The Selebi Phikwe West MP, Dithapelo Keorapetse, has sought to explain the controversy over the Dalai Lama visit in terms of how it would affect the lives of ordinary people.
Much has been made about the fact that Botswana is a sovereign state that has a right to decide whom it can allow or disallow into the country. Addressing parliament this past week, the Minister of International Affairs and Cooperation, Pelonomi Venson-Moitoi, reiterated the sovereignty argument by stating that as a democratic and sovereign state, Botswana has a prerogative to decide who to allow into its territory, based on her immigration regulations.
“Essentially, this is a matter that falls within the domestic jurisdiction of Botswana,” she said when answering Keorapetse’s question. “As you may be aware, the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries is at the core of China’s foreign policy. We therefore expect the Peoples’ Republic of China to respect our sovereign decision on this matter, as we never dictate to other countries who they should admit in their territories. It is therefore, our considered view that the Dalai Lama’s visit to Botswana should not diminish the existing strong bonds of friendship and fruitful cooperation that has stood the test of time between our two republics.”
For Botswana, the sovereignty argument is a double-edged sword because it can also be used against it. With his separatist stance, the Dalai Lama threatens China’s sovereignty as regards Tibet and it is impossible to separate him from Tibetan separatism. Botswana’s embrace of the One China Policy in 1975 signalled its rejection of this separatism which – in 1959, took the form of an uprising that was financed by the Central Intelligence Agency. China is very clear about the fact that it sees the Dalai Lama as “a wolf in sheep’s clothing” and view his international travel as furtherance of his separatist agenda. This is the mess that Botswana has inserted itself in.
Other African countries feel as strongly about their sovereignty as Botswana but go farther to adopt a pragmatic approach to foreign relations. Citizen interest is the source of sovereignty, which sovereignty is then transferred to the government. With regard to the issue at hand, how is it in the interest of Batswana to leverage sovereignty to antagonise a future economic super power by allowing someone who is an economic security threat into the country? South Africa, which is more economically independent than Botswana, denied the Dalai Lama a visa because it cannot afford to antagonise China. As other African countries, South Africa also values its political sovereignty but understands that foreign relations in a globalised 21st century are energised by economics and not politics.
After some 41 years of bilateral relations, Botswana and China have come to a sorry pass as the former becomes the first in Africa to host the Dalai Lama. Both domestically and internationally, China’s method of punishment strongly suggests that the government aims for an extremely high deterrence value. It wants those watching from the sidelines to recoil with horror and not even fathom the thought of offending it. Evidence of such intent is beginning to emerge. On Wednesday, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Lu Kang, addressed his comments to not just Botswana but the rest of the world when speaking at a press conference in Beijing.
Speaking in parliament, Venson-Moitoi said that officials of the Chinese Embassy have not given any indication of whether they will punish Botswana. On the other hand, sources with back channel to the embassy say that such punishment will definitely be levied. China is going to want to punish Botswana with such severity that countries looking on would recoil with horror and think twice about hosting the Dalai Lama. Keorapetse asked the minister whether it will be in the best economic interest of Botswana to anger China, which is the second largest consumer of its diamonds, by hosting Dalai Lama.
“That is what I want to know from you. How will this affect an ordinary Motswana if China was to sanction Botswana? How will it affect an ordinary Motswana because we know gore ba the quad bikes ba tlaa tswelela ba ntse ba fenya, but what about the ordinary Motswana at home, how will they be affected?” he posed.
Loosely translated, the Setswana basically means that the quadbike set will continue to live large even if China imposes economic sanctions. This was an apparent dig at President Lieutenant General Ian Khama, a quadbike enthusiast and tycoon who seems to view the stand-off over the Dalai Lama visit as a battle to be won and not a problem to be solved.
Strangely for an issue that is essentially about economics, there has been very little focus on this element. If China stops buying Botswana’s diamonds, the national economy will be negatively affected. The shipping containers that come directly to the Gaborone Container Terminal from Shanghai will go to a different location outside Botswana and more middlemen will be added to the value chain. More middlemen will drive prices up and what has been affordable merchandise from China will become expensive, especially for ordinary Batswana. Chinese shops, from which the poor buy exclusively, will close down and staff laid off. Getting a visa to travel to China and buy cheap building materials ÔÇô a quite common practice nowadays ÔÇô will become extremely difficult ÔÇô if possible at all. It is likely that constituencies like Keorapetse’s (where the closure of BCL mine has brought economic devastation) will be among the worst affected.
State banquets are typically characterised by talk of “shared values” and “common interests.” This is just empty talk because foreign relations are largely contracted on the basis of economic benefit. Botswana (or Batswana to be more precise) don’t share values with a war-mongering First World country with an embassy in Gaborone that has historically gone around the Third World toppling governments and installing its puppets, in the process slaughtering people and looting state resources. However, Botswana has to maintain the lie that it shares values with this country in order that it can benefit economically. Botswana has long pursued this pragmatic economic diplomacy. Going back decades, the country cut off diplomatic ties with Israel under Sir Seretse Khama when the Arab League made promises of cheap oil. His successor, Sir Ketumile Masire, restored such ties because it was economically imprudent to have an adversarial relationship with a state that is an extension of one that is the most powerful on earth.
Venson-Moitoi’s conception of the issue is that journalists who are criticising the government’s decision to host the Dalai Lama are acting against the national interest. However, such interest has not been defined and information about what it entails would enable a cost-benefit analysis of the Dalai Lama visit. Already we have a fair idea of what the cost will be: loss of the second largest market for our diamonds when we are essentially a one-commodity economy. What is the benefit of hosting the Dalai Lama and is such benefit greater than having China as the second largest market for our diamonds? Nobody, not even the minister, has stated what the benefits will be and if such information was revealed, it may turn out that what the government perceives to be a benefit is actually not a benefit at all. Making the benefit information public would also assist the effort of determining who, between the government and journalists, is acting in the national interest. Which party, to use one of the words that President Khama habitually uses to bludgeon those outside charmed circles, is being patriotic?
The sad irony of it all is the role of Americans in this stand-off. The Dalai Lama comes to Botswana courtesy of a United States organisation called Mind & Life Institute which the former is honorary chairperson of. In his autobiography, the late former Botswana Vice President, Lieutenant General Mompati Merafhe, writes that back when Botswana was still dirt poor, First World powers like the US were not interested in helping the country ÔÇô which was wholly surrounded by hostile white supremacist regimes ÔÇô to establish an army. Such help eventually came from China. Former president, Festus Mogae, has also given a variation of such testimony.
