Article Changing notions of humansecurity in the Southern African region Lisa Thompson and Anthony Leysens Introduction During the years leading up to South Africa’s first democratic election in 1994, andits acceptance as a memberofthe Southern African Development Community (SADC) in the same year, the Southern African region has received substantial scholarly attention. This has come from both within South Africa and further afield.' The key issues dealt with include the region’s needs and expectations, South Africa’s stated commitment, and the objectives of the SADC Treaty, or combinations of the three. The literature has dealt with the question of how and whyto get from here to there in terms of regional security and development commitments, and (more recently) why the process has slowed down and gone awry. Increasingly, different analytical perspectives have been utilised, leading to a variety of proposals and recommendations. Surprisingly the ‘new’ security and developmentrealities ofthe region bear aremarkable similarity in terms of state priorities, to those of the 1980s. Our purposein this article is to point out some challengesforcritical humansecurity approachesto the analysis of the political economy of the Southern African region. To this effect, we will contextualise critical approaches to security in International Relations (IR) and International Political Economy (IPE), point out the difference between new security andcritical human security, and discuss some tensions between the two approaches which we think need to be debated.? We will then attempt to relate our critique to the developments surrounding the SADC’s Organ on Politics, Defence and Security (OPDS). In the area known as security studies (previously strategic studies) whichfalls within the fields of International Relations (IR) and International Political Economy (IPE), a numberofbroad areas offocus can be identified: TRANSFORMATION 43 (2000) ISSN 0258-7696 isa Thompson and Anthony Leysens mainstream regional security analysis; ‘new’ security analysis; critical humansecurity and development; regional integration/co-operation; and gendered approachesto security and development. The differences between these approachesrelate to theoretical and methodological assumptions,but also, and more profoundly, to the purpose of theoretical analysis itself. There is at present a considerable amount of consciousterritoriality with regard to broader security approaches, although at the same time an overwhelming consensus that realism and neo-realism remain the central conceptual (some might say ideological) framework within which most mainstream security analysts function. On the ‘broader’ security front, there is, on the one hand, ‘new security’ approach as represented by Barry Buzan and the Copenhagen School. This approach has gained much favour, not least amongst analysts in influential think-tanks close to government. On the other hand, the most coherent alternative is ‘critical security studies’ analysis, represented by the Aberystwyth School.’ Those who follow the second approach have purposefully tried to define an agenda whichprioritises descriptions and prescriptions which focus on the ways in which security can be enhanced at the societal level. The central assumption here is that states are not necessarily the best or necessary providers of such security. In drawing the abovedistinction, we have foundit useful to analyse how the distinctions between these two approaches haveled to the appropriation of the ‘critical security studies’ academic discourse into ‘new security studies’ approaches (mostly by way of a discernible linguistic turn), and howthis has led to the repackaging of old governmentpriorities. We also raise the concern that it is perhaps the way in which some‘critical security studies’ approaches have been framed which allowsfor this appropriation to take place. This is because some‘critical security studies’ approaches turn on a ‘state-society’ nexus which assumesa strong state, or at least a state which has a policy stance whichis felt by all ‘citizens’. We argue that this is not necessarily the case in the Southern African context,as the crisis in the Congoillustrates. Our guiding premise is encapsulated by Krause and Williams who argue that: We mustgrasp the genesis andstructure ofparticular security problems as groundedin concrete historical conditions and practices, rather than in abstract assertions of transcendental rational actors and scientific methods. We must understandthe genesis ofconflicts and the creation Changing notions of human security in the southern African region of the dilemmasof security as grounded in reflexive practices rather than the outcomeof timeless structures. (1997:50) This quotation highlights both the need for the prioritisation of the historically-grounded subject, as well as the needforcritical reflexivity on what we ourselvesas ‘critical security’ academics are saying (as well as whois listening and why). The second‘need’identified is crucial given that broaderissuesof security (as well as the emancipatory dynamic of focusing on societies) have been absorbedinto the policies of SADC memberstates at the level of policy statements. The same(old) policy practices continue, nevertheless, cloaked in the veil ofpolitical ‘correct-speak’. Before turning to this discussion, we begin by giving a brief historical overview of SADC’s origin and development,to indicate how the organisation’s security agendahas (ostensibly) been broadened. SADC: historical background SADC’s originslie in its predecessor, the Southern African Development and Co-ordination Conference (SADCC), which was formed in 1980 with the objective, inter alia, to lessen the region’s economic dependence on apartheid South Africa, but also on the industrialised states ofthe so-called north. The original members were Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Namibiajoined after independencein 1990, followed by South Africa in 1994. The most recent members to join were Mauritius (1995), Seychelles and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) (1997). Until 1992, SADCC’s institutions were based on a Memorandum ofUnderstanding (1981) between the memberstates and it was therefore not a treaty-bound organisation. The SADCCinitiative originated from within the former Frontline States (FLS) group. The latter was a political association, formed in the early 1970s to co-ordinate policies, particularly those pertaining to the liberation struggles against the white minority-regimes in the region. Tanzania and Zambia werethe original members,later joined by Angola, Botswana, Mozambique, Namibia and Zimbabwe. Thelatter’s independence (as a more industrialised state) was seen as an opportunity to attract more foreign donor aid to the region. Hence the idea to organise a Southern African Aid Co-ordination Conference. Atameeting ofthe FLSin 1979, Mozambique suggested that amechanism should be put in place for more formal co-operation around regional developmentissues, andparticularly, for the creation ofa transport network which would reduce dependence on South Africa. These factors, and the Lisa Thompson and Anthony Leysens need to draw newly-independent Zimbabweintothe fold, led to a declaration (Southern Africa: towards economicliberation) by the leaders of the FLS (which wasalso signed by Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland and Zimbabwe) on April 1, 1980, and the formation of SADCC (Mandaza and Tostensen 1994:4-13). Theinitial approach chosen to enhance economic