War is the sport for great empires, diplomacy the talk show for small states

There is an Oshiwambo proverb that says “oshilongo mpa oosa, mpa ondigolo,” and another that goes “gumwe otati sa, gumwe otati kalako.”

These expressions capture a simple but powerful truth: when one part of society mourns, another celebrates. When one group wishes for survival, another may wish for defeat. Such wisdom reflects the divided reactions that often accompany major geopolitical events.

The rising tensions involving the United States, Israel and the Iran have triggered mixed reactions across the world. While some groups view military pressure against Iran as necessary to curb perceived security threats, others see it as aggression against a sovereign state.

Across the Middle East and beyond, the situation has once again revealed how global conflicts can divide public opinion along political, ideological and religious lines.

Amid these tensions, Namibia has joined other nations in calling for de-escalation and diplomatic dialogue to prevent further violence. Namibia’s position reflects its long-standing foreign policy principle of non-alignment, often summarized by the phrase that the country is “a friend to all and an enemy to none.”

For Namibia, neutrality is both a diplomatic principle and a strategic necessity. The country maintains trade and diplomatic relations with a wide range of partners, including the United States, Israel and Iran. Escalation of conflict among these states could therefore have ripple effects on global markets, energy supply chains and international trade systems that smaller economies depend upon.

Namibia’s call for restraint also aligns with the principles of the United Nations, whose charter emphasizes peaceful resolution of disputes and the prevention of armed conflict wherever possible.

However, history suggests that calls for peace alone may not always be sufficient to stop conflicts between powerful states.

The limits of diplomacy

Diplomatic appeals for de-escalation often reflect the hopes of smaller states that global powers will choose negotiation over confrontation. Yet conflicts between major powers are frequently driven by deeper forces such as geopolitical influence, ideological competition, economic interests and security concerns.

The Middle East remains one of the most strategically significant regions in the world. Its vast energy resources, critical trade routes and long-standing political rivalries make it a focal point for global power competition.

Historically, powerful states have often relied on military strength to preserve influence and secure strategic interests.

Empires such as the Ottoman Empire and the British Empire expanded their reach far beyond their borders largely through conquest rather than negotiation. Even Europe’s relative stability today emerged only after devastating conflicts such as World War I and World War II reshaped the global order.

Diplomacy and the Reality of Power

For many nations in Africa and the Global South, diplomacy remains the most practical strategy for navigating a world dominated by powerful states. Negotiation, multilateral cooperation and international law provide smaller states with tools to protect their interests without resorting to war.

Institutions such as the United Nations offer important platforms where countries large and small can engage in dialogue on equal footing. It is for this reason that Namibia consistently advocates peaceful solutions to international disputes.

Nevertheless, diplomacy has its limits. When strategic interests collide, even the strongest diplomatic efforts can struggle to prevent war escalation.

Lessons from history

International politics is often shaped less by permanent friendships than by permanent interests. Alliances can shift rapidly as national priorities change.

History offers many examples. Leaders such as Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi of Libya were once supported by powerful allies before later becoming targets of international intervention. Similarly, Zimbabwe’s former leader Robert Mugabe faced sanctions after policies that challenged Western economic interests.

These cases illustrate how global alliances can change quickly when geopolitical calculations shift.

Preparing for an uncertain future

Modern warfare has evolved dramatically with technological advancement. Conflicts today affect not only soldiers on the battlefield but also global economic systems, infrastructure and international supply chains.

A major war conflict escalation in the Middle East could disrupt global energy markets and trade routes, with consequences felt far beyond the region. Even countries geographically distant from the conflict epicenter could experience economic shocks.

For smaller states, the lesson is clear: while they may not control the dynamics of great-power rivalry, they must remain vigilant, strengthen diplomatic partnerships and build resilient economies capable of withstanding external shocks.

In an interconnected world, the actions of powerful states can send waves across the global system. When those waves rise, smaller nations must be prepared not only to call for peace—but also to navigate the storm.