I am very happy to introduce the latest guest contribution to Blawgconomics. Eric Sidler's post examines the recent actions by the members of the Southern African Development Community in regards to Zimbabwe's flouting of court orders to protect property rights in the country. A very interesting topic in its own right, it is also notable in that it expands the reach of Blawgconomics to African issues, novel territory for the site. The topic is also very interesting in that it rests directly in the crosshairs of both law and economics. Although on its face, it is legal in nature, the fact that both breaking rules and then ignoring court judgments has been embraced by Zimbabwe's African neighbors has direct economic implications for the region as well. This is because other countries will continue to view dealings in the area, both economically and politically, with a sceptical and wary eye. And, as Mr. Sidler concludes, the most likely effective remedy for this will be internal change. Until then, citizens are likely going to be the ones who suffer most.
On June 5, 2009, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Tribunal held the Zimbabwe government in contempt for defying the Tribunal’s November 28, 2008 judgment in favor of a group of white commercial farmers in Zimbabwe. The Tribunal’s November 28, 2008 judgment directed the Zimbabwe government: (1) to “take all necessary measures through its agents to protect the possession, occupation and ownership” of the lands of 78 white commercial farmers whose land was forcibly seized as part of Zimbabwe’s controversial “fast track” land reform program; and (2) to pay fair compensation for these lands. (i) In a letter of August 7, 2009, Zimbabwe’s Minister of Justice and Legal Affairs, Patrick A. Chinamasa, communicated the Zimbabwe government’s refusal to comply with the Tribunal’s judgment and asserted that Zimbabwe was withdrawing from the SADC Tribunal entirely. As support for Zimbabwe’s position, Chinamasa argued that the SADC Tribunal Protocol is not binding on Zimbabwe because it has not been ratified by two-thirds of SADC member states. Pursuant to Article 32(5) of the SADC Tribunal Protocol, the Tribunal referred the matter to be resolved at the SADC Summit in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, on September 2-8, 2009.
At the 2009 SADC Summit in Kinshasa, rather than renounce the Zimbabwe government’s defiance of its obligations under the SADC Treaty, Zimbabwe’s Southern African neighbors instead trumpeted the progress made toward implementation of the 2008 Global Political Agreement between President Robert Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party and Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) and adopted President Mugabe's call for an end to Western sanctions against Zimbabwe. The SADC’s tepid response to the Mugabe regime’s acts of defiance comes as a disappointment to many supporters of human rights who want regional organizations such as the SADC to exert more external pressure on Mugabe to respect human rights and the rule of law. To these entities, external pressure on Zimbabwe appears all the more necessary in light of the violence surrounding the March 2008 elections – in which President Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party lost control of Parliament and Tsvangirai’s MDC party claimed victory in the first round of the presidential race – and President Mugabe’s seemingly unrelenting campaign of terror against his political opponents during the last year.
In light of the unwillingness of SADC member states to provide accountability in the face of Zimbabwe’s brazen defiance of its international obligations under the SADC Treaty, internal political change may be one of the only viable options for bringing an end to the lawless acquisition of titled land and other human rights abuses by the Mugabe regime. The 2008 Global Political Agreement between ZANU-PF and MDC is a start in the right direction toward democratic reform and respect for the rule of law, but more coordinated internal pressure is necessary to achieve lasting democratic reform and respect for the rule of law. By calling for an end to international sanctions against Zimbabwe, SADC leaders appear to have opted for a policy of solidarity rather than confrontation. Although this policy arguably conflicts with the SADC’s stated goal of “consolidate[ing], defend[ing] and maintain[ing] democracy, peace, security and stability,” (ii) it remains to be seen whether this choice will ultimately prove most effective for realizing a fully democratic Zimbabwe that respects the rule of the law.
(i) Campbell v. Zimbabwe, SADCT 2/07, 58 (Nov. 28, 2008).
(ii) SADC Treaty – 2001 Amendments Art. 5(c) (Aug. 14, 2001).
No comments:
Post a Comment