Examination of Witnesses (Questions 164-179)
2 MARCH 2004
MR CHRIS
MULLIN MP, MR
ANDREW LLOYD
AND MR
ANDY SPARKES
Q180 Mr Hamilton: So there
are no cuts for South Africans envisaged so far as you are concerned. Mr
Mullin: I am not aware of that. Mr Sparkes:
The last information I had was that we would have about the same
number of scholars available to us this year as in previous years,
which is around twenty. Q181 Mr Olner: What was very, very
obvious to us when we visited South Africa a couple of weeks ago
was the tremendous loss of skilled labour over there due to HIV/AIDS.
I would hope that we are not recruiting from South Africa those
people who are going to do South Africa's economy a lot of good.
It is a tragedy that when people are at their most productive
age in a society they are being taken away from that society with
the scourge of this disease. Mr Mullin: I cannot
disagree with that. Q182 Sir John Stanley: Myself and possibly
other members of the Committee were taken considerably by surprise
during our visit to South Africa by the extent and the intensity
of the criticism we ran into in relation to the British Government's
policy towards Iraq. Given that Iraq is geographically far removed
from South Africa and given the fact that the Muslim citizens
in South Africa are a relatively small minority, I wonder whether
you could help us as to why this particular foreign policy issue
has generated so much antagonism and so much heat towards Britain
and the United States in South Africa. Mr Mullin:
As it was explained to me during my visit there in November, it
was the issue over the lack of a second resolution for the invasion
at the United Nations. The South Africans, rightly, have a very
high regard for the United Nations and they felt that the alliance
should have received United Nations' endorsement before the actual
invasion. Q183 Sir John Stanley: So they were taking the
view that the war was illegal. Mr Mullin: No
doubt you asked them and they are better placed to put their case
than I am. However, it had to do with the United Nations as I
understood it. Q184 Sir John Stanley: It is always difficult
when you have a very, very concerted view on a particular policy
issue, but are you disappointed at the lack of success which our
own diplomatic representatives in South Africa have had—and
no doubt the American representatives as well—in trying
to get South African politicians and ministers to see the case
that the British and American governments made out for going to
war in Iraq? Mr Mullin: I am certainly not disappointed
in the quality of our representation in South Africa, which, as
you will have seen for yourselves, is of the highest. Of course,
one is always disappointed when a government's arguments are not
getting across as well as they should do and in relation to Iraq
one could argue that that has been the case domestically as well
as internationally. The one thing I would say is that our relationship
with South Africa is a mature one and I do not think that has
actually clouded the generally good relationship we have with
South Africa. I do not see it as any more than a—I would
not say "blip" because that would trivialise it—temporary
phenomenon. Q185 Chairman: You said that the South Africans
make the case in respect of our aid that they are both a first
and a third world country. Clearly anyone who has seen the northern
suburbs of Johannesburg and Alexandra will see that very dramatically.
You went on to say that all of that is true. Can you give an assurance
that that first and third world difference is reflected in the
way that our aid policies respond to the reality of South Africa? Mr
Mullin: It is, but because our aid is focused primarily
on the poorest people at the end of the day—and I know this
is a very tricky issue, as the South Africans themselves are the
first to acknowledge—the long-term solutions to South Africa's
problems are the redistribution of the considerable wealth that
already exists within that society. It is not something that can
easily be achieved from outside. We can offer advice, which they
can take or not as the case may be. I must say, I think they have
gone about it in a very sensible way during their first ten years
in office. Expectations were inevitably very high when they were
first elected and they have handled the inevitable disappointments
extremely well. I think the South African electorate is very mature
as well and they understand that the huge gulf has to be bridged
and also the dangers of going too far too fast and collapsing
the whole economy. Q186 Chairman: Are you confident that
our aid policies reflect that great distortion and that we are
not reducing that volume of aid because we call it a middle-income
country which shields these vast differences? Mr Mullin:
It is undoubtedly true that the reduction was in part because
South Africa is a middle-income country. You have to bear in mind
that much of our aid budget is directed towards countries where
most people are living on a hundred dollars a year or less whereas
the average in South Africa—and I do understand the point
about the huge gulf—is something like over three thousand
dollars a year per head. We all understand the issue and what
hits any new visitor to South Africa is that a small proportion
of the population enjoy Californian—not European, Californian—standards
of living and they live within a couple of miles of people who
enjoy, for practical purposes, a third world standard of living.
