Of Botswana SADC, AU and the Zim crisis

STRYKER MOTLALOSO
Staff Writer | Friday July 4, 2008 00:00

 

The two reports say the presidential run-off did not meet the minimum standards of a fair election. The observers said the elections did not meet the unfettered will of the people of Zimbabwe.

Botswana concluded that the current representatives of the Zimbabwe government be excluded from attending both SADC and AU meetings. Though laudable, Botswana's support will not carry much weight if it is not supported by a reasonable number of both SADC and the AU members. It will perhaps serve the purpose of disassociating the country from the Mugabe regime. And more importantly, it will be more felt at the level of state to state, particularly if Botswana recalls its envoy from Zimbabwe. The other step would be for Botswana to close its border with Zimbabwe. But would Botswana do this?

To some extent, the problem is that the AU has not adequately pronounced its position regarding the Zimbabwe situation along the lines that Botswana has. However, the AU has a clear set up outlining measures that can be taken against wayward members.

Looking at Article 29 of the Constitutive Act of the AU, it is clear what fate would befall a wayward member of the continental body. A member can be suspended or stopped if its government comes to power through unconstitutional means. Such member shall not be allowed to participate in the activities of the union. Secondly if a state decides to renounce its membership, it shall inform the chairman of the commission in writing of its intention to do so.

For example, Mauritania was suspended from the AU after a coup in 2005, while Madagascar was slapped with a suspension during the dissolution of the OAU immediately after the formation of the AU. For purposes of clarity, the AU or SADC has not pronounced that Zimbabwe should stop participating in it their activities though President Robert Mugabe has retained power through means that raise questions. It also not clear as to whether Mugabe's recent win in the presidential run-off falls within the category of unconstitutional means of taking state power. Even if there were common understandings of the issues, it does not seem to be clear whether both SADC and AU are in agreement on the form of punishment to be meted out to Mugabe. This raises questions about the extent and ramifications of Botswana's position to the AU and to some extent SADC. On the local scene, it has served to unite the ruling Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) and the opposition parties that have so far spoken with a united voice against Mugabe's regime.

That should be celebrated largely because Batswana are really showing that to them democracy is not something imaginary, an integral party of their society to the extent that they would not hesitate if it is being trampled upon, including by some countries that happen to be neighbours. Clearly, Botswana's position will go a long way in the annals of history in demonstrating to the world and the internal community that the country is fully committed to democracy and the rule of law.

But at the regional and continental level, the country might have to do a lot to ensure that it lobbies for support on its position. The country needs to get some allies in its stand against Zimbabwe so that it does not appear to be just on the side of those who do not agree with the Mugabe regime. It is clear there are divisions at both SADC and AU on Zimbabwe. And it would be critical for Botswana to court those that matter in the region and the continent for its position to have meaningful implications.

A nation does not really have friends but interests. Hence it would only be wise for Botswana to look around for allies which it shares the same interests with on Zimbabwe.

Already Zimbabwe has been suspended from the Commonwealth and the country complicated matters by withdrawing from the organisation.