From agreements to action: Namibia and Angola must deliver

There is something both encouraging and sobering about the revelation that Namibia and Angola have more than 60 bilateral agreements covering everything from trade and infrastructure to energy, security and social cooperation.

It is encouraging because it demonstrates the breadth of the relationship between two neighbouring countries whose destinies have been intertwined for generations.

It is sobering because the existence of more than 60 agreements also raises an obvious question: how many of these agreements have actually changed the lives of ordinary Namibians and Angolans?

President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah deserves credit for asking precisely that question.

At the inaugural session of the Namibia-Angola Bi-National Commission in Luanda, the President made a point that should become the defining principle of bilateral relations: citizens are not impressed by the number of agreements governments sign. They are interested in whether those agreements translate into better lives.

That is the right measure.

Diplomatic agreements are important. They establish frameworks, create obligations and provide the political foundation for cooperation. But an agreement that remains in a file, gathering dust in a ministry, has limited value to the trader struggling at a border post, the community waiting for water, the business paying excessive transport costs or the household worried about electricity supply.

The elevation of the relationship to a Bi-National Commission provides an opportunity to change this.

The relationship between Namibia and Angola is not merely one between two neighbouring states. It is a relationship forged through history, geography and sacrifice.

Angola provided sanctuary to Namibian exiles during the liberation struggle. Thousands of Namibians lived, studied and organised politically on Angolan soil. The two countries’ histories are permanently connected by the bloodshed of the liberation struggle, including the horrors of Cassinga and the wider military conflict in southern Angola.

The Battle of Cuito Cuanavale, whatever the different historical interpretations surrounding it, remains part of the shared regional history that preceded the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 435 and Namibia’s independence.

That history creates something more profound than diplomatic courtesy.

It creates a responsibility.

The challenge now is to convert historical solidarity into practical solidarity.

Water is perhaps the most obvious place to begin.

Namibia is one of the driest countries in sub-Saharan Africa, and the proposed extension of the Cafu Canal infrastructure into Namibia and the commissioning of permanent pumping stations at Calueque have potentially profound implications for communities in the north.

These should not remain perpetual items on bilateral agendas.

The same applies to transport.

The proposed railway connection between Oshikango and Santa Clara could fundamentally change the economic relationship between the two countries by improving the movement of goods, reducing transport costs and connecting businesses and communities more efficiently.

For small-scale traders in particular, the border should be an economic bridge, not an obstacle course.

This is where the President’s call for greater coordination between customs, immigration and border authorities becomes important. A sophisticated bilateral relationship cannot be measured only by presidential visits and ministerial meetings. It must also be measured by how quickly a truck crosses the border, how easily a trader clears goods and how efficiently businesses move people and products between the two countries.

Energy provides another compelling opportunity.

The Angola-Namibia Inter-connector could strengthen energy security and support economic development, while cooperation in petroleum and natural gas gives Namibia an opportunity to draw on Angola’s considerable institutional and practical experience as the country develops its own emerging petroleum industry.

There is also considerable potential in cooperation around the Lobito Refinery, logistics, storage and distribution, provided these ventures make commercial sense.

But here lies another important point: bilateral cooperation should not become an excuse for governments to pursue projects simply because they are politically attractive.

The President’s emphasis on commercially viable ventures is therefore important.

Both countries must ask hard questions about feasibility, financing, governance and long-term sustainability. Good intentions cannot substitute for sound economics.

The same principle applies to natural resources.

Namibia and Angola have historically exported enormous quantities of natural resources while much of the value has been created elsewhere.

The next chapter must be different.

If oil, gas, minerals and other resources are to transform our economies, more of the processing, manufacturing and value addition must take place closer to where those resources originate.

This is where bilateral cooperation could become genuinely transformative: not merely moving commodities across borders, but developing industries, skills, supply chains and jobs around them.

Ultimately, however, the success of the Bi-National Commission will depend on implementation.

Governments have no shortage of committees, memoranda and declarations. What is often missing is the relentless follow-through required to turn decisions into projects.

The President has correctly placed responsibility on ministers and implementing institutions to meet agreed timelines and obligations.

That insistence should continue.

The two governments should consider publicly tracking the implementation of the more than 60 agreements, identifying which are completed, which are underway, which are stalled and why.

Transparency would create accountability.

It would also allow citizens and businesses to see whether the Bi-National Commission is producing results.

Namibia and Angola have already paid a high price for the freedom and sovereignty they enjoy today. Their relationship was not built in conference rooms. It was forged through exile, sacrifice, war, solidarity and shared struggle.

That history should not be romanticised merely for ceremonial occasions.

It should be converted into a practical development partnership.

The real test of the Bi-National Commission will therefore not be the number of new agreements signed in Luanda.

It will be whether, five or ten years from now, a Namibian farmer has reliable access to water, a trader crosses the border with fewer delays, a manufacturer can move goods more cheaply, businesses have more reliable energy and young Namibians and Angolans can find meaningful economic opportunities.

Given the depth of the relationship between these two countries, this should not be an extraordinary ambition.

It should be the natural next chapter.

Namibia and Angola have already shared blood. They must now learn to share opportunity.