Q187 Mr Chidgey: Minister, I would like to ask you some questions
in relation to peace-keeping in terms of South Africa's role and
the assistance the United Kingdom may or may not be giving. You
sent us a memorandum setting out details of our assistance to
South Africa in helping them develop their peace keeping capabilities.
While we were in South Africa we had a lot of different messages
about South Africa's capability and its potential role. Just to
give you an example, whilst we are obviously aware that South
Africa has been instrumental in peace-keeping in some of the neighbouring
countries, we also heard that out of 160 tanks only four were
operable and that many of the armed forces—particularly
the army—were ridden by HIV/AIDS to the extent that it actually
made then unable to operate. We have had a large interest in South
Africa through our post there, through the Ministry personnel.
Apart from the role that we know South Africa has fulfilled in
recent years, what further assistance has South Africa asked us
to provide and how much has that been tempered by the professional
analysis of our military personnel either in post or attracted
to these discussions? Mr Mullin: As you know
in November we had quite a large joint exercise with the South
African forces and our forces have played a part in the past in
integrating the various branches of the South African military
that needed to be integrated. We have high hopes in the medium-term
future that South Africa will play—as it does already in
a couple of countries—a leading role in African peace-keeping
forces. You will know about the role they play in Burundi and
in the Congo. You are quite right to say that there are very serious
problems with the high incidence of AIDS. I do not have a detailed
knowledge of discussions between our military and theirs but it
may be that Andy Sparkes can assist with enquiries. Mr
Sparkes: Our commitment to assistance to the South Africans
in this area is on-going and very important to us. You know that
the African Peace and Security Council envisages an African peace-keeping
capability. What we want to do is to help Africa to develop that
capability and South Africa is one of the best vectors for this
because, as has just been said, they are already dealing with
peace-keeping operations in the DRC and Burundi.[9]
For eight years we had a British military assistance and training
team—40-odd strong—helping the South African army
to integrate itself. That has now focused down into a British
peace support team which looks at helping them with the capacity
in their own army to do a good job in Burundi, DRC or wherever.
The idea is that we should be able to use that assistance as a
multiplier in the longer term, to assist in the region as a whole.
Q188 Mr Chidgey: You made a very interesting comment there
when you said that it was very important to us and I want to test
that out if I can. One of the things that was confusing for us
was that on the one hand we were being told by some people in
the administration that South Africa was—or was becoming—a
military super power in the continent's terms; on the other hand
some commentators were saying that that was the last thing they
wanted South Africa to be (these were local politicians). I want
to put this in the context that this is important to us and ask
you a bit more about that. I am interested to know whether or
not we provided advice to South Africa on its armaments, for example.
If South Africa is to fulfil a regional peace-keeping role, one
might ask the question, why does it need a fleet of submarines?
Why does it need to have an air force with the latest up-to-the
minute fighter aircraft supplied by this country? When you say
that this is important to us, I want to know whether it is important
in terms of exports or whether it is important in terms of how
we see South Africa in its regional role. Obviously we supplied
Hawk aircraft; I understand that. Can you tell me, did we actually
bid to supply a fleet of submarines there? Did the post support
the bids from a British organisation? Did we advise that, because
I wonder what the strategic purpose of those submarines might
be in terms of a peace-keeping role? I do not understand how they
could be relevant to their needs. Mr Mullin:
I do not think we are supplying submarines, are we? Q189 Mr
Chidgey: We are not, but did we try? Did we support the effort?
That is my question. Mr Sparkes: I afraid I
cannot remember whether we tendered for the submarines. Mr
Mullin: The fact is—and it may come as a disappointment
to you—we are not supplying submarines. Q190 Mr Chidgey:
Can we have a note as to whether or not British companies tendered
for the submarines and whether or not we actually advised the
South Africans on the need for that in terms of their strategic
need as a regional peace-keeping force6[10] Mr
Mullin: I do want to make one general point about defence
in South Africa. South Africa is now a democracy and they have
a right to decide—whether we agree with them or not—what
their defence priorities are. It is not for us to advise them
whether they need this kind of helicopter, this kind of fighter
plane or, indeed, this kind of submarine. That is a matter for
them. It has been a controversial matter within South Africa and
being a vibrant democracy that issue has been explored in their
media and in their parliament as it properly should be. It certainly
is not for the British Government to start mouthing off about
what is appropriate for the defence needs of South Africa.
