Diplomat Magazine spoke to Botswana’s Minister Bogolo Kenewendo In the framework of the Global Expo Botswana 2018, Diplomat Magazine had the pleasure to talking to the country’s Minister of Investment, Trade and Industry, The Honourable Bogolo Kenewendo. Do you foresee any effects that Brexit may have on Botswana, and its relations to the EU? Particularly because Botswana’s only BITC has only a seat in London. Have you pondered about moving it to an EU country, or opening one in Paris, Berlin or Frankfurt? Botswana like any other country, is following with keen interest on debates and the envisaged outcomes of the Brexit, especially the type of impact it will confer on our trade and investment aspirations. You will note that the UK has traditionally been Botswana biggest export market in terms of both beef and diamonds, while imports of machinery equipment, destined for the mining industry have been very high. Botswana and other SACU members have taken a collective keen interest given the existing market access preferences accorded through the SADC – EU EPA, which provisionally entered into force on 10^th October 2016, and would like to preserve an existing status quo with the EU in terms of the current market access commitments that are in existence through the SADC EU EPA. Some of the practical challenges envisaged are more on the Non-tariff barriers side, especially for exporters that have been enjoying single-entry market access under the EU, as this will likely to raise costs of production associated with differing market standards, meeting the Rules of Origin requirements, and customs paperwork amongst others. To this end SACU member states and Mozambique are negotiating an Economic Partnership Agreement with the UK which aims at ensuring that there is no interruption to trade as a result of the UK exiting the EU and thus not being a party to the SADC EU EPA. It is true that at present there is only 1 BITC office for investment and trade promotion. The Government of Botswana has taken a collective to empower Botswana Embassies both in the UK and Europe (In Europe Botswana has four Embassies; Berlin, Germany, Brussels, Belgium, Geneva, Switzerland; and Stockholm, Sweden) to work closely with BITC on investment and trade promotion. On the same note, BITC continue to review its strategy from time to time, to meet the changing needs of the global investors, hence one cannot overrule the possibility of increasing international presence in the EU market. What are you doing to connect the country more readily to Europe, the USA and China? At present Botswana is reachable from all major markets including Europe via Johannesburg, with connecting flights to Gaborone the capital, (which is 45 minutes away) either through Air Botswana or South African Airways. The capital city can also be accessed through Ethiopian airlines from London, making a stop-over in Addis to Gaborone.

What is Botswana Doing to Connect Botswana to the rest of the World? First, Botswana has upgraded and modernised its 4 major airports (Gaborone, Maun, Francistown and Kasane) to turn Botswana into a competitive tourism regional hub. For example, improvements at Kasane International airport include extension of the runway and associated movement areas, refurbishment of the old terminal building and other buildings, provision of airfield ground lighting, provision of the structural electrified fence and airport WiFi connection provided by Botswana Investment and Trade Centre in collaboration with local providers Botswana Fibre Networks and MetroTech. Second, Botswana has identified cargo and logistics as one of the key investment opportunities to consider. Driven by increasing tourists’ arrivals, Botswana will remain a key regional player when it comes pristine safari tourism attractions, and developments around making Gaborone to be the diamond city as a result of relocation of the Diamond Trading Company from London to Botswana for aggregation. The Government strategy is to identify potential airlines that could be strategic partners to Air Botswana to consider direct flights as this would minimise the travel costs in terms of both finances and time. We are aware that China and USA are amongst the major trading partners, but have you thought about intensifying exchanges and relations with countries of similar Success stories? E.g. Slovenia in Europe, Alberta, Canada etc, what countries do we have in mind? Our strategy for Investment promotion has segmented the markets into tiers, and our approach to attraction is based primarily on lead generation, targeting those markets with High investor buyer appetite, coupled with High offer attractiveness for the following sectors; financial and business services; commercial agriculture and agro processing, manufacturing, with emphasis on automotive components and parts, and pharmaceutical industry; mineral beneficiation (diamond – cutting and polishing, jewellery manufacturing, brokers, financing etc; coal – clean coal energy and coal to liquid; soda ash – chemical industry); ICT (last mileage connectivity; tv white space, mobile money banking etc). Some of the small countries that BITC have targeted include the Viségrad group (the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) given their dominance on OEMs and automotive cluster development. BITC has established some very good contacts in this market and will continue to undertake promotion and image building to attract more business with the V4 countries. ———– Photography by BOPA- Phenyo Moalosi  

