“NATURALLY, in light of the crises and instability in the world, we will have to shoulder higher defence costs in the coming years,” Germany Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble said last month, as he announced that his government wants to raise the defence budget starting in 2017 and massively expand the armed forces.
Here in Namibia, dissidents are at it again – this time questioning why an astronomical N$7.2 billion was allocated to the Ministry of Defence. They argue that the country is not at war and the allocation, their view, is therefore without basis in logic. Germany too is not at war, but Schäuble’s explanation cannot be ridiculed.
After all, defence is not only in existence for war. There are natural disasters in which massive military operations could be summoned.
But even in terms of war, it does not always mean battles are fought within the country itself. Last year, the United Nations – yes, the same body that hammered out a peace process for us – asked Namibia to send troops to the Central African Republic (CAR) where government was struggling to contain a bloody rebellion.
Logistics involved in an operation like that cannot be dealt with by penny pinchers. Yet this was a call for duty meant to assist a nation that was, and probably still is, on the verge of collapse.
In his National Security Strategy 2015, President Barack Obama used the term “aggression” 18 times. When such a word is being excessively used by the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, we ought to know that something somewhere is not entirely right.
A small nation like ours should focus on developing itself economically, but we also cannot afford to take our ears off the ground in a time when unprovoked acts of aggression – or in recent years terrorism – are on the increase.
Ukrainians too probably questioned their defence budget allocation some years ago. Now they have lost Crimea to Russia and are hanging onto the country’s eastern parts by their fingernails.
Back home, it was because of the preparedness of our army that the Caprivi rebellion of 1999 was subdued within hours of its surfacing. But even with that level of preparedness, innocent people lost their lives in that short-lived uprising.
We can, therefore, not afford to have an ill-equipped army because wars and disasters do not announce themselves. Iraqis did not possess any arms of mass destruction, as they were accused of, but they ended up bathing in their own blood after the invasion of their country by British and American troops. Just like that, unprovoked!
In East Africa, Kenyans are mourning the death of nearly 150 people, mostly students, who were attacked at a university in Garissa by suspected al-Shabaab militants.
Just like in any other war or aggression situation, the Kenyans did not see the attack coming. War is never seen coming the world over.
So Namibians should perhaps find another argument of why defence allocation should be cut, as suggested by the few critics who have taken issue with this matter. But the argument of “there is no war here” is as shallow as a puddle.
True, our country needs schools and hospitals. It needs better roads and recreational facilities to help deter our youth from alcohol and criminal activities.
But when national security is compromised and aggressors can destroy infrastructure with the snap of a finger. Let us not take our current peace and stability for granted. Nations that took their peace for granted have paid a price – a heavy price.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the defence allocation announced recently is in line with the demands of our time. It was not approved in anticipation of anything, but to solidify our preparedness as a nation at all times.