned to the area after its elections due to unforeseen tensions between the newly elected government and the previous dispensation. The new problems in Burundi might make it necessary for what had initially been thought of as a short and uncomplicated engagement to be continued. Anyone choosing to get involved in Somalia therefore had to think the matter through properly and be sure that they would be able to commit themselves for the duration of the process.

Q: A Primedia journalist asked the Minister to elaborate more on the whether the African position on the United States Africa Command (Africom) had been communicated to the United States (US) and if so, when such communication took place. She was also interested in whether the US would pay any attention to the African position on the matter.

A: Minister Lekota said that at the South African Development Community’s (SADC) Interstate Defence and Security meeting in Dar Es Salaam, the region’s defence and security Ministers had recommended that sister countries within the region should not agree to host Africacom or other armed forces. That recommendation was taken to the respective heads of state.

Although SADC had taken a position, one also had to consider the opinions of the other African countries. As far as SADC was aware, the majority of the regions on the African continent shared their view. The AU administration in Addis Ababa would have, as per the normal processes, communicated the decision to the relevant parties. He unfortunately did not have more explicit details of that communication.

Q: A Mail and Guardian journalist said that from his discussions with Americans he had gathered that there were basically two American positions on Africom: one envisioned quite wide-ranging interaction across the continent, while the other was more tactical and aimed at securing the horn of Africa and the Gulf of Guinea. He asked if the continent - by not entertaining the idea - ran the risk of having units all over without being able to do something about them. He thought that perhaps a longer debate would be necessary.

A: Minister Lekota said that it would not be strange if one or two African countries disagreed with the majority view. Democracy was about majorities and not about unanimity. Normally those who held the minority view tended to support the majority’s view, because the interests of Union of African nations superceded individual views. Countries choosing to go against the AU view, would probably have to carefully consider what impact such a decision would have on their relationships with other sister countries especially with regard to continued cooperation in other areas. South Africa, even if it held a different view and failed to persuade other partners, went along with majority decisions. They did that in the knowledge that going along with such decisions would be in their medium to long-term best interest.

A: A Sunday Times journalist noted that the SADC position had been presented in Addis Ababa, and asked whether there was an official AU position.

Q: Minister Lekota said that he had not attended the conference at Accra, but understood that the position that was adopted there was similar to the SADC one. There was no quarrel with AFRICOM but the continent agreed that it was not desirable to have new forces brought into the continent.

Q: A Mail & Guardian journalist asked whether Deputy Minister Pahad could, now that the European summer holidays were drawing to an end, give an update on matters related to Kosovo and the Iran nuclear issue.

A: Deputy Minister Pahad said there had been extensive interaction on the Iranian matter over the long European summer. The European Union's foreign policy chief, Mr Javier Solana had been, on behalf of the P5 plus 1 (Britain, China, France, Russia and US. plus Germany) countries, in extensive consultation with Iran’s chief negotiator, Mr Ali Larijani.

What was more significant however was that there had been very good developments within the Intelligent Energy Executive Agency (IEEA) negotiations too. Iran had put forward a road map to resolve all outstanding issues with that body. This was a very positive development. Iran had allowed the IEEA inspectors to visit sites in Iran, which had previously been difficult to visit. The latest IEEA report was that Iran was more cooperative in resolving the outstanding issues. Iran made its intentions to finalise the discussions with the IEEA clear. Should sanctions be introduced however, they would not only withdraw from the negotiations but would also consider whether they would remain within the non proliferation treaty.

South Africa was encouraging the P5 Plus1 countries to intensify the negotiations whole watching the IEEA processes very carefully. As members of the IEEA board, South Africa would ensure that that body’s processes succeeded and that Iran completed the negotiations to the satisfaction of the IEEA. Such a conclusion would make it possible for the IEEA to finally declare whether they were satisfied the Iranian programme was only for peaceful means and not for military objectives too. That was the key area of focus at moment.

Q: A Independent Newspapers journalist asked why it had taken three years for the Department of Defence (DOD) to request former Deputy Minister of Health Ms Nosizwe Routledge to repay money she owed to the Department.

A: GCIS Government and Media Liaison Chief Director, Mr Thabo Masebe would not allow the question saying that the briefing had been called to address issues relevant to the IRPS cluster. Issues of departmental administration could be directed to the departments or the Minister after the briefing.

Q: The Primedia journalist asked whether Minister Lekota could give an indication of South African troop numbers deployed around the continent as well as of the intensity of their engagement. She also asked whether the deployment would be substantially increased.

A: Minister Lekota said that he could not give a figure right then. He had no oversight as to how much the Departments of Public Service and Administration (DPSA), Foreign Affairs (DFA), Home Affairs (DHA), Safety and Security, Defence and the Renaissance Fund had spent. A lot of the activity was done via trilateral arrangements. In the DRC there was an arrangement between that country, South Africa and Belgium, in the East between the Dutch, South Africa and DRC, in the West between South Africa, Angola and the DRC.

Q: A journalist noted that there was very strong international reaction to the dismissal of Ms Routledge. He asked how concerned the DFA was about it and what it would do to counteract that reaction.

A: Mr Masebe explained that the matter had been responded to in a statement that reassured everybody that the Government’s Aids programme would continue. The progress of the programme was not dependant on one individual. It was a government programme, which was being implemented with the support of the other stakeholders of the South African National Aids Council (SANAC). The Department was not worried at all.

Minister Lekota added that South Africa’s Constitution gave the Head of State the right to invite anyone to serve in Cabinet. The right to dismiss anyone who was no longer serving the purpose for which they were appointed or someone who was no longer making a positive contribution also belonged to that Head of State. This was the case not only in South Africa but in all other countries too. He found it very strange that foreign countries wanted a say in who was dismissed or hired. No one, given South Africa’s Constitution, could say who had to be appointed or dismissed. The ANC structures, for instance, allowed that a Premier or an MEC could advise, but the final decision remained that of the President.

Minister Lekota felt that the pubic outcry about the former Health Deputy Minister’s dismissal could best be described by the Chinese proverb that spoke of a hundred dogs barking over nothing – the situation had been blown out of proportion. The Constitution allowed the President to invite anyone he or she needed to set up a competent administration. Everyone would rightly have been very concerned if the Constitution had been violated, but there had been no such violation.

Q: The Mail and Guardian journalist understood that the Secretariat had prepared a report summing up the outcomes of the Defence Review and that it either had been tabled or would be tabled before Cabinet soon.

A: Minster Lekota said that the report would be tabled before Cabinet soon.

Q: The Sunday Times journalist asked if Minister Lekota was satisfied with the arrangements that the Rooivalk fleet would be kept flying for its twenty year lifespan, now that further production would no longer be considered.

A: The Minister confirmed that the DOD was in a reasonable position that would allow them to keep the fleet flying for a considerable amount of time. He continued to harbour the hope that such a fantastic helicopter could be revived because one could not simply get rid of the technology. The reality was however that the Department had to come to terms with the problems facing it.

The briefing was adjourned.