‘Noted’ or ‘endorsed’: Sadc summit outcome clear
http://www.theindependent.co.zw/
Friday, 17 June 2011 12:03
Alex Magaisa
AN ISSUE currently occupying minds in and around Zimbabwe is the implication
and effect of the Sadc summit held in Sandton, South Africa, on Sunday. In
particular, the language of the Sadc communiqué appears to have received
divergent interpretations regarding the fate of the decisions made by the
Sadc Troika on March 31 at the summit in Livingstone, Zambia.
On the one hand, the MDCs and civil society organisations argue that the
summit effectively recognised the decisions of the Livingstone summit
whereas Zanu PF counter-argues that the summit simply noted but did not
endorse the decisions. But does it really matter? What really does the Sadc
communiqué say and what are the implications?
In all this, one must take cognisance of the bigger picture and ultimate
objective, which is the Sadc-mandated process to resolve the political
problem in Zimbabwe.
The Sadc communiqué contains various other clauses, including some on the
matter of sanctions but this article focuses strictly on the fate of the
Livingstone Troika decisions — as this appears to be the issue that has been
most contentious.
Clauses 21-31 are the provisions of the Sadc communiqué that are pertinent
to Zimbabwe. The critical clauses in respect of the Livingstone summit are
clauses 22, 23 and 24 — although there are other relevant provisions. For
purposes of this article, the critical provision is clause 22 which states:
“Summit noted the decisions of the Sadc Troika summit held in Livingstone,
Zambia in March 2011.”
The question that arises, therefore, is what this clause means, the key word
here being “noted”. Does it make any difference to the outcome, in effect?
Ordinarily, when something is “noted” it means that there is an acceptance
that it has value and is worthy of attention. By noting the decisions of the
Sadc Livingstone Troika summit, the Sadc summit is recognising that they
have value and are legitimate. It means the summit has given recognition to
the Troika decisions.
This is important when considered against the background that one party to
the Global Political Agreement (GPA) — Zanu PF— had taken umbrage against
the Sadc Livingstone Troika decisions on grounds of procedural irregularity.
Therefore, for anyone holding the view that the Sadc Livingstone Troika
decisions were illegitimate and that they should not be upheld, the
recognition of the decisions by the summit must be a disappointing outcome.
Also important to consider is that the interpretation of that word, “noted”,
in Article 21 cannot be done in isolation. In interpreting words of any
document context matters a great deal. The word “noted” is used in various
provisions of the Sadc communiqué — see Article 9, 12, 21 and 30 for
example — and in each case the notion communicated by noting is official
recognition by the summit of whatever was brought before it. It is a
statement of the summit accepting its value.
In fact, Clause 30 of the Sadc communiqué also states that the summit
“noted” the recommendations of the sanctions mission mandated by Sadc in
August 2010. It does not say it “endorsed” the recommendations but that does
not mean Sadc takes the issue less seriously. No one seems to be downgrading
the idea of “noting” sanctions recommendations, but instead it is getting
publicity as Sadc’s recognition of the sanctions problem in Zimbabwe.
In any event, if the Sadc summit had rejected the Sadc Livingstone Troika
decisions as some would have the world believe, it would have stated as much
in unequivocal terms. Instead, not only did the Sadc summit recognise those
decisions, it went further in Clause 24 to “urge the Sadc Troika to appoint
their representatives as soon as possible to participate in the Joint
Monitoring and Implementation Committee (Jomic)”.
Jomic is a body mandated to monitor the implementation of the GPA that forms
the foundation of the present inclusive government. The appointment of a
team by the Sadc Troika to work with Jomic was one of the key decisions of
the Sadc Livingstone Troika summit. It was also heavily opposed on grounds
that it represents interference with Zimbabwe’s sovereignty.
That the Sadc summit has reiterated in its communiqué what the Sadc
Livingstone Troika resolved in March gives further weight to the view that
in effect it has recognised and upheld the decisions of the Livingstone
Troika.
It must be pointed out, albeit as an aside, that the view propagated in some
quarters that the team to be appointed by the Sadc Troika represents
interference in Zimbabwe’s sovereignty is rather disingenuous in light of
Sadc’s role regarding the GPA. Sadc is a guarantor of the GPA. It has a
responsibility to ensure the full implementation of the GPA. In fact, one
could argue that Sadc has generally failed to live up to its obligation to
fulfil this role given that almost three years since the signing of the GPA
a number of provisions are yet to be satisfied.
By accepting Sadc’s role in the resolution of the conflict and its place as
guarantor of the GPA, Zimbabwe’s main political actors (Zanu PF, MDC-T and
MDC-N) effectively conceded ground which Sadc can and must utilise to
produce a meaningful result in resolving the problem.
Indeed, one could go so far as saying that making the GPA part of the
constitutional order and given Sadc’s role as guarantor, the political
players effectively compromised the country’s sovereignty and diluted their
own authority. To argue, therefore, that Sadc cannot appoint a team to
monitor the full implementation of the GPA as interference in the country’s
sovereignty flies against the foundation of that agreement.
It is the guarantor and as long as its conduct is within reason, it can take
necessary measures to ensure it performs its role efficiently. No one can
seriously argue that the full implementation of the GPA is beyond the bounds
of reason.
In the overall analysis, the net effect of the Sadc communiqué is that the
Sadc summit gave due recognition to the Sadc Livingstone Troika decisions
contrary to what may have been argued by those opposed to them. The opposite
would have been to sideline, ignore or totally reject the Livingstone Troika
decisions without equivocation. The summit did not do that. In fact, it went
on to reiterate the need to appoint a team to monitor the full
implementation of the GPA, a key resolution and outcome of the Livingstone
Troika summit.
The substance of the outcome is clear for any reasonable mind to see. But
what we see instead is an exercise in spinning the unspinnable. It is the
political equivalent of the football manager who, upon his team losing a
match, tells the media that his team did not lose but rather that it simply
conceded more goals than it scored. It doesn’t change the outcome. It is
called a loss in any language.
Alex Magaisa is a senior lecturer at the University of Kent Law School. He
takes a keen interest on legal and political issues pertaining to Zimbabwe
and Africa generally. — newzimbabwe.com.