PAUL T. SHIPALE (with inputs by Folito Nghitongovali Diawara Gaspar)
The analysis of minister Selma Ashipala-Musayi’s response to the United Kingdom’s concerns offers a lens through which to examine how diplomacy itself has evolved and what this evolution means for states navigating an increasingly complex global environment. While the minister’s position reflects honourable and historically significant diplomatic virtues, the global system in which these virtues operate has transformed. This episode illustrates a broader lesson for contemporary foreign policy: classical diplomatic principles remain necessary, but they are no longer sufficient.
Diplomacy has shifted from a state-centric model to a networked system
Classical diplomacy assumes that relations occur primarily between sovereign states, mediated through ambassadors, ministries, and formal exchanges. Yet, as Anne-Marie Slaughter and other scholars argue, modern diplomacy unfolds across networks that include:
- immigration and security agencies,
- regulatory bodies,
- data-analysis units,
- civil-society organisations, and
- international technical platforms.
The minister’s response, framed as a bilateral dispute about courtesy and respect, overlooks the networked nature of migration governance today. States rise or fall in credibility depending on how effectively they are integrated into these technical and regulatory networks. Diplomatic success now depends on a state’s ability to operate within global systems, not only through traditional state-to-state engagement.
Evidence, not rhetoric, is the currency of credibility
Modern foreign policy challenges migration, cybersecurity, climate adaptation, and compliance enforcement are profoundly data-driven. Partners expect:
- risk assessments,
- measurable indicators,
- transparency in enforcement, and
- a willingness to share relevant evidence.
Normative appeals, such as respect for sovereignty or shared history, cannot substitute for empirical clarity. Diplomacy that relies solely on narrative, however eloquent, risks appearing detached from operational realities.
Power is asymmetrical and effective diplomacy acknowledges it
While legal sovereignty creates formal equality, material capability creates substantive inequality. A larger, more influential partner such as the UK can unilaterally revise mobility policy with tangible consequences for Namibian citizens. Denying asymmetry does not neutralise its effects; instead, it can leave smaller states unprepared. Strategic diplomacy begins with a realistic assessment of leverage, not an idealised one.
Public diplomacy requires transparency, not paternalism
In the 21st century, diplomacy cannot be conducted behind closed doors with the expectation that the public will simply accept decisions. Citizens demand:
- clear explanations of risks,
- proactive communication,
- evidence of government preparedness,
- open justification of policy choices.
A paternalistic tone, “trust us; we know what we’re doing”, undermines democratic legitimacy and weakens public confidence. Modern diplomacy speaks with citizens, not at them.
Strategy must be proactive, anticipatory and technocratic
Contemporary diplomacy requires anticipatory governance: predicting policy shifts and preparing for emerging pressures. In migration matters, this entails:
- scenario planning,
- early engagement with technical authorities,
- alignment of data with partner systems,
- continuous monitoring of risk indicators.
The minister’s interpretation treats proactive diplomacy as confrontational, yet anticipatory engagement is not aggression; it is the baseline of administrative competence today. Preparedness is not provocation; it is responsibility.
Classical norms matter but only when coupled with modern tools
Respect, restraint, and commitment to peaceful engagement remain foundational principles, lending diplomacy its legitimacy and moral grounding. Yet global governance now demands that these classical values be combined with:
- data literacy,
- inter-agency coordination,
- regulatory expertise,
- agile communication.
Diplomacy grounded solely in moral principles risks appearing symbolic rather than strategic. Effective diplomacy blends traditional values with contemporary capabilities.
What Anne-Marie Slaughter would advise
Slaughter’s scholarship provides a singular insight that summarises these lessons: modern diplomacy requires a shift from a sovereignty-and-courtesy model to a networked, evidence-based, and anticipatory framework. This is not a rejection of classical diplomacy but an acknowledgement that the global system has evolved faster than many national diplomatic cultures. States that adapt, particularly smaller states, gain agility, credibility, and strategic protection in an increasingly interdependent world.
Final reflective takeaway
The Namibia–UK episode is not merely a dispute over visa policy; it is a case study in the broader transition occurring across the international system. The key lesson is that diplomacy today is a functional discipline, not just a ceremonial one. To protect national interests, foreign ministries must integrate data, anticipate risks, communicate transparently, and operate across the global networks where power is exercised.
Nation-states that embrace this new diplomatic paradigm will navigate global challenges with greater resilience, influence, and legitimacy. Those that remain anchored solely in classical dialogue risk being left behind by a world that has already moved on. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of our employers or this newspaper but are solely our personal views as citizens and Pan-Africanists.
