We have in the past cautioned the Botswana government against its reluctance to engage other African countries on matters of mutual interest.
From time to time even the most powerful countries on earth find themselves in an unenviable position of having to engage or even lobby those that they do not agree with to their side before publicly making pronouncements. And Botswana is a very small country whose voice, in the overall scheme of things, matters very little ÔÇô even by the scale of Africa.
Botswana’s fondness to go it alone is beginning to isolate the country on many fronts.
We find ourselves in a situation where increasingly our allies are only countries with which we share no borders; faraway countries like the United Kingdom and the United States.
Our past grandstanding against Robert Mugabe has caught up with us.
In fact, Botswana’s past decision to support Morgan Tsvangirai against Mugabe has not only strengthened Mugabe, we now are at his mercy as we literally beg him to allow us to erect geo-political infrastructure that can only make economic sense if it passes through Mugabe’s country.
We want to once again urge our authorities to always exhaust all diplomatic avenues before, as a country, we choose to go it alone. More importantly, we can make our position known in private and yet choose to engage all parties in public ÔÇô including those that we do not like.
This course of always wanting to make our views public should, in our opinion, be used discreetly, diligently and sparingly. It isolates and annoys many countries that we need for many other things.
There is a saying which goes thus “there is safety in numbers” the wisdom of which Botswana seems to have not heeded.
There is currently a diplomatic hot potato over the African Union Summit that was initially penciled to be held in Malawi.
As its well within their right, Malawi made it known that they would not allow in Sudanese President Al-Bashir who has been indicted by the International Criminal Court.
Because Al-Bashir insisted on attending, the Summit has had to be moved to Addis Ababa, where he will be free to attend without the risk of him being arrested. Relocating the Summit to Addis is a big coup for Al-Bashir.
We have no sympathy for Al-Bashir.
He has caused a lot of misery for the people of Sudan.
But recklessness on our other leader continues to turn Bashir into a hero.
It’s clear that Al-Bashir would have lobbied some African Governments, which Botswana government clearly does not want to do.
Al-Bashir’s lobbying has resulted in him out-staging countries like Botswana and Malawi who want him arrested.
Botswana is a sovereign state and it has the right to make decisions it may deem necessary, in fulfillment of her obligations under the Rome Statute, just like Malawi, if we are to borrow from the government press release that criticized the African Union for relocating the AU Summit from Blantyre to Addis Ababa.
The government said it was concerned about the pressure exerted by the AU Commission on Malawi to commit to hosting President Al Bashir at the Summit. The pronouncement by the government is right. African countries must shun despotic rulers who murder and maim civilians in their lust to cling to power.
Botswana had, and still has the opportunity to raise her concerns with the AU and, more importantly, her regional neighbours over some of these continental and regional sensitivities.
It is noteworthy that South Africa, the regional power house south of the equator has chosen to remain silent. What message is Gaborone sending to Pretoria and the rest of the SADC region over our hard line stance? Having said that, we are not in any way suggesting that Botswana should kow-tow to the dictates of South Africa but we are only asking for little restraint and engagement with others whom we might need during difficult times.
As for Malawi, they need not have shouted over the rooftops. If Malawi indeed, as Botswana says, wanted to fulfill her obligations under the Rome Statute, she should have allowed Al Bashir to set foot on her soil and arrested him before handing him over to the International Criminal Court.
The position that Botswana has adopted is morally correct.
But is it in the long-term practical?
That is the question.
Once again we want to emphasise that there is nothing wrong with Botswana steadfastly enunciating her position behind the scenes.
But to always blot out every time other regional countries do not agree with us?
Apart from creating an impression that we are attention seekers, it merely serves to embarrass our allies among African countries who share our world view but would rather have these sensitive matters discussed indoors before individual governments release press statements that on their own achieve very little.
