Examination of Witnesses (Questions 164-179)
2 MARCH 2004
MR CHRIS
MULLIN MP, MR
ANDREW LLOYD
AND MR
ANDY SPARKES
Q164 Chairman: Good morning and welcome
to the Committee. Mr Mullin, will you please introduce your colleagues?
Mr Mullin: On my left is Andy
Sparkes, former Deputy High Commissioner at Pretoria. On my right
is Andrew Lloyd, Head of Africa Department, Southern.
Q165 Chairman: As you know we are conducting
an inquiry into South Africa and our bilateral relations ten years
after the landmark elections of 1994. This is your first time
before the Committee in formal session. As you know, the Committee
has been to South Africa from 8 to 13 February and we thank your
colleagues and the diplomatic staff who looked after us so well
during that visit, which, I believe, was successful. Just to set
the scene a little, could you begin by telling us a little about
your assessment of the current state of UK/South African relations? Mr
Mullin: They are pretty good. We have a large common agenda
which cuts across a whole range of issues: conflict resolutions,
poverty reduction, combating organised crime, money laundering
and counter terrorism. We have good relations with our opposite
numbers on all those issues. In addition there are enormous bilateral
trading links, as I am sure you are aware, about £6 billion
worth of trade in both directions each year. Britain has about
£12 billion worth of investments in South Africa and there
are about 750,000 British citizens living in South Africa. In
addition we have strong sporting, tourism and cultural links.
I would say our relations are pretty good and comprehensive.
Q166 Chairman: We will be coming on to some of the irritants
between our two countries in foreign relations particularly Zimbabwe,
Iraq and Cancun. What are the difficulties which you see in the
bilateral relations between ourselves and South Africa? Mr
Mullin: I think one of the strengths of our relationship
is that where difficulties do arise—there is obviously a
different set of tactics, for example, in relation to Zimbabwe
(which no doubt we will get onto at some stage)—we can talk
about them frankly. It is quite a mature relationship. There is
a difference of opinion over Iraq, for example, but again it is
one we can talk about later. Q167 Chairman: I would like
to focus now on the domestic matters, particularly bilateral UK/South
Africa relations where there are, in your view, difficulties. Mr
Mullin: I am not aware of any, but try me. Q168 Chairman:
We do not want to raise difficulties which do not exist. Moving
on, we have heard much about a special relationship between the
UK and South Africa. Do we still believe there to be a special
relationship and in your judgment do our South African colleagues
believe there to be such? Mr Mullin: Yes, I
think there is and it arises partly from the enormous goodwill
that I think exists among people of all shades of opinion in this
country towards South Africa, especially for what they have achieved
in the last ten years. I do not think any of us sitting here,
certainly twelve or fifteen years ago, could have predicted that
there would be a smooth transfer of power from the earlier regime
that existed there before to a modern, responsible, democratically
accountable government that exists there today. Q169 Chairman:
If there is a special relationship, in what way does that manifest
itself compared, for example, with the relations between South
Africa and France or Germany? Mr Mullin: I think
the scale of our historical interest there dictates that under
almost all circumstances even if there was not this great good
will—which I think extends to France and Germany as well—most
outside observers are greatly heartened by the way in which the
first ten years of democratic government have gone in South Africa.
I have been reading recently Anthony Sampson's biography of Nelson
Mandela[5]and
he quotes what our newspapers—and no doubt other people's
newspapers—were predicting in the immediate run-up to the
change of power (bloodbaths, etc). It is easy to forget all that
now, but if one reads what much of our press was predicting—and,
indeed, some more serious observers—some of the assessments
were extremely pessimistic at that time.Q170 Chairman:
I believe Alistair Horne's book on Algeria, A Savage War of
Peace,[6]
was widely read by the whites.Mr Mullin: Indeed,
and none of it has come to pass and that is really a great achievement
on the part of those who managed the transition in South Africa.
I think that is one of the reasons for the good will. Q171
Mr Olner: Perhaps we could not turn to one of the irritants:
South Africa probably takes a diametrically opposed view to ours
on the war in Iraq. I just wondered whether that has done any
long-term damage to our relationship. Mr Mullin:
Not that I am aware of. It is certainly true that there have been
some robust exchanges of views on that issue, but we do not, by
and large, address each other through megaphones which is a sign
of a mature relationship. Of course, we have had disagreements
with other countries as well on that issue. I do not get the impression
that it has irretrievably damaged our relations with South Africa.
Q172 Mr Olner: Having recognised that there are these diametrically
opposing views, have you done anything special to help to explain
the UK position in Iraq better? Mr Mullin: I
would not say that we have done anything special, but I think
no day goes by both at home and abroad without us, for one reason
or another, we have to explain our views on Iraq. Q173 Mr Olner:
Could we turn to another irritant that we perhaps get a little
blame for—although it is not bilateral, we deal with the
EU—and that is the collapse of the reform of the CAP[7]and
the talks at Cancun. There was a lot of very deep feeling when
we were over there a couple of weeks ago. Mr Mullin:
It is certainly an issue that South Africans feel strongly about.
On the other hand, I think there is a recognition that we played
a fairly honourable role. At Cancun we have been pressing very
hard for trade liberalisation and the fact there was a failure
was no fault of ours. I think that is widely recognised. Similarly,
within the EU we have played a leading role in campaigning for
doing away with the CAP and reforming the agricultural subsidies.
