Namibia’s firm and measured response to recent travel advisories issued by Canada and Germany is both necessary and justified. In an era where perception often travels faster than facts, the Namibian government is right to defend the country’s reputation as a safe, stable and welcoming destination.
What is troubling, however, is not the government’s reassurance but the persistent and often irresponsible manner in which mostly Western governments issue blanket warnings that inflict real economic damage on countries like Namibia without sufficient balance, context or accountability.
Namibia is, by any objective measure, one of Africa’s most peaceful and politically stable nations. It has enjoyed decades of democratic governance, a respected rule of law, and social cohesion that many countries, both developed and developing, struggle to maintain. To reduce such a country to a headline about crime, without proportional context, is not just misleading; it is unfair.
No country on earth is crime-free. Petty theft, fraud and opportunistic crime exist in every major tourist destination, including those issuing the warnings. Tourists to Paris are warned about pickpocketing. Visitors to Rome are advised to be cautious of scams. Cities like London, Berlin, Toronto and New York battle violent crime, organised theft rings and urban insecurity on a daily basis. Yet these realities rarely translate into advisories that frame those countries as broadly unsafe or risky destinations. Why, then, is Namibia treated differently?
The problem lies in selective framing. When Western governments issue travel advisories about African countries, they often fail to provide nuance. A caution about specific areas or behaviours quickly becomes a sweeping judgement about national safety. Media platforms then amplify these advisories, stripping them of context and reinforcing stereotypes of African countries as inherently dangerous. The result is a distorted global narrative that does not reflect lived reality on the ground.
Tourism is not a peripheral industry for Namibia; it is a cornerstone of the economy. It sustains thousands of jobs, supports rural communities, funds conservation efforts, and drives small and medium enterprises across the country. From lodge workers and tour guides to craft sellers and transport operators, countless Namibians depend on a steady flow of international visitors. When advisories are issued casually or sensationally, the consequences are not abstract; they are deeply personal.
Western governments must understand that their words carry weight. A single advisory can undo years of destination marketing, conservation branding and investment promotion. Airlines reconsider routes, tour operators reroute packages, insurers raise premiums, and travellers cancel plans. All of this happens long before any meaningful dialogue with the affected country takes place. This is not responsible global citizenship; it is a form of economic recklessness.
The Namibian government’s acknowledgement that risks exist, while affirming its commitment to visitor safety, strikes the right balance. By highlighting the establishment of a dedicated tourist protection unit, authorities are demonstrating proactive governance rather than denial. Encouraging tourists to take basic precautions is standard practice worldwide and should not be misconstrued as an admission of exceptional danger.
What is particularly concerning is the implied double standard. Many Western countries experiencing rising violent crime, mass shootings, urban unrest or terrorist incidents are rarely subjected to the same level of cautionary language. Tourists are told to “remain vigilant”, not to “exercise a high degree of caution”, due to “high levels of crime”. The disparity suggests that these advisories are influenced as much by perception and bias as by data.
This is not an argument against transparency. Governments have a duty to inform their citizens of genuine risks abroad. But that duty must be exercised responsibly, proportionately and with an awareness of impact. Advisories should reflect comparative risk, highlight specific locations or scenarios, and acknowledge mitigation measures taken by host countries. Anything less amounts to alarmism.
Namibia has consistently proven itself to be a safe and rewarding destination. Millions of tourists have travelled across its vast landscapes, cities and conservation areas without incident. The country’s hospitality sector is professional, its people are welcoming, and its institutions are stable. To overlook these facts in favour of one-dimensional warnings does a disservice not only to Namibia, but also to the principles of fairness and mutual respect in international relations.
Ultimately, safety is a shared responsibility. Namibia has shown its willingness to play its part. It is time for Western governments to do the same by engaging constructively, communicating responsibly, and recognising that careless words can carry devastating consequences for nations that rely on trust, tourism and global goodwill.
Namibia deserves better than fear-driven narratives. It deserves accuracy, balance and respect.
