PAUL T. SHIPALE (with inputs by Folito Nghitongovali Diawara Gaspar)
Abstract
As President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah marks 100 days in Office and is expected to announce a new round of ambassadorial and high commission appointments, with envoys scheduled for deployment in September this year, this article seeks to interrogate diplomacy in the 21st century which confronts a multifaceted crisis of legitimacy and effectiveness, characterized by inherent contradictions between economic interests and discernible discrepancies in geopolitical practices.
The article explores the evolution of contemporary diplomacy, with a particular focus on economic diplomacy, and critically analyzes its impacts, especially on African countries. It posits that the selective application of international norms, the erosion of multilateralism, and the instrumentalization of diplomatic tools for purposes of control and resource extraction exacerbate global inequalities and undermine the sovereignty of more vulnerable nations.
Through a Pan-Africanist lens, the work proposes transformative solutions for a more just and equitable diplomacy that prioritizes human dignity, strengthens South-South cooperation and solidarity, and promotes African agency in constructing a new world order. The analysis is grounded in a critical review of existing literature and the reflections of prominent Pan-Africanist thinkers, including the former Permanent Representative of Namibia to the United Nations (2016-2023), ambassador Neville Gertze.
- Introduction
Diplomacy, historically defined as the art and practice of conducting relations between states, finds itself today on complex and often contradictory ground. The 21st century, marked by unprecedented global interconnectedness and transnational challenges such as climate change, cybersecurity, and terrorism, necessitates a more comprehensive and adaptable diplomatic approach. However, rather than a harmonious evolution, we observe a profound crisis of legitimacy and effectiveness that permeates contemporary diplomatic practices. This crisis is accentuated by the growing influence of economic interests, the resurgence of power politics, and a pragmatic prioritization of national interests over universal norms when these become inconvenient for dominant powers.
This analysis delves into the meaning of diplomacy in the 21st century, with a particular focus on economic diplomacy, and critically assesses its relevance and effectiveness in a world characterized by double normative standards, proxy conflicts, inconsistent responses to human rights violations, and the instrumentalization of humanitarian narratives. The research draws on the reflections of Ambassador Neville Gertze, former Permanent Representative of Namibia to the United Nations (2016-2023), whose Pan-Africanist perspective offers a critical lens to unravel the contradictions at the heart of contemporary global diplomacy.
- The Crisis of Diplomacy in the 21st Century: Economic Interests and Geopolitical Discrepancies
Diplomacy, since its origins as the art of conducting relations between states, has expanded significantly in the 21st century, incorporating new actors, methods, and arenas. In addition to governments, non-state actors such as multinational corporations, international NGOs, and supranational bodies like the United Nations and the European Union now play crucial roles. Contemporary diplomacy covers a vast range of issues, from cybersecurity and climate change to transnational terrorism, and operates on multiple platforms, both physical and digital.
Although diplomacy has become multidimensional, its ethical foundations and commitment to international norms are increasingly compromised. Power asymmetries are deepening, and the diplomacy of dominant nations often overrides multilateral processes, favoring bilateralism, coercive partnerships, or direct interventions under questionable pretexts.
Economic Diplomacy as a Tool of Influence and Control
In this context, economic diplomacy has emerged as a preponderant force, intrinsically linked to global development, trade, and investment flows. Yet, its application has often been asymmetrical, serving not only to promote mutual benefits but also as a mechanism of neo-colonial influence and economic coercion. The instrumentalization of sanctions, debt diplomacy, and aid conditionalities are clear examples of how economic power is employed to dictate terms to more vulnerable nations, perpetuating cycles of dependence and underdevelopment.
Economic diplomacy refers to a country’s use of economic tools, leverage, and relationships to achieve foreign policy objectives. This involves negotiations, trade agreements, investment treaties, economic sanctions, development aid, and participation in multilateral economic institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, and WTO. Its purpose is twofold: to promote national economic interests abroad (e.g., export promotion, market access, securing energy or mineral resources) and to use economic means to achieve broader foreign policy goals (e.g., applying sanctions to influence behavior or offering aid for political alignment).
In theory, economic diplomacy seeks mutual benefit. In practice, it is frequently asymmetrical, where stronger economies use their financial power to dictate terms to weaker nations. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), US sanctions on Iran, or the European Union’s trade conditionalities to African states reveal how economic diplomacy can become a mechanism of influence and control.
