SADC and its Restructuring: briefing

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
19 October 1999
SOUTHERN AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND ITS RESTRUCTURING: BRIEFING

Documents distributed:
None

SUMMARY
Mr Horst Brammer addressed the committee on the restructuring of SADC with particular reference to the formation of the SADC Organ on Politics, Defence and Security, its structure and functions, and the controversial problems of the organ with regard to whether it was part of, and subordinate to SADC or, independent thereof. It became clear that there was a fundamental difference amongst the member states in their approach to conflict resolution. This was a serious obstacle for the organ, which in fact rendered it totally non-functional until recently. This problem hindered the attainment of regional integration on security and defence matters and the problem was compounded by the recent conflicts in West Africa for example the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. These conflicts reiterated the need for an integrated solution to security in the SADC region. They also seem to suggest, as stated by Mr Pallo Jordan from the ANC, that there is not in fact complete consensus as to what the underlying causes of the conflicts are, hence the differences in the suggested approaches to conflict resolution.

MINUTES
Mr Horst Brammer, the deputy director of SADC on political affairs, presented the briefing. He began by saying that when SADC was established in its present form in 1992, all the member states accepted the SADC Treaty which forms the legal and political foundation of the community. He said that the treaty made reference to political co-operation between member states and, amongst other things, identifies the following principles to which they commit themselves: peace and security, human rights, democracy and the rule of law and the peaceful settlement of disputes. This, he stated, came from Article 4 of the SADC Treaty. He noted that member states have also, in the treaty, committed themselves to evolve common political values, systems and institutions to promote and defend peace and stability and harmonise political policies.

He said that SADC resembled a typical regional organisation serviced by a variety of multi-lateral forums, but had certain favorable differences. He stated that the SADC Treaty, for example, identifies Ministers of Finance/ Economic Planning to constitute the Council of Ministers. However there was no forum in SADC in which the Ministers of Foreign Affairs from the member states could meet to discuss matters of regional concern particularly relating to regional co-operation and security.

In order to address this shortcoming, the summit established the SADC Organ on Politics, Defence and Security (the organ) in Gabarone in June 1996. In the communique released by the summit on 28 June 1996, a variety of detailed objectives were formulated addressing matters of regional security.

In terms of the institutional framework, the communique was rather vague. It merely stated that the organ would operate at the summit, ministerial and technical levels and independently of other SADC structures. Secondly the chairpersonship of the organ rotates on an annual and troika basis. Thirdly the inter-state Defence and Security Committee, which was the last remnant of the front-line state structures, shall be one of the institutions of the organ.

The Summit nominated Robert Mugabe as the first Chairperson of the organ. Flowing from this, from May to August 1997 Zimbabwe called 2 ministerial meetings to discuss ways and means of making the organ operational. For this purpose Zimbabwe prepared 3 documents for consideration:

Structures and operations of the organ.
Rules and Procedures of the organ
Protocol on politics, defence and security in the Southern African region.

Mr Brammer noted that members would be supplied with documents, which included the above-mentioned three documents as annexures. He however pointed out that since the documents included SADC documentation which was confidential, only members were entitled to copies and the media and others were excluded.

South Africa's Position on the Organ
1. The Organ should function at ministerial council level and report to the SADC summit through the head of state of the country chairing the organ, thus the Council of Ministers should be the real driving force of this very important matter of security.
2. The Council of Ministers should comprise of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Safety and Security, Defence and Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs should chair the Council.
3. The Council of Ministers should be advised by a plenary of officials and this plenary should be tasked to provide the documentation required to make the necessary recommendations to council, and that the Inter-State Defence and Security Committee, which is an institution of the organ in terms of the summit decision, should continue to operate at substructure level (at sub-committees on defence, public security and state security or police and intelligence).

However fundamental differences in the interpretation of the operational function of the organ soon became evident. As far as South Africa and Zimbabwe go, there was a fundamental difference on the whole concept of conflict resolution and management.

