SADC is exceedingly becoming a one-issue organisation.
Last week, it once again called a Summit and the Zimbabwean issue, which has dominated its agendas for over a decade, was at the center of the debate.
And, once again, as they have always done, SADC postponed the inevitable by giving a two-month deadline for such and such to be done first.
Although the Zimbabwean issue has been one of the most tragic and long-running issues that needed urgent intervention, SADC has almost always shied away from effectively dealing with the issue to a conclusion.
It is difficult to believe or understand how SADC itself views its ways of operation if it fails to recognize and act on simmering issues in the area under its jurisdiction.
It is a pity that SADC co-exists with regional problems and are as indecisive as to watch festering regional problems until they get to a point when they give SADC a bad name.
SADC watched Zimbabwe festering into a problem that involved the killing and abuse of innocent people until the problem became too big for it, now they are totally overawed by the problem they ignored.
SADC was unable to protect people from their own government in Zimbabwe and now, amazingly, SADC is repeating the same thing in Swaziland.
It is scandalous that an organisation that is overburdened by so many regional problems should continue to avoid dealing with the Zimbabwean issue once and for all.
There are other problems in the region that SADC must attend to but SADC allows one country to continue playing games that not only affect Zimbabwe itself but the region.
Zimbabwe long ceased to be a problem for Zimbabweans but has matured into a regional problem that involves the deaths of people, the starving of people, foot and mouth disease, political and economic refugees, illegal immigrants, economic stagnation and operations of regional organizations and economic unions.
The Zimbabwean problem has stirred up deadly xenophobic tendencies in some neighbouring countries.
While SADC wants to propel the region forward and bringing development to the area, as its name proclaims, they remain bogged down over the Zimbabwean issue, which takes most of their time without producing any tangible solutions.
Zimbabwe is taking too much of SADC’s time at the expense of other nations whose problems also need to be dealt with, let alone the time SADC should be using to map development for the region.
It takes an awful amount of shamelessness for those SADC technocrats to grab their monthly wages every month with no work having been done.
Has SADC ever sat done to review their achievements over the years?
How many achievements can SADC count? In what way has it made a difference to the region and can SADC justify its existence?
Day in and day out, there are reports of atrocities coming from Zimbabwe and SADC appears impotent to do anything.
Day in and day out, Swaziland is mimicking Zimbabwe but SADC, again, watches from a distance as the problem festers.
When one looks at the set up, one cannot help to wonder who is leading who and who is supposed to be doing what.
We are told that SADC put forward its guidelines on Zimbabwe and delegated South African President Jacob Zuma as mediator or facilitator, whatever that means.
Yet SADC is not directing Zuma but Zuma appears to be directing SADC, which is always in the shadows, quiet as graves and putting out silly communiqu├®s that do not make anyone jump up and take notice.
Zuma has the audacity of choosing which Summit to attend and is not bound to issue regular briefings or updates. He is not compelled to say anything to SADC. He talks when he wants to.
It appears as if Zuma is leading SADC yet SADC should be demanding detailed progress.
How does it happen that SADC can live peacefully with cruel and murderous nations like Zimbabwe and Swaziland and not make waves to eradicate these embarrassments that are tarnishing the region and SADC’s image?
At the SADC Troika meeting in Livingstone in March, “the Summit noted with grave concern the polarization of the political environment as characterized by, inter alia, resurgence of violence, arrests and intimidation in Zimbabwe”.
It resolved that “there must be an immediate end to violence, intimidation, hate speech, harassment, and any other form of action that contradicts the spirit of the Global Political Agreement”.
The Summit then directed that “SADC should assist Zimbabwe to formulate guidelines that will assist in holding an election that will be peaceful, free and fair, in accordance with the SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections”.
This is totally ridiculous.
Since SADC came up with these guidelines well over ten years ago, no country in the region, let alone Zimbabwe, has been able to meet all the requirements of the SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections.
Instead of “assisting Zimbabwe to formulate guidelines”, Zuma got busy to write his own roadmap, saying he could not wait for the quarrelsome Zimbabweans to sit down and write the roadmap.
SADC, meanwhile, appears to have left everything to Zuma.
At another SADC Summit in Sandton, South Africa, last week, “the Summit noted the decisions of the SADC Troika summit held in Livingstone, Zambia in March 2011.”
This word, ‘noted’, what does it mean and what does SADC want it to mean?
I am amazed that if we agree that there is an evil, why do we remove the evil in stages or gradually? If there is evil, why can’t we just get rid of it and go on to better things?
Why is SADC noting anything instead of dealing with the problem?
The heart of the matter is that SADC must make SADC citizens its priority and stop emphasizing diplomacy at the expense of the people.
SADC must take strong action to stall the development of undemocratic and wayward member states.
SADC must be decisive and bold enough to deal with regional problems, instead of always diplomatically finding a way around a problem so as to deal with it at a later date.
They always find an excuse to postpone the debate to the next Summit.
SADC must be aware of the amount of hope citizens of the region have in them.
They must behave like real caretakers of the people, keeping our presidents in check and promoting peace not only in the region but in member states.
As it is, SADC appears to be siding with those presidents who abuse their citizens.
SADC must change not only the way it deals with regional presidents but the way it approaches regional problems.
It must change the way it handles citizens of SADC and maybe, after that, the technocrats and secretaries general at SADC may get some satisfaction when they open their pay envelops every month.
