In response to the editorial by the Windhoek Observer on Tuesday, 18 November 2025, which detailed British home secretary Shabana Mahmood’s announcement regarding the potential suspension or restriction of visas for Namibian nationals, I would like to offer the following perspective.
Namibia’s diplomacy is firmly rooted in constitutional principles that guide our engagement with the international community. Our foreign policy is predicated on the foundation of just and mutually beneficial relations, never at the expense of our citizens. As a responsible member of the United Nations and the Commonwealth, Namibia remains committed to upholding the fundamental rights and responsibilities enshrined in international agreements and principles, which must be applied fairly, equitably and consistently, not selectively.
The editorial’s assertion that certain countries “do not play ball” warrants clarification. It is misleading to suggest that bilateral cooperation is primarily a game of polite backslapping, implying that we engage in superficial diplomacy with empty gestures, ceremonial niceties, or performative goodwill. Rather, to claim that it is about sovereignty, respect, and genuine reciprocal engagement correctly captures the deeper commitment to mutual understanding and principled dialogue that underscores the core objective of diplomacy.
The quintessential objective and mission of diplomacy is to build goodwill, understanding and mutual respect amongst nations and their respective citizens, with a view to building collaboration while reducing any prospect of conflict and hostility, deliberately or inadvertently, amongst their peoples. The creation and sustenance of peace amongst nations, notwithstanding their diverse histories and cultures, with a view to promoting global peace and understanding, is, therefore, the principal goal of diplomacy.
To this end, it is imperative to acknowledge that respect and reciprocity frequently commence with civility. Dismissing courtesy and politeness as superficial risks undermining the very conditions that facilitate constructive engagement by sovereign states. Respect encompasses both substance and style, and reciprocal engagement flourishes in an environment of mutual respect.
On the other hand, threats not only provoke conflict and hostility but can also cause instant harm by shutting channels of positive dialogue, with the risk of escalating disagreements that could result in long-term consequences. Diplomatic relations are established precisely to facilitate dialogue and bridge gaps and differences. Envoys are exchanged not for personal gain but for constructive engagement.
Disputes are declared only when all avenues of communication have been exhausted. Any action that deviates from these principles does not align with the definition and purpose of diplomacy. Put differently, the raison d’être of diplomacy is to promote peace and prevent conflict. As such, it is the very opposite of war. For this reason, it would have been prudent for the editorial to delve into the depth of the issue at hand, engage the relevant stakeholders and establish how best to resolve it fairly, equitably and amicably before raising suggestions of retaliation or confrontation, approaches that only result in creating and entrenching hostility that can create long-lasting conflicts, distractions and dislocations. Needless to say, should conflict and confrontation become the only object after efforts have been made to bring about a peaceful resolution of conflict, Namibia will, as all Namibians know, that their government will, with their full support, protect its interests.
Hence, I find it concerning that the editorial implies Namibia has only permitted the discourse to be framed in abstract terms. This assumption is both patronising and inaccurate. Namibia does not acquiesce to external directives. Namibia is one of the countries that maintain a principled policy in its international relations. This is why we were able to co-preside over the Millennium Summit, become a member of the UN Security Council only after eight years as an independent state, co-facilitate the Summit for the Future, which resulted in the Pact of the Future, and many other such accomplishments.
While every nation possesses the sovereign right to enact its own laws, it cannot expect others to implement them. The enlightened path is cooperation, which is self-evident. We recognise the potency of words, but we also believe in the wisdom of quiet reflection and the supremacy of dialogue.
Diplomacy is not a contest of rhetoric but a mechanism for achieving outcomes through dialogue, strategy, and principles. While the suggestion that Namibia’s response must transcend mere process is valid, it is equally important to comprehend that our principles and strategies are not driven by emotion or mere opinion but are guided by policy and prevailing realities.
Addressing the fundamental causes of mobility is essential. This necessitates introspection and a comprehensive understanding of the motivations behind migration. The welfare of Namibians residing in the Diaspora (as indeed anywhere in the world) is a national obligation, yet it entails a dual responsibility. On the one hand, we must provide information and educate our citizens, particularly those who may be misled by the allure and, sometimes, the mirage of greener pastures, and also prevent them from becoming victims of human trafficking.
I respectfully disagree with the assertion that Namibia’s foreign policy leadership is only embedded in a cycle of formal diplomacy. Our record speaks honourably to this. I firmly believe that a lack of understanding does not equate to inaction. The government will always support and protect Namibians who seek opportunities beyond our borders, and if and when they are entangled in problems, we will spare no effort to protect them, within the means available, as we have done in the past. However, it is also true that their own efforts to study the laws of their host or intended countries and act in earnest to obey relevant laws and regulations cannot but be helpful in reducing any risks of problems and corresponding discomfort.
While I concur that citizens must have higher expectations from the Ministry of International Relations and Trade (MIRT), it is equally important for them to set realistic expectations and be grounded in the best knowledge of the rules and challenges. I can assure the editor that the protection of Namibian citizens travelling abroad or those residing in the diaspora is a high priority for the government. To this end, we will soon introduce relevant policy.
Lastly, regarding public accountability and communication, the editorial’s framing reflects a limited comprehension of our efforts in that process, whether it is a critique for its own sake or purely ignorance or something only known to the writer/s. We have consistently maintained a transparent and informed approach to keeping the nation appraised of global developments, as appropriate. However, it is neither prudent nor diplomatic to engage in negotiations with our development partners through the media. Yes, citizens do have the right to know, and this right is respected.
Nevertheless, immigration policy remains the exclusive domain of each nation, and none can dictate another’s approach. We merely had to acquire the necessary information before embarking on a journey to make informed decisions. In the event of a conflict or disaster, the Ministry will undoubtedly issue appropriate travel advisories.
Namibia remains steadfast in its commitment to principled diplomacy, respectful engagement, and the protection of its citizens both domestically and internationally. Above all, we prioritise safeguarding our sovereignty with all available resources, will and tenacity.