By Guido Lanfranchi At the end of October, NATO started its Trident Juncture 2018 exercise in and around Norway, simulating the Alliance’s reaction to a violation of Norway’s sovereignty. Admiral James Foggo, Commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Africa, says that the exercise sends a strong message of deterrence.   Almost 50,000 personnel, 10,000 vehicles, 250 aircraft, and over 65 ships, from all 29 NATO Allies and two partner nations, Sweden and Finland, deployed in and around Norway, in spite of uneasy climatic conditions. These are the figures of NATO Trident Juncture 2018 exercise, kick-started at the end of October 2018 and set to simulate NATO’s reaction to a violation of Norway’s sovereignty. As Admiral James Foggo, Commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Africa puts it, Trident Juncture is an “opportunity to test our capacity and capability to respond to a collective defense scenario” in Norway. By doing so, NATO “sends a message of deterrence to anybody who might want to bother those countries,” specifying that he has “no particular country in mind” while saying so. The fact that Article 5 has been used only once in the seventy years of existence of NATO should not be interpreted as absence of dangers – Admiral Foggo noted answering to comments on Trident Juncture’s value. Rather – he stressed – the lack of breaches to NATO members’ sovereignty should be interpreted as a success of the Alliance’s policy of deterrence. “In order to deter, you must be present” – Admiral Foggo stated, noting that Trident Juncture shows NATO’s ability to deploy and be present to defend its members. Highlighting the importance of doing such deployment in a short time, the Admiral stressed the important role played by the recently established Very High Readiness Joint Task Force, a 8,000 personnel force aimed at rapidly responding to threats, which is currently being tested in the Trident Juncture exercise. Albeit important, deterrence cannot be the only focus of NATO – Admiral Foggo stressed. Recalling the “3 D’s strategy” of NATO Secretary General Mr. Jens Stoltenberg, the Admiral emphasized the need to combine Deterrence, Defence, and Dialogue. While the first two points often grab much attention, the third point is extremely important – the Admiral said, providing examples of regular high-level contacts between NATO generals and their counterparts from a series of countries, including Russia. In the framework of such dialogue, it should come as no surprise that Russian observers could witness parts of the Trident Juncture exercise, in full compliance with OSCE rules. Similarly, Russia’s establishment of a warning area in international waters off Norway represents a normal communication, devoid of any impact on NATO exercise – Admiral Foggo clarified. Seventy years after the creation of NATO, the Alliance is still active and determined to send strong messages of deterrence to any third country,

By Dr. Andreas Eustacchio LL.M. (London LSE),  Vienna-based attorney-at-law; born in Zambia. “The highly intriguing theory – supported by the extensive geological evidences including the bacteriological analysis of deep-laying hydrocarbons – about the abiotic nature of oil and its practically infinite recreation in the lower geological formations of earth was presented some 25 years ago. These findings were quickly dismissed, and the theory itself largely ignored and forgotten. The same happened with the highly elaborate plans of Nikola Tesla to exploit a natural geo-electrical phenomenon for the wireless transfers of high energy for free. Why? Infinity eliminates the premium of deeper psychologisation, as it does not necessitate any emotional attachment – something abundantly residing in nature cannot efficiently mobilize our present societies…” Following the lines from the seminar work of prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic on Energy, Technology and Geopolitics, let us present an interesting take on the E-cars, similar driverless technologies and its legal implications that will mark our near future. *          *          *          * Self-driving cars react in a split second: quicker than even the most attentive driver. Self-driving cars don’t get tired, they don’t lose concentration or become aggressive; they’re not bothered by everyday problems and thoughts; they don’t get hungry or develop headaches. Self-driving cars don’t drink alcohol or drive under the influence of drugs. In short, human error, the number one cause of road traffic accidents, could be made a thing of the past in one fell swoop if manual driving were to be banned immediately. Is that right? It would be, if there hadn’t recently been reports about two deaths, one during the test drive for a self-driving car (UBER) and one while a semi-autonomous vehicle was driving on a motorway and using its lane assist system (Tesla), both of which regrettably occurred in the USA in March 2018. In Tesla’s case it seems that