[ Home ] [ Speeches & statements ]

24 May 2006

South Africa’s president offered his views on trade, Iran’s nuclear programme and China’s interest in Africa, during a wide ranging interview conducted in London by Quentin Peel and James Lamont. This is an edited transcript on:
* skills
* trade – World Trade Organisation (WTO) Doha negotiations
* Iran
* China and Africa
* Zimbabwe
* Jacob Zuma.
* Relations with United Kingdom (UK) Prime Minister.

Q: What’s top of your agenda in talks with Tony Blair at the SA/UK bi-national commission?

A: We will look at issues that have to do with defence co-operation, arts and culture, education and human resource development issues to do with home affairs and the movement of people.

I think the most urgent one for us is really the human resource development issue. It’s clear that in regard to whole areas of South African national life if we want to make better progress we need more people with skills. Whether engineering skills or management skills. This is a critical area. We want to be able to reach into the UK, to the capacity of the UK to assist. The problem is everywhere.

It’s partly to bring people to the UK for training. Partly to have trainers come to South Africa. Partly to see whether for a limited period of time we could take retired people to mentor people on their jobs in South Africa. It might include one form of assistance or another by the British government. On retired people: if we need 100 civil engineers to be deployed in our municipalities to assist municipal government to build capacity for water delivery, sewerage systems, roads is there a way the two governments can co-operate to find these people and fund them.

The Japanese have offered to assist in this area and they say you have this ageing Japanese population. Lots of people are quite willing to assist. It’s a very good offer. The advantage with the UK is the advantage of language.

We have done an audit of skills shortage. We’ve taken a very urgent matter which is a global problem, project managers. You have state corporations with very major plans for energy, water, transport and one of the questions they are raising is that there aren’t project managers to manage what are going to be very large projects.

You need those people and that kind of skill with experience to make sure these ambitious projects happen.

We’ve done an audit. There are skills shortages coming up as people are investing more. And we’ve been assessing what kind of skills is needed on the government side.

Q: What chances does the G8 have of unblocking the Doha trade talks?

A: I think it’s unavoidable that we have to discuss Doha there (at the G8 meeting in St Petersburg). It was discussed at the Gleneagles G8 meeting. The then Director-General of the WTO Supachai, who came to Gleneagles had in fact said the people who hold key to further Doha progress are the 13 of you sitting around the table. If the 13 of you agreed to be serious about this matter you could move this Doha process. We tried to get agreement then to get together on this but it did not work out.

It’s quite clear that the process is not going well at all. I really do think that it’s unavoidable that this matter should be discussed. I know the British government like us is very keen that here should be progress so I’m sure I’ll discuss this with the Prime Minister.

Q: How do you break the deadlock?

A: I think the view of the WTO was correct. There you had the G8, the European Union (EU), you had Brazil, China, India, South Africa and Mexico and if you could get a united view these are people who have critical decisions about agricultural subsidies, agricultural tariffs and all of that. They would also be critical in terms of what we do with non-agricultural market access issues. They would all be in that group. If a decision could come out of that saying let us move. They are the two big issues. The Europeans say if you want us to move on agricultural market access issues then big developing economies like China, India and Brazil must move on non-agricultural market issues, industrial products. And part of the discussion has translated itself into who moves first. So I’m saying that you have there the people who would be central on these issues. If everyone could be motivated and encouraged to come to St Petersburg with a view to really moving on this there would be movement on this at WTO.

Q: Is the European Union position the real difficulty?

A: I don’t know. One of the problems you have we say Europe and America must move on agricultural issues. And then sometimes you get a response from Europeans saying we will move when the Americans move. And the Americans say we will move when the Europeans move. Even before you get to other matters of agricultural producing countries will move when you the developed world moves. It’s a matter of coming to some agreement. This is where we want to get to even if A moves first how sure are we that B will move. If u could generate a level of confidence between all these players it would help the Doha process.

Q: Are you sympathetic to Iran’s nuclear ambitions?

A: The Iranians have always insisted that they have no interest in nuclear weapons and that their sole and exclusive interest is the development of technology for peaceful purposes.

We have said it would be very useful if the people who make this assertion that Iran’s intention is about nuclear weapons if there were some bit of evidence which says that; ‘We say we believe these are their intentions are producing weapons because this is what they are doing.’

This information is hard to come by. So in the end it boils down to a suspicion based on earlier years when indeed Iran had run a secret nuclear programme. The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – Elbaradei says they have been co-operating with regards to oversight functions, inspections since 1993. So we accept that in years before that they hide the programme. Since then they have co-operated.

Currently there are some questions they have not answered and we always push them to say you must answer all these outstanding questions that the IAEA has posed. We also say to the Iranians for better or for worse there are these suspicions. So the matter that has been raised about confidence building measures is correct. Even if you say suspicions have no foundation the fact of the matter is that they exist. You have to address matters of confidence building measures but it is also necessary to respect international treaties.

By treaty Iran is entitled to enrich uranium under supervision by the IAEA, you can’t arbitrarily take away that right on the basis that I have suspicions I can’t prove.

We have been insisting that we should really strive as hard as we can to have all of these matters sorted out within the Atomic Energy Agency. This was not out of disrespect of Security Council of the United Nations (UN) but to avoid a confrontation that could escalate out of hand that this part of the world is already so volatile. You don’t want to start another flame somewhere.

The problem is once the matter has been taken to the Security Council, the council issues a presidential statement that the following needs to be done by Iran and they don’t do it. It puts the obligation on the Security Council to take another step up. So you could have confrontation that escalates like that, which is not going to help. It won’t solve Iran and won’t dampen the flames in the Middle East.

