The SADC leaders meeting in Malawi will be another ocassion of
useless hand wringing about the turmoil in Zimbabwe and will further damage the image of
the region as a possible destination for international investment.
- The heads of state meeting of the fourteen nation Southern African Development Community
(SADC) organisation, officially beginning in Blantyer, Malawi, on Monday, should not be
expected to deliver anything by way of condemnation of Mugabe or the ZANU-PF. Agenda
points for the day cover the DRC and Angolan conflicts, and work to be done in creating
the African Union. While the west would like to see SADC putting pressure on Mugabe for at
least a credible election in March, SADC will be looking for ways of raising the $5m
necessary for the DRC talks scheduled to take place in SA in a few days time. Perhaps the
USA and the EU will attempt to link sponsorship of the talks with some outputly visable
pressure on Mugabe. Meanwhile, a new thread of logic, flawed as it might be, seems to be
creeping through SADC rhetoric concerning Zimbabwe - how can SADC members act against
power-holders in Zimbabwe if nobody there has asked them to do so?
|
- SADC seems to believe that African leaders can still act
irresponsibly as during the cold war period when such actions did not result in any
painful consequences. Now the world has changed with China being a relatively weak donor
in competition with the western dominated advanced economies. SADC will suffer if Zimbabwe
is allowed to continue on its road of selfdestruction without any meaningful steps to slow
or reverse this process. Quite frankly, the outcome of the past year was foreshadowed by
the events of early 2000 and SADC's current problems are largely the result of its
inaction of the past two years. The region will continue to suffer a dearth of foreign
investment for years to come.
- President Mbeki's approach so far has been embarassing in
light of the idealistic vision that he has for Africa. The policies of his and his fellow
SADC leaders ignore the principle of good governance and so on enunciated by him in his
African initiative. The president seems reluctant to admit that because of his soft stance
on Zimbabwe he has lost considerable moral authority, especially in the major economic
powers of the world.
|
|
