Opinion / Columnist
SADC/AU culpable for wars and conflicts in Africa
28 Jul 2016 at 09:16hrs | Views
African - for decades - has had the unenviable label of being the 'war capital of the world', due the seemingly never-ending conflicts ravaging the continent - thereby, impoverishing and destroying the lives of its people, who should, otherwise, be living lavishly on a continent endowed with some of the world's most precious resources.
How does a continent, which should be the light and pride of the world, find itself in such a precarious situation?
This is a very complex question, which would require a whole book to unravel, but one thing is crystal clear - African regional bodies have been complicit by their apathy towards potential hotspots on the continent, such that conflicts that could have been prevented - had they been nipped in the bud - have been ignored till it was too late.
The African Union (AU), and other regional bodies, such as, the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC), have been found wanting in their wanton disregard of the affairs of member states, such that, even when a potential conflict is clearly perceptible, these organisations have merely folded their arms - only to start running around when it was a bit too late.
Most, if not all, of the conflicts on the African continent, did not result from some mysterious spontaneous combustion, but could be seen from a mile off that they were imminent.
As there has been too many a conflict on the continent, for this discourse I will just select two, as examples.
The civil war that ravaged South Sudan for the past two and a half years - thereby, abruptly putting to an end to any celebrations for Africa's newest nation - could have, most likely, been averted, had the African Union intervened sooner.
The problems between the country's President Salva Kiir and his deputy Riek Machar, had been known for some time before they eventually fell out, resulting in the sacking of Machar.
Although, this may be regarded as conjuncture, would the ensuing conflict had been averted had the AU sought to mediate well before the problems between Kiir and Machar reached conflict pitch in December 2013?
I certainly believe that the needless killing of more than 50,000 lives, and the internal displacement of 1.6 million people could have been avoided, had the AU played a more active role well before the conflict broke out.
Similarly, in Zimbabwe today, there are serious internal divisions and infighting between very senior members of the ZANU PF government - that are potentially catastrophic to the country.
The AU, and SADC - the regional body in which Zimbabwe is part of - have both been conspicuous by their usual silence.
They had disturbingly adopted their now all-too-familiar 'see no evil, hear no evil, say no evil' approach, that led to numerous conflicts on the continent, as in South Sudan.
Can the continental and regional bodies perceive the distinct similarities between these two scenarios?
In Zimbabwe, the President Robert Mugabe apparently is now openly siding with a faction within his own ruling party - and by extension, the government - that is diametrically opposed to a camp perceived to be aligned to the Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa - both of whom have significant military support.
Would it not have been prudent for the SADC to intervene on a mediatory basis, so as to prevent the crisis from escalating, and potentially resulting on another South Sudan?
Does the regional body, and indeed, the AU, want to wait until an inextinguishable conflict explodes in Zimbabwe?
That is when we will witness fervent action by both the AU and SADC trying to facilitate some form of a tricky agreement - but as already witnessed in the South Sudan conflict - it is nearly an impossible task.
Needless to say, this is not the first time that Zimbabwe has received the raw end of the stick from both these bodies.
In the early 2000s, after the violent and chaotic land redistribution programme by the ZANU PF government, and the subsequent atrocious subversion of the human rights of those in the opposition - mainly the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) - the AU and SADC were disturbingly apathetic to the Zimbabwean situation.
In fact, the then South African President Thabo Mbeki denied that there was any crisis in Zimbabwe.
However, after the murderous 2008 elections in the country - in which ZANU PF resorted to graven violence against the opposition, after Mugabe lost to MDC's Tsvangirai - did Mbeki 'suddenly' had an awakening that there WAS indeed a crisis in Zimbabwe - subsequently, running around trying to mediate between the two parties.
If he had done that well before the 2008 elections, would that not have had a hugely positive impact on the country?
Another sad African example is that of Burundi, in which violence broke out on 26 April 2015 - after the ruling National Council for the Defence of Democracy (CNDD-FDD) announced on 25 April that President Pierre Nkurunziza was to seek a constitutionally disputed third term in the 2015 Presidential elections.
As with the previous examples, the 'writing was already on the wall', as the Burundi government had been buzzing this decision well before it was finally officially announced.
The whole world knew that this was what the country's government was mulling.
The AU was, nevertheless, characteristically silent - as they seemingly never bothered to intervene well before the official announcement was made.
As to be expected, the AU only started running around more than 439 deaths and 200,000 refugees later.
That is deplorable - to say the very least!
Currently in Zimbabwe, there is huge disgruntlement by the suffering masses with the ZANU PF government.
Due to an unimaginable economic meltdown - record-breaking unemployment and retrenchments, unprecedented company closures, lack of cash in the country, non-payment of salaries, and so forth - the people are understandably dissatisfied with their government.
