The Zimbabwean issue, as Morgan Tsvangirai once put it, is no longer a foreign policy in South Africa but a domestic issue. An estimated two million-plus population of Zimbabweans live in South Africa. Despite the formation of the inclusive government, not many have returned. With newspaper reports of properties belonging to the Zimbabwe government in South Africa being attached, the issue of the SADC Tribunal had to be looked at during the summit.

What the SADC summit had to address was the apparent violation of the SADC Treaty by the government of Zimbabwe in its Land Reform programme. If SADC is to be trusted with the rights of its citizens, it had to show whether it cares about them or whether it is serious about it. The coming six months will reveal whether SADC cares about the property rights of Zimbabwean farmers or not irrespective of their race.

The summit concluded that the issue of the SADC Tribunal will be settled in six months. Failure to deal with this issue or to reconstruct an effective tribunal will reveal the nature of these SADC governments who often times wave democratic credentials to the outside world. What will the world say if a country in SADC claims to be democratic and yet denies its neighbours of the same rights they espouse?

This issue is of paramount importance to South Africa because it has to do with the revival of Zimbabwe’s economy. The Zimbabwe economy is largely agro-based. It was not surprising then that when commercial agriculture was affected in the past 10 years through the seemingly unplanned Land Reform, the whole economy was affected. We now have an economy that cannot properly sustain 13 million of its population. That is the reason why an estimated five million of that population live abroad.

Organising talks 'not enough'

As much as some in South Africa thought that the creation of an inclusive government would allow Zimbabweans abroad to return, current facts have contradicted them. The economy has to be resuscitated if the people are to return and that largely rests on the resuscitation of commercial agriculture. At the same time you cannot resuscitate commercial agriculture if you cannot guarantee private property rights. Guaranteeing property rights means farmers should have the right to own, dispose and buy farms willingly.

What is apparent is that the previous white farmers were denied those rights. They went to the SADC Tribunal and it concluded that the Zimbabwe government had violated various sections of the SADC Treaty. This treaty calls for human rights and the rule of law to be respected among other things. If the South African government cared about the rights of those farmers and indeed about the resuscitation of the Zimbabwe economy, they should have prioritised this issue.

It still baffles a lot of people what South Africa’s views on the Zimbabwe situation are. It is not enough to just organise talks. The parties have been talking since 2007. Lindiwe Zulu, Charles Nqakula and others are occasionally in Zimbabwe in a bid to clear out the so called "outstanding issues". Are they in a position to set the pace of those talks or to set benchmarks? Regional leadership calls for decisive action which includes taking diplomatic action. Are the SADC leaders not aware that Zimbabwe was found guilty of violating the SADC Treaty? If they are aware what do they plan to do about it? Are they scared of some personalities in the Zimbabwe government?

I believe if the SADC Tribunal is reconstituted in the coming months and its judgement on Zimbabwe is deemed legitimate, SADC leaders must take decisive action. Their failure to do so is Zimbabwe’s failure to get out of the woods. This means they would have to bear the weight of economic migrants from Zimbabwe in their countries. With the threat of service delivery protests and public sector strikes within their borders, this is not an easy option. So their reluctance in dealing with this issue for the sake of maintaining "revolutionary unity" is not helpful to anyone except perhaps to the violators of human rights.

Farmers

Should the people conclude that the South African government is being hypocritical by failing to deal with this issue? They are in the process of creating a Media Tribunal to monitor the actions of the media. It is ironic that they are having problems with a SADC Tribunal that seeks to monitor their actions. If you want to monitor others, surely you won’t mind being monitored. If President Jacob Zuma was brave enough to condemn the arrest of two gay people in Malawi, he should be brave enough to care about the thousands of people who had their lives affected in Zimbabwe’s Land Reforms. Not only did it affect the lives of white farmers, but hundreds of farm workers who worked for them were affected. Even though most of these farmers had authorised legal title to these farms, they were treated like they don’t own them.

The government of Zimbabwe went on to craft Amendment number 17 of the Constitution in 2005. This allowed them to acquire farms without compensation for their value thus violating international law which calls for the government to compensate. The rule of law was also trampled upon because the farmers could no longer have this issue addressed in Zimbabwe’s courts. It was then left to the SADC Tribunal and it is surprising that SADC leaders now have a problem with it because it ruled against a fellow comrade. Why did they craft the treaty in the first place if they cannot follow it? Why sign it anyway if you cannot follow it? Maybe this is why Julius Malema, a prominent member of the ANC is calling for acquisition of farms in South Africa without a negotiated compensation. Where is the constitution in all this? Perhaps this is what they believe in and they will do all they can to shield their Zimbabwean counterparts.

I believe the reason why Western countries imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe was because of these human rights violations and disregard for the rule of law. Some time back President Zuma went to UK demanding the removal of Zimbabwe sanctions. During the past summit, SADC leaders reiterated their call for the removal of these restrictive measures. Are they telling us that human rights violations have ceased and that the rule of law is now being respected? What about the judgement of their own Tribunal which says they were human rights violations and that the rule of law was not honoured. It also said their own treaty was not honoured.

Consequences

Most SADC countries signed to this treaty including Zimbabwe. Why have treaties if there is room for them being violated without anything done about it? Isn’t this just deception to the world that we espouse noble values? Why then rush to call for the removal of sanctions when you are yet to show that conditions have improved? They have given six months for the issue of the Tribunal to be addressed. They have however rushed to call for immediate removal of sanctions. What should people conclude about this regional organisation called SADC?

The Zimbabwe issue should not be reduced to an issue of imperialism vs sovereignty. The white farmers who were in Zimbabwe are also citizens like everyone else. Zimbabwe is bound by these international laws and a violation of them has consequences for the whole region. SADC countries must move to protect the rights all citizens within their borders. After all this is what Nelson Mandela is known for isn’t it?

It was said they wanted South Africa to accommodate the rights of its entire people hence the connotation of the "Rainbow nation". Should people conclude that SADC leaders are fighting to remove some colours from this envisaged rainbow? Only time will tell.

Please login to post your comments.

More Featured Articles