the semi-autonomous driving assistant was switched off at the moment of the accident. Around the globe, people die every day due to careless driving, with around 90% of all accidents caused by human error and just a small percentage due to a technical fault related to the vehicle. Despite human error, we have not banned driving on these grounds. Two accidents with fatal consequences involving autonomous vehicles being test-driven have attracted the full glare of the media spotlight, and call into question the technical development of a rapidly progressing industry. Are self-driving cars now just hype, or a trend that cannot be contained, despite every additional human life that is lost as a result of mistakes made by self-driving technology? The legal side For many, the thought that fully autonomous vehicles (a self-driving car without a driver) might exist in the future is rather unsettling. The two recent deaths in the USA resulting from (semi-) autonomous cars have, rather, may cause fear for others. From a legal perspective, it makes no difference whatsoever for the injured party whether the accident was caused by a careless human or technology that was functioning inadequately. The reason for the line drawn between the two, despite this fact, is probably that every human error represents a separate accident, whereas the failure or malfunction of technology cannot be seen as a one-off: rather, understandably and probably correctly, it is viewed as a system error or series error caused by a certain technology available at a particular point in time. From a legal angle, a technical defect generally also represents a design defect that affects the entire run of a particular vehicle range. Deaths caused by software malfunctions cause people to quickly lose trust in other vehicles equipped with the same faulty software. Conversely, if a drunk driver injures or kills another road user, it is not assumed that the majority of other drivers (or all of them) could potentially cause accidents due to the influence of alcohol. The desirability side The fundamental question for all technological developments is this: do people want self-driving cars? When we talk of self-driving (or autonomous) vehicles, we mean machines guided by computers. On-board computers are common practice in aviation, without the pilot him- or herself flying the plane – and from a statistical point of view, airplanes are the safest mode of transport. Couldn’t cars become just as safe? However, a comparison between planes and cars cannot be justified, due to the different user groups, the number of cars driven every day, and the constantly imminent risk of a collision with other road users, including pedestrians. While driver assistance systems, such as lane assist, park assist or adaptive cruise control, can be found in many widespread models and are principally permitted and allowed in Europe, current legislation in Europe and also Austria only permits (semi-) autonomous vehicles to be used for test purposes. Additionally, in Austria these test drives can, inter alia, only take place on motorways or with minibuses in an urban environment following specially marked routes (cf. the test drives with minibuses in the towns of Salzburg and Velden). Test drives have been carried out on Austria’s roads in line with particular legal requirements for a little more than a year, and it has been necessary to have a person in the vehicle at all times. This person must be able to intervene immediately if an accident is on the horizon, to correct wrong steering by the computer or to get the vehicle back under (human) control. Indeed, under the legislation in the US states that do permit test drives, people still (currently) need to be inside the car (even before the two accidents mentioned above, California had announced a law that would have made it no longer necessary to have a person in the vehicle). As a result, three questions arise regarding the UBER accident which occurred during a test drive in the US state of Arizona, resulting in a fatal collision with a cyclist:

1. Could the person who was inside the vehicle to control it for safety reasons have activated the emergency brake and averted the collision with the cyclist who suddenly crossed the road?
2. Why did the sensors built into the car not recognize the cyclist in time?
3. Why did the vehicle not stick to the legal speed limit?

Currently, driving systems are being tested in Europe and the USA. In the USA, this can take place on national roads and, contrary to European legislation, also on urban streets. As long as we are still in the test phase we cannot talk of technically proven, let alone officially approved, driving systems. The technical development of self-driving cars, however, has already made it clear that legal responsibility is shifting away from the driver and towards vehicle manufacturers and software developers. Our Prospects Whether, and when, self-driving cars could become an everyday phenomenon is greatly dependent on certain (future) questions:

• Are we right to expect absolute safety from self-driving cars?
• What decisions should self-driving cars make in the event that one life can only be saved at the cost of another?
• How should this dilemma be resolved?
