The regional grouping designed to spearhead Africa’s transformation is now playing catch up to the continental organisation.
Leaders of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) gather in Dar es Salaam this weekend to pull the choke on its reforms.
The SADC developed from the anti-apartheid grouping of frontline states to become the most promising regional grouping in Africa. With South Africa converted from enemy at the gate to powerhouse inside the castle, the SADC was expected to drive South-South initiatives for Africa.
To this end it forged links with other groupings, such as Mercosur in South America and the Association of South East African Nations. The results have been disappointing.
Instead of being the leader as was once projected, the SADC is struggling even to be a meaningful building block of the African Union.
The main reason is that the SADC bit off more than it could chew by taking aboard the giant, deeply troubled Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
The argument for this potentially suicidal step was that it was a necessary show of faith and solidarity with a potential continental leader. Analysts warned at the time that it was akin to the European Union taking in Russia: the long-term benefits are hugely outweighed by the short-term costs.
The DRC’s SADC membership was the pretext for Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe becoming embroiled in that country’s war, which at its height pulled in seven African countries.
As leader of the SADC security committee, Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe held himself above the central organisation.
The bitter clash this caused between him and Nelson Mandela, who held the SADC presidency at that time, dominated the 1998 Non-Aligned Movement summit in Durban and deeply undermined SADC’s international credibility.
Thabo Mbeki, then vice-president, used his close relationship with Mugabe to smooth things over. At the helm, however, Mbeki has preferred to project South Africa at a continental level. His brainchild, eventually known as the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, was driven unswervingly to become the developmental platform for the AU.
This has caused resentment among SADC members, ever sensitive to the ”giantism” of their former foe. South Africa has always been accused of running a two-tier SADC by giving preference to its Southern African Customs Union (SACU) partners —Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and Namibia.
The SADC’s cause has not been helped by South Africa going it alone in negotiating a market access agreement with the EU. It has taken only SACU members into current negotiations for free-trade agreements with the United States and the European Free Trade Association (Efta).
In reality, South Africa could simply not have sold the unruly SADC as a negotiating partner.
The organisation got a warning shot from cash-strapped Seychelles last month. Stating that it was not getting value for its $250 000 annual subscription, Seychelles quit the SADC as part of its rationalisation plan that will also see it close its embassies in Pretoria and London.
The immediate damage is more symbolic than practical because the Seychelles was already in default of payment. Nevertheless, the fact that a poor state should see the SADC as a burden rather than a potential salvation should concentrate the minds of the remaining 13 leaders in the Tanzanian capital this weekend.
The Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan that tops the SADC agenda is a mouthful. But what really speaks volumes is that the reform plans still in the discussion phase predate the AU transformation that has been up and running for more than a year.
Foreign ministers met in Gaborone last weekend to develop for the summit an acceptable draft of a five-year blueprint for the grouping.
The process from option to adoption means another year of paralysis. A reformed SADC would have key responsibilities handled by clusters of countries rather than each member being given an individual portfolio.
This would give the more successful and functional members a greater spread of influence and control. The argument against the smaller countries, which fear and resent this, is that the old system simply did not work.
The members — Angola, Botswana, DRC, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe — will be presented with a mutual defence pact for signature.
This is key for Mbeki, who has become the driver of the continental peace and security council that still awaits ratification.
On security, Swaziland is the only member categorised as ”highly politically unstable”. Members will also discuss developments in the DRC and Angola. HIV/Aids will feature prominently, as will the famine affecting seven of the member countries and no fewer than 15,5-million people in the region.
Zimbabwe will escape critical scrutiny — as it did at the AU summit this year — leaving observers asking, ”What’s it all about?”