SA has second most diplomatic missions

[LazyLion]

South Africa hosts the second largest number of diplomatic missions after the US, President Jacob Zuma said on Wednesday.

"Since 1994, our international relations and diplomatic missions have increased to include countries which South Africa had no relations with before," Zuma said at a ceremony to welcome ambassadors.

"We are the second largest home for diplomatic missions after Washington."

Zuma welcomed new ambassadors from Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Swaziland, Serbia, and Malaysia.

By 2012, diplomatic missions in South Africa had increased to 350.

The country had foreign missions in 34 countries in 1994.

He said the general elections, held last week, had consolidated the country's democracy.

"The successful elections have confirmed how effective the country's democratic institutions, such as the Electoral Commission of SA, are."

Zuma encouraged the ambassadors to visit the country's nine provinces before the end of their terms.

The ambassadors congratulated Zuma on the successful elections.


Source : Sapa /gm/jk/th/jje
Date : 14 May 2014 11:26

 

[Polish]

Not sure how that helps the man on the street.

 

[Sean008]

Not sure how that helps the man on the street.

True that. Still tedious and somewhat expensive to get visa's to some country's. Feck it, why visa's in the first instance. Also, doesn't appear to have helped our foreign trade with all those country's.

 

[Creag]

Do these diplomatic missions pay rates and taxes, or do we host them for peanuts? Also, why do we need so many? It isn't like we are the biggest economy in the world of continent.

 

[JStrike]

Do these diplomatic missions pay rates and taxes, or do we host them for peanuts? Also, why do we need so many? It isn't like we are the biggest economy in the world of continent.

It is because we are by far the wealthiest country in Africa, and are thus quite important to other countries in terms of their African investment strategies

 

[bwana]

It is because we are by far the wealthiest country in Africa, and are thus quite important to other countries in terms of their African investment strategies

By what measure?

EDIT: Nigeria's GDP now blows SA's out of the water. In terms of GDP per capita SA is lying in fifth position.

 

[JStrike]

By what measure?

EDIT: Nigeria's GDP now blows SA's out of the water. In terms of GDP per capita SA is lying in fifth position.

What you want to be looking at is GNI per capita or GDP per capita. If you look at GDP alone, you end up mistakenly thinking that India is a richer country than Switzerland.
I did leave out Mauritius, Botswana, et all (Who are richer than us) due to specialised economies, which make them unattractive as staging countries for African investment

 

[nightjar]

Not sure how that helps the man on the street.

It was never intended to help the man (stupid voter) on the street.

A diplomatic posting or a parliamentary position or a ministerial post are only intended to reward loyal comrades for their silence or connivance in past and/or future corruption.

Quite apart from the inflated salary and perks there is unlimited opportunity for the favoured comrade to skim off personal benefits out of the various Government funds under his/her control.

 

[JStrike]

It was never intended to help the man (stupid voter) on the street.

A diplomatic posting or a parliamentary position or a ministerial post are only intended to reward loyal comrades for their silence or connivance in past and/or future corruption.

Quite apart from the inflated salary and perks there is unlimited opportunity for the favoured comrade to skim off personal benefits out of the various Government funds under his/her control.

Your little rant seems to be quite confused. Often happens to those that blindly hate.
The article is referring to other countries that have embassies in SA, not the other way around.

But I'm sure you'll find a way to moan about corruption either way

 

[Paul Hjul]

This is actually an area where SA is doing quite well from the government side

We don't have the second most diplomatic missions at our cost - we are quite down on that list. Under the Zumastration our representative count hasn't increased (or increased much) but I would argue that the calibre of representation is down - the post of Ambassador to the United States for example and the discharge of seasoned politicians (Tony Leon) etc ... On the whole our diplomatic service is quite cheap and I wouldn't be surprised in the cabinet expenditure exceeds our entire diplomatic service.