co-operation between the memberstates was one of project co-operation and developmentco- ordination rather than market integration. The guidelines for the process designed to reduce economic dependence,establish links between member states to move towards regional integration, co-ordinate national and regional policies, and promote international involvement in the economic liberation ofthe region were contained within a ProgrammeofAction, also adopted in 1980. This functionalist approach was adoptedto initiate increased co-operation and a move towards eventual integration. Member states were expected to submit nationally-based (within specific sectors) projects which would also contribute towards regional objectives. Pursuant to this, states were allocated sectors to co-ordinate in which they were perceived to have a particular national interest, thus giving them more of an incentive to effectively co-ordinate policies, strategies and priorities in the area for which they had regional responsibility. Individual states were assigned responsibility for funding and implemention while at the regional level, SADCC/SADC would ensure that projects conformed to regional objectives andcriteria. It would also secure co-operation from international partners through its Annual Consultative Conferences (ACC) (Mandaza and Tostensen 1994:3 1-34). The sectors and subsectors allocated to member states are at present energy (Angola); agricultural research and livestock (Botswana); production and animal disease control (Lesotho); environment and land management, as well as water (Malawi); inlandfisheries, forestry and wildlife (Mauritius); tourism (Mozambique); culture and information, plus transport and communication (Namibia); human resource development (Swaziland); industry and trade (Tanzania); labour and employment, as well as mining (Zambia); food, agriculture and natural resources (Zimbabwe). South Africa (after joining in 1994) was allocated the finance and investment sector. Member states are required to fulfil their regional sectoral responsibilities through nationally-based Sector Co-ordinating Units (SCU’s) (Bertelsmann 1998:183-4). Changing notions of human security in the southem African region Because the initial project approach resulted in projects more in the nationalinterest of memberstates than that of the region, steps were taken in 1987 to ensure moreefficient co-ordination between the sectoral policies of the member states which would, in turn, enhance regional trade. The political changesinitiated in South Africa in 1990, as well as the increasing stress on trade competitiveness within the globalpolitical economy, led to SADCCshifting its emphasis from development co-operationto trade (and development) integration. This was the motive of the theme document SADCC: Toward Economic Integration, and was given effect to by The Declaration and Treaty ofthe Southern African Development Community, signed on August 17, 1992. Theprinciples underlyingthe treaty are: co-ordination of memberstate policies to attain ‘sustainable development’, sovereign equality ofmember states, solidarity, peace and security, human rights, democracy and rule of law, equity, balance and mutual benefit. Article 5 of the treaty sets out the following objectives: * achieving development and economic growth, alleviating poverty, enhancing the standard and quality oflife of the peoples of the region and supporting the socially disadvantaged through regionalintegration; * evolving commonpolitical values, systems and institutions; * promoting and defending peace andsecurity; * promoting self-sustaining developmentonthe basis of collective self- reliance and the inter-dependence of memberstates; * achieving complementarity between national and regional strategies and programmes; * promoting and maximising the productive employmentand utilisation of the region’s resources; * achievingthe sustainableutilisation ofnatural resources andthe effective protection of the environment; and * strengthening and consolidating the longstanding historical, social and cultural affinities and links among the peoples of the region. To achieve these objectives, Article 22(1) of the treaty made provision for the conclusion of a numberofprotocolsto ‘spell out the objectives and scope of, and institutional mechanisms for co-operation and integration’. To become operational, such protocols mustobtain the approval ofboth the Summit and the Council of Ministers, as well as ratification by two-thirds of memberstates. Lisa Thompson and Anthony Leysens Protocols accepted to date by the Summit have dealt with: Immunities and Privileges; Shared Water Systems; Energy; Combat of Illicit Drug Trafficking; Transport, Communications and Meteorology; Trade; Education and Training; and Mining. Of these, all but South Africa, Mauritius and the DRC haveratified the Immunities and Privileges Protocol. In fact, South Africa has ratified only the Shared Water Systems Protocol. The Protocol on Trade, which aims to establish a free trade area in the region within eight years of ratification and was signed at the June 1996 summit meeting in Gaborone, has only been ratified by Botswana, Mauritius and Tanzania. (Botswanais actually the only memberto haveratified all protocols.) The Gaborone summit also recommendedtheseparateinstitutionalisation of the controversial SADC OPDStoreplace the defunct FLS. Currently, the Inter-State Defence and Security Committee (ISDSC) is the main operational arm of the Organ. The committee consists of a ministerial council andofficials from thetraditional security establishments ofmember states (defence, security and intelligence) and is chaired on a rotational basis by the ministers of defence ofmemberstates. It is, therefore, strongly influenced by‘old’ security practitioners (Malan and Cilliers 1997:2). The Organ’s principles, however, do allow for a broader or ‘new’ conceptualisation of security which includes, inter alia, the peaceful settlement of disputes, military intervention only when all other means have been exhausted, the attainment of regional peace, solidarity and security, and the promotion of regional economic development which takes into consideration equity, balance and mutual benefit. One of the objectives states that the Organ aimsto ‘promote the political, economic, social and environmental dimensionsof security’. Onthe face of it, SADC’s revised development and security objectives and principles, as reflected in the Treaty, appear progressive. The extent to which these changes have been informedbyshifts in academic discourses internationally and regionally is explored below, as well as the extent to whichthe revisedinitiatives themselves have affected regional development and security dynamics. Critical thinking on security in International Relations Manyrepetitive meta-theoretical analyses of the IR discipline and its weaknesses have been undertaken.Its most obvious characteristic has been the dominance of one perspective, realism (and its more economically- orientated variant, neorealism). The end ofthe Cold War seemedto presage Changing notions of human security in the southern African region a theoretical opening, but a decadelaterit is unclear as to whether this has done muchto changethe nature ofthe dominant meta-narratives in IR/IPE. One area where there has been an attempt to develop new thinking has been security studies. Buzan’s (1983, 1992) attempts to expand notions of security horizontally to include aspects other than simply the political and military security of states triggered a post-Cold