Recent reports in early 2026 indicate that the United States (US) administration is pursuing a strategic shift in US-Namibian economic relations, moving from aid-focused engagement to an “investment-driven partnership”.
Key interests include securing critical mineral supply chains, expanding US commercial presence in the energy sector (oil and gas), and developing infrastructure to support these sectors. But can America be trusted? Foreign interests challenge national sovereignty amid globalisation, economic interdependence, and technological progress. While internal engagement is essential, external influence often hampers a state’s self-governance. The debate over foreign influence balances sovereign equality with the realities of global power.
Foreign interests weaken a nation by undermining sovereignty, fuelling internal conflicts, exploiting resources, and manipulating politics to serve foreign agendas. They turn countries into battlegrounds of geopolitical rivalry, causing insecurity and unrest. External entities often use countries as proxies for influence and resources instead of supporting stability and security.
External entities often exert influence to pursue their strategic, economic, and ideological goals, spreading preferred ideologies vital to their national interests, security, and stability, which also reinforces their security agenda. Such intervention can have complex or harmful effects.
Foreign influence can restrict a country’s autonomy, hindering its domestic development. It limits decision-making, forces alignment with external interests, and weakens institutions. Such entanglements heighten vulnerability to instability, regulatory shifts, and geopolitical conflicts. Smaller states often must comply with external powers due to economic or defense dependencies, eroding their sovereignty.
Influence in a country often comes from external entities using economic, political, informational, and military strategies. These can be legitimate, like diplomacy, or illegitimate, such as covert interference aimed at disrupting, manipulating, creating dependency, or manipulating local politics, polarization, and political groups.
Vulnerability to coercion
External entities use trade, investments, and aid to influence smaller nations’ policies, often setting up military bases and providing aid to project power and manage regions, harming local autonomy. They expand influence, secure resources, and create dependencies, turning economic ties into strategic control. While foreign interests can bring capital and markets, careful navigation is needed to protect economic, cultural, and political security. Admittedly, smaller nations, due to underdevelopment, are often seen as strategic “geographic locations” or “buffers” rather than independent actors, mainly valued for resources or passage. Usually, they negotiate from a position of weakness, leading to unfavourable terms aligned with the agendas of global powers. These powers often consider certain regions as their spheres of influence, expecting smaller nations to prioritise their economic and military needs.
The 2026 US invasion of Venezuela, culminating in the capture of President Nicolàs Maduro, highlighted key lessons regarding the “leadership decapitation” strategy over full occupation. The US, as a dominant global power, operates from a position of weakness, resulting in unfavourable international law on sovereignty. This was driven by a push for regime change to remove the president, to secure access to the world’s largest oil reserves, and to reassert US dominance under the Monroe Doctrine, while aiming to break Venezuela’s alliances with Russia and China. This is a vivid example of the fallouts of foreign interests that often serve the strategic needs of the powerful at the expense of the domestic interests of smaller nations.
Foreign interests often come with conditions limiting a nation’s ability to control its economy and politics. Allowing foreign control of critical infrastructure poses security risks. While there are benefits, dangers include unequal power dynamics and prioritisation of foreign interests over local well-being.
Today, the Port of Sudan, which handles 90% of trade, is a contested hub of foreign influence and military competition. Similarly, disputes over control of the Panama Canal involve geopolitical tensions between the US and China regarding Chinese investments. Smaller states are more vulnerable to foreign pressure but can mitigate this by diversifying exports and expanding trading partners. Forming regional alliances also boosts their bargaining power by pooling resources and markets. Thus, smaller countries like Namibia must understand and navigate the goals of the dominant global power to maintain sovereignty, security, and economic stability. Failing to do so risks becoming a pawn, collateral damage, or losing sovereignty.
*Maj. Gen. (RTD) J. B Tjivikua is a Criminal Intelligence Analyst.