The growing controversy surrounding United States Ambassador to Namibia John Giordano deserves considerably more sobriety than the increasingly heated calls for his recall or for him to be declared persona non grata.
At the heart of the matter is a relatively simple question: what exactly happened at the National Fisheries Indaba in Walvis Bay, and what does it tell us about the state of Namibia’s diplomatic and institutional culture?
The available accounts remain contested. Giordano was reportedly denied entry to the indaba, an event attended by President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah. The Presidency has made clear that it did not organise or host the event, while Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Land Reform Minister Inge Zaamwani has said that, to her knowledge, no diplomat was invited other than a representative of the Food and Agriculture Organisation.
A source, meanwhile, alleged that the ambassador claimed his office had registered but could not produce a registration number when asked to verify his accreditation. The ambassador was reportedly subsequently asked to leave.
There are therefore two separate issues that should not be conflated.
The first concerns Giordano’s conduct and diplomatic style. The second concerns the competence of Namibian institutions in managing diplomatic protocol.
Neither should be prejudged.
The allegations that Giordano has sought meetings with several ministers, attempted to position himself close to the presidential delegation at public events, and visited a US-supported Environmental Crimes Court facility also require context before conclusions are drawn. Diplomats routinely engage government officials, attend public events and inspect projects supported by their governments. These activities are not, in themselves, evidence of diplomatic misconduct.
However, diplomacy is also an exercise in judgement, restraint and protocol. A diplomat represents a foreign state, and the manner in which that diplomat engages with the host government can have consequences beyond the individual.
Equally, Namibia cannot afford to handle foreign diplomats casually or allow institutional disorganisation to create unnecessary diplomatic friction.
Political analyst Marius Kudumo makes an important point in this regard. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations establishes principles governing diplomatic relations, including the promotion of friendly relations between states. Respect for diplomatic protocol is therefore not simply ceremonial fussiness. It is part of the architecture through which countries manage relationships.
That obligation runs both ways.
Foreign diplomats should respect the sovereignty, institutions and protocols of their host countries. Host governments, in turn, have a responsibility to treat diplomatic representatives with appropriate courtesy and professionalism.
This is why the Walvis Bay incident should perhaps prompt less outrage and more introspection.
If the ambassador was not invited to the event, the matter should have been handled quietly and professionally. If he had registered and was legitimately accredited, he should not have been denied access because of administrative confusion. If he attempted to enter an event without the required accreditation, organisers were entitled to enforce their access rules.
The important question is whether the rules were clear, consistently applied and properly communicated.
Unfortunately, much of the public debate appears to have moved rapidly from one disputed incident to demands for the ambassador’s recall.
That is premature.
A declaration of persona non grata is not a political insult to be deployed whenever relations become uncomfortable. Nor should calls for a foreign president to recall an ambassador become substitutes for evidence, diplomatic channels and due process.
At the same time, Namibia should not be afraid to defend its sovereignty and institutional dignity when warranted.
There is a temptation in smaller countries to assume that foreign diplomats should automatically receive special treatment because of the power their countries represent. That would be equally unhealthy. Namibia is a sovereign state, and foreign ambassadors operate here under Namibian law and diplomatic convention.
But sovereignty does not require unnecessary confrontation. In fact, mature sovereignty is often demonstrated by the ability to manage difficult relationships calmly.
This matters particularly in Namibia’s relationship with the United States.
Whatever disagreements may exist between the two governments, the relationship extends across trade, investment, conservation, development, security, health, education and other areas. Neither country benefits from allowing an ambassadorial controversy to become a proxy battle for wider political grievances.
There is also a broader lesson for Namibia.
Our diplomatic protocol cannot be left to improvisation. Major events attended by the President should have clear accreditation procedures, properly briefed security personnel and clearly defined responsibilities between organisers, protocol officials and the Presidency.
The President’s attendance should not create confusion over who is responsible for access.
Likewise, foreign missions should understand the protocols governing participation in Namibian state and government events. Communication between diplomatic missions and government departments should be sufficiently robust to prevent misunderstandings before they become public spectacles.
The current controversy also demonstrates the danger of relying on unnamed sources for serious diplomatic allegations. Claims that an ambassador is attempting to “ambush” the President or is “interfering in diplomatic policy” are serious assertions. They should not become accepted facts simply because they make compelling headlines.
The ambassador’s response was unavailable at the time of publication. That response matters.
The Windhoek Observer therefore believes the appropriate response at this stage is neither to defend Giordano reflexively nor to condemn him prematurely.
Let the facts be established.
If there has been inappropriate conduct, the appropriate diplomatic mechanisms should be used. If there has been an institutional failure on the Namibian side, that too should be acknowledged and corrected.
Diplomacy is ultimately about managing differences without allowing them to become disputes.
Namibia should insist on respect from foreign representatives, but it should also demonstrate the professionalism expected of a sovereign state. The measure of our diplomatic maturity is not how loudly we respond to an ambassadorial controversy, but how effectively we resolve it.
The Walvis Bay incident should therefore be a lesson, not a diplomatic crisis.
And before anyone calls for an ambassador to be recalled, Namibia should first establish what actually happened.