South Africa argued that according to Article 10.1 of the SADC treaty, the SADC Summit is the supreme policy-making institution of SADC, and therefore the organ is answerable to the summit. It argued that the intention of the SADC heads of state and government when stating in the Gabarone communique that the organ would operate independently of SADC structures,
was that the organ should not be an instrument serviced by the SADC secretariat and it should not be regarded as a SADC sector, but it should be an instrument of SADC.

Zimbabwe on the other hand created a separate organ summit in the paradigm of the frontline states principles. Despite several attempts to resolve this dilemma, the impasse remained.

Mr Brammer stated that at an extra-ordinary summit in Malawi in 1998, it was decided to task a committee of three - from Malawi, Mocambique and Namibia to explore ways to end the impasse. Their recommendations were to be submitted at the annual summit for consideration and in the meantime the organ was "suspended". In August 1998 the conflict in the DRC erupted. Four months later there was an escalation of hostilities in Angola which lead to the termination of the UN observer mission there. Whereas the UN had attempted to resolve the Angolan conflict, efforts in the DRC were essentially SADC driven. However because of the non-functioning of the organ, attempts to find a solution were not and could not be conducted in an entirely unified way.

South Africa encouraged the negotiation of a peaceful settlement, while Zimbabwe, Namibia and Angola preferred to engage the anti-Kabila forces in military confrontation. On April 8 1999 Angola, DRC and Zimbabwe signed a defence protocol, which re-enforced the differences in the approaches of the member states. The defence pact was disconcerting for Mr Brammer since it focused on the principle that "an attack against one is an attack against all".
He explained that in the event of an attack against a signatory to this agreement, leading to violent confrontation, all the other signatories are obliged to join in.

It became evident that the differences in approach in conflict resolution on the DRC crisis went along the same lines as the differences that had been experienced in the debate on the organ. He pointed out that these fundamental differences in conflict resolution would be detrimental to the attainment of regional integration in SADC. He stated that it causes political instability, security of the region's citizens is threatened and the international community could become increasingly disillusioned with the political ability of the region to cope with its problems. He said that this could impact negatively on socio-economic development desperately needed, for example investor confidence could be eroded and projects aimed at capacity development in Africa could be jeopardised.

He said that a structure addressing regional security has to be developed and put in place as a matter of priority. In terms of international law, peace missions can only be performed under the United Nations banner. Regional arrangements on security cooperation should be formalised so that they can qualify as such in terms of Chapter 8 of the UN Charter.

With all the conflicts erupting in Africa the impasse was clearly a major problem and had to be lifted. The problem with the organ was "potentially" solved during the latest SADC summit held in Maputo on 17/18 August 1999. The summit resolved that the Council of Ministers should review the operations of all SADC institutions including the organ and report back to summit in six months.

It stated that the organ should continue to operate and be chaired by Robert Mugabe in consultation with the outgoing, present and incoming chair of SADC.

An extra-ordinary meeting has been scheduled for 26/27 October 1999 in Swaziland to discuss the whole question of the organ. This meeting is however not confirmed as yet. To prepare for the meeting it was agreed that two of the representatives each from Swaziland, South Africa and Zimbabwe should prepare the necessary documentation.

Mr Brammer stated that it would appear prudent to opt for an integrated mechanism on regional security rather than to establish a completely separate institution consisting of the same member states and political leaders. He also said that because of the urgency, too much time would be wasted in setting up a completely separate institution. Thus the organ should operate under the auspices of SADC. However he stressed that this decision had to be reached by consensus of all member states in order to avoid the problems created with the organ.

Mr Brammer was adamant that the most important objective was that the citizens of southern Africa must begin to feel the benefits of sound policies aimed at enhancing their quality and standard of living.

He ended by saying that in a shrinking world where globalisation was placing great pressures on emerging democracies and threshold economies, southern Africa should ensure that these policies are put in place.

