The Southern African Development Community (SADC) SADC is a regional organization[1] that was created in 1992 to replace the erstwhile Southern African Development Coordination Conference (SADCC). SADCC had been created by a number of Southern African countries known as the Frontline States, the raison d'être of which was an abjuration of South African apartheid policies.[2] It is also believed that SADCC was formed to specifically counter the strategy of President P. Botha to create a Constellation of Southern African States (CONSAS).[3] The members of SADC include a variety of middle income and least developed countries (LDCs).[4] South Africa is the largest and dominant member state and its involvement in the group is critical.[5] SADC is undergoing important institutional changes. Its relations with other international actors are also unfolding. The organization is equally adapting to some of the changes. Although there are many developments that have marked the organization in recent years, this essay dwells of one of them: the ongoing negotiations of an Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) between a group of SADC member states on the one hand, and the European Community (EC) on the other. The negotiations are indicative of a number of issues that are likely to significantly affect SADC as a single active entity. The main problems include the lack of money; the possibility that SADC could split; the apparent and intermittent signs indicative of an absence of real interest in the negotiation process by the EC negotiators; frequency in the changes of SADC lead negotiators and certain institutional concerns. SADC covers an area of about 9,859,000 km sq. It has a population of 230 million people, the majority of whom are rural. SADC's combined GDP is US$ 230 billion.[6] Based in Gaborone (capital of Botswana) SADC's main vision is that of "[A] common future within a regional community that will ensure economic well-being, improvement of the standards of living and quality of life, freedom and social justice and peace and security for the peoples of Southern Africa."[7] The main principles of SADC are enumerated in the Treaty of Windhoek that sanctioned the birth of the organization. Amongst these are respect for equality, solidarity, democracy, equity and peaceful settlement of disputes.[8] The objectives of SADC are legion and ambitious. They include the promotion of sustainable development; the attainment of complementarity between national and regional strategies and programmes; the fight against HIV/AIDS and other deadly communicable diseases; and poverty eradication.[9] Strides have been made in reaching some of the set objectives. However, challenges abound which highlight the point that regional integration is not only about making treaty pledges but also arriving at clear results.[10] SADC has experienced many challenges not least of which is the recent overhaul of its structures and it still has to overcome many hurdles to reach its goals.[11] One of such hurdles is the lack of sufficient funds.[12] In order to overcome its myriad of challenges SADC designed a Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (RISDP) in 2003. Alongside with the Strategic Indicative Plan for the Organ (SIPO) the RISDP epitomizes the path SADC will take for a fifteen year period.[13] As outlined in the RISDP SADC hopes to become a free trade area (FTA) in 2008 and a customs union in 2012. A common market and an economic union are also envisaged. SADC's legal status is that of an international organization which has the legal capacity and power "[T]o enter into contract, acquire, own, dispose of movable or immovable property and to sue and be sued."[14] As an international organization it has conventional organs such as the Summit of Heads of State or Government; the Organ on Politics, Defense and Security Cooperation; the Council of Ministers; the Integrated Committee of Ministers; the Standing Committee of Officials; the Secretariat; the Tribunal; and SADC National Committees.[15] The main policy making organ is the Summit of Heads of State and Government.[16] The policies are implemented through decisions adopted by the Council of Ministers.[17] The implementation of the RISDP is the preserve of the Integrated Committee of Ministers.[18] While the institutions are broadly guided by the Windhoek Treaty, there are 22 protocols to the Treaty[19] and others are under preparation.[20] Until 2001, the areas covered by the protocols were under the aegis of specific countries. In other words, SADC member states had the competence to oversee given areas of cooperation. They hosted sector coordinating units (SCUs) of the various areas of cooperation. In 2001, the structural reform of the institution started in earnest. All the SCUs have been swamped into five directorates housed at the SADC Secretariat in Gaborone.