The situation has been exacerbated by the callous lavish lifestyles of those in power - whose wealth is mostly due to the plundering of the nation's resources at the expense of the suffering people.
In a desperate bid to be heard by a seemingly unconcerned, downright arrogant, and cruel government, the people decided to embark on peaceful protests, as well as stayaways.
However, this constitutional mass action has been met by brute force by the Zimbabwe government, that has shown its disregard for the country's constitution and fundamental human rights - in a paranoic and desperate bid to hold on to power.
The suffering people of Zimbabwe are hungry, and as such, angry with their government - however, the heavy-handed approach by those in power will only make matters worse.
The people need solutions to their problems, not tear gas, water cannons, beatings up, and arrests.
The more the Zimbabwe government resorts to violence, instead of dialogue, the greater the chance that the people's anger will boil over into a conflict.
This is the chance for both the AU and SADC to redeem themselves from their previous follies.
Assuming that they have learnt any lessons from their past debacles, these bodies should intervene in the Zimbabwean crisis immediately.
The AU and SADC should, by now, have seen that it is more expensive - in human lives, effort, time, and money - in waiting for a conflict to break out, instead of intervening when it is still simmering.
As the adage goes, 'a stitch in time saves nine', these bodies can not afford to let down the people of Zimbabwe, and of the continent, again.
They have to prove their relevance to the continent, as so far, they have failed to live up to expectations.
What benchmark has the AU and SADC set for them to spring into action?
Do they wait for the 1,000 lives lost mark, or is it the 10,000 lives lost mark, for them to finally take a conflict seriously?
No more Zimbabwean lives should be lost before the AU and SADC intervenes - as already there are reports that the recent Zimbabwe protests and stayaway cost the live of a baby due to police tear gas inhalation.
Is that still too little a number for the mighty AU and SADC to bother with?
What about the countless arrests, and beatings up? No?
What about the imminent widespread conflict that will ensue if the people's anger boils over, as the government seems uninterested in resolving their concerns, and is intent on a brutal crackdown?
Africa can not continue being the 'conflict capital of the world', it is time for the AU and its regional bodies to finally exhibit some leadership, without fear or cronyism - as indeed, African lives matter, and can not continue being the sacrificial lambs of those in power.
° Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice activist and commentator, writer, and journalist. He writes in his personal capacity, and welcomes any feedback. Please feel free to WhatsApp/call: +263782283975, or email: tendaiandtinta.mbofana@gmail.com. Follow on Twitter: @Tendai_Mbofana
How does a continent, which should be the light and pride of the world, find itself in such a precarious situation?
This is a very complex question, which would require a whole book to unravel, but one thing is crystal clear - African regional bodies have been complicit by their apathy towards potential hotspots on the continent, such that conflicts that could have been prevented - had they been nipped in the bud - have been ignored till it was too late.
The African Union (AU), and other regional bodies, such as, the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC), have been found wanting in their wanton disregard of the affairs of member states, such that, even when a potential conflict is clearly perceptible, these organisations have merely folded their arms - only to start running around when it was a bit too late.
Most, if not all, of the conflicts on the African continent, did not result from some mysterious spontaneous combustion, but could be seen from a mile off that they were imminent.
As there has been too many a conflict on the continent, for this discourse I will just select two, as examples.
The civil war that ravaged South Sudan for the past two and a half years - thereby, abruptly putting to an end to any celebrations for Africa's newest nation - could have, most likely, been averted, had the African Union intervened sooner.
The problems between the country's President Salva Kiir and his deputy Riek Machar, had been known for some time before they eventually fell out, resulting in the sacking of Machar.
Although, this may be regarded as conjuncture, would the ensuing conflict had been averted had the AU sought to mediate well before the problems between Kiir and Machar reached conflict pitch in December 2013?
I certainly believe that the needless killing of more than 50,000 lives, and the internal displacement of 1.6 million people could have been avoided, had the AU played a more active role well before the conflict broke out.
Similarly, in Zimbabwe today, there are serious internal divisions and infighting between very senior members of the ZANU PF government - that are potentially catastrophic to the country.
The AU, and SADC - the regional body in which Zimbabwe is part of - have both been conspicuous by their usual silence.
They had disturbingly adopted their now all-too-familiar 'see no evil, hear no evil, say no evil' approach, that led to numerous conflicts on the continent, as in South Sudan.
Can the continental and regional bodies perceive the distinct similarities between these two scenarios?
In Zimbabwe, the President Robert Mugabe apparently is now openly siding with a faction within his own ruling party - and by extension, the government - that is diametrically opposed to a camp perceived to be aligned to the Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa - both of whom have significant military support.
