Abstention does not violate Namibia’s foreign policy

The opinion piece by Professor Henning Melber in The Namibian newspaper of 8 March 2022 on Namibia’s abstention at the UN General Assembly on a motion aimed at condemning Russia for the conflict between Russia and Ukraine cannot escape scrutiny. There is need to remove the misconception and misunderstanding created by Professor Melber on two issues, namely that (1) abstention violates Namibia’s foreign policy, and (2) that Namibia undermines the principles of global order.

From the outset, it is important to underscore the fact that foreign policy is not only an art to establish relations with other nations or to set a nation’s priorities in its relations with other countries and international organisations but, among other things, it is the strategy to achieve a nation’s interests through diplomacy and statecraft. In its full application, foreign policy is obliged to balance principles and interests. The scales of principles should never outweigh national interest. Balance should be maintained at all times. This is the ABC or elementary lesson in foreign policy analysis and application.

Firstly, it is false and misleading for the Professor to say that abstention violates Namibia’s foreign policy and that “Pseudo neutrality does in fact take sides with aggressors”. The good Professor might need to define “aggressor” contextually in the case of the Russia-Ukraine conflict without nit-picking. He has no authority to arrogate to himself the sole right to proclaim who the aggressor is and expect everyone else to toe his line of thought. The professor is in no position to lecture Namibia on foreign policy or on the principle of abstention. Abstention does not mean see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. It is rather a principle of not testing the depth of the river with both feet. Abstention simply means cope out; take no side before fully establishing the facts at hand; balance the motion with your national interest; engage in quiet diplomacy to achieve consensus between two warring parties. It is the trait of peace-makers, peace-brokers, mediators. And that is the embodiment of Namibia’s foreign policy.

It is not helpful to gloss over or give a half-backed analysis of the theory and practice of abstention while discussing Namibia’s recent abstention at the UN General Assembly and at the UN Human Rights Council. A holistic overview, albeit briefly is essential to do so. Votes at the UN have become the standard data source for measuring the preferences of states to maintain their national interests while adhering to the principles of international relations and international law. Such votes are easily comparable and observable over time. Unfortunately, some commentators and scholars tend to ignore voluminous data on the pattern of how states have and continue to vote at the various organs of the UN.

Since independence, Namibia’s voting pattern at the UN and other international forums has been consistent with its foreign policy. On the other hand, votes by the US and its Western allies have tended to promote wanton aggression, colonization, regime change, hyper economic exploitation and outright disregard of the principles of the UN Charter. Lo and behold, the types of Professor Melber are mum when such violations of the UN Charter and common sense are meted out on weak states by the US and its allies. People of goodwill should be disillusioned by the West’s hypocritical rhetoric. Palestine is but one case in point. The double standard of the West when it comes to invasions and wars is undeniable. Resistance to American hegemony cannot take shape on the grave of unalienable principles of international relations. When the US and its allies initiate motions at the UN General Assembly, nations should exercise wisdom and not become pawns in the hands of the US imperialist agenda.

Secondly, it is misleading to say that Namibia’s abstention is not “supporting the principles of a global order”. This realism argument is repugnant. The global order is inter-national and state-led, based on principles of sovereign equality and national self-determination. The realism driven principles of global order which Professor Melber so fondly preaches have been the subject of competing perspectives and interpretation. Scholars of International Relations and International Law are familiar with the Rules Based Order (RBO), an initiation of the US and its allies. The RBO, also known as the International Order, to which all countries should aspire, has long lost its cachet and international respect. References to the principles of global order tend to be associated with one perspective only – the one associated with the post-war liberal and realism order led by the US, to get mired in arguments of how rules and principles should be interpreted; why the rule-makers have not followed the rules and principles themselves; and why those who have traditionally been rule-takers are not content with following the existing rules and insist on establishing their own principles, rules or order. It is not difficult to track the symptoms of international disorder back to their beginnings. All findings will point to the US and its allies.

It should be clear to all that the principles contained in Namibia’s Foreign Policy are cognisant of the simple fact that international order should not and is not limited to national sovereignty, territorial integrity and self-determination. It should and must include mutual non-aggression, mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, peaceful co-existence, and peaceful resolution of conflicts. These are the principles that Namibia holds dear. Emphasizing one and omitting others is disingenuous. The principles of global order do not require nations to be puppets or to blindly endorse every proposal brought before the UN General Assembly by the world’s most notorious powers.

Contemporary international developments show that practices of defining friends and enemies according to differences in socio-political system and values through camps, groups, alliances or the big family universally fail if they are not based on principles that promote and protect national interests.

The US and its allies, including Professor Melber, are in no position to lecture Namibia over sovereignty. They are not qualified to tell Namibia how to respect state sovereignty and territorial integrity. Not now and not ever.

It is unfortunate that those who have been preaching democracy and rule of law are today trying to deny others the same right in the chambers of the UN General Assembly. Soon we will be lectured that when citizens decide to vote with their feet by not participating in elections, they are violating the constitution and should be sent to gash chambers. This goes to show how hypocritical the prophets of democracy are. Sadly, these are the people we put on the pedestals to formulate and interpret our policies.

• Dr. Charles Mubita is an international relations and strategic communications specialist and diplomat with over 40 years' experience in media and diplomacy. He holds a PhD in International Relations from the University of Southern California.