War wave of ‘new’ and critical human security thinking which has attempted to extend this conceptualisation vertically to embrace communitarian aspects. This involves conceptualising security across borders and from the ‘bottom- up’, especially within the ‘developing’ world context. To this extent, previously hidden insecurities (ofmarginalised groups within and between states) have emerged more clearly. As pointed out in the introduction, however, ‘new’ security approaches need to be seen as distinct from ‘critical security’ studies, even though both profess to have an ‘emancipatory’ dynamic. These developments in academic discourse, and the adoption of ‘new security-speak’ by practitioners, have had a limited impact in terms of addressing regionalinsecurities. We arguethatthisis, to a large extent, the result of the fact that the (regional) security agenda continues to be dominated by traditional (neorealist) security issues. It is, however, also related to the ways in which emancipatory critical security thinking is structured, as well as the generality ofits content, which has tended to allow someofits aspects to be appropriated into policy discourses. This has been madeeveneasierby the ’new security’ approaches which haveretained the state as the legitimate locus of security provision and whichascribe to some of the same ‘emancipatory’ principles as ‘critical security’ studies, such as a focus on humansecurity. This has of course, been very convenient for policy-makers, as the following discussion makesclear. Besides the distinction between ‘new security studies’ on the one hand, and ‘critical security’ on the other, there are also a range of approaches within the latter. The major debate revolves between those whoascribe to a universalistic concéptualisation of epistemology (HabermasianCritical Theory; with a capital ‘C’ and ‘T’) and those who embrace diversity (postmodernism andcritical approaches with a small ‘c’). Jean-Francois Lyotard (1993) has goneso far as to say thatto betruly postmodern, we should do away with the search for universal explanatory meta-narratives and concentrate instead on localised narratives. This is seen by postmodernists, and some strands of feminism, as the only way to get Lisa Thompson and Anthony Leysens around the phenomena of academics speaking on ‘behalf of’ societies about which they knowlittle or nothing in terms of empirical research. While the need for more rigorous empirical work cannot be discounted, critical feminist approaches which, amongstothers, have begun to explore the potential ofpostmodern approaches, have also pointed out the drawbacks of dealing solely with localised narratives, the call for which is a kind of meta-narrative of its own. Another relevant critique levelled at post- modernism is the lack ofcognisance by Lyotard and others,of(inter)national structural influences on the content of localised narratives. The linkage between larger legitimating meta-narratives and localised narratives, we would argue, is central to properly contextualising and understanding them.Itis within this context that the term ‘developing’ has been conditioned and disciplined by a dominant knowledge discourse, the standard ofwhich is set by those societies described as ‘developed’. Within IR/IPE, the notion of a dominant international knowledge (ideology) structure has been derived from Gramsci (1978). His conceptualisation ofhegemonic knowledge, or whatis called here dominant meta-narratives, is located within the nation-state. Cox (1981, 1987), Gill (1991), Gill and Law (1988, 1989) and Strange (1988, 1991) have extended this conceptto the international sphere. Gramsci’s original argument was that traditional intellectuals (that is those with a high degree of formal educationin the natural andsocial sciences) acted as ‘functionaries’ of the superstructure of the state, and exercised ‘subaltern functions of social hegemony andpolitical government’ (Gramsci 1978:12). The focus on knowledgeas a conceptual base for the contextualisation ofthe critique of dominantperspectives on security and developmentin the Southern African region allows for an emphasis on how dominantideas affect and constrain understandings ofsocial relations. It is clear that in the realm of security, the dominant metanarrative of neorealism, derived largely from the international knowledgestructure, continues to dominate at both academic andpolicy level. While new security thinking andcritical Security language (note language, not approach) have permeated the policy-making discourse, this has simply occurred in ways that legitimise state authority and its monopoly on force and violence. In this regard, andin the interests of critical reflexivity, some important questions need to be revisited and the directions which they may presuppose highlighted. What does security mean and for whom? Whatform shouldit take globally and within the region? These questions are particularly Changing notions of humansecurity in the southern African region problematical: the latter presupposes that a commonvision ofa community, or communities, can be arrived at, as well as a path to get there, while the former presupposesthat security which focuses on subjects can be defined both generally and specifically (across class and ethnic lines for example, as well as across boundaries, perhaps even continents). ‘New Security’ and ‘Critical HumanSecurity’ approachesto regional analysis To recap: the major difference between ‘new security thinking’ and ‘critical human security’ is that the former expandsthe security agenda to include non-traditional issues,® while the latter does the same but includes the notion oftransformation and emancipation in ways whichprivilege the subjects of security across borders (both analytical and territorial) rather thanstates. Secondly, while ‘new security thinking’ emphasisesthe inclusion of more dimensionsofinsecurity, it concludes that the state is ultimately responsible for addressing these ‘new’ threats. Both approachesstressthat humansshould bethe ultimate focus of security and not necessarily states which are often the source of human insecurity. Buzan’s (1983, 1992) expansion of security to include an economic, environmental and societal dimension (in addition to the moretraditional military and political dimensions) has been steadily incorporated into theory, to such an extent that Solomon (1998) describes it as having evolved from a marginalised to a dominant discourse. It has also been accepted (on paper)bypractitioners. It is quite clear, to take our regional example, that the principles of the OPDSreflect new security thinking. A major South African security think tank, the Institute for Security Studies (ISS), also endorses and promulgatesthe premises ofnew security thinking. Its mission statement emphasises that it aims ‘to enhance humansecurity in Africa’. It also accepts the vertical extension of security in that it seeks to ‘inform decisions on critical areas of individual, national, regional and international security’. On the surface, this seems quite an achievement when one considers that many ofthe Institute’s staffers are former South African Defence Force (SADF)officers. Research output, therefore, includes looking at non-traditionalissues such as crime, drug-trafficking, water and migration in the region. ‘Critical human security’ analysis applied to the Southern African region is reflected in the work of Booth (1994), Vale (1996, 1997), and Booth and Vale (1995, 1997) who have drawn on the changes in IR discourse to re-examine