What we have is a lot of missions to South Africa and a major concentration of missions in Pretoria (the suburb of Arcadia in particular) and this means that Pretoria has an industry built around international relations. It is important to note that these are missions rather than consulates so it isn't a trade boosting thing (although many of the missions have consular functioning as well). These missions don't pay taxes as a rule although IIRC most missions do in fact gladly pay various "service" charges to the TMM and regardless the loss is a tax that wouldn't be payable in any event (no mission premises nothing to tax) - in the main diplomatic relations tends to adhere quite well to a user pay approach with as much subsistence as possible - but they do employee South Africans and they do bring in foreigners who spend sizable amounts of money in this country (its like having permanent tourists - some of them really are leeching off their own populace as corrupt bastards but the money being spent here is for this country)

Having a large diplomatic corps stationed at Pretoria makes it a centre for back channel ad hoc diplomacy - don't be surprised if Ukraine isn't being shuffled about in Pretoria and London - it also has a mutually beneficial relationship with UNISA (a mega university with students all over the world) and several other institutions. It gives Pretoria a bit more culture than agriculture.

If the Pan-African Parliament is taken out of SA (more when than if) a damper may take place but Florence, Venice and Milan (where SA still have a mission) preserved diplomatic missions even with the removal of core reasons for the missions and these things have an element of critical mass. The fact that Pretoria can be used for missions in all of Southern Africa is a big driving point.

There are also opportunities to catalyse things a bit more, London for example has a small but distinct civil law profession that originates around the diplomatic core - it costs the UK nothing and gains them taxes from professional fees. A diplomatic centre boasts an accommodation and hospitality industry to support it as well. Washington DC is a media hub and home to hundreds of think tanks (there is a very funny libertarian paradox about DC actually) beyond the federal government.

 

[nightjar]

Your little rant seems to be quite confused. Often happens to those that blindly hate.
The article is referring to other countries that have embassies in SA, not the other way around.

But I'm sure you'll find a way to moan about corruption either way

Thanks.
I misread the end products.

 

[Mortymoose]

A diplomatic posting or a parliamentary position or a ministerial post are only intended to reward loyal comrades for their silence or connivance in past and/or future corruption.

Agree with the above statement......... I also would love to know how much the bill is per year for operating all these Missions.

I also would have thought that the UK would have a damn site more missions, considering their commonwealth and colonies....

 

[Midnight_choir_drunk]

By what measure?

EDIT: Nigeria's GDP now blows SA's out of the water. In terms of GDP per capita SA is lying in fifth position.

When you balance DGP per capita and overall GDP together then no one in Africa touches South Africa.

 

[Grant]

or do we host them for peanuts?

they pay for themselves - except zimbabwe
we have to pay all expenses - as does every other country that is unfortunate enough to "host" a zimbabwean embassy.


every single expense, from property rentals, cell phone accounts, cars drivers, petrol, food, entertainment etc etc etc has to be paid for by host nations on behalf of mugabe - who does not pay for a thing - except his own lavish lifestyle

 

[Paul Hjul]

Agree with the above statement......... I also would love to know how much the bill is per year for operating all these Missions.

I also would have thought that the UK would have a damn site more missions, considering their commonwealth and colonies....

The United Kingdom has more diplomatic missions that it has sent than SA by miles, there are however fewer diplomatic missions to London now than to Pretoria because several missions for the UK are based in Paris or Brussels. I suspect that London and Rome both have a significant number of people working in diplomatic services despite the fewer number of missions (so while there are more missions to Pretoria they are smaller missions). Both DC and Pretoria benefit from distance on this subject - a country can put their diplomatic missions for Europe in one of a dozen natural choices, but DC is natural site for all of North America with Ottawa and New York (UN mission) being served from DC. Similarly a mission in Pretoria serves all of Southern Africa in many instances and there are no natural competitors outside SA for that job. You can't just climb in your car in Canberra and drive to Johannesburg. Speaking of Canberra, Australia has a lot of diplomatic missions resident in the country compared to its population and size as well.

I also suspect that London and Paris have a bit of a split with Francophone countries (particularly African countries) showing their fealty to France and Commonwealth countries having High Commissioners in London and ambassadors to Brussels having responsibility for France.