Q174 Mr Olner: Do you think our position is as widely known
as it should be? Does it get fudged with the other EU countries
alone the line? Obviously we have an allegiance to both. Mr
Mullin: You would have to ask the South Africans but in
my view it does not and I do think they recognise that we have
played a fairly good role. I have to say that there is an EU and
South Africa Trade and Development Corporation Agreement which
will come fully into effect in April this year. It includes a
free trade area, financial assistance and development cooperation;
it has a range of trade-related measures in it and I am told that
by 2010 95%—by value—of all South African export to
the EU will be free of tariffs. If so, that is quite a big step
forward. Q175 Mr Olner: Perhaps we ought to be saying it
a bit more loudly. Mr Mullin: I say it now and
no doubt you will reflect that in your Report. Q176 Mr Hamilton:
As you will know, Minister, the Department for International Development
announced two months ago—in January—that aid would
be reduced for the southern African nations, the so-called middle
income-nations. While we were in South Africa we saw projects
in Soweto and Alexandra which are going to suffer from the reduction
in aid and I was wondering what consultations took place between
DfID and the Foreign Office prior to the announcement being made
of the reduction. Mr Mullin: I was actually
in South Africa when the announcement was made and I did talk
to Hilary Benn at the time. It is quite true to say that the South
Africans were irritated—you were looking for irritants a
moment ago—by that. It is possible to exaggerate the amount
of aid we already give because South Africa, as you will know,
is an enormous economy and inevitably if the whole billion a year
that we put into Africa were put into South Africa it still would
be a relatively small sum compared with the size of their economy.
The reduction as you, yourself, mentioned have mainly to do with
the fact that it is DfID's policy to concentrate on the poorest
people in the poorest countries and South Africa is a middle-income
country. However, one thing that we do acknowledge—and it
is a point that the South Africans make—is that South Africa
is a middle income country and if you divide Gross National Product
by the population you get quite a high figure, but that disguises
an enormous gulf between the rich and the poor. The poor of seven
or eight million live at third world standards. All of that is
quite true, but actually the reduction in our aid budget is quite
modest, down from £35 million to £30 million over a
period. Q177 Mr Hamilton: That was a source of some irritation
and clearly, while we were there, we learnt that a third of Africa's
entire GDP is accounted for by South Africa's economy. They have
four and a half per cent of the population; I think Mr Sparkes
told us that when we were in Pretoria. Given that you, yourself,
acknowledge that some damage has been done here—even though
it is a relatively small amount—what are you doing to repair
and reverse that damage? Mr Mullin: One of the
reasons I think it proved to be a slightly larger irritant than
it might otherwise have been was because some of the media insisted
on linking it to Iraq which, of course, opened up another front.
However, when you calmly explain to people what the figures are
and the size of our relationship with South Africa, I think it
is actually a fairly minor irritant and it will pass. Q178
Mr Hamilton: Can I move onto a different subject, which is
the brain drain from South Africa. When Professor David Simon
gave evidence to this Committee, he told us of the concern about
skilled labour and professionals leaving South Africa to come
to the UK. What are the Foreign Office trying to do to tackle
this perceived brain drain and, if necessary, reverse it? Mr
Mullin: There are two brain drains, of course. There is
the one you did not mention which is that South Africa, being
by far the richest economy in southern Africa—and, indeed,
in Africa—is drawing in professional people from all over
Africa (from as far away as West Africa) to work there because
of the income available. It is a global phenomenon; it is happening
all over the world. South Africa is both a beneficiary and, to
some extent, a loser as well. As you know, there was a particular
issue some years ago over health workers being attracted to this
country by favourable terms—indeed in Sunderland, which
I represent in Parliament, we had some South African nurses—and
the Department of Health did reach a Memorandum of Understanding
(I will not read it out to you but I have it available if you
are interested) with the South Africans on that issue.[8]
Indeed, I think the NHS agreed to stop actively recruiting from
South Africa but, of course, that does not stop agencies that
supply the NHS from actively recruiting. It is very hard to ban
that because, as I say, it is a feature of global economy. We
can certainly try to make sure that some ethical standards apply
and we can try to make sure that there is a two-way fertilisation
between our two health services, which is one of the things that
this Memorandum of Understanding attempts to address. I will just
repeat the point I made at the outset, South Africa is, to quite
a degree, a beneficiary of this trend as well as a loser. On balance,
for all I know, it may be an overall beneficiary. Certainly there
are an enormous number of professional people—for reasons
we can all think about—who come from Zimbabwe who now work
in South Africa.Q179 Mr Hamilton: It would be quite interesting
to know whether that was the case and whether they were a net
gain or a net loser, but that is obviously not for you. Moving
on to my final point, when Professor Simon from the University
of London gave evidence to us he suggested that there may be cuts
in the number of Chevening scholarships available to South African
citizens. Is that true? Mr Mullin: Not that
I am aware of. No decision has been taken so far as I know. We
had a good Chevening programme with South Africa and, overall,
Chevening is expanding rather than contracting so I am not aware
of that.
5 Mandela, by Anthony Sampson, (London 1999). Back
6
A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954-62, by Alistair Horne,
(London 1987). Back
7
CAP-Common Agricultural Policy. Back
8
Please refer to the supplementary memorandum submitted by the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ev 95. Back
|