security issues in the post-Cold War system ofthe Lisa Thompson and Anthony Leysens 1990s. They would probably agree that there is nothing new about ‘new’ security. Societal security has long been underplayed in the IR discipline which has, as stated earlier, been dominated by the realist/neorealist discourse. It seems that academic discourse has followed world events. The focus on ‘non-traditional’ issues can largely be attributed to the global changes we have witnessed during the course ofthe 1990s,for instance, the end ofbipolarity and the constraints put on state autonomy by the demands of the global market. A broader conceptualisation of security, therefore, which examines security dilemmas which extend beyondthe borders of the state, within a regional or global context must be taken to mean something more than *...the pursuit of freedom from threat and theability of states and societies to maintain their independentidentity and their functional integrity against forces of change which they see as hostile’ (Buzan 1992:207). Booth, for example, highlights the importance of the communitarian (but non-state centred) aspect of this way of thinking: ..the referent object of ‘security’ should no longer be almost exclusively the state...but should also encompassthe individual humanbeingat the lowest level and world society at the highest. The traditional strategic Studies notion of security should become broader and synonymous with the peace research concept ofpositive peace. (1991:341) This conceptualisation enablesus to focus ontheissue of societal security in developing countries. A point whichis also emphasised by Bryant within the context of Southern Africa who argues that: ‘...one cannot uncouple security policies from those of development’ (1988:9). Booth also stresses that the military, economic, political, societal and environmental aspects of (in)security overlap in the developing world: Burdenedby debt, environmental problems, ineffective administrative Structures, ethnic divisions and weak economies,the systems of many Third World countries are overloaded. The future threatens to be one of yet further poverty, economic and political instability, social dislocation, and the ever present possibility of internal violence. (1991:9) Recentevents in Southern Africa and the Great Lakes region seem to bear testimony to this description of a multi-dimensional and interlocking security matrix. These expanded notions of security have been welcomed by policy makers in the region, evenifthe non-traditional issues (economic,societal, and environmental) have not always been prioritised.” Critical security 10 Changing notions of human security in the southem African region analysts,will, in the light ofthe points raised thus far, have to confront two problems, The first is the appropriation of ‘new security thinking’ and ‘critical security’ language into the ‘mainstream narrative’. As has been noted above, this is reflected by the shifts within mainstream security analysis in South Africa. The second central problem which critical theorists face (and sometimestry to sidestep) is the problem of war. While Walkerhas stated that‘...the principle of state sovereignty denies both the possibility and the desirability oftalking about humanity as such’ (1990:12), it is undeniable that talking about humanity as such does not allow us to escape from the brute realities of wars such as the conflict in the Great Lakesregion. Gendered critical approaches also highlight the extent to which democracy, openness, and/or legitimate authority apply differently to different groups inside the state (showing the normative and gendered aspect of interpretations of justice clearly). Peterson stresses that: the state is...a ‘bearer ofgender’ by reference to male domination ofthe top personnel of states and to the cult of masculinity among these personnel... The state is complicit ‘directly’ through its selective sanctioning of non-state violence, particularly in its policy of ‘nonintervention’ in domestic violence. It is complicit ‘indirectly’ throughits promotion ofmasculinist, heterosexist and classist ideologies — expressed, for example, in public education models, media images, the militarism ofculture, welfare policies and patriarchallaw. (1992:31- 64) In Southern Africa, this is evident among women (although women who are on the margins of power socio-spatially as well as structurally are arguably at the margins of the margins) but also among a good proportion of men too. Socialisation and the masculinist nature of state politics weakens the grass-roots movement’s ability to exercise relational powerto changethis discourse. At the level of the meta-narrative, the presumptions of realism portray a state-centric view of political/military security, this then predominates as jhe most important referent by which governments should measure their legitimacy as states, and their status as states in the region. (Critical) reflections on ‘Critical Security Thinking’ on the State Ascritical human security analysts, we (correctly) problematise the state as a source of insecurity in Southern Africa. But when we prescribe solutions which require us to move beyondthe bordersofthe state we must be sensitive to context and history. The question that one needsto start with 11 Lisa Thompson and Anthony Leysens is: whyarestates in the region (and the rest ofAfrica) sources ofinsecurity? Are they sources of insecurity because they do not have the capacity to govern their societies? In this case, the answer would be to prescribe policies which strengthen the autonomy andthe predominanceof the state vis-a-vis society in the region. Such a state-centric solution is, however, one of the major problems whichthe critical security school has with new security thinking. Another possible answer is that states in the region are sources of insecurity because they are ‘predator’ states who, through their control over their societies, have managed to extract wealth for the personal gain of state incumbents. This would lead us towards an argument which prescribes better and decentralised governance and moreinclusiveness. In other words, it would imply strengthening the role of ‘civil society’ (regionally) and reducing the role of the state. In the parlance of ‘critical security’, this means moving toward a situation wherethe state is ‘taken out’ and societal networks are focused on to enhance humansecurity. Providing the answers to these questions requires that we start with context and history, and then moveonto analysethe possibilities of change and transformation, ending up with feasible prescriptions. This approach is illustrated in the work of Cox (1981, 1987) as a method of studying change in the global political economy. First, a synchronic ‘snapshot’ is taken which attempts to provide a contextual and in-depth description/ explanation of the state/society/world order matrix at a given point in time. Oncethis exercise is completed, the diachronic method requires us to focus on change, andthepotential for change: ‘This diachronic momentseeks out the contradictions and conflicts inherent in a social structure and contemplates the characteristics of emerging social forces and the nature and extent of structural change that is feasible’ (Sinclair 1996:8). Whether the state in Southern Africa is the major source of human insecurity, or whetherit is other societal actors, and what strategies people use to address threats to their security are questions which will lead to different answers. For instance, somestates in Africa have