Alfred Nzo’s ministry stands accused of not having made the leap into the new South Africa, reports Rehana Rossouw
Minister Alfred Nzo and his Department of Foreign Affairs came in for a barrage of criticism this week from the ANC alliance and academics who charged that it had failed to provide the moral leadership the world expected from South Africa.
They said the department’s record over the past year showed it was one of the least effective and least transparent departments in government today.
The critical focus on foreign affairs took place at a parliamentary workshop in Cape Town at the weekend and at a symposium on Monday organised by the Centre for Southern African Studies and the International Labour Resource and Information Group (Ilrig).
At Monday’s symposium, Cosatu spokesperson Neil Coleman said the department did not provide the moral leadership on the international stage the world expected from South Africa and, particularly, Nelson
“South Africa can play a leading role in challenging global apartheid and the policy of the Department of Foreign Affairs should be geared towards doing so. But we have yet to see such policies emanating from the department,” Coleman said.
University of Durban Westville political studies head John Daniels said almost 90 percent of Foreign Affairs ministry staff, including Director General Rusty Evans, have been retained by Nzo, and ANC members trained abroad in foreign affairs before the elections found the doors to the department shut firmly in their faces.
“The management of the department lacks expertise and new blood. Foreign policy is made by a small elite and a group of bureaucrats who are determined to maintain the shroud of secrecy in the department,” Daniels said.
“The only response we get to our barrage of criticism is a promise to establish an advisory council. But if there is no desire to receive advice, what is the use of such a structure?”
Althea Macquene of Ilrig said Foreign Affairs was the “most opaque” department in government. “It has not yet published a white paper, nor has it made known the process it will adopt to do so or set a timetable for its completion.”
A number of controversial foreign policy decisions taken recently remain unexplained — Mandela’s relationship with the Indonesian and Sudanese governments, South Africa’s stand on the review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its refusal to support a United States resolution at the United Nations to investigate human rights violations in Cuba.
National Assembly Select Committee chairman Raymond Suttner said he could only conclude from articles in the press that the relationship with Indonesia stems from the fact that its president made financial donations to the ANC.
“Does the Department of Foreign Affairs not have a duty to explain to the public why this situation exists, particularly in the light of Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor?” Suttner asked.
“South Africa’s vote at the UN on the Cuban issue was seen in some quarters as very controversial. Yet immediately after the vote, the South African representative to the UN was unable to explain to the media why we took that stand. The department has yet to give an explanation of its vote.”
Suttner said there was little information about where most foreign policy originates in the government. Decision making in the department has not changed substantially under an ANC government and the problem is compounded by the fact that the president, Vice- President Thabo Mbeki and other ministries, particularly Trade and Industry, Home Affairs and Health, regularly make decisions with foreign policy
He said foreign policy should not be the exclusive preserve of professional diplomats and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but should involve Parliament.
“We need to remember that whatever is done by the minister or the Department of Foreign Affairs is done in the name of South Africa and the public. We need to move away from a situation which presumes that because foreign affairs has a special area of concern it can be exempted from the same degree of public scrutiny that applies to defence or security or home affairs.”
Suttner said the presidency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs left little room for the public or Parliament to make an input on its decisions. However, a significant step in this direction was made when the department’s budget was reviewed by the select
The committee agreed on the overall goals of the department, but criticised the allocation of funds to South Africa’s missions when the budget proposed spending only R105-million of the allocated R645- million on African missions.
While the ministry was providing a “fair number” of briefings to the committee, these were generally at the request of the committee and related to international crises or controversies. There was never a briefing prior to an important decision or visit, and there is no mechanism for briefings to the public.
“The failure to talk to one another before important decisions makes it harder to have good relations. It impedes the type of common reflection that is needed to move away from ad hoc approaches to foreign relations,” Suttner said.
“Foreign Affairs should be sufficiently transparent to enable meaningful parliamentary and public scrutiny and
He called for a “rupture” with the past in the Department of Foreign Affairs, especially with regard to its policy process.
“Now that we have a democratic government, we are entitled to expect democratic foreign policy which is accountable to the people of South Africa and driven by