botswana/namibia - Cour international de Justice

(F) Boundary Pressures
116. Throughout the length of the Botswana-South African border, particularly the northern
border along the Chobe River and the eastern border along the Limpopo River, South Africa
exerted pressure on Botswana by violating her sovereignty and territorial integrity. It was
quite common for the South African army commandos to cross into Botswana territory, both
in the Chobe District and elsewhere, to harass villagers and farmers, under the pretext that
they were looking for guerrillas intent upon springing attacks into South Africa. Violation of
Botswana territory was also conducted in the air, where South African Airforce planes often
entered Botswana airspace unchallenged, along the Chobe River and elsewhere, presumably
to spot some imaginary guerrilla formations moving through Botswana territory.
(G) Boundary Dispute
117. Botswana knew only too well that unless the matter was resolved quickly, South Africa
would create a climate conducive to outright military confrontation and occupation. However,
before Botswana could hold talks with the South African authorities on the shooting incident,
Botswana sent a high-powered delegation to New York in November, to brief the United
Nations, which was the de jure authority for Namibia as well as the representatives of the
South West Africa People's Organisation, (SWAPO) (Botswana Memorial, Annexes 41-43).
It should be noted that, on issues affecting the international territory of Namibia, Botswana
had adopted a policy of briefing the United Nations and SWAPO before taking them up with
the South African authorities. Both the UN and SWAPO empathised with Botswana over the
shooting incident and gave their blessing for her to proceed to discuss with South Africa the
boundary dispute around Kasikili/Sedudu Island. The South Africans had claimed that their
patrol boat had been shot at while navigating on the Namibian side of the common boundary.
Botswana and South Africa then agreed to hold discussions on the boundary dispute on 19
December 1984 in Pretoria, South Africa (Botswana Memorial, Annex 44).
118. At that meeting, it emerged that the maps used by the South African side indicated the
small southern channel as the boundary, whilst those used by Botswana showed the northern
channel as the boundary. It was because of these differing perceptions of the boundary that it
was agreed to set up a joint team of technical experts to establish which of the two channels
was the main channel and, therefore, the boundary around Kasikili/Sedudu Island. Although
the agreement to send the joint team of technical experts to the Chobe River was finalised in
December 1984, it was not until July 1985 that the South Africans despatched their
component of the team, a delay of 9 months. In the intervening period, Botswana had to send
repeated reminders to the South African side in order to have the joint team assemble at the
Chobe River. The Joint Survey Report (Botswana Memorial, Annex 48) was produced in the
same month of July and it confirmed that the northern channel was indeed the main channel
and was, therefore, the boundary between Botswana and Namibia around Kasikili/Sedudu
Island.
119. On 4 November 1985 following the publication of the Joint Survey Report, the
Department of External Affairs of Botswana sent a diplomatic note to the Department of
Foreign Affairs of South Africa, asking them to acknowledge and to implement the Report
(see Botswana Memorial, Annex 50). The South African Government chose to ignore the
Botswana communication on the subject. There was complete silence over the matter until
October the following year when the two sides met at the official level in Gaborone,