already, forall intents and purposes, been ‘taken out’ and are on the periphery ofdirect threats to security. In some cases, we findjuridical sovereign states, which, in terms ofother aspects of‘statehood’, exercise very limited or no societal control whatsoever. Here we findthat people usestrategies ofdisengagement and engagement towardsstate actors to satisfy material and non-material security needs. What emergeshereis the ‘shadow state’, a term used by Changing notions of human security in the southern African region Reno (1995) in a study on the state and corruption in Sierra Leone to illustrate alternative networks which play themselvesoutin, for instance, informal markets. The state ends up being one among many contenders whowantto exercise societal control and whooffer to address the material and non-material security needs of society. Migdal (1988) describes this ‘snapshot’ as being one characterised by a weakstate and a strong society. This seems to be the pattern in many African states today. Cornwell (1999), drawing on the work of Clapham (1996), points out that changes in the global political economy(for instance, the end ofthe Cold Warandthe integrative market dynamics of globalisation) have made it more difficult for state incumbents in Africa to use external support to maintain their grip on power. The events in the Democratic Republic of the Congo seem to fit this mould. There are other cases where the answersare different and which illustrate the importance of using the synchronic and diachronic method. For instance, in a comparative analysis of Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe, Du Toit (1995) concludes that Botswanais a strong state with a strong society. Leaving aside the question of whether it would enhance the humansecurity of the Batswanaif we prescribed a ‘stateless’ solution, the point is that in many cases (Angola, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Somalia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo) the‘state’ is whoever is in charge of the capital. Perhaps we should be willing to considerin critical human security that the problem is not necessarily the state, but rather the form or typeofstate. The SADC Organ on Politics Defence and Security (OPDS) Theinitial enthusiasm ofcritical security writing on the need for human security in the region has begun to evaporate somewhat in the face of regional wars. This is somewhat perplexing for those emphasising emancipation becauseit leads everyone right back to neorealism’s central focus, viz the political-military security of the state (or more correctly,its incumbents). How have regional dynamics responded to shifts in the security metanarratives and narratives discussedearlier? Initially the signs looked good, as SADCC became the SADC,and shifted goals towards ‘development integration’ and other forms of security, primarily socio- economic, which were includedaspart ofthe organisation’s objectives and principles. With the transformation of SADCC into SADC,it wasfelt that the FLS needed to be replaced with something more appropriate to the post- apartheid region. Initially, an Association of Southern African States 13 Lisa Thompson and Anthony Leysens (ASAS) was proposed. Finally, after much deliberation the Organ on Politics, Defence and Security (OPDS) officially replaced the FLS. The Organ’s role, function and objectives were originally intended to go beyondtraditional security issues (see above), so the potential of the new institution to undermine SADCsoriginal developmental role was not readily grasped by many South African analysts and policy makers. Despite South Africa’s pronouncements on the need for a more human rights-based foreign policy and an equitable regional approach, discussion documentspublished by the Departmentof Foreign Affairs (DFA) showed clearly that they, and related departments (eg Defence and Trade and Industry), retain a strong national-interest orientation. The proposed Organ alt i rt wasin fact, first mooted by South Africa. In the DFA’s first discussion document (Draft Discussion Document on a Frameworkfor Cooperation with the Countries of the Southern African Region 1996:12) includes the following on the Organ: Althoughit is not foreseen that South Africa will be coordinating the Organ, its participation in the Organ will necessitate strong leadership and guidancein the process...the Department of Foreign Affairs will play a coordinating role between the other concerned line-function departmentsin the design, establishment and running of the Organ, especially with regard to the translation of the Interstate Defence and Security Committee to become oneofthe institutions of the Organ. The documents, as well as the public discussions which followed, clearly underlined the hegemonic aspirations of South Africa’s foreign policy, although the attempt to couch this ‘diplomatically’ is evident from an analysis of the proposed policy framework. The Draft Documentreferred to above also has a second section in which a new ‘National External Security Strategy’ (NESS) is proposed. Here, it is abundantly clear that South African state departments remain caught in a state-centric understanding of security. For example,the section entitled Protecting and Promoting South Africa’s National Interests in a Competitive World (DFA 1996:17) states: South Africa’s diplomatic, intelligence, and defence capabilities are eeeek among a spectrum ofinstruments available to protect and promoteits national security. Bilateral and multilateral diplomacy musttherefore be usedto create a favourable international environmentfor the active promotion and protection of South Africa’s security interests. Theprioritisation of a political/military horizontal approach to security, even in its supposedly ‘transformed’ context, is transparent. The Organ and Changing notions of human security in the southern African region its attached more military-orientated institutional operational arm (the ISDSC) have provided an outlet and opportunity for the more traditional South African security practitioners (the new incumbents as well as those from the apartheid state). According to South Africa’s initial proposal, the foreign affairs ministers of member states would accept responsibility for the steering ofthe Organ.In other words,it was to have a base at the Council of Ministers level within SADC and defer to the Summit when necessary. However, a second(parallel) Council ofMinistersis against the rules ofthe SADC Treaty. The Organ, therefore, functions at the summit (heads of state) level. As a result SADC has two summits and, ostensibly, two main goals — political and economic development and integration. Currently, political and military security issues dominate the regional agenda,in spite of SADC’s broadenedsecurity objectives. While the former FLS and SADCC managed to present a common regional front, the new SADC,incorporating the more heavyweight OPDS, has tended to unravel fragile allegiances. Zimbabwe’s President Mugabe has shown that he is prepared to sacrifice any semblance of regional coherence whenit comesto political/military issues. Zimbabwe (and other SADC memberstates) did not support former South African President Mandela’s position on Nigerian humanrights violations in 1996. This rift in SADChasagain been exposedinthecrisis in the Great Lakes region. The events since August 1998 to the present show how regional leadership rivalries preclude the sort of borderless community of which critical theorists have spoken so much. A narrative account of the DRC conflict and its effect on SADC The rivalry between former South African President Mandela and President Mugabe ofZimbabweensuredthat the ODPS became embroiled in regional conflict in a manner which wasnotinitially foreseen. Rather than acting as an institutional mechanism to facilitate conflict resolution, the SADC Organ has been used by Mugabe to legitimise armed intervention in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The tensions began surfacing towards the end of 1997 when Mandela sent a tersely wordedletter to Mugabe in his capacity as Chair of the Organtotheeffect thatifthe dual summit issue was notresolvedsatisfactorily, South Africa would feel itnecessary to relinquish the SADC chair. The debate (ostensibly) revolved around a leadership rivalry within SADC, but the root-cause was undoubtedly a perception by other memberstates that South Africa was attempting to forge a hegemonic political role in the region and should be prevented from doingso. 