Khama�s foreign policy is flawed
Dithapelo Keorapetse | Friday March 4, 2016 12:26
The Leader of Opposition, Duma Boko aptly described Botswana’s posture as “one of its many instances of thoughtless enthusiasm” in a statement to Parliament.
Unlike in the past or during the presidency of Messrs. Seretse Khama, Ketumile Masire and Festus Mogae, contemporary foreign policy of Botswana is characterised by roof-top diplomacy, discrepancies, double standards and knee-jerk foreign policy decisions. During the Cold War (1945-1990) Botswana was able to be friends with both the West led by the US, and the East led by the USSR. A landlocked country, which was during its early years and right up to late 1980s or early 1990s sandwiched by warring parties, the country managed to survive because of its adept foreign policy and diplomacy. Most things in the past were discussed internally and through diplomatic channels as opposed to audaciously releasing of statements that have a potential to cause diplomatic spats.
In the recent past, Botswana distanced itself from the African Union’s (AU) decision not to help arrest Sudan’s President Omar Hassan Al Bashir who is wanted by the International Criminal Court. The former Vice President Mompati Merafhe, who represented the President at the summit, contended that “ Africa should not try to undermine the work of the ICC simply because one Head of State called Bashir has been indicted by the Court.” The government has decided to domesticate the Rome Statute through enactment of a law. Around the time that the law was tabled, Fatou Bensouda, ICC Chief Prosecutor visited Botswana to congratulate it on its readiness to arrest ICC fugitives and its domestication of the Rome Statute.
Botswana has criticised the so-called undemocratic regimes such as Syria, Libya, Madagascar and others. During the time when Ivory Coast was entangled in a domestic conflict over a disputed election, Botswana announced its readiness to host one of the claimants to the throne, Alassane Ouattara. This was recklessly said in the midst of an internal conflict. Following the 2008 Zimbabwe’s disputed elections, Botswana was very clear that it didn’t recognise Robert Mugabe as the winner and President.
Foreign policy decisions are premised on factors such as the resource base of the country, its geography in relation to others, the nature and level of development of its economy, its demographic profile, its ideology and or political beliefs and fundamental national values. The international environment (currently the new world order and globalisation) also influence foreign policies of almost all countries. One could daringly argue that Botswana’s position is premised on democratic principles and human rights if the country was adhering to international law, treaties and conventions to the letter. The country is in the habit of picking and choosing. Sometimes it only signs and not ratify and if it ratifies in some cases, it doesn’t domesticate into legislation. Sometimes it takes long tough battle between the state and interest groups for ratification to be done by the state. For instance, there are some ILO Conventions that Botswana hasn’t signed and ratified. It hasn’t signed and ratified The SADC Protocol on Gender and Development. The country’s human rights record is not very impressive and its democracy is regressing. More people died in extra-judicial killings in Botswana under President Ian Khama. It is difficult to presuppose that the positions of Botswana on many international issues are based on principles. A probable conclusion therefore is that in some instances, Botswana’s position is inspired by the quest for international political expediency. Internationally, Botswana is trying to exhibit an attitude of a superior virtue.
Botswana was applauded by the ICC and some in the West for its firm position on Bashir’s indictment. But the position has attracted greater scrutiny on Botswana, particularly on its democratic credentials, human rights record and adherence to international law, treaties and conventions. Questions are asked in some quarters if Botswana is indeed holier-than-thou as it internationally proclaims.
Botswana’s positions on Bashir’s warrant of arrest, Syria, Zimbabwe, Madagascar, Ivory Coast, Swaziland and China suggest flaws in the country’s foreign policy. Its foreign policy is determined and decided by the president because the country does not have a codified foreign policy informed by national values, strategic national interests and national security strategy. As said, this has resulted in discrepancies, double standards and knee-jerk foreign policy decisions. On July 1, 2003 the Bush administration issued a stiff ultimatum that it would be immediately cutting off all military aid to certain countries unless their leaders signed bilateral agreements guaranteeing the total immunity of all Americans (military and civilian) before the International Criminal Court (ICC). Botswana is among countries which signed this agreement; it would seem in response to the administration’s July 1 ultimatum. The fact that Botswana is ready to assist ICC with arresting a fellow African, but not ready to do the same to American citizens, is a clear case of double standard. In Swaziland, the People United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) is a banned political organisation and deemed a terrorist movement since 2008; Swaziland Youth Congress (SWAYOCO) (Youth League of PUDEMO) is a banned political organisation and deemed a terrorist movement since 2008; Trade Union Congress of Swaziland (TUCOSWA) was de-registered in 2012; Political parties are not recognised by any law in Swaziland; There are political prisoners in Swaziland jails such as PUDEMO, SWAYOCO and ANC/SACP members; There are Swazi politicians living in exile in countries such as South Africa including Bongani Masuku, Philemon Lukhele, Sipho Dube, Bheki Dlamini and Pius Vilakati among others. What therefore guides Botswana on which undemocratic countries to openly criticise or not?
Under Ian Khama, more foreigners from countries whose citizens are exempted from Visa requirements have been placed under Visa restrictions. Opposition leaders elsewhere like Julius Malema of EFF, academics, human rights lawyers etc. have been affected. The country recently refuses and delays many visa applications, residents and work permits for foreigners from countries like India, China and Nigeria and others in record numbers. Khama has deported more foreigners than those expelled by his predecessors combined. Other countries will soon reciprocate and be hostile to Botswana. Botswana’s foreign policy under Khama has angered many and if not changed it is likely to build walls and not bridges. His foreign policy hasn’t focussed on building new alliances and restoration of friendships. The President who is quick to criticise others, has neither attended a single AU heads of state and government summit nor a UN General Assembly. His foreign policy is oddly haphazard and deeplyflawed.