Would it not have been prudent for the SADC to intervene on a mediatory basis, so as to prevent the crisis from escalating, and potentially resulting on another South Sudan?
Does the regional body, and indeed, the AU, want to wait until an inextinguishable conflict explodes in Zimbabwe?
That is when we will witness fervent action by both the AU and SADC trying to facilitate some form of a tricky agreement - but as already witnessed in the South Sudan conflict - it is nearly an impossible task.
Needless to say, this is not the first time that Zimbabwe has received the raw end of the stick from both these bodies.
In the early 2000s, after the violent and chaotic land redistribution programme by the ZANU PF government, and the subsequent atrocious subversion of the human rights of those in the opposition - mainly the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) - the AU and SADC were disturbingly apathetic to the Zimbabwean situation.
In fact, the then South African President Thabo Mbeki denied that there was any crisis in Zimbabwe.
However, after the murderous 2008 elections in the country - in which ZANU PF resorted to graven violence against the opposition, after Mugabe lost to MDC's Tsvangirai - did Mbeki 'suddenly' had an awakening that there WAS indeed a crisis in Zimbabwe - subsequently, running around trying to mediate between the two parties.
If he had done that well before the 2008 elections, would that not have had a hugely positive impact on the country?
Another sad African example is that of Burundi, in which violence broke out on 26 April 2015 - after the ruling National Council for the Defence of Democracy (CNDD-FDD) announced on 25 April that President Pierre Nkurunziza was to seek a constitutionally disputed third term in the 2015 Presidential elections.
As with the previous examples, the 'writing was already on the wall', as the Burundi government had been buzzing this decision well before it was finally officially announced.
The whole world knew that this was what the country's government was mulling.
The AU was, nevertheless, characteristically silent - as they seemingly never bothered to intervene well before the official announcement was made.
As to be expected, the AU only started running around more than 439 deaths and 200,000 refugees later.
That is deplorable - to say the very least!
Currently in Zimbabwe, there is huge disgruntlement by the suffering masses with the ZANU PF government.
Due to an unimaginable economic meltdown - record-breaking unemployment and retrenchments, unprecedented company closures, lack of cash in the country, non-payment of salaries, and so forth - the people are understandably dissatisfied with their government.
The situation has been exacerbated by the callous lavish lifestyles of those in power - whose wealth is mostly due to the plundering of the nation's resources at the expense of the suffering people.
In a desperate bid to be heard by a seemingly unconcerned, downright arrogant, and cruel government, the people decided to embark on peaceful protests, as well as stayaways.
However, this constitutional mass action has been met by brute force by the Zimbabwe government, that has shown its disregard for the country's constitution and fundamental human rights - in a paranoic and desperate bid to hold on to power.
The suffering people of Zimbabwe are hungry, and as such, angry with their government - however, the heavy-handed approach by those in power will only make matters worse.
The people need solutions to their problems, not tear gas, water cannons, beatings up, and arrests.
The more the Zimbabwe government resorts to violence, instead of dialogue, the greater the chance that the people's anger will boil over into a conflict.
This is the chance for both the AU and SADC to redeem themselves from their previous follies.
Assuming that they have learnt any lessons from their past debacles, these bodies should intervene in the Zimbabwean crisis immediately.
The AU and SADC should, by now, have seen that it is more expensive - in human lives, effort, time, and money - in waiting for a conflict to break out, instead of intervening when it is still simmering.
As the adage goes, 'a stitch in time saves nine', these bodies can not afford to let down the people of Zimbabwe, and of the continent, again.
They have to prove their relevance to the continent, as so far, they have failed to live up to expectations.
What benchmark has the AU and SADC set for them to spring into action?
Do they wait for the 1,000 lives lost mark, or is it the 10,000 lives lost mark, for them to finally take a conflict seriously?
No more Zimbabwean lives should be lost before the AU and SADC intervenes - as already there are reports that the recent Zimbabwe protests and stayaway cost the live of a baby due to police tear gas inhalation.
Is that still too little a number for the mighty AU and SADC to bother with?
What about the countless arrests, and beatings up? No?
What about the imminent widespread conflict that will ensue if the people's anger boils over, as the government seems uninterested in resolving their concerns, and is intent on a brutal crackdown?
Africa can not continue being the 'conflict capital of the world', it is time for the AU and its regional bodies to finally exhibit some leadership, without fear or cronyism - as indeed, African lives matter, and can not continue being the sacrificial lambs of those in power.
° Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice activist and commentator, writer, and journalist. He writes in his personal capacity, and welcomes any feedback. Please feel free to WhatsApp/call: +263782283975, or email: tendaiandtinta.mbofana@gmail.com. Follow on Twitter: @Tendai_Mbofana
Source - Tendai Ruben Mbofana
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