15 Lisa Thompson and Anthony Leysens Mandela did not carry out his threat but since August 1998 the threat posed to the DRC’s Laurent Kabila by a rebellion supported by neighbouring Uganda and Rwanda broughtthe rivalry between Mandela and Mugabeout into the open again. Mugabe snubbed Mandela’s efforts to resolve the conflict through negotiations and sent troops into the DRC to support Kabila. This action divided SADCover the question of whether military interference in a memberstate could be justified in terms of SADC’s objectives and principles. Namibia and Angola assumed interventionist stances and also supplied troops to aid Kabila. Other SADCstates either remained neutral or avoided taking sides against South Africa’s attempts to forge a peaceful solution. Almost from the time of the successful takeover of power by Laurent Kabila’s Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of the Congo (AFDL)in May 1997, the DRC had harbouredthepossibility of becoming a regional flashpoint. The takeover was supported by Rwanda’s Tutsi-led government which had come to power in the aftermath of the 1994 genocide. Kabila’s democratic track record subsequentto his coming to powerwas dubious. He came underseverecriticism for interfering with the UNinvestigation into the massacre of Hutus by Tutsis in eastern Zaire. A Tutsi-led rebellion was suppressed in February 1998, but in August of the . same year the Alliance for Congolese Democracy (or the Congolese Democratic Movement) mounted a ‘second rebellion’ against Kabila’s government. Therebels initial advance was rapid andthey captured the key towns of Goma, Bukavu, the Banana naval base and Muhanda port. Analysts were predicting that it would only be a matter of weeks before Kabila was ousted. It was the intervention of Zimbabwean, Angolan and Namibian troops which halted the advance on Kinshasaitself (Mills http:// we www.bday.co.za/98/0818/comment/e1 .html). The intervention and the manner by which the decision to sendin troops mer was madea boneofcontention between the chair of SADC (Mandela) and the chair of the Organ (Mugabe). Mandela, after the decision to intervene ~ militarily had been made at a meeting of SADC Defence ministers in e ee pe Harare (August 18, 1998), criticised Mugabe openly and called for a ceasefire, followed by negotiations at a SADC emergency summit on August 23, 1998. Ten days later, Mandela announced that the military intervention had the support of all SADC member states. Furthermore, at the 18th SADC Summit Meeting (Mauritius, September 13-14, 1998) the final communiqué approved ofthe intervention and commended Zimbabwe, Angola, and Namibia for their actions (Malan 1998:6-7). 16 Changing notions of human security in the southern African region South Africa’s attempt to launch a twin-track (but dialectical) peace processwasinitially treated with scorn and ridicule by Mugabe. Herefused to attend the meeting which had been organised by South Africa’s Deputy President, Thabo Mbeki. In a terse statement, Mugabe maintained that ‘SADC metand took a decision through its defence ministers (last week in Harare) and that decision is being implemented so we cannot go back on that decision’. Prior to the meeting, Mugabeis reported as havingsaid “... those who wantto keep out, fine. Let them keep out, but let'them besilent about those who wantto help’ (August 21, 1998). During the same week, Mandela’s official pronouncement was‘ourattitude is clear in regard to this problem.It is not to worsen the position by sending in a military force’ (bttp://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/19980822.html). While Mandela, Mbeki and Foreign Minister Alfred Nzo continued to try to broker a peaceful settlement, it soon become clear that the move by Mugabe(as chair of the Organ) to intervene had paid off. Mandela’s open endorsementofthe military interventioninitiative during the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Conference hosted by South Africa (August 29 ~— September 3) and the fact that no mention was made of the DRCcrisis in any NAM communiqueorresolution affirmedthis. Nonetheless, Mandela and Mugabe remained at loggerheads. SADC memberstates appeared to be moving towards a moreunified approach to negotiations in late October 1998, but this was followed after the fall of Kindu by contradictory statements from Mandela and Mugabe. Mugabe pledged his support to Kabila by stating that the war neededto be taken east (towards Uganda)so asto support the ‘sovereignty’ ofthe DRC. During the same week, Mandela announced a renewed peaceinitiative. Thereasonsfor the rebellion and the consequent armed intervention are contested by analysts. Some characterise the rebellion as a ‘Rwandan invasion’ (the Zimbabwean viewpoint), while others point to the complexities of the overlapping ethnic and political animosities interlaced with the vestiges of contradictory colonial and neocolonial authority structures which characterise the Great Lakes region (Mamdaniin Sunday Independent, August 30, 1998). The interventions by Zimbabwe and Angola have been variously attributed to attempts to buttress the power of state incumbents, as well as to Zimbabwean financial and commerciai interests in the DRC. In Angola’s case,its need to protect the oil producing enclave of Cabinda, and the neutralisation of Unita bases inside the DRC, havebeencited. Lisa Thompgon and Anthony Leysens initiatives by The crisis has dragged on now for years despite numerous These includ e a draft cease-fire various actors to resolve the conflict. in July 1999. It made provis ion for the agreementarrived at in Lusaka ies (24 hours after signing ), the deploy ment of a cessation of hostilit n with the peacekeeping force by the United Nations in collaboratio Milita ry Commi ssion Organisation ofAfrican Unity, the formation ofa Joint force (made up from all the belligerents) to keep the peace until the UN arrives, and thestart ofa processo fdialo gue betweent he DRCand the two main rebel groups . It has not been fully implem ented and the war has dragged on into the new millennium. These failed attempts have served to emphasisethe fragility of Southern Africa’s political coherence and have underlined the manner by which ‘national interest’ differences and personal rivalries have been played out through the Organ. Originally intended to broaden the notion of security, it has instead been usedto justify a military intervention which does not pass the test of the United Nations Charter. Thelatter, according to Malan (1998:9), clearly states that no regional grouping ‘may...undertake any military