Attacks Not Linked To Mbeki’s Position On Zimbabwe - Pahad
Transcript of media briefing by Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs May 20 2008
Questions & Answers
Question: Deputy Minister Pahad, have any foreign countries expressed concern about the safety of their citizens in South Africa?
Question: Deputy Minister Pahad, how do you respond to criticism that the violence in South Africa is linked to President Mbeki’s position on Zimbabwe?
Question: Deputy Minister Pahad, given South Africa’s social and economic challenges, has it not been irresponsible to allow border control to almost completely break down, especially on the Zimbabwe border?
Question: Deputy Minister Pahad, how is it that the government finds itself surprised by what is happening when there were incidents of such phenomena for some time now?
Question: Deputy Minister Pahad, seeing that the crisis in Zimbabwe is now spilling beyond its borders, do you still maintain that this is an internal matter?
Question: Deputy Minister Pahad, there is a school of thought is that some of this violence has been exported from Zimbabwe so that some violence in South Africa will detract from what is happening in Zimbabwe?
Question: Deputy Minister Pahad, how have these incidents dented South Africa’s image two years before the 2010 Soccer World Cup?
Answer: It is clear that this issue - and it is obvious in the South Africa media - has been reflected in reported internationally. It is simply reported in both the South African media and international media as attacks simply against foreigners without an attempt to contextualize or analyse the root causes of this phenomenon. I hope we will have long dealt with this by 2010.
Let me clearly state, these attacks in South Africa are not unique to South Africa and I think that many people abroad are fully conscious, that even in their own societies, that given globalization and other challenges, they have also experienced such phenomena. That is why in the last few years you have seen phenomena such as neo-facist parties coming to the fore in Europe. In Europe there are arguments that illegal immigrants are stealing jobs, etc, similar arguments are being used to explain what is happening in South Africa. Foreigners are aware that xenophobic phenomena are not unique to South Africa.
I think it is up to us to decisively deal with what we have experienced and I think the President has clearly indicated parameters around which we must deal with this matter and all political formations have begun to deal with this. So have church, civil society and other groups. The political formation branch structures have also begun to deal with this.
It is my view that until we receive a full report about what are the causes - criminal or otherwise - that have exploited a situation of concern for some of our people that foreigners are a scourge because they are taking away jobs and economic opportunities - this is a wrong perception because in many instances it is based on ignorance and provocation from many forces. Whether it is related to Zimbabwe or other political forces in South Africa or other agendas - it is difficult for me to tell until we have the report from the inter-departmental committee and especially the police and other security services. 200 people have been arrested. One hopes that this will open up the space to understand their motivations. That the IFP and ANC have met is an important development between the two political formations to assess involvement by their parties. The Secretary-General of the ANC has spoken on this matter and I think we agree with his view that we cannot come to any conclusions until we have more substantiated information.
We are in touch with all countries whose citizens have been affected. I think that the countries are aware that indeed, large sectors of our population, have condemned these attacks and they are convinced that it is not government policy, nor indeed policies maintained by the majority in our society. We will continue to be in touch with the governments and see how we can work together to integrate those who are in South Africa in a healthier way.
I do not know whether we have not been responsible in taking care of border control. Since 1994 we removed the electric fences separating South Africa from our neighbours because no democratic South Africa could maintain electric wire fencing on our borders with our neighbours because it would go against the very value systems we believe it. Our borders are very porous. The border control team has tried to see how we can tighten up control.
I want to stress, there is a tendency to view everyone coming across our borders as Zimbabwean - there are many other African citizens coming across our borders - there are also many coming from China, India, Taiwan, Pakistan, Bangladesh - there is a totality of problems.
My own view is that in Africa - and especially SADC - the best way in which to deal with this matter would be to fastrack regional integration of which one of the elements is the free movement of people, to ensure that we develop a region - as we develop South Africa - so that South Africans view other countries as opportunities and we will therefore not just have people coming into South Africa.
In the end, if we fail to address this challenge of the development and integration of SADC, I do not think we will be able to stem the flow. You can have 1000s of troops on the border but you will not be able to stem the flow.
The Americans have one of the most expensive border control mechanisms with Mexico but they have not stopped the flow of Mexicans into the United States of America.
So the best way in which to deal with this will be the political and economic programme that will turn this tide of people coming into South Africa. It is not just the Zimbabwean illegal immigrants. There are many immigrants from Zimbabwe who are in South Africa legally and making a positive contribution to South African society.