- The Erosion of Multilateralism and the Rise of Normative Discrepancies
Multilateral diplomacy, once seen as the cornerstone of global order, is under threat. Institutions such as the United Nations, the WTO, and even regional bodies like the African Union and ASEAN face crises of legitimacy and funding shortages, often undermined by some of the very powers that are ostensibly committed to upholding the liberal order. What we are witnessing is not merely the erosion of multilateralism, but the instrumentalization of international law. Some powerful nations continue to act unilaterally, using selective interpretations of human rights, security, or international justice to justify their actions. For example, the US and its allies justify drone strikes, targeted killings, or regime change operations in the name of self-defense or humanitarian intervention, while other states attempting similar actions are subjected to different forms of censure or isolation.
Countries like Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Iran have faced devastating wars or destabilization campaigns, justified by the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. Meanwhile, similar atrocities in Yemen, Palestine, or parts of Africa receive less attention or are addressed with less urgency. Refugees have become transactional tools, used by states to extract political or economic concessions – Turkey and Libya, for example, are paid to stem the flow of migrants to Europe, turning vulnerable human beings into geopolitical bargaining chips. Such contradictions reveal the double standards in the application of diplomacy. Genocides are recognized when it aligns with specific political objectives; human rights are selectively defended; and the very language of international law is often co-opted to serve national interests.
Diplomacy amidst Proxy Conflicts, Energy Politics, and Strategic Destabilization
Perhaps nowhere are the profound ethical challenges of modern diplomacy more visible than in the Middle East. The region has been subjected to decades of strategic destabilization, primarily to secure access to resources, maintain geopolitical influence, or contain rival powers. Regime change, support for proxy militias, and arms sales continue under the guise of promoting stability or democracy. Iraq was invaded under false pretenses of weapons of mass destruction. Israel’s use of military force across borders, often cited as a security imperative, is frequently juxtaposed with the characterization of Palestinian resistance as terrorism.
This illustrates a diplomacy of strategic selectivity, where some states can engage in military actions that result in significant casualties and destruction with legal or political cover, while others are sanctioned, invaded, or isolated for far lesser actions. In this context, diplomacy risks losing its legitimacy as a tool for peace and becoming a means of managing power dynamics in a manner that serves dominant interests.
- Impacts of Contemporary Diplomacy on African Countries: A Pan-Africanist Perspective
Ambassador Neville Gertze’s reflections highlight that, for Africa, diplomacy has largely been an instrument of marginalization and subordination. African countries have limited influence in global institutions such as the UN Security Council, the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. Their voices are often excluded or ignored in critical decisions – especially concerning peace, trade, climate, and migration. Multilateralism is selectively applied; the continent is engaged when convenient, ignored when inconvenient. This results in Africa becoming the object, rather than the subject, of diplomacy.
Aid, investment, and trade agreements are often tied to conditionalities that serve donors’ interests more than recipients’ needs. Programs like the EU’s Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) have undermined local industries and reduced fiscal space. Debt diplomacy – including from both Western creditors and China – leaves countries vulnerable to economic manipulation. The impact is that countries remain trapped in cycles of debt, austerity, and resource extraction without value addition.
African migrants and refugees are used as bargaining chips in diplomatic deals (e.g., EU-Libya-Turkey migration pacts). Borders are policed not for African interests, but to serve Europe’s immigration objectives. Migration diplomacy has reduced people to transactional tools. The impact is that human dignity is eroded, and migration is criminalized instead of being managed as a development issue.
Economic diplomacy facilitates the extraction of critical resources (e.g., cobalt, lithium) with little local beneficiation. African innovation and intellectual capital are often appropriated under unequal partnerships. Even public health diplomacy (e.g., during COVID-19) saw Africa at the back of the queue for vaccines and aid. The impact is that Africa contributes resources and talent but receives minimal returns or recognition.
- Towards a Just and Transformative Diplomacy: Pan-Africanist Solutions
The diplomatic status quo – defined by dependence, discrepancies, and marginalization – has not served Africa. The central thesis of this article is that diplomacy, in its current form, has often fallen short in promoting global justice and equity, particularly for the African continent. We propose that a just diplomacy must be founded on universal principles, prioritize human dignity, address the root causes of conflicts, and reaffirm the value of multilateralism through reformed and equitable global institutions. Only then can diplomacy reclaim its legitimate role as a tool for peace, justice, and global cooperation, instead of continuing to be a means for the pursuit of narrow interests that may undermine broader cooperative goals.