enforcement action without the specific authorisation of the Security Council’. South Africa’s initial refusal to endorse the decision made by the SADC Defence Ministers in Harare was undermined by Mandela’s volte face, and its own subsequent military intervention (with the belated aid ofBotswana) in Lesotho under SADCauspices. This has led to speculation that the real reason for South Africa’s non-interference stance wasits tacit support for Rwanda and Uganda’s involvementin the DRCconflict. Conclusion The heads ofgovernmentofthe SADC memberstates haveinstitutionalised and attempted to reshape the security objectives of the region through the SADC Treaty of 1992 and its subsequent protocols. The DRC crisis illustrates that, while ostensibly ‘broadening’ the security narrative, the SADC’s objectives and principles have been used to further the narrowly defined interests of state and non-state actors. Theinstitutionalisation ofthe OPDSin 1996 was,in effect, the harbinger of the separation between security (broadly defined) and development. While paying lip service to a wider notion ofsecurity in its stated principles, the Organ institutionalised the separation of political/military from economic/security factors — effectively displacing the importance of emphasising the connection between them in the region. While some 18 Changing notions of human security in the southern African region mention was made ofbroadening notions of security horizontally, this has clearly failed in practice., While neorealist and neoliberal metanarratives underpin and dominate the theory andpracticeofthe regionalpolitical economy, memberstates of SADChavelittle incentive actively to engage with and strengthen civil society. Yet, it is precisely within the marginalised social groups in the region (commercial and non-commercial peasants, the urban unemployed) that the potential for transformation lies. The irony ofthe situation is that in the end the legitimacy of governmentsin the region no longer depends on an externally-conceptualised notion ofstate sovereignty or legitimacy, but will depend on whether the human security needs of the region’s marginalised groups are addressed. To this effect, critical human security analysis should focus more on how these groups interact with the state, within the region, and how they perceive the region’s ‘regionness’. This could lead to practical suggestions as to how human emancipation can be achieved in a region where (weak) states and non-state actors pursuetheir own interests under the SADC mantle. What also emerges from this analysis is that while critical human security analysts stress the need for a borderless, prosperous region and somesort of Kantian regional communitarianism on the theoretical level, in practice state leaders remain concerned with reaffirming territorial borders. On the ground, regional humansecurity has not been influenced by the critical academic discourse, possibly because such analyses have reflected ivory-towervisions rather than the actual social dynamics of the region. This is not the equivalent of an admonition to ourselves to go out andfind the ‘truth’ but ratherto say that the disjuncture between theory and praxis is acute. Critical human security theory will have to build a high degree of reflexivity into its examination of the ways in which state structures, and the social forces which mediate its power, function within the region. It will also have to show that analysts have moreto offer than their armchair dreams. Notes 1. See for instance, Booth (1994), Booth and Vale (1995 and 1997), Carim (1995), Cilliers (1996), Davies (1992, 1994, and 1997), Du Pisani (1992), Hull (1996), Keet (1994), Lieberman (1997), Leysens (1998), Maasdorp (1994), Malan (1998), Malan and Cilliers (1997), Mandaza and Tostensen (1994), Schoeman (1998), Solomon and Van Aardt (1998), Solomon and Schoeman (1998), Swatuk (1997), Thompson (1991, 1995, 1997), Tsie (1996), Vale and Lisa Thompson and Anthony Leysens 1997, 1998), and Daniel (1995), Vale (1996 and 1997), Var Aardt (1993, 1995, does tive list, but it Van Nieuwkerk (1995). This is by no means an exhaus some of the various approa ches which have been used in Southern reflect ; African regional analysis. ctive. This . Our analysis is directed from an encompassing critical perspe n postmodernism, approach recognisesthat there isroom for engagement betwee gs of Habermasian Critical Theory, Coxian Critical Theory, and feminist readin security and development. pment . We do notthinkit useful to further ‘divide up’ the security and develo en debate and so deliberately do not draw furtherterritorial boundaries betwe securit y studies approa ches of, for exampl e, the York Centre for critical International and Strategic Studies (YCISS) in Toronto (to which Krause and Williams pay homagefor the developmentoftheir ideas in their edited book on Critical Security Studies). Our distinction between critical and “new” security thinking thus hinges on two key analytical divisions: the extent to which the state remains privileged as ultimately the legitimate provider of security (new security); and the extent to which the subjects of security are contextually and historically privileged as the locus for the emancipatory project(critical security studies). . The ACC’s provide a forum where the memberstates and the ‘international co- operating partners’ meet to evaluate performance and to chart out the course ahead based ‘on the principal of mutual benefit’ (Mandaza and Tostensen, 1994:83). Traditionally, these partners have been the European Union, the Nordic countries, the Commonwealth, and the United Nations. . This is possibly facilitated by the fact that only presidential and cabinet approval is required, whereas in South Africa the process also requires parliamentary approval (Mills 1998:9). . This is most clearly demonstrated in the work of Ken Booth. In an excellent overview ofcritical internationalrelations theory, Devetak (1996:166) points out that in Booth’s understanding ofemancipation the emphasis ‘is on dislodging those impediments or impositions which unnecessarily curtail individual or collective freedom’. . There arevarious ‘new’ security issue lists which are proffered. See for instance, Hudson (1998:26) who includes poverty, global inequality, social injustice, humanrights, oppression, and ecological degradation. To these one could add migration, refugees, drug-trafficking, AIDS, population growth, water scarcity, food scarcity, drought, and unemployment. References Bertelsmann, T (1998) ‘Regional integration in Southern Africa’, South African Yearbook ofInternationalAffairs, 1998/9. Johannesburg: South African Institute of International Affairs. Changing notions of human security in the southern African region Booth, K (1991) ‘Security and emancipation’, Review of International Studies 17(4). (1994) ‘A security regime in Southern Africa: theoretical considerations’, Southern African Perspectives 30. Bellville: Centre for Southern African Studies. Booth, K and'P Vale (1995) ‘Security in Southern Africa: after apartheid, beyond realism’, International Affairs 71(2). (1997) ‘Critical security studies and regional insecurity: the case of Southern Africa’, in Krause, K and M Williams(eds) Critical Security Studies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Bryant, C (ed) (1988) Poverty, Policy and Food Security in Southern Africa. Boulder: Lynn Reiner. Buzan, B (1983) People, States and Fear: the national security problem in international relations. Brighton: Harvester Wheatsheaf. (1992) People, States and Fear: an agenda for international security studies in the post-cold war era. Boulder: Lynn Reiner. Carim, X (1995) ‘Critical and postmodern readings of strategic culture and Southern African security in the 1990s’, Politikon 22(2). Cilliers, J (1996) ‘The evolving security architecture in Southern Africa’, Africa Insight 26(1). : Clapham, C S (1996) Africa and the International System: the politics of state survival. