When diplomats go astray
In the week that Namibia celebrated the anniversary of the removal of a colonial force from its soil, the local representative of the world’s premier colonial power was caught indulging in some serious undiplomatic vitriol.
To no surprise, Namibians took offence. While Charles Moore, the United Kingdom’s High Commissioner to Namibia, apologised and deleted a tweet criticising how Namibia handled a case regarding the granting of citizenship to a four-yearold child of a same-sex couple, through surrogacy, Namibians told him in no uncertain terms to stay in his lane.
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled the High Court had “gone astray” in granting citizenship to the child.
“Since the birth was not registered in accordance with the Citizenship Act, the High Court was not competent to grant relief ”, the court said.
“The minister was right not to grant the minor child citizenship by descent,” it concluded.
Moore tweeted, “Hard to believe how much time, money and effort are being spent on actively preventing the granting of Namibian citizenship to a four-year-old child. What possible risk is there from showing compassion for one child”.
Diplomats who are perceived to be too involved in their host’s internal affairs can cause resentment and suspicion.
They represent their countries and their national ideologies, as well as play a crucial role in maintaining peaceful relations between nations because interfering in the internal affairs of a host country is a violation of sovereignty.
Each country has the right to make decisions about its internal affairs without interference from external parties. Diplomats should respect the laws and customs of the host country and not attempt to impose their own beliefs or values.
However, former colonial powers bullying poorer nations through political interference is as old as the jewels on the British monarch’s crown.
Developed nations often use their economic and political power to influence the domestic politics of developing nations, imposing their values and interests on these countries.
This interference can result in the suppression of democratic movements and the installation of governments, aligned with the interests of the former colonisers, rather than the needs of their citizens.
It is clear Moore does not fully understand the complexities of Namibia’s political, economic and social milieu. The diplomat may have been caught in a swirl of popular misconceptions around the particular case.
Firstly, the parents did not present the child at any Namibian agency responsible for registering children.
In addition, Namibia has no laws against being gay. Even the archaic sodomy law still on the books has not in recent memory been used to prosecute anyone. In fact, the LGBTQI community enjoys wide acceptance.
Many members of that community occupy senior positions in all spheres of public life and live openly here. While the country has a long way to go to ensure equality for all its citizens, no one should be under the illusion that sexual minorities are persecuted. Just like any other country, Moore’s included, conservatives exist and often wield outsized political power.
But Namibia is proud of its systems, processes and institutions – and like many other countries in the global south, it is finding its voice.
Namibians are not impressed anymore by Westerners who preach tolerance to Africans but practise prejudice against Africans by passing the most bigoted laws and pursuing the most inhumane policies to stop them from visiting their countries.
High Commissioner Moore would do well to stay in his lane.