[21] SADC has also issued vital declarations and memoranda in key areas of cooperation.[22] The institution is undergoing many changes and witnessing a number of developments that could determine the form that the organization will take for decades to come. The internal institutional changes and its responses to the political situation in Zimbabwe are some of the salient elements with potential patent fallout for the region. Yet what stands out as a critical development that could effectively make or mar positive prospects in the region is the negotiation of the EPA between the EC and a select group of SADC countries. What makes EPA negotiations very peculiar is the fact that they can still be directed in a manner that does not hamstring the regional integration agenda of the region. Recent Development: SADC’s Suspension of Madagascar SADC as an organization has often been reticent on the question of using sanctions and suspension to discipline its member states. The organization has specifically rejected calls to use such measures in addressing the problems that have been associated with Zimbabwe. However the actions taken as response to the constitutional conundrum in Madagascar is a first step in sealing a potentially new approach of not condoning unconstitutional takeovers. This approach falls on all fours with the wording of SADC’s Treaty. Article 5(1)(3) of the Treaty of SADC or the Windhoek Declaration states that one of the goals of the organization shall be to consolidate, defend and maintain democracy in members states.7 Since the commencement of the crisis in Madagascar in early 2009 SADC leaders sent a clear message that the proclivity towards illicit takeovers would be frowned upon. It is not difficult to understand this trend in a region marked by the advent of democratically elected leaders including Ian Khama of Botswana, Rupiah Banda of Zambia, Armando Guebuza of Mozambique, Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania, Jacob Zuma of South Africa, amongst others. So the position of SADC seems to be that of showing the world that the region is composed of a battery of democracies that has respect for the rule of law. Little wonder that as late as August 2009 SADC leaders were adamant and decided that the sanctions and suspension of the country will continue until the Madagascar returns to normalcy.8 But in a typical SADC fashion, the path of negotiations has been left open. Since acting President Rajoelina took the decision to unseat his predecessor, SADC leaders have not only relied on the strict legal or constitutional approach to address in problem. For instance, on 30 April 2010, the former president of Mozambique and SADC’s mediator Joaqim Chissano convened a meeting for Madagascar. It was facilitated by President Jacob Zuma of South Africa. In attendance were the four main political leaders of the country including Andry Rajoelina, Marc Ravalomanana, Albert Zafy and Didier Ratsiraka. SADC’s executive secretary Augusto Salomao and AU Commission president Jean Ping were also present. The goal of the meeting was to allow the leaders to forge a common political solution to the stalemate in the country. They agreed to immediately create an inclusive and consensual transitional government.9 The leaders all highlighted the need to start a process of national reconciliation.10 Following extensive consultations, they agreed that the Maputo Agreement11 and the Addis Additional acts were vital and should be respected.12 SADC leaders have also taken steps to increase the effectiveness of the regional body in Madagascar. For instance in August 2009 they decided to create a SADC liaison office in Madagascar in order to support the dialogue process in the country. ***** Stephen Kingah October 2010 1 Remy Carayol, Duel d’Hommes d’Affaires à Madagascar, Le Monde Diplomatique, Mar. 10, 2009. 2 Thulani Mthethwa, SADC Suspends Madagascar, Mail and Guardian Online, (Mar. 31 2009,) available at http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-03-31-madagascars-neighbours-mull-sanctions. 3 BBC News, African Body Suspends Madagascar, BBC World Service, (Mar. 31 2009); SADC Summit, Communiqué of the 29th Summit of SADC Heads of State and Government (Sept. 7-8, 2009) available at http://www.sadc.int/index/browse/page/599. 4 Peace and Security Council, Communiqué, 216th meeting (Feb. 19,2010), Addis Ababa, PSC/PR/COMM.1(CCXVI), at para. 8. 5 Jean Ping, Une ambition pour le continent: l’Union Africane en Marche, Le Monde Diplomatique 1 (Mar. 2009). 6 Council of the European Union, Council Decision Concerning the Conclusion of Consultations with the Republic of Madagascar Under Article 96 of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement, RELEX 415, Brussels (May 28, 2010). 7 Consolidated Text of the Treaty of the Southern African Development Community, August 2001, available at http://www.sadc.int/index/browse/page/120. 