Africa-Press – Botswana. Herein lies the larger African story: an entire continent full of bilateral relations that are cordial but not catalytic, symbolic but not systemic.
Special Correspondent
In early August 2025, Presidents Duma Boko of Botswana and Hakainde Hichilema of Zambia met in Lusaka and elevated their bilateral ties to a Bi-National Commission. It was billed as a breakthrough in cooperation – a shared commitment to regional peace, integration, trade and climate resilience.
But strip away the ceremony and what remains is a relationship that is not special, not exceptional, not particularly strategic.
It is, in fact, typically African.
Migration without movement
Botswana and Zambia maintain visa-free travel regimes for each other’s citizens, permitting up to 90 days of stay per year. Yet actual migration is modest. Zambians are not among the top foreign nationals resident in Botswana; Botswana citizens in Zambia are even rarer.
Neither country has tailored immigration policies for each other beyond what is extended to fellow SADC members. Residence and work permits are processed through the usual bureaucratic channels, with no mutual recognition of qualifications or fast-tracking procedures. For all the political talk of brotherhood, the people themselves are largely static, separated more by indifference than by borders.
Technology without twinning
Both Botswana and Zambia are part of regional climate and science platforms like SASSCAL, which foster research collaboration across SADC countries.
Yet there are no documented R&D partnerships or university twinning arrangements specifically linking Botswana and Zambia. There are no joint innovation hubs, no shared datasets on energy or agriculture, no evidence of cross-border digitisation projects.
Information moves but it does not integrate. What technological cooperation exists is mediated through multilateral donors or regional entities, not through direct, homegrown partnerships. It is typical of African science collaboration: promising in theory, fragmentary in practice.
Trade without integration
Trade between Botswana and Zambia is not trivial but it is small. In 2023, Zambia exported about USD 133 million to Botswana – about 1.5% of Botswana’s total imports. Botswana exports even less to Zambia. Trade is governed by the SADC Free Trade Area and the broader African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), which means duties are mostly eliminated, but practical integration is still elusive.
There is no bilateral customs union, no harmonised tariffs, no shared logistics platform. Currencies are not convertible, so most transactions are handled in US Dollars or South African Rand.
The most tangible infrastructure project linking the two countries is the Kazungula Bridge, jointly financed and operated, connecting Botswana and Zambia over the Zambezi River. It was hailed as a symbol of regional integration, offering road and potential rail linkage across a strategic corridor.
But despite its promise, Zambia is increasingly redirecting its trade routes towards the Lobito Corridor (via Angola) and the Dar es Salaam route in Tanzania, seeking greater efficiency and geopolitical diversification. The Kazungula Bridge may soon find itself underutilised, another monument to pan-African aspirations unmet by economic logic.
Environment without strategy
Both nations profess concern for climate change. Both have submitted NDCs under the Paris Agreement and participate in SADC environmental committees. The Zambezi Watercourse Commission (ZAMCOM), to which both countries belong, does provide a multilateral framework for managing shared water resources in the Zambezi River Basin.
However, outside this regional mechanism, there are no bilateral environmental treaties, no joint national parks or ecological corridors, no common climate finance applications. Climate cooperation exists mainly within donor-funded regional research frameworks. Political rhetoric around a “unified environmental response” is just that – rhetoric.
Policy without teeth
The new Bi-National Commission replaces the old Joint Permanent Commission, but its creation is more symbolic than structural. Most of the proposed cooperation – on education, infrastructure, trade, and youth empowerment – remains aspirational.
There are no measurable targets, no performance dashboards, no accountability mechanisms. There is little follow-up and less follow-through. Like many African bilateral mechanisms, it risks becoming a talking shop for officials, not a vehicle for implementation.
Conclusion: The African norm
Zambia and Botswana are friendly neighbours, and that counts for something. But theirs is a relationship of proximity, not priority. They cooperate because they are near each other, not because they have forged a deeper strategic interdependence.
The migration is shallow, the trade marginal, the technology shared only through third parties, and the environment co-managed only in theory. Their bilateral relationship is neither strained nor strong.
It is simply typical.
And therein lies the larger African story: an entire continent full of bilateral relations that are cordial but not catalytic, symbolic but not systemic. If Africa is to unlock the promise of regional integration, it must move beyond the typical – and build partnerships that are defined not by what is shared in speeches, but by what is delivered on the ground.
Source: Botswana Gazette
For More News And Analysis About Botswana Follow Africa-Press