Government was not taken by surprise by the possibility of these attacks. What has taken us by surprise is the extent and nature including the violence of what we have witnessed. It was not expected that the Mamelodi and Atteridgeville would lead to this. We tried to address the root causes but we were aware that criminal elements had exploited concerns and fears of the people.
You would not have thought that 14 years into our democracy we would suddenly experience such an explosion of attacks against foreigners when we have been trying through education and political processes to inform people about our vision of one Africa and an integrated Africa.
I am not sure, and this is linked to the question on the Zimbabwean situation, I think we would have to wait for the report - I think the most immediate task is to stop the violence, determine the perpetrators, begin a more intensified process of education linked to the broader economic strategy but we must stop this as soon as possible. South Africa is committed to helping other people in Africa, as they helped us. There are no political differences in what we have to do and I think that as the ruling party and government that we are committed, with the Alliance Partners, to take action against elements that will be found to have instigated and provoked the violence. I think this is why the President has commented so strongly through his statement that everything must be done to deal with this situation and he is awaiting his report. Once we have this report we will be able to move decisively against those who are responsible.
The only time that South Africa has experienced this form of violence was pre-1994 and we all know this was politically motivated violence. At that time when we talked of black-on-black violence we were regarded as being alarmist. Since then all reports have indicated that the black-on-black violence was not a spontaneous occurrence but was politically motivated. The symptoms are very much the same. We now await the report to determine whether we are experiencing the same phenomenon we experienced pre-1994.
Question: Deputy Minister, regarding the Chinese ship - does the South African government believe it is a healthy development for arms to be shipped to Zimbabwe in the current environment and what is your position on the call from Prime Minister Gordon Brown for a wider arms embargo against Zimbabwe?
Answer: Firstly, let me say we have a National Arms Control Committee in South Africa that has a clear mandate from Parliament and works very carefully in relation to South Africa’s export of arms. We were not even aware of this ship carrying arms until it was exposed. And while government was trying to deal with this matter - the line function Ministry was the Department of Finance because SARS falls within this ambit and SARS had to determine the contents of the ship. This was all emerging while we were in China, we discussed this matter and were given an undertaking that the ship would be recalled.
It is clear that any movement of arms by anyone could escalate the tensions and possible violence in Zimbabwe but it was not as if we were conniving, as has been suggested, to get these arms into Zimbabwe.
The media should now approach the Chinese Ambassador to ascertain details around this matter.
We have a very healthy approach to dealing with South Africa’s export of arms and we try to ensure that this a framework that is excepted by all other arms exporters. I am not sure if we are succeeding but I think ours is the only country with such stringent control measures on arms. Many other exporting countries do not have such regulations and legislation.
Regarding the arms embargo: this is a matter that Prime Minister Brown has called for and seeing as how the UK is the current President of the UN Security Council, I would suggest they take it through the processes and discuss this. South Africa is not exporting arms to Zimbabwe nor are 99% of the UN.
If we do everything possible to ensure the run-off proceeds smoothly, we deal with allegations of violence, create the conditions, by the time an arms embargo is imposed on Zimbabwe we may have a new situation in Zimbabwe. Let’s not be diverted by issues that will take a long time to implement.
Question: Deputy Minister, you just said that “It is clear that any movement of arms by anyone could escalate the tensions and possible violence in Zimbabwe,” so why is it that when South Africa had the choice to stop the arms coming through South Africa did we not do the right thing to stop this?
Answer: We did, the arms did not land in South Africa. There were different procedures that were being undertaken. You must remember that lots of goods intended for landlocked countries come through South Africa. South Africa does not check every consignment - this would be impossible. Therefore, sometimes, we are not able to determine what two countries have arranged between themselves. South Africa was caught in the middle. But generally, our own policy is not to a supplier of arms where there is the possibility or intention of violence. I do not even know what arms were on the ship.
We discussed this matter with the Chinese and were assured that the ship had been recalled.
Question: Deputy Minister, if another ship were to land tomorrow, what would South Africa do?
Answer: That is a hypothetical Question:. Let me say, rather than Answering that Question: - we must intensify all our efforts to create the conditions that would allow for the re-run to take place on 27 June 2008 and we will await the report of our retired generals who will present a report on the violence that is taking place. The President, as the Facilitator, will have to take action on any reports. The other Question: that is emerging is the safety of Mr Tsvangirai so that he can return to Zimbabwe to contest the elections. He must be confident that his security is guaranteed. Everybody has the responsibility to ensure that the Zimbabweans can go to the polls so that other challenges can be effectively addressed.
(Source)
(Sponsor Link: OfferForge | kalahari.net | bidorbuy )