Questions and Comments
Ms Farida Mahomed of the ANC referred to the organ and its functions and wanted clarity on the summit regarding the organ's own summit and it latching on to SADC's. She asked how far the communication was with member states. With regard to regional security, she asked which mechanisms there were to rectify this in the short term.
Mr Brammer said that communication was taking place, but in an ad hoc and reactive way instead of in a proactive way. He said that when something happened, then meetings were called easily and quickly. He said that to maintain a stable region one must have policies in place which give parameters for action based on early warning and information received at an earlier stage that something is not well, so that the problem can be approached in a co-operative way.

Ms Mahomed commented that if member states had different approaches there would be disjointed decisions.

A member wanted to know what Mr Mugabe's point of view was in other words what the argument for having separate institutions was, and what merit it had.

Mr Brammer said that the position of Zimbabwe and Namibia was the Frontline State's principle in terms of which regional mechanisms on security operate in an informal and inflexible and ad-hoc way. Mr Mugabe was quoted as having referred to the organ as "the fire engine of the region". The main concern about integrating a security structure into the socio-economic sector of SADC is that a large portion of SADC projects are donor driven and security issues, by their nature, are sensitive and confidential. Thus fear was expressed that the donor community would be part of a security environment and therefore confidentiality could be compromised.

Another member asked on what basis the Organ on Politics, Defence and Security gained its legitimacy to function separately. She also asked how the early warning system works and ties up with two separate organs.

Mr Brammer replied by saying that if the organ is a separate institution in its present form, it lacks legitimacy because it is not based on any type of formalised charter or constitution or treaty. He said that whilst politically this was fine, problems could arise with interventions, international law and the United Nnations stipulations, therefore, whichever way SADC decides, integrated or separate, it has to be based on some structure with international legal principles to give it that legitimacy.
With regard to early warnings he said that they were conducted in an ad hoc fashion and not formally coordinated and submitted to summit for decision making since there was no structure to do this.

There was a query about who funded the organ. Mr Brammer replied that it did not need substantial extra funding since it did not have a separate secretariat.

Dr B Geldenhuys of the New National Party was of the view that SADC was primarily an economic institution. He therefore asked whether integration with regard to security and defence issues would not transform the whole nature of SADC.
Mr Brammer answered that the treaty makes provision for various issues including the political co-operation, mutual foreign policies, peaceful settlement of disputes and others. He said that the problem came in with the implementation since the treaty has already made provision for that type of inter-action.

Mr P Jordan from the ANC asked whether there was consensus in SADC on what the security problems are and asked how South Africa saw SADC responding. He wanted to know how South Africa viewed the security problems in the region, should it transpire that there was in fact no consensus between the member states on what the security problems of the region actually were.
Mr Brammer stated that there was in fact consensus on what the problems were but the problem came with implementation dealt with in his address.

Mr Jordan said that there was some misunderstanding regarding his questions. He stated that the various conflicts in southern Africa were all security problems for SADC. He explained however that those were not the causes of the problem. Thus his question was whether there was consensus
on the underlying causes of the conflict. He suggested that the differences in certain member states' approach in dealing with the security problems demonstrated a lack of consensus regarding what the actual underlying causes of the conflicts were. He suggested that one of the problems was politics based on the premise "you lose, I win" and there is nothing in-between, and "until I win there is no point in sitting down".

Mr Brammer agreed that a great part of the problem in the areas of conflict in Southern Africa was the disrespect shown for democratic processes and the adoption of the "you lose, I win" approach.

The chairperson, Mr E Ebrahim, wrapped up the discussion by thanking Mr Brammer for the briefing. He said that it seemed that intervention was becoming the norm, for example, Kosovo, East Timor, West Africa etc. He was not sure whether this would be the norm in the next century but stated that there was agreement that we need an integrated approach in the region. He looked forward to hearing about the Swaziland meeting in order to have an understanding of what the problem is and how it will be resolved.