The port that reveals why Africa has yet to fully understand the true nature of power
When a great power fights for decades to retain what appears to be a small piece of territory, the question should never be, “What is in that territory?” Rather, it should be, “What does that territory allow them to control?”
Paul T. Shipale (with inputs by Folito Nghitongovali Diawara Gaspar)
A small territory with global significance; Walvisbaai is nie Utuseb nie.
When a great power fights for decades to retain what appears to be a small piece of territory, the question should never be, “What is in that territory?” Rather, it should be, “What does that territory allow them to control?”
That is the question we should ask about Walvis Bay.
At first glance, it is simply a port on Namibia’s Atlantic coast. Yet its history tells a very different story. If Walvis Bay had been nothing more than an ordinary harbour, South Africa would not have held onto it for four years after Namibia gained independence in 1990, only transferring sovereignty in 1994.
That decision was not driven by nostalgia or colonial pride. It reflected a clear understanding of the port’s immense strategic value.
The enduring logic of maritime power
What makes Walvis Bay so important?
The answer lies not merely in the port itself but in a timeless geopolitical principle that those who control trade routes control commerce, perhaps, those who control commerce generate wealth and those who accumulate wealth acquire the ability to shape international politics.
This was the central argument advanced by American naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan in the nineteenth century. He believed that maritime supremacy would determine the rise and decline of nations.
