MISSION IMPOSSIBLE
The high cost of flying our flag
SHOWING OUR COLOURS: The SA flag is projected onto South Africa House in London’s Trafalgar Square, April 2004 SOUTH Africa may not have enough water, power or houses — but it has plenty of ambassadors, and spends R3.2-billion a year on the country’s diplomatic missions around the world.
In fact, DA shadow minister for international relations Stevens Mokgalapa, said: “South Africa has the highest number of embassies abroad after the US at 126 missions”.
According to a reply to a parliamentary question, salaries account for R1.9-billion, and R1.3-billion was spent on “goods and services”.
The Treasury is warning that the high cost of keeping 122 South African missions abroad is unsustainable.
It was concerned that South Africa was spending too much on salaries and “generous allowances” for diplomatic staff, — and that the location of the “most expensive missions” was “not aligned with trade relations or other economic interests”.
“Rapid spending growth is largely attributable to higher property costs and rising staff costs. While the costs of locally recruited staff are too high, costof-living allowances for South African staff are more generous than those offered by other countries,” the Treasury said in its 2015 budget review.
Independent commentator and former diplomat Tom Wheeler said: “Staff have to be compensated for higher living costs in their countries of accreditation . . . also for a rather higher standard of living than expected of them in Pretoria.” All of this, he said, was “part of the image projection”.
Official figures show the government owns 25 chanceries, one consulate, 35 official residences, 66 staff houses, and 16 plots of vacant land. South African foreign missions include high commissions, consulates, embassies and the offices of South African representatives to international bodies.
The most expensive — the permanent mission to the UN in Geneva, Switzerland — costs just under R100-million a year.
The least expensive — the embassy in Minsk, Belarus — cost R4.9-million last year.
Details of the missions were contained in a recent reply to a parliamentary question from DA MP David Maynier to the Department of International Relations and Co-operation.
On Friday, spokesman Clayson Monyela told the Sunday Times: “The budget for maintaining missions abroad has increased in nominal terms, but in real terms it has decreased due to negative foreign exchange fluctuation and inflation adjustment in the foreign countries.”
He said that in 2007-08 the department spent R2.1-billion maintaining 121 missions, but since then the rand had depreciated by 66.7%.
Monyela said the department had begun reviewing its head office organisational structure.
“We are determined to continue finding areas where we can trim the structure, save money and do more with less.”
But, he argued: “South Africa’s trade with the world has gone through the roof because of the work our missions do. Our country continues to attract [foreign direct investment], does well in tourism, and South African companies are expanding into the African continent and other markets because diplomats pave the way and build relations.”
Other countries, such as Nigeria, which, on paper, is now the largest economy in Africa, are cutting back on their diplomats.
There are additional costs, not set out in the parliamentary reply, for the maintenance and upkeep of South African offices and residences abroad.
According to the department’s 2014-15 strategic plan, it is spending a further R1.39-billion on refurbishing 22 foreign missions between now and the
LOFTY: The SA embassy in Washington, DC 2017-18 financial year.
Some of the projects have been under way for some time.
The DA’s Mokgalapa said: “The bottom line: there is a need to review our missions in order to save costs and make them relevant to economic diplomacy. Considering the current financial needs of higher education this money can also be redirected to fund the shortfall of the students fees.” THE reputation of South Africa’s diplomatic corps has been routinely sullied by a number of controversial ambassadors, seemingly appointed to office abroad as a reward, to evade scandals at home, or as political patronage.
The appointment last year of former chief of state protocol Bruce Koloane as ambassador to the Netherlands caused an outcry. It was Koloane who took the blame for the private plane, with wedding guests of the Gupta family, landing at Air Force Base Waterkloof.
This year it was found that South Africa’s ambassador to Japan, Mohau Pheko, had misrepresented her CV. She claimed to have a PhD, but on investigation it was found she never completed her studies.
Ebrahim Rasool, the former Western Cape premier and ANC provincial leader, was appointed ambassador to the US in 2010. Back home, he had been caught up in a cashfor-good-news scandal involving two journalists .
Political and hereditary royals also have their place in the diplomatic legion. Princess Zenani Dlamini, daughter of Nelson Mandela, was appointed ambassador to Argentina in 2013, replacing former DA leader Tony Leon.
The foreign service has also made a good political home for former members of the opposition. Former DA chief whip Douglas Gibson served as ambassador to Thailand.
While there are many excellent ambassadors, it seems the diplomatic corps is being used to house those that have damaged their reputations at home.