UK Secretary of State for International Development Justine Greening in a speech today:
“South Africa has made enormous progress over the past two decades, to the extent that it is now the region’s economic powerhouse and Britain’s biggest trading partner in Africa. We are proud of the work the UK has done in partnership with the South African government, helping the country’s transition from apartheid to a flourishing, growing democracy.
“I have agreed with my South African counterparts that South Africa is now in a position to fund its own development. It is right that our relationship changes to one of mutual co-operation and trade, one that is focused on delivering benefits for the people of Britain and South Africa as well as for Africa as a whole.”
Media release from South African Department for International Relations and Cooperation, a few hours later:
UK unilateral decision to terminate Official Development Aid to SA
The South African government has noted with regret the unilateral announcement by the government of the United Kingdom regarding the termination of the Official Development Aid to South Africa as from the year 2015.
This is such a major decision with far reaching implications on the projects that are currently running and it is tantamount to redefining our relationship.
Ordinarily, the UK government should have informed the government of South Africa through official diplomatic channels of their intentions and allowed for proper consultations to take place, and the modalities of the announcement agreed on. We have a SA/UK Bilateral Forum which is scheduled for some time this year and the review of the SA/UK strategy which includes the ODA, would take place there and decisions about how to move forward were expected to be discussed in that forum.
This unilateral announcement no doubt will affect how our bilateral relations going forward will be conducted.
What the hell happened?
Update: the Guardian has this from a DFID press officer:
Today’s announcement comes after months of discussions with the South African government. DfID ministers and senior officials have met with the South African government on many occasions to discuss our decision.
An observation: this looks like a retreat from the original wording of Greening’s speech: calling it “our decision” sounds rather different (read: unilateral) from Greening’s argument that she and her South African counterparts had “agreed” that SA was now in a position to fund its own development.
Update 2: Foreign Secretary William Hague has now entered the fray, intoning magisterially that “I am not going to fling accusations” while making clear – in the same sentence, no less – that the whole kerfuffle is the result of “bureaucratic confusion, perhaps on the South African side”. But here’s the key quote:
“We don’t continue to give aid to countries that are raising their incomes, that have growing economies.”
Surely this bold new doctrine rules out most – or possibly even all – of the countries that DFID spends money on? I love policy made up on the hoof. It’s always such fun.
One of the most significant developments at Copenhagen was the emergence of the BASIC coalition – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – which negotiated the final details of the Copenhagen Accord with the United States.
My understanding is that BASIC was formed at China’s instigation. China agreed a Memorandum of Understanding with India in October 2009, committing the two countries to working closely together at Copenhagen. It then invited Brazil and South Africa to join the party, at a meeting in Beijing a week before Copenhagen started. Sudan was also invited to represent the G77.
According to Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister, the four countries decided that they’d walk out of Copenhagen together if necessary:
We will not exit in isolation. We will co-ordinate our exit if any of our non-negotiable terms is violated. Our entry and exit will be collective.
During Copenhagen, China worked extremely closely with India, with the two delegations meeting up to six times a day. It also engaged intensively with the other members of BASIC. In the final meeting with the Americans, China agreed to accept a limited international monitoring of its targets (India claims to have pushed China on this point).
The decision was also taken to drop language, setting a deadline for turning the Copenhagen Accord into a legally binding agreement. South Africa and Brazil both appear to have been unhappy with this decision.
Since Copenhagen, the BASIC countries have met once and have agreed to continue to get together on a regular basis. They want the Copenhagen Accord to set the stage for a ‘twin track’ agreement – with tough and binding targets for developed countries through Kyoto #2 and voluntary commitments for themselves under a new agreement.
No-one really knows how the US would fit into this picture. It is also increasingly clear that they and the US left Copenhagen with quite different impressions of what will happen next. The US believes that large emerging economies now have “very explicit activities and obligations”. I don’t think they believe they are committed to anything significant, beyond what they agreed at Bali or put on the table on a voluntary basis before Copenhagen started. (more…)
Manslaughter: The unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought (Oxford English Dictionary).
Some commentators think Thabo Mbeki’s decision not to provide antiretroviral drugs to South Africans suffering from AIDS (even while neighbouring Botswana and Namibia were using them to save thousands of lives) was genocidal. The policy, according to a new study by researchers at Harvard, caused over 365,000 premature deaths among adults and infants – about half the number who died in the Rwandan genocide, and many more than died in Bosnia.
Genocide is the “deliberate extermination of a national, racial, political or cultural group.” Mbeki’s stubbornness mostly killed black South Africans (a racial group), but proving he deliberately exterminated them would be tough. Proving mass manslaughter, on the other hand, should be a slam dunk.
The Treatment Action Campaign dropped a 2003 manslaughter case that charged the health minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang with “unlawfully and negligently [causing] the deaths of men and women and children.” Despite the fresh evidence of the death toll caused by Mbeki and his henchwoman, however, the new spirit of co-operation between activists and the government means old wounds are unlikely to be reopened. I asked one of those activists what the families of those who died unnecessarily would think about letting Mbeki and his health minister off the hook: “Most of those relatives,” she replied, “don’t think someone else is responsible. Because of stigma and discrimination, they mostly blame the person who died.”