Q191 Mr Chidgey: I did
not suggest they did, Minister, I am merely asking if we gave
advice on what their needs might be. Mr Mullin:
I will send you a note about that[11]
Q192 Mr Pope: Minister, you mentioned
Burundi and the seemingly intractable problems there. When we
were in South Africa we heard that the burden of supplying and
leading the peace-keeping mission that South Africa has taken
on under the auspices of the African Union is really quite a difficult
burden for them to bear. My question is two-fold. Is there more
that we could do bilaterally as a nation to help? Secondly, if
Kofi Annan is still speaking to the British Government, could
we raise with the UN a greater UN involvement in peace-keeping
in Burundi to try to lift some of the burden that the South Africans
are finding so difficult to bear at the moment? Mr Mullin:
As you will know, we already make a significant contribution to
the cost of the Burundi peace-keeping force. We pay for the entire
Mozambiquean contingent. Yes, I am sure that in future it will
be an issue for the UN. South Africa has played a very valuable
role in stepping in there and taking the lead in a situation which,
as you say, was dire and remains very difficult to this day. We
are anxious to get to a point—this is one of the reasons
why we value our relationship with South Africa—where increasingly,
as is happening in West Africa, Africans are taking responsibility.
We are willing to help and advise and also provide resources where
Africans are taking primary responsibility for resolving African
problems. We welcome South Africa's role in Burundi and in the
DRC, just as we welcome Nigeria's role and Ghana's role in West
Africa. Indeed, the African Union is now talking about setting
up its own African peace-keeping force. That is another development
that we welcome and it is the way the future lies. Q193 Mr
Pope: I appreciate that answer and I can see real merit in
a proposition which says that Africans are going to take the lead.
We are all conscious of our colonial past and we do not want to
be seen to be marching into these places and it really is an African
problem and Africans should be taking the lead in solving it.
I certainly agree with that, but is there not a danger in that
approach we are off-loading the problem? It is politically expedient
to say an African solution to African problems, but it really
absolves us of any responsibility for taking action and are we
perhaps expecting too much of a country like South Africa? I am
sure it has made great strides and we all feel really warm about
the tenth anniversary of democracy, but are we expecting too much
too soon for a country like South Africa to take the leadership
in, for example, a country like Burundi? Mr Mullin:
I certainly agree with you that we should not expect too much
and we have to recognise that there are limits, especially to
the effort that a young nation like South Africa can cope with,
but I do not think the United Kingdom is simply walking away from
this problem. We have contributed £2 million to the AU's
administrative trust fund that supports the Burundi peace force
and South Africa is receiving a proportion of this. I mentioned
the funding of the Mozambique contingent a moment ago; we are
contributing £3.7 million to the funding of that. Those are
quite substantial sums. In addition, as I say, there has been
cooperation between our military and theirs in training precisely
with a view to carrying out peace-keeping operations, so I do
think we have stepped up to the plate and it may be for other
countries perhaps to join us. Q194 Mr Pope: You mentioned
the DRC and I think South Africa has about 1,500 troops in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. Can you tell us what help Britain
has been in DRC and how you think things are panning out there
at the moment? Mr Mullin: There is a very cautious
stability there and I would not put it any higher than that just
at the moment. It is a big step forward from where we were, which
was in a deep, dark hole. In the Congo, as you know, over the
years in the region of about three million people have died and
therefore it was a catastrophe of First World War proportions.
There were also a lot of other countries meddling in the Congo.
Without going into the details I am glad to say that most of them
are no long meddling. We now have to move towards some kind of
stability. President Kabila was here the other day. He has various
vice presidents who represent different factions, not all of whom
are yet talking to each other so we need to make some progress
on that front. Once again, the South Africans have made a very
useful contribution—as I believe have we—in the Congo.
Going back to Burundi, let me just repeat what I hinted at but
perhaps did not say explicitly in answer to your first question.
We do favour the United Nations taking over the mandate in Burundi
and we think that will come to pass in due course. Q195 Mr
Illsley: Could I ask a couple of questions on the Southern
African Development Community which, although it has been in existence
since 1980 and has had some substantial aspirations (for example,
a free trade area, a common market and the idea of a customs union)
we have received in evidence some suggestion that there is perhaps
what has been described as a "credibility gap" as to
what this organisation can achieve and what it is actually achieving.