However, the solution is neither isolationism nor a total rejection of diplomacy. On the contrary, it is the radical transformation of diplomacy into a tool for justice, solidarity, and African rebirth. To this end, African nations must adopt a strategic, just, and transformative approach, rooted in the principles of Pan-Africanism.
It is fundamental to build and reform bodies such as the African Union (AU), the Southern African Development Community (SADC), and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) so that they act as united blocs. The priority must be intra-African trade and development diplomacy, exemplified by the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). Furthermore, it is crucial to expand strategic alliances with the Global South, including BRICS+, G77, and the Non-Aligned Movement. Unity provides Africa with leverage; a divided continent is easily manipulated, while a united one sets its own terms.
It is imperative to advocate for permanent African representation on the UN Security Council. Additionally, a new global financial architecture that is inclusive and just, reforming the IMF and World Bank, must be pursued. The establishment of African rating agencies and financial institutions is essential to counter the dominance of the Global North. Without structural reform, Africa remains subject to decisions made about it, without it.
The priority must be local industrialization, technology transfer, and research development. Trade agreements that ensure value chain integration, and not just the export of raw materials, need to be negotiated. Encouraging diaspora diplomacy to leverage knowledge, investment, and advocacy is equally important. Genuine diplomatic agency is enhanced when nations possess the economic leverage to decline disadvantageous or exploitative terms. It is fundamental to advocate for international law to be applied universally – and not just against weaker nations. Pressure must be exerted for truth commissions and reparatory justice regarding colonial exploitation and current injustices. It is essential to engage in diplomacy that reflects African values – ubuntu, justice, reciprocity, and sovereignty. Africa must define what kind of diplomacy it desires, and not merely respond to the agendas of others.
Conclusion
The reflections of Ambassador Neville Gertze and other Pan-Africanist thinkers resonate deeply: “We do not demand a seat at the table merely to eat – we demand to shape the menu.” This vision encapsulates the essence of a diplomacy that seeks equity, dignity, and self-determination, crucial elements for building a more just and prosperous global future. Diplomacy, when stripped of its double standards and instrumentalizations, has the potential to be the driving force for genuine cooperation and peaceful conflict resolution, paving the way for a truly multipolar and equitable international order.
On a lighter note, since up to 28 ambassadors were recalled early last month and were served with letters of notice to give way for a new slate of diplomatic appointments, according to a report that appeared in the Namibian Newspaper on Thursday, 26 June 2025, I concur with the view that it is not a must for Namibia to have ambassadors in every foreign countries as we can have charge d’ affaires in some countries as long as the appointed people are skilful and are able to provide feedback that can be translated into policies. However, rumours of the term of service of ambassadors and high commissioner that it has been cut to two years from four years is not a good idea as it limits their full potential.
On the other hand, we are glad that Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, will visit Namibia on 9 July 2025 in a first ever state visit. This is the third visit by an Indian Prime Minister to Namibia and Modi’s first. The visit comes as part of Modi’s five-nation tour covering Ghana, Argentina, Brazil, Trinidad and Tobago, and Namibia.
According to State House’s Press Secretary, Modi’s visit will include discussions around bilateral talks with President Nandi-Ndaitwah, a visit to the Heroes Acre, the resting site of Founding President Sam Nujoma, and will deliver a speech in parliament.
Similarly, PM Modi’s Visit to Namibia will likely focus on diamonds and critical minerals such as uranium, cobalt, lithium and rare earth elements. Indeed, Namibia, known for the world’s richest marine diamond deposits with reserves estimated at over 80 million carats, does not sell rough diamonds directly to India. Instead, these reach Indian shores via London, Antwerp and other global trade centres. India has also invested over $800 million in Namibia across sectors including mining, manufacturing, diamond processing and services. Beyond diamonds, the visit is also being seen as pivotal in India’s quest for critical minerals essential to new-age technologies and electric vehicles. The uranium sector is another key area where India is looking to build bridges. Namibia, a major uranium producer, could support India’s civilian nuclear energy programme.
While the agenda includes broader discussions on trade, defence and digital public infrastructure, the stop in Namibia is particularly significant as India was the first country to grant an embassy to SWAPO in New Delhi on the 24th of May 1986, and this country belongs to the BRICS+ group of nations. With a shift toward a South-South alliance, Namibia can assert its independence by leveraging partnerships with emerging global players like Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa who will act as a stabilizing force in times of tension, due to the unpredictable geo-political situation in the world right now.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of our employers and this newspaper but solely our personal views as citizens and Pan-Africanists.