• Dr. Andreas Eustacchio LL.M. (London LSE), the Vienna-based attorney-at-law; born in Zambia.
• If artificial intelligence (AI) and self-learning systems could also be included within the technology for self-driving cars, vehicles of this type might possibly become one day “humanoid robots on four wheels”, but they could not be compared to a human being with particular notions of value and morality. If every individual personally bears responsibility for their intuitive behavior in a specific accident situation, the limits of our legal system are laid bare if algorithms using huge quantities of data make decisions in advance for a subsequent accident situation: these decisions can no longer be wholly ascribed to a particular person or software developer if a self-driving car is involved. It will be our task as lawyers to offer legal support to legislators as they attempt to meet these challenges.

Both Afghan and Pakistani governments must address the long-standing conflicts over their shared frontier region in a way that arrests the rising disaffection among the Pashtun community.

By Attaullah Waziri. A border that was a product colonial jealousy and insecurity, the Durand Line divided what can be claimed as one of the world’s largest ethnic tribes, the Pashtuns, into two separate nation-states, Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they compete for political prominence today. In the late 1880s, the Amir of Afghanistan, Abdur Rahman, started demanding a clear demarcated border with the government of British India that had ventured into the Afghan land two times only to be sent back terribly beaten. Aware of the Tsarist Russia’s moves in Central Asia, the British too understood the urgency of creating a buffer state out of a land that it knew it could control the least. Afghanistan, was thus meant to be carved as a buffer state; one that would have been a part of its sphere of influence, if not so much as its physical territory. As negotiations for demarcating were allowed to roll following the conclusion of the Second Anglo-Afghan war, the Amir while permitting the British to control Afghanistan’s foreign policy, in return demanded zero interference from the British in Afghanistan’s internal affairs. A clearly defined and well delineated border would have been an appropriate solution. However, ever since 1893 when the then Foreign Secretary of India, Sir MortimerDurand, finalized an agreement defining the Indo-Afghan border, the Durand Line became a bone of contention between Afghanistan and British India, and much more so between Afghanistan and Pakistan after 1947. The said Line is 1,640 miles (2624 km) long. Representing the historical limits of British authority back in 1893 and what was to demarcate the territorial limits of Afghanistan and Pakistan following the latter’s creation in 1947; this line was drawn much like the other boundaries in the region- in a highly arbitrary fashion. And, it is with this that the seeds of the modern contention were sown. With little consideration for tribal or ethnic boundaries, the border divided the Pashtuns tribes between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Since its creation, this border has been viewed with disdain and is largely overlooked by politicians and tribesmen on both sides of the divide, making it almost superficial and highly difficult to man and thus, immensely porous. While the border does exist on the map, in practical terms it is neither enforced and, arguably nor enforceable. At countless places, the line of demarcation remains contested. In fact, at a few places, it dissects villages and even individual homes between the two countries. Tribesmen from both sides of the border continue to cross freely, often using hidden mountain trails that are very treacherous to say the least. A significant number of tribesmen have family ties on both sides. The Durand Line is often seen by the Pashtuns on both sides as a ‘fault-line’ that has bequeathed a sense of tragedy on a nation of approximately forty million people who are today found on both sides of this artificial border. The question of legality of the Durand Line is not of much interest to the international political and academic community. Most of the global powers readily buy Pakistan’s argument and agree that the Durand Line is a sacrosanct international boundary that it had inherited following its creation as a separate nation-state. With the departure of the British from the sub-continent in 1947, Pakistan claims that Durand Line became the internationally enforceable boundary separating it from Afghanistan. The historical presence of this contentious line for more than a century and the lack of legal-historical claims around it have made it possible for Pakistan to argue, and with legal force, that Durand Line has to continue into the modern times too. In fact, Pakistan has also claimed that Afghanistan has no legal right to renounce any agreement concerning a shared border unilaterally. Pakistan, with support from the UK and China, has also further said that the Durand Line issue is a settled one and that there is nothing more to debate on it. It would be interesting to note here that despite having a considerable presence of discontented Pashtuns within its provincial boundaries, the Governor of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), Khalilur Rahman in 2005 