Do you have any view on what role the SADC is playing within southern
Africa to promote the political and economic development on the
continent? Mr Mullin: Let me speak in relation
to some of the statements they have put out regarding Zimbabwe,
for example. We are rather disappointed; they betray a level of
ignorance that disappoints us. For example, last August they put
out a statement calling for the EU to end its economic sanctions
against Zimbabwe; there are no economic sanctions. Following the
Commonwealth Conference they put out another unhelpful statement
which, again, did not demonstrate a detailed knowledge of the
situation. We are anxious to encourage SADC, I have to say, having
said all that. We have offered them quite a lot of support over
the years. Last year we gave them a quarter of a million to help
restructure their secretariat and from January this year, over
the next four years, we are going to contribute £11 million
towards supporting the secretariat's regional trade and investment
in integration work. We are also supplying for three years a senior
advisor on tax policy. We were talking a moment ago about the
need to get world trade right for poor countries, but actually
there is quite a lot that African countries can do to remove trade
barriers between themselves, not only in southern Africa but in
eastern Africa. Q196 Mr Pope: Are they likely to achieve
any of these goals they have set out? This idea of a free trade
area by 2008, a common market by 2015, is there a likelihood of
achieving those developments or do the divisions between the various
countries that make up SADC militate against that? Mr
Mullin: It is too early to say whether they are going
to achieve them or not. You are right that progress so far has
been fairly slow. The issue that poisons the whole region is the
problem of Zimbabwe and that does distract a lot of energy away
from the kind of developments that the southern African countries
need to be addressing—and we do too—but I would not
like to say how far advanced they are because, as you say it is
2008 and there is still some way to go yet. Q197 Chairman:
You mention the African stand-by force. Over the weekend, meeting
in Libya, the African Union took a clear decision that they would
have, by next year (2005) such a force to be deployed at five
regional centres and to cover the whole continent by 2010. That
is a pretty ambitious timetable. What assistance are we planning
to give to the African Union as such in respect of this stand-by
force? Mr Mullin: I cannot tell you off the
top of my head, but I will send you a note[12]about
that. You are right that it is a very big development and it is
one we will want to encourage. The head of the African Union,
Mr Konare is a very dynamic man who is busy injecting a bit of
dynamism into that organisation, which we welcome. Chairman:
This Committee has produced a number of reports on Zimbabwe. We
did ask many questions during our visits. I would like Sir John
to open now on that basis. Q198 Sir John Stanley: Minister,
did you see last Sunday's Panorama programme on Zimbabwe?
[13] Mr
Mullin: I saw extracts from it; I did not see the whole
programme but I am familiar with the contents. Q199 Sir John
Stanley: I think you might find it valuable to see it in full.
I am sure you will share the acute dismay—to put it at its
mildest—that anybody who saw that programme will have experienced
of these young men and young women being sent off to the training
camps, the young men being subjected to a kind of Hitler Youth
type indoctrination and clearly too many of the young women are
being subjected to rape as a means of intimidation. Against that
gross violation of human rights and so many others that have occurred,
could you set out for us now, so that we are completely up-to-date,
what the British Government's policy is towards the South African
Government in dealing with the Zimbabwe issue? What are we saying
to the South African Government in terms of what policy we would
want the South African Government to follow on this issue? Mr
Mullin: We share the same objective; that is the first
thing. Both countries want a transition towards democracy and
the rule of law in Zimbabwe. We have a tactical disagreement about
how to get there, South Africa tending to argue for quiet diplomacy.
We have to listen to what they say because they are the neighbours
after all; they have enormous interest in a peaceful outcome,
rather greater than us and they suffer greatly from living next
door to a country which has caused such serious problems. They
had the best part of two million refugees. I have to say, although
there has been a lot of talk of quiet diplomacy and talks between
Zanu-PF and the main opposition party, we do not see much evidence
of progress on that front so far.
9 DRC- Democratic Republic of the Congo. Back
10
Please refer to the supplementary memorandum submitted by the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ev 94. Back
11
Please refer to the supplementary memorandum submitted by the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ev 94. Back
12
Please refer to the supplementary memorandum submitted by the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ev 94. Back
13
Panorama "Zimbabwe's torture training camps"-broadcasted
on BBC 1on Sunday, 29 February 2004. Back
|
