Namibia’s diplomatic service has historically been framed around political solidarity, liberation credentials, and the maintenance of good neighbourly relations. These have been important foundations. But the times have changed. The 21st century demands that diplomacy be primarily economic. Today’s ambassadors should not only attend receptions and negotiate communiqués; they should be Namibia’s chief salespeople in foreign capitals.
If the Ministry of International Relations and Trade is serious about trade, then returning diplomats should be evaluated not only on how many bilateral agreements were signed, but on whether they facilitated investment, opened markets for Namibian products, or created opportunities for Namibian businesses abroad. The debriefing should ask: how many investors did you attract? How many Namibian exporters gained access to your host country? What trade barriers were removed under your watch?
This is where the new administration faces a credibility test.
The NIPDB Conundrum
At the centre of this debate is the fate of the Namibia Investment Promotion and Development Board (NIPDB). Once created with fanfare as a technocratic agency to drive investment, it is now being folded back into a government ministry. Proponents argue that reintegration will strengthen alignment with Cabinet policy. Critics worry it is the death knell of an agile, investor-friendly institution.
This raises a hard question: Will Namibia’s investment drive be entrusted to professional deal-makers, or will it be suffocated by bureaucrats? Investors are not wooed by paperwork, nor by endless committee meetings. They want clarity, speed, and certainty. Bureaucracies, by their nature, are slow, hierarchical, and risk-averse. Merging NIPDB into a ministry risks replacing a nimble investment pitch team with a civil service process machine.
If the new administration is serious about economic diplomacy, then reintegration must not become regression. Otherwise, what was billed as a bold trade-led growth agenda will quickly devolve into another round of red tape.
Learning from Our Own Diplomats
Returning ambassadors are not just ceremonial figures. They are the closest Namibia has to “market intelligence officers.” They know which investors showed interest, which trade fairs matter, which industries abroad are looking for African supply chains, and what barriers stand in the way.
If the Ministry is to live up to the Minister’s call to become a centre of excellence, then their debriefing should not be a polite tea session. It should be a strategic handover. What did Namibia gain in Beijing, in Berlin, in Washington, in Luanda? What mistakes were made? Where did competitors like Botswana or Rwanda outperform us in selling their investment story? Unless these lessons are captured and applied, welcoming ceremonies will remain hollow rituals.
Trade Diplomacy in a Competitive World
Namibia is entering an era where trade diplomacy will determine prosperity. Oil and gas finds have raised international interest. Green hydrogen ambitions have been splashed across headlines. But global investors are not sentimental; they are opportunistic. They will go where the incentives are clear, the bureaucracy is minimal, and the political will is evident.
Countries that succeed in attracting investment, Rwanda, Mauritius, the UAE, do so because their investment agencies are empowered, not diluted. They marry diplomacy with business acumen. Their ambassadors carry investment pitches as readily as diplomatic notes. Their ministries are structured to deliver trade results, not only diplomatic formalities.
Namibia must decide whether it wants to be in that league.
The Way Forward
The ceremony for returning diplomats reminds us that Namibia has human capital, patriotic servants, and institutional practices worth celebrating. But it also lays bare the crossroads at which our government stands.
If trade is the declared priority of the new administration, then the Ministry must act like it. Reintegration of NIPDB into a ministry cannot mean suffocating investment under bureaucracy. It must mean elevating investment promotion to the very top of government action, with diplomats as frontline dealmakers.
The Minister’s call for NAFA to become a think-tank is welcome, but it must not end there. Former ambassadors should be part of structured advisory panels on investment promotion. Active diplomats must have key performance indicators tied to trade outcomes. The Ministry must invest in training its staff not only in protocol and politics, but in economics, negotiation, and deal-structuring.
Namibia cannot afford a diplomacy that is about attending functions while competitors steal the deals. Our diplomacy must be about closing transactions that put Namibians to work.
The returning diplomats deserve our thanks. But more than that, they deserve a system that takes their experiences seriously and converts them into strategies for national gain. The Minister’s words about making the Ministry a centre of excellence will ring true only if trade is placed at the heart of our international engagement.
Otherwise, Namibia risks a tragic paradox: diplomats who wave the flag abroad, ministries that shuffle paper at home, and investors who quietly take their money elsewhere.
The new administration has promised economic revival. Whether trade truly becomes the centrepiece of our diplomacy will tell us if that promise was serious, or just another polite speech.