was quoted by journalists saying that the Durand Line agreement had expired after 100 years of its signing- that is in 1993- and that he had already spoken with the then President, General Pervez Musharraf to request an arrangement for its renewal. In October 2012, the US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Ambassador Grossman made a remark on the Durand Line, stating that “it is an internationally recognized boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan”. The Afghanistan Government, however, retaliated by stating that the status of the Durand Line is a matter of historic importance for the Afghan people and that it rejects and considers irrelevant any statement by anyone about the legal status of this line. Aimal Faizi, official spokesperson of the Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai, also mentioned that “the comments of foreigners on the Durand Line will not have any effect on the verdict of the Afghan people, to whom the decision belongs”. Backed by international support, where Pakistan has been quick to raise the claims of legality and colonial inheritance to dismiss any debate on the artificiality and arbitrariness of the Durand Line, findings are however available to prove otherwise. In fact, the Agreement that was signed between the Amir and British Crown will be the first to take down the claims forwarded by Pakistan on the legal sanctity of this border. If one is to refer solely to the Durand Line agreement of 1893, it must be noted it was not initially a binding bilateral agreement to define a sovereign boundary. The idea behind the Line, in Sir Mortimer Durand’s own words was not to form a sovereign boundary, but to separate the British sphere of influence from the rule of the Amir of Afghanistan. The free tribes living on the British Indian side of the Durand Line were never actually subjects of the British Indian rule. Having said so, it also needs to be recognized that unifying a giant ethnic tribe into a nation-state is not an easy task either. In fact, after centuries of co-optation and separation that have been both accepted and enforced upon them, to get Pashtuns on both sides of the border to form a separate homeland is not realizable. The notion of a unified Pashtunistan has been predominantly symbolic, but which has been exploited by motivated political interests on both sides of the boundary. Trying to unite the fiercely independent and autonomous tribes into a cohesive whole is not only for how they have led their lives all along, but because they reject a higher authority over them to date. Their coming together can occur only under extreme duress or under the inspiration of a charismatic and compelling leader like the legendary Faqir of ippi who challenged the British administrative and military rule from the time he instigated a rebellion in Waziristan in 1936 until Britain’s departure in 1947. In the case of contemporary revival of the idea of Pashtunistan, the previous Afghan governments have used this desire for a ‘national homeland’ as a political instrument against Pakistan. Since its inception, almost every Kabul ruler has repudiated the Durand Line as an official border separating Afghanistan and Pakistan and has called it an “undefined border”. As both the countries dispute the claims pressed by the other, both at international forums and beyond its gaze, it is the Pashtun community as a whole that has been the biggest casualty of this political dodge-ball. While the denials mounted by both the governments have not had much impact on the movement of Pashtuns along the porous Durand Line, it has most certainly taken attention off the development of this forty-million strong community. Embroiled in a conflict that is getting stretched at the political convenience of the regimes on both sides of this contentious border, the Pashtun community is increasingly becoming a disenchanted lot that has already had a lot of extremism affecting and afflicting it.  In fact, sounding rather prophetic, the Pakistani ambassador, Mahmud Ali Durrani, had cautioned in March 2007 that, “I hope the Taliban and Pashtun nationalism don’t merge. If that happens, we’ve had it, and we’re on the verge of that.” It is important to recognize that no legal battle can comfort the serious grievances and wounds that have been inflicted on the Pashtun psyche ever since they were divided arbitrarily in 1893. The need of the hour is to assuage the community as a whole before it is too late. In doing so, it would be of much help to not only conduct independent, bipartisan scholarly assessments on the nature of the agreement and all treaties signed after 1893 considering history, legality and future pertaining to the Durand Line rather, but also make the community in concern a part of these discussions and negotiations and not just their target audience. Both the Afghan and Pakistani governments must address the longstanding conflicts over the frontier region in a way that arrests the rising disaffection among this community and not fan the flames of rivalry for petty political interests for this could result in a bigger catastrophe to unfold in the future otherwise. ——- About the author: Attaullah Waziri is the CEO of Waziri Human Development Organization, Kabul. He  can be reached at: wazirionscreen@yahoo.com / Attaullah Waziri’s article was also published in South Asia Monitor.