8 SADC Summit Communiqué, Southern Africa: Communiqué of the 30th Jubilee Summit of SADC Heads of State and Government (20 August 2009). 9 SADC Leaders, Pretoria Communiqué on the Madagascar Mediation Initiative, available at http://www.sadc.int/index/browse/page/742 10 Id., at para 9. 11 Partners of the agreement make up a joint mediation team. The joint mediation team is composed of the UN, SADC, le Francophonie and the AU. The main points included the following: The political agreement in Maputo; the Charter of the Transition; the Charter of values to promote a spirit of non-violence, tolerance, forgiveness, reconciliation and mutual respect; an agreement on the cancellation of convictions related to the events of 2002 in Madagascar; an agreement on the case of President Ravalomanana and an agreement on the cancellation of the convictions against political, civil and military figures under Ravalomanana. 12 SADC Leaders supra note 11 at para 7. INTRO FOOTNOTES 1 The term regional organization is used here to refer to an international inter-governmental organization made up of a close knit group of states held together by geographic proximity as well as shared goals. See Jean Salmon, Organisation régionale, DICTIONAIRES DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC, (2001) at 793. 2 ASSOCIATION OF WEST EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARIANS FOR ACTION AGAINST APARTHEID (AWEPAA), THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND SOUTHERN AFRICA: LOOKING TOWARDS LOMÉ IV 1 (1989). 3 GABRIEL H. OOSTHUIZEN, THE SOUTHERN AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY: THE ORGANIZATION, ITS POLICIES AND PROSPECTS 60 (2006). 4 Members include Angola, Botswana, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. 5 SANUSHA NAIDU & BENJAMIN ROBERTS, CONFRONTING THE REGION: A PROFILE OF SOUTHERN AFRICA 41 (2004). 6 SADC, SADC ANNUAL REPORT, 2004/2005, 10 (2005). available at http://www.sadc.int 7 Id. at 13. 8 Consolidated Text of the Treaty of the Southern African Development Community as Amended in August 2001, Art. 4. at http://www.sadc.int/key_documents/treaties/sadc_treaty_amended.php. (accessed on August 31, 2007). 9 Id., Art. 5. 10 WALTER MATTLI, THE LOGIC OF REGIONAL INTEGRATION 12 (1999); Margaret Lee, Regionalism in Africa: A Part of Problem or a Part of Solution, POLIS/R.C.S.P/ C.P.S.R Vol. IX (2002); Phineas Kadenge, Regionalism: Lessons the SADC can Learn From the EU, in SADC-EU TRADE RELATIONS 57, 53-58 (Trudi Hartzenberg ed., 2000). 11 Elizabeth Sidiropoulos, SADC and the EU: A Brief Overview, in SADC-EU RELATIONS: LOOKING BACK AND MOVING AHEAD 22, 7-23 (2002). 12 THE SOUTHERN AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, REPORT OF THE REVIEW OF OPERATIONS OF SADC INSTITUTIONS: TOWARDS A COMMON FUTURE 5 (March, 2001).
13
RISDP, at http://www.sadc.int/content/english/ 14 SADC Treaty, supra note 8, Art. 3(1). 15 Id., Art. 9(1). The Troika system was introduced in the 2001 Amendment of the SADC Treaty: Art. 9A. 16 Id., Art. 10(2). 17 Id., Art. 11(2)(b). 18 Id., Art. 12(2). 19 See http://www.sadc.int/key_documents/protocols/index.php. Examples include the Protocol on Trade (August 24, 1996) and Protocol on Health (August 18, 1999). For a more exhaustive list see SADC, MAJOR ACHIEVEMENTS AND CHALLENGES:25TH ANNIVERSARY 1980-2005 34-35 (2005). 20 For instance, Protocol on Sexually Transmitted Infections (expected to be adopted by the end of 2007) and a Draft Protocol on Piracy and Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights. See THE EUROPA WORLD YEAR BOOK, VOL. I, 362 (Joanne Maher ed., 2006) and THE EUROPA WORLD YEAR BOOK, VOL. I, 376 (Joanne Maher ed., 2007). 21 The five directorates include trade, industry, finance and investment; food, agriculture and natural resources; infrastructure and services; social and human development and special programmes; and politics, defense, and security. |
Click on a keyword below to browse reports that are related to the topic:
Accountability
Afghanistan Biketawa Declaration Climate change Data protection Democracy Development Dispute settlement Environmental protection European Union Geneva Conventions Human rights Immigration Internally displaced persons Kyoto Protocol Non-refoulement Occupation Piracy Refugees Rule of law Security Use of force 
 Are you interested in learning more about the International Organizations Interest Group? Visit our portal here. To see upcoming events related to international law, click here.
 The Reports on International Organizations (RIO) is a publication of the International Organizations Interest Group of the American Society of International Law (ASIL). The views expressed in the publication are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Interest Group, the ASIL, or the international organizations profiled. |
© 2010 American Society of International Law, 2223 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington DC 20008
www.asil.org