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cornwell, R (1999) ‘Africa watch: the end of the post-colonial state system in Africa?’, African Security Review 8(2). Cox, R W (1981) ‘Social forces, states, and world orders: beyond international relations theory’, Millennium: JournalofInternational Studies 10(2). ———--—— (1987) Production, Power and World Order:socialforces in the making of history. New York: Columbia University. Davies, R (1992) ‘Emerging South African perspectives on regional cooperation and integration after apartheid’, Transformation 20. ~ (1994) ‘Approaches to regional integration in the Southern African context’, Africa Insight 24(1). (1997) Promoting regional integration in Southern Africa: an analysis of prospects and problemsfrom a South African perspective’ in L Swatuk and D Black (eds). Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) (1996) South African Foreign Policy Discussion Document. Pretoria. Devetak, R (1996)‘Critical theory’ in Burchill, S and A Linklater (eds). Theories of International Relations. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 21 Lisa Thompson and Anthony Leysens in post-apartheid Southern Africa’, Du Pisani, A (1992) ‘Security and peace ive International Affairs Bulletin 16(3). a: a compara i State-Building andDemocracyin Southern Afric Zimbabwe. Pretoria: HSR C Publishers. me ehhafPoLwana, South africa and national political economy” Gill, S (1991) ‘Historical materialism, Gramsci and inter national Political Economy. in CN Murphy and R Tooze(eds) The New Inter Boulder: Lynne Rienner. Economy. Brighton: Harvester Gill, S and D Law (1988) The Global Political Wheatsheaf. International (1989) ‘Global hegemonyandthe structural power ofcapital’, Studies Quarterly 33. on: Lawrence and Gramsci, A (1978) Selections from Prison Notebooks. Lond Wishart. mon and Hudson, H (1998) ‘A feminist reading of security in Africa’ in H Solo M Van Aardt (eds). ern Hull, A (1996) ‘Rational choice, security, and economic cooperation in South ’, Africa Africa Today 43. st — Keet, D (1994) ‘International players and programmes for — and again economic integration in Southern Africa’. Southern African Perspectives 36. Bellville: Centre for Southern African Studies. Krause, K and M C Williams (1997) Critical Security Studies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Leysens, A J (1998) ‘Southern Africa: the case for a Coxian approach’. Paper presented at the Third Pan-European International Relations Conference and Joint Meeting with the International Studies Association, Vienna, September. Lieberman, E $ (1997) ‘Organisational cloaking in Southern Africa: South Africa and the SADCafter apartheid’, Transformation 34. Lyotard, J F (1993) The Postmodern Condition: a report on knowledge (trans Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Maasdorp, G (1994) ‘The future structure of regional trade integration and development cooperation in Southern Africa’, Africa Insight 24(1). Malan, M (1998) SADC and Sub-Regional Security: Unde Venis et Quo Vades? ISS MonographSeries (19). Halfway House: Institute for Security Studies. Malan, M and J Cilliers (1997) SADC Organ on Defence and Security: future development. ISS Papers (19). Halfway House: Institute for Security Studies. Mandaza, I and A Tostensen (1994) Southern Africa: in search ofa commonfuture. Gaborone: SADC. Changing notions of human security in the southern African region Migdal, J S (1988) Strong Societies and Weak States: state society relations and state capabilities in the third world. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mills, G (1998) ‘South African foreign policy in review’, South African Yearbook of International Affairs, 1998/9, Johannesburg: South African Institute of International Affairs. Reno, W (1995) Corruption and State Politics in Sierra Leone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schoeman, M (1998) ‘Anexploration ofthe link betweensecurity and development’ in H Solomon and M Schoeman (eds). Shaw, M (ed) (1997) Towards Safer Cities: the South African debate on options for urban safety. ISS Monograph(11). Halfway House:Institute for Security Studies. Sinclair, M (1996) ‘Migration research in South Africa: current trends and new directions’, Southern African Perspectives, Working Paper 60. University of the Western Cape: Centre for Southern African Studies. Solomon, H and M Schoeman (eds) (1998) Security, Development and Genderin Africa. ISS Monograph Series (27). Halfway House: Institute for Security Studies. Solomon, H and M Van Aardt (1998) ‘Caring’ Security in Africa: theoretical and practical considerations ofnew security thinking. ISS MonographSeries (20). Halfway House: Institute for Security Studies. Spike Peterson, V (ed) (1992) GenderedStates. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. Strange, S (1987) States and Markets: an introduction to internationalpolitical economy. London:Pinter. ————— (1991) ‘An eclectic approach’ in C Murphy and R Tooze (eds) The New International Political Economy. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. Swatuk, L (1997) ‘The environment, sustainable development, and prospects for Southern African regional cooperation’ in L Swatuk and D Black (eds). Swatuk, L and D Black(eds) (1997a) Bridging the Rift: the new South Africa in Africa. Colorado: Westview Press. Thompson, L (1991) ‘SADCC:part ofa whole or whole of a part?’, International Affairs Bulletin 15(1). (1995) ‘Beyond borders and betweenstates: (re)visions of development and security in international relations — a Southern African perspective’, Southern African Perspectives 48. Bellville: Centre for Southern African Studies. (1997) ‘Is the dream dreaming us? Developing development discourse in Southern Africa’, Africanus 27(2). 23 Lisa Thompson and Anthony Leysens African development community Tsie, B (1996) ‘States and markets in the Southern of Southern African (SADC): beyond the neo-liberal paradigm’, Journal Studies 22(1). rn Africa in the 1990s: Vale, P and J Daniel (1995) ‘Regional security in Southe formation 28. challenging the terms of the neo-realist debate’, Trans rn Africa ’, Altern atives 21(3). Vale, P (1996) ‘Regional security in Southe (1997) ‘Backwaters and by-passes: South Africa and its region’ in L Swatuk and D Black (eds). ation of security Van Aardt, M (1993) ‘In search of a more adequate conceptualis : do we need a femini st touch? ’, Politi kon 20(1). for Southern Africa (1995) ‘Back to the future? : women and securi ty in post-apartheid Southern Africa’, Strategic Reviewfor Southern Africa \7(2). (1997) ‘The emerging security frameworkin Southern Africa: regime or community?’, Strategic Reviewfor Southern Africa 19(1). (1998) ‘The application ofthe new security agenda for Southern Africa’, H Solomon and M VanAardt(eds). Van Nieuwkerk, A (1995) ‘Big or small, open or closed? A survey of views on regional integration’, in G Mills et al (eds). South Africa in the Global Economy. Johannesburg: South African Institute of International Affairs. Walker, R B J (1990) ‘Security, sovereignty and the challenge of world politics’, Alternatives 13(1).