Let’s find a solution in the context of the IAEA. Therefore our own intervention with the Iranians has been there is a range of questions that you have not answered and these questions need to be answered. Of course, the Iranians say confidence-building measures were agreed and the Europeans said in exchange they would offer us whatever. But when they came back the Europeans all they said was terminate all work on these nuclear issues even work that Iran is entitled to engage in as a member of the treaty under supervision of the Atomic Energy Agency. That’s Iran’s argument.

We are worried, very worried about this. At one stage last year to try to get round this issue of confidence, respecting treaty obligations and the rights and the concerns of western countries needing to be addressed we said we would offer to supply Iran with the so called yellow cake under Atomic Energy Agency supervision.

The scientists would know that if you have a tonne of yellow cake and you put it into these things to turn it into these gases which is the first stage leading to enrichment and would know what volumes you would get. We would take these gasses back to South Africa so that there would be no gases to enrich. Then everybody would be reassured that nothing has leaked under that processing that could be enriched in secret. But western countries did not agree. They said no. They said we are thinking about something else. Well, I don’t know where the Iranians found the yellow cake but they have gone ahead and produced the gases and enriched them. But it’s a matter of very serious concern. We don’t believe that a route that leads to heightened confrontation is the correct route.

Q: Is China’s interest in Africa’s resources an opportunity or a threat?

A: I’m very glad that China is paying the amount of attention it is paying to Africa continent. The Chinese took the initiative a few years back to establish a China/Africa forum. That body is meeting later this year in November or thereabouts. President Hu Jintao spoke to me and said you must come. So I’ll be going there. It’s a fortunate thing that the China/Africa forum exists. It gives a possibility to African continent and China to discuss and define the nature of the relationship because you see there is this global problem that the Europeans have been trying to deal with clothing and textiles and shoes which impacts on everybody. The fact of the matter is that Chinese production the lower costs of production would also present the Africa continent with the challenge of small, weak industrial base on African continent having to face cheaper goods coming from China to the African continent. I’m saying what do we do about that? The forum provides a forum for that.

It’s clear that the Chinese will invest on Africa continent in all sorts of ways. In the first instance in raw materials, energy and other things. And that will constitute development for the African continent. It’s clear also they are making capital and expertise available for general infrastructure development. In that situation, it becomes possible to say that this co-operation results in our development and that is correct. But I’m saying there would be other elements to that economic co-operation that might have obverse result. I’m hoping that in China/Africa forum that it would be possible to say that we welcome China’s involvement and interest in Africa but is there a way that we can together say that these are outcomes the co-operation must produce.

Q: Could you envisage Chinese companies buying South African ones? Would that raise strategic concerns for South Africa?

A: We actually have very good relations with China at government level and in instances where a matter of that kind (a foreign takeover of a South African company) would arise I’m absolutely certain that the two governments would engage. I suspect that in the event that the South African government would say to Chinese we do not believe this kind of action with regard to South Africa is in our interest and it can only spoil relations, I’m quite certain the Chinese would respond positively to that.

I am sure that they (the Chinese) would be in interested in South African companies. But I’m saying that in event of some (M&A) action to translate that interest into something else I’m sure engagement between us and the Chinese would produce sorts of results with which we would be comfortable.

Q: What is your latest thinking about Zimbabwe? We detect a change in mood in South African approach.

A: I’m sure you are aware that Secretary-General of UN Kofi Annan has been talking to Zimbabwe and intends visiting Zimbabwe in July, August. Kofi Annan was in South Africa earlier this year he told me about this and we agreed. We are all awaiting outcome of his intervention. The Zimbabweans have agreed to receive him and engage in the preparatory process to his visit. We all await the outcome of the intervention of the secretary general of UN with regard to Zimbabwe.

Q: What form might the intervention take?

A: What Annan is interested in is that the circumstances must be created for Zimbabweans to address real problems that they face; falling standard of living of the people and so on. That something must be done. You have to do something to turn around the economy. You have to do the other thing that is necessary to make the climate for that and you need to normalise relations between Zimbabwe and the rest of world. So his interaction with the Zimbabwean government would be intended for those sort of outcomes including indicating what sort of assistance the UN would give.

Q: You’ve had a difficult time with your former Deputy President, Jacob Zuma, facing rape and corruption charges. Are you in a no-win situation?

A: The matter is quite simple. He is the Deputy President of the ANC. When he was charged with rape both the national executive of the ANC and he himself felt he would have to step aside as the case was heard. He approached the leadership to say I can’t carry out functions as Deputy President of ANC.

Of course, he gets acquitted. Then he wrote back saying I’ve been acquitted and can I come back to resume my duties. We met and indeed said this is a matter that you decide under the constitution of the ANC and under that, of course, he has to come back.

It’s not a matter about individual wishes or whatever. It’s not a particular burden on the president of ANC.

In 1997, the ANC expelled one of its members. He was a Deputy Minister at the time. And it had to do it very correctly respecting the rules and regulations. In contesting General Holomisa, the matter when to court. He took us to court on basis of administrative law violations. So the matter was judged by the courts, which said the ANC had handled it correctly.

Q: Was it a political plot to try to get rid of Zuma?

A: We all accepted including him that charges had been laid against him with regards to the rape matter and that all of us should respect judicial process and the outcome.

Q: What about the corruption case?

A: The same things would happen in regard to corruption case. The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) will not go to court to realise some conspiratorial objective. They must go to court and represent evidence before a judge and the judge must make a determination whether this is evidence sufficient to secure a conviction. I’m quite sure that in case of corruption case all of us will say the same thing. Let the judicial process take its course.

Q: Has your relationship with Tony Blair recovered from the Abuja period?

A: We’ve always been very good friends with the British Prime Minister. We might differ about some things. We do differ about some things. But the relationship has never ever been strained. We differ but it doesn’t result in turning into one another’s enemies.

Issued by: The Presidency
24 May 2006