MPs’ criticism of the Department of Foreign Affairs has provoked an extraordinary reaction from Rusty Evans, writes Rehana Rossouw
IN an unprecedented broadside by a civil servant on parliament, Foreign Affairs Director General Rusty Evans has attacked criticism of his department from MPs as an effort to “discredit and destroy the political leadership and the key institutions of this country”.
The attack from Evans — described by foreign policy experts as highly irregular — singled out Advocate Raymond Suttner, who chairs the foreign affairs portfolio committee in the House of Assembly, as being a subversive critic of government.
After a conference in which members of the portfolio committee — along with senior trade union officials — criticised the performance of the Department of Foreign Affairs since the elections, Evans said the MPs were involved in a campaign to undermine President Nelson Mandela’s government.
Effectively branding his critics as traitors, Evans accused them of doing the country a “grave disservice by sorely embarrassing the relations between our Government and the countries which were mentioned … The way not to conduct foreign policy is to seek to undermine, discredit and destroy the political leadership and the key institutions of this country.”
Foreign policy analysts said it was highly irregular for a civil servant to attack politicians, especially the parliamentary committee they are responsible to. “It is the job of a portfolio committee to promote robust debate in the interests of the country’s citizens,” said one.
“Evans’ response reflects a hangover from an old political culture in which critical scrutiny of government was interpreted as being subversive and in which there was a narrow coincidence of interests between politicians and civil servants.”
Professor Philip Nel of the University of Stellenbosch department of politics, said it was “practically unheard of” for a career civil servant to attack a parliamentarian publicly.
Foreign Affairs select committee member DP MP Colin Eglin sprung to Suttner’s defence, saying his comments were the “prevalent viewpoint” of the committee. Eglin said there was a lack of interaction between the department and the committee on foreign policy formation. “For many years the department was the secret preserve of (former Foreign Affairs Minister) Pik Botha. This cannot be allowed to continue today.”
Suttner said he was surprised at the tone adopted by Evans. “I don’t believe that what I said warranted this kind of reaction. I raised serious issues of concern about the formation of foreign policy in South Africa. These are legitimate issues and I cannot be held responsible for the headlines under which they appear. I stand firmly by what I have said.”
Responding to the Mail & Guardian article last week where Suttner was quoted as saying the select committee on foreign affairs he chairs had no input in drafting foreign policy, Evans said “armchair experts on foreign affairs” did South Africa a grave disservice.
Suttner said there was very little information about where most foreign policy originates in the government. Decision-making in the Department of Foreign Affairs had not changed substantially under an ANC government and the problem was compounded by the fact that other ministries and the president regularly made decisions with foreign policy implications.
“I take the gravest exception to what can only be described as vilification in certain quarters of the Ministry and the Department of Foreign Affairs,” Evans responded.
“The despatch … in the Mail & Guardian extends this campaign to the President, Deputy President Thabo Mbeki and various other ministries and the majority party of our government.
“South Africa’s foreign relations are too serious to be dealt with at the uninformed and suspiciously motivated level of debate in recent reports.”
Nel said criticism to and fro was healthy for an emerging democracy, but said it should be limited to issues and not be personal attacks.
“Mr Evans is unfortunately attacking personalities here, not the issues. He should explain why parliamentarians and academics can’t raise critical issues about South Africa’s relations with other countries,” he said.
Evans’ attack on public criticism is in stark contrast to a briefing this week by Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister Aziz Pahad, who said government was to make a concerted effort to get the public more involved in international issues.
The ministry was considering the establishment of a think tank on foreign policy involving academics and the private sector, to submit recommendations on foreign policy.
Evans said it was regrettable that South Africa’s relations with Indonesia and Sudan were questioned at the symposium. “… The innuendo and allegations of the most serious sort (were made) concerning alleged financial donations to the ANC as being the determining factor in South Africa’s relations with various
“Armchair experts on foreign affairs do this country a grave disservice by sorely embarrassing the relations between our government and the countries which were mentioned. The way not to conduct foreign policy is to seek to undermine, discredit and destroy the political leadership and the key institutions of this country.”
Nel said perhaps it was the fact that so few members of the Department of Foreign Affairs attended the symposium that led Evans to make these statements.
“Unfortunately, Mr Evans’ reaction confirms the extent of this problem. Diplomacy is a very serious issue in South Africa today and needs to be based on public participation. This means that people will criticise from time to time.”
“We don’t want a briefing after South Africa signs a treaty. We want parliament brought into the process of discussing the merits of a treaty before it is signed. We want to see more debate among the public of foreign policy issues. All we are asking for is more