However it takes time.

Why? The conversation usually goes, "good morning, who do you want to talk to?"; <give name and nature of question>; "putting you through"; <secretary answers, ask for person>; "sorry, X is currently travelling, out of the country, at a workshop in Mauritius" <the menu of options is long>; " back on Monday".

Such delay is manageable but further frustrated by "in a meeting" responses but it does raise a question or two, especially when it becomes quite apparent that a lot of senior officials seem to spend some months on outside Namibia business.

Doing what? Well the list of acronyms of organisational involvement is acronymonious! Multilaterals such as the UN and its numerous offspring, trade and financial organisations, multiple educational, gender, HIV-AIDS and OVC setups, military, parliamentary, transport and safety and security, justice and legal eagle junkets, and let's not forget energy and the latest bandwagon - climate change.

Oh and lots of food and agriculture stuff.

Plus training and bilateral exchanges, and the list goes on and on and on.

Even smart partnerships that turn out to be not so smart! And never forget the World Bank and the IMF! Doing what? Well it is hoped expensive flights, clothing allowances, per diems, post-trip rest days, hardship allowances and time out is for the benefit of Namibia's people.

Such trips usually end with a media statement that the trip was "an absolute success" or similar; as an example after a recent Mauritian poverty conference it was so claimed.

Well I have yet to find a final agreed statement and it was quite evident that the participants had not looked at the rising food prices evident since mid 2007! Was it a success? It is also relevant to look at ongoing trade negotiations with the EU which seem to have caused numerous splits in SACU, SADC and other such bodies with some countries still belonging to more than one separately negotiated agreement.

Diplomatic contortion at its best, with Namibia's position remaining "under review" following a realisation last year, after seven years of trip and travel, that all was not well! Doing what? The evidence suggests that such relationships are incredibly fragile, skin deep at best; the mounting pile of MOUs and bilateral agreements that are but wind emanating from the PR intestinal tracts and rarely lead to positive results.

When the going gets tough, take to the communal trenches.

Maybe it is all about "safety in numbers"; if things go wrong the collegiate groupings allows individual accountability to be hidden within collective sin! Or maybe the problem is simple and revolves around protocol as it is very sad to note that the Chief of Protocol (MFA) is seriously constrained due to the lack of a laptop and substandard furniture! (latest MTEF, page 100).

Surely with access to numerous diplomatic benefits he could buy a laptop himself - about N$4 000: peanuts! But this is symptomatic and typical of the "Jet Set" and "Sheraton" mentality; talk, widgets and exposure is all; organisational bling.

The stem cells of this profligacy, I suggest, are the multilaterals, the UN, the WB, the IMF and all their blossoming progeny; the P5's, the limousines, lavish travel and accommodation, the culture of entitlement and their quota systems for a start, are transmitted by osmosis through semi-permeable mem-brains.

All fine for organisations that deliver but ...

I can already hear the defensive screams with their usual litany of justification.

So scream! Yes, the UN does have successes and their analysis and statistical prowess is stuff of legend.

But the overall cost and impact is littered with smelly corpses in more ways than one.

Procurement scandals at the top, nepotism, oil for food, gold for guns, women and child trafficking are but the tip of the iceberg; failure to stop massacres and human rights abuse are also stuff of legend! But Namibia would not be where we are today without the UN.

The WB and IMF have similar shabby records having done little to reduce poverty, apart from their own.

(Indeed very recently a West African leader "bit the hand that is meant to feed us", the FAO, in a very similar manner to the comments above) This profligacy that has percolated onto the Namibian scene and is distorting our internal actions through increased expense, loss of talent to salary and disproportionate effort on matters external while displacing effort at home and even more worrying, stifling national creativity as a sacrifice to "menu" thinking; conformity before performity!.

It is good a Cabinet Retreat looms to review direction.

I make the following agenda suggestions: * What tangible benefits do normal Namibians get from membership of multiple external organisations? Should focus shift, now exposure has been gained, to matters internal and how to do this? * Are Namibian SOEs out of control and becoming personal fiefdoms for personal gain? (also look at control board realities) Should national wage rates be made public together with (capped) performance bonuses? How to handle private sector salaries? * Is the policy of "Jobs for All" realistic? Should not the focus shift to national wealth creation and more equitable distribution? * "Economic Diplomacy" does not appear to be attracting FDI or improving TofT as most incoming capital is for mining which creates wealth but few jobs; should expense on diplomatic activity be reviewed in this light? Is constant demonisation of employers by political/civil society leaders having a negative impact on growth? Is it justified? * Namibia is overexposed to the price and supply manipulations of globalisation especially with regard to basic food and liquid fuel.

What realistic short term and more permanent actions can be taken to reduce this exposure? * How does significant urban drift and cash dependency balance with focus on rural development and self-sufficiency? This seems to be a basic policy conflict.

* Vision 2030 approaches; educational needs are clearly for the rapid development of high grade graduates in hard subjects every year (1 000?), a jet stream of talent; later needs are for a trade based stream.

Current equity policies negate this and 70 000 repeaters per year adds no value.

Revised and urgent redirection is needed.

How can Namibia best balance political/economic need with statistically based fact? I hope this Retreat is not an advance in reverse.

Connect the dots.

Letters Of The Last 48 Hours