One of the tortures of journalism is trying to get a simple straightforward answer from the Government Enclave – especially the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Ministry’s official language is diplomatese, intentionally impenetrable jargon which, like a horoscope, uses a lot of words but ultimately communicates next to nothing. Last Thursday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Lemogang Kwape, left MPs exasperated when they tried to get him to give a simple straightforward answer to the question of whether President Mokgweetsi Masisi had “condemned” Russia during a telephone conversation with his Ukraine counterpart, President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Kwape ground MPs down with a ceaseless supply of diplomatese until they just gave up. The call in question happened last Monday and according to Kwape, had been initiated by the Ukraine president. In a social media era, each president felt the need to put out a statement on Twitter. The contrast in the writing styles of the two leaders is striking: from the relative safety of Gaborone, Masisi uses diplomatese while, as a commander-in-chief in the middle of a war, Zelensky uses telegraphese. Masisi tweet reads: “I have just concluded a tele-meeting with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. Beyond the recognition of bilateral relations that subsist between our countries, I affirmed and reiterated solidarity with the people of Ukraine and encouraged a peaceful solution. We also deliberated on the need for Ukraine to continue grain exportation to ensure food security particularly for African countries.” On the other hand, Zelensky’s tweet is more pointed: “Had the 1st conversation in the history of bilateral relations with the President of Botswana @OfficialMasisi.
Thanked for condemning Russia’s actions, support in the UN & other platforms. Urged to join restrictive measures. Assured that [emoji of Ukraine flag] will remain a reliable food exporter.” Notice to ask a parliamentary question is made days in advance but there is provision in the standing orders (parliamentary rules) for MPs to ask a question without notice. Gaborone Central MP, Tumiso Mangwegape-Healy, invoked this provision to ask Kwape “why the statements from the two presidents following their interaction appear to be different.” The minister’s response in parliament was also in diplomatese. He said that Botswana was guided by the principles of good neighbourliness, peaceful co-existence and peaceful resolution of conflict. He added that in line with the UN Charter and “strong belief in the settlement of disputes by peaceful means”, the country would “continue to contribute to international peace and security by advocating for peaceful resolution of conflicts, collaborative dialogue and diplomacy through regional and international mechanisms.”
Dissatisfied with the answer because it clearly hadn’t answered his question, Healy pointed out that expressing solidarity and expressing condemnation are two different things. Once more, he asked the minister to state whether Masisi had actually condemned Russia in his call with Zelensky. In response, Kwape said that there was actually no difference between the statements of the two leaders. He added that going back decades, Botswana has always sought peaceful resolution to armed conflict. The next supplementary question was from Sefhare-Ramokgonami MP, Dr. Kesitegile Gobotswang, who also asked Kwape whether he considered expressing condemnation and expressing solidarity to be the same thing. He also asked whether the call was official and whether the countries had put together a communique that could be released to the public to clarify the issue.
Kwape gave a direct response to the first question (“yes”) but resorted to general equivocation on the second, making the addition that Twitter restricts the number of words that a user can post and that Botswana merely wanted to break up the fight. With regard to the latter, Kwape invoked a Setswana word – “tshere” – that a mediator uses when breaking up a fight. Prefacing his question with a definite statement, Maun West MP, Dumelang Saleshando said that expressing condemnation is not the same as calling tshere on fighters. Supposing Masisi had indeed condemned Russia, the MP wanted to know if Botswana (meaning Kwape’s ministry) had summoned the Russian Ambassador to officialise its concerns about his country’s actions in Ukraine. Kwape’s answer, which was a repetition of what he had said earlier, was that through a UN resolution, Botswana had implored Russia to stop its attacks on Ukraine.
Like Saleshando, some MPs wanted to know whether there has been any official engagement with the Russia. In lamenting Masisi’s choice to “offend Russia”, Nkange MP Dr. Never Tshabang, wanted to know whether he (Masisi) planned to talk directly with President Vladimir Putin to persuade him to stop the war. He also wanted to know whether Botswana would be foregoing the scholarships and technical assistance that Russia has been giving Botswana over the years. Speaking generally and seconds before pivoting to Botswana’s position on armed conflict, Kwape said that the option of talks with Putin was always open. He expressed perplexion at Tshabang use of “offend” because breaking up a fight (calling tshere on Russia and Ukraine as it were) doesn’t mean that Botswana is taking sides. On the basis of what Kwape had said, Thamaga/Kumakwane MP, Palelo Motaosane, said that there was desperate need to make a clarification to the Russian Embassy that Masisi hadn’t condemned their country.
The oddest thing about this debate, which only the Selebi Phikwe MP, Kgoberego Nkawana pointed out in what had become an unproductive back and forth between Kwape and MPs, was that Botswana has actually “condemned” Russia at the UN. That indeed happened on March 2, 2022 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The UN resolution that Botswana was party to uses three variations of the word in question: “Condemning the 24 February 2022 declaration by the Russian Federation of a ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine”; “Condemning the decision of the Russian Federation to increase the readiness of its nuclear forces”; and “Condemns all violations of international humanitarian law and violations and abuses of human rights.” An even stronger word is used in the same resolution: “deplores.”
For all his equivocation, Kwape did make a profound point which, ironically, expresses stronger sentiment than “condemn.” As Kwape launched into another round of equivocation, Tshabang interjected with repetition of a question that he had asked earlier but hadn’t been answered: “Are we foregoing Russia’s scholarship and technical assistance?” Kwape’s answer was that “scholarships couldn’t be equated to human life.” The profundity of this statement is that much of Africa seems to be overlooking Russia’s aggression because of what the country has done for the continent in the past, in the process putting Russia’s interests before their own. When Russia invaded Ukraine, it knew there were Africans in the country. Not only did Russia not warn Africans (Batswana included) about the impending attack, it also made them targets – which was why they also fled Ukraine. It is unclear whether Masisi’s conversation with Zelensky covered this particular point but it seems odd that Russia should not be condemned for an aggression that made Batswana targets.
At this point, western propaganda about the war is in full swing and for that reason, it becomes difficult to tell the difference between fact and fiction. That is context in which it is difficult to ascertain a theory that Russia’s war plan includes starving Africans. That theory was advanced by Rüdiger von Fritsch, a former German ambassador for Russia who told a German outlet that Putin wants to cause a famine in the Middle East and Africa so it would cause refugees to migrate to Europe, which would destabilize the region. “Putin’s calculation is that after grain supplies collapse, starving people from these regions will flee and try to come to Europe — like previously the millions of Syrians fleeing the horrors of war,” von Fritsch was quoted as saying.
This theory may or may not be true but what is patently clear is that Putin has targeted innocent Africans in Ukraine with intention to slaughter them. There is also the issue of whether the war is Russia or Putin’s. During the Soviet Union, the supreme policy-making body was the “Politburo” of the Communist Party, which exercised supreme control over the government. With its dissolution, Russian presidents – notably Putin, came to exercise such control. In that regard, Russia and Putin are two separate entities and the one that Africa is indebted to is the former, not the latter.
