British NGO Survival International is still looking for a knockout punch in its battles against Botswana’s economy and diamond industry. So far, SI has only registered a single and celebrated victory since it chose to use Botswana’s embattled peoples of the Kgalagadi as pawns in what is seen as a huge fundraising gimmick.
It lists the victory as having influenced the government to drop prosecution of tortured “Bushmen” through protests and recording the men’s testimonies as well as writing letters of complaint.
“Survival also assisted with the men’s defence. The prosecution eventually dropped the case when the authorities refused to produce a witness to confirm the accusations.
“This is an important victory for the Bushmen in the face of vicious harassment,” said a statement on their website.
There is something intriguing and formidable about the relationship between Survival International and its cash cow, the “Bushman” campaign in Botswana.
The nature, depth and intensity of the campaign threaten to overshadow what is really at issue as emotions run high and threaten objectivity on both sides.
And it keeps spiraling wider and more destructively. There is even a clear and present danger that by the time the crusade is over, Botswana’s economy and diamonds will be mangled and twisted. Regardless of whichever way the decision might go, it might not be enough to save the good name of the country.
Although the landmark judgment on the CKGR relocations will only be handed down in December 2006, a lot is going on in boardrooms and government offices in both Botswana and elsewhere. One thing is for sure; whatever the decision turns out to be might not be the end of the case.
Supporters of Basarwa land rights recently celebrated the Basarwa advocacy group First Peoples of the Kalahari’s recent launch of a website, www.iwant2gohome.org.
There is widespread belief that the Basarwa’s main ally in its fight, Survival International, sponsored the website. However, there is no clear evidence that such is the case.
Exploring the website is disappointing; while the navigation is easy, the site is bare.
It lacks depth and appeal. One thing that immediately becomes clear is that there is a significant chain of coincidences in the style of presentation of the web pages. Simplicity is the catch phrase here.
There is something absolutely obstinate about the unadorned pages splashed around in blue, black and white quotations attributed to the current and former CKGR residents.
No one can deny the consistency of the writing style of the author of FPK’s press releases, quotations in the SI web sites and the contents of the ‘Iwant2gohome’ web pages.
The language is simplistic as if deliberately made to sound uniform all the time to prove a point. The structure of the language that makes the quotations look and sound so elementary that one may think that they are verbatim or products of poor direct translation. For example someone is alleged to have said the following:
“I am happy hear, no problem but government is the problem that is troubling me. I am sad about what the government are doing. They ask us to go to New Xade but we don’t want to go.
The government take all my children. I am lonely as I have no one to accompany me. What I want is my children to be brought back.”
Another one is quoted as having said, “We tell them we will never go there by relocation, we will just visit and come back. We are always telling them that when relocation started that those who want go will, and those who won’t will not, so why are they bothering us?”
Having said all that, it further begs the question: why are all the testimonies from people who seemingly haven’t moved from CKGR and not those who want to return to it? And why are they saying government “asked” them to move and not that Botswana government “forced” them to move?
Perhaps the most interesting part of the website is the album 405 tiny mug shots of “Bushmen” who want to go home. Even nicer is the fact that when you put the cursor over the picture, every picture has a message purported to be from the individual photographed.
This brings into perspective a difficulty presented by the voices of those wanting to return to the game reserve. Having followed the “CKGR case,” (Roy Sesana, Keiwa Setlhobogwa and 241 others v. Attorney General) from the beginning, a pattern that is all too familiar immediately appears to me.
In its own webpage, Survival International has always favoured quoting anonymous sources identified as victims of the “forcible relocations” to speak against the allegedly brutality of Botswana government agents.
However, some people such as the 2005 Right Livelihood Award recipient Roy Sesana have nothing to fear. He always says more than any of his kinsmen without fear of government officials.
The difficulty alluded to is the fact every one of the four hundred people have said something that vouches for their wish to go back home to the CKGR. However, 23 quotations over three pages from the FPK’s web site are anonymous.
All of the quotations sound like people who refused relocation uttered them. They all speak about New Xade as ‘that place.’ Their heartbreaking stories are peppered with the words “death,” “land,” “government”, “sick,” “kill,” “government.” Every one of them.
If over 400 comments have been made over everyone’s portrait, why would the same people plead anonymity on subsequent pages of the same web site?
Another glaring discrepancy present in the website is that the 400 pictures on the First Peoples web site do not tally with the number of applicants in the court case.
On examining the court documents pertaining to the court case, only close to 100 people who appear in the ‘Iwan2gohome’ web site correspond to the actual applicants in the records.
Who are these additional people and why are they only appearing on the scene now. It could well be that more and more people at New Xade are rising and adding fuel to the fire.
It would seem that the ‘Iwant2gohome’ page further muddles the questions over the identities of the real applicants opposed to the relocation.
During the trial, only seven of the witnesses testified about the relocation exercise. Even then, evidence led in court revealed that some of the seven or their family members had taken compensation from government, while others had refused to move.
Even more surprising was the fact that the formidable Roy Sesana refused to take the stand, though he is the chief applicant and the most popular and respected founding member of the land rights movement.
The Court will pass judgment on the case in December.
