Elizabeth R.Auma K

History was one of my favorite subjects in school. I was fascinated by the stories of remarkable men and women. Their names became the reason we either passed with distinction or repeated a class. Beyond the familiar names of Hitler and Napoleon, there was Helen of Troy, ‘the face that launched a thousand ships’. Her story was not taught in the classroom, yet it often surfaced in late-night discussions at the students’ residence.

Looking back now, I realize that this story carries a hidden giant. What appeared to be a tale of beauty and love was a spark that ignited something far deeper.  Sparta went to Troy not just to retrieve the beautiful Helen but to defend the dignity and honor of the nation. The story of Helen of Troy reflects the silent strength that sits at the forefront of every trade agreement today.

In recent months, the media has reported on the United States withdrawing from several global commitments. One consistent defense has been that these bodies no longer represent America’s interests. In simple terms, as a sovereign state, the United States retains the authority to withdraw from any commitment when it no longer serves its national interest. This reality should remind every trade negotiator that sovereignty remains a nation’s most powerful instrument in any negotiation or commitment.

At the same time, regional trade agreements continue to be signed across the world. One recent example that made headlines is the European Union–India trade deal. Global deliberations consistently emphasize the importance of regional integration for both small and large economies. Why? A country that produces only for domestic consumption eventually limits its growth potential. Trading with partners expands markets, strengthens income generation, deepens cooperation, and ensures sustainability. These form essential ingredients for stability, resilience, and competitiveness.

There is a common saying: “Do not bite the hand that feeds you.” In trade terms, ‘do not undermine the partner who sustains your ability to produce, and supply their markets‘. Thus, for centuries, bilateral and regional agreements have formed the backbone of expanded trade. Yet, in every negotiation room sits sovereignty, the silent giant. It remains quiet until national interests feel threatened. Even the smallest nation will not tolerate certain lines being crossed.

I witnessed the power of sovereignty during a regional meeting on trade matters. A statement made by one country provoked another, forcing the meeting to halt. One delegation demanded an apology, citing sovereign dignity. The other, equally asserting its sovereignty, insisted no wrong was done. What appeared to be a minor exchange quickly escalated into a matter of national authority. The two delegations, with a neutral party, stepped aside to resolve the matter privately.

Often, sovereignty tensions live quietly in the minds of negotiating teams, shaping national positions, drawing red lines, and crafting diplomatic language. This explains why the word “urge” appears so frequently in intergovernmental reports. You cannot direct a sovereign state, for directives imply control. Sovereign states rarely “request” either, as it signals ‘weakness’. Instead, they persuade without surrendering dignity. ‘We invite you to consider or act’ become a common phrase. If I were to give a keynote address to young people getting into trade Policy negotiations, I would say that language itself is an expression of sovereignty.

I have observed over the years that in trade negotiations, every delegation enters the room with one clear mandate; protect sovereign interests. This realization led me down a path of inquiry: What exactly is sovereignty? Why are nations willing to defend it so fiercely, even at the risk of conflict? When countries commit to removing trade barriers yet delay implementation, citing domestic laws and internal processes one truth becomes evident; beneath these technical explanations sits the final gatekeeper: sovereignty. I once had someone say; Trade Agreements are signed on paper, but sovereignty governs their execution. At its core, scholar Eric Brahm defines sovereignty as the possession of absolute authority within a bounded territorial space. Sovereignty, I am convinced, is a nation’s greatest asset in any negotiation or agreement.

At times, I ask myself whether sovereignty is a blessing or a barrier to regional integration. When exercised wisely, it protects national identity and stability. Yet it can also slow harmonization, weaken trust, and dilute the spirit of collective progress. For as long as nations maintain defined borders, sovereignty is here to stay.

My reflection, therefore, leads me to this conclusion: the real challenge is not sovereignty itself, but how wisely it is stewarded. Can nations protect their identity while honoring shared commitments? Can sovereignty evolve from a defensive shield into a platform for responsible cooperation? Can nations entrusted with people, resources, and influence use what they have not to dominate or isolate, but to serve humanity sustainably?

Like King Solomon concludes in Ecclesiastes, I borrow the same lines to say, at the end, sovereignty is not merely a political concept but a shaper of markets, livelihoods, and everyday realities. It affects families, women like Mama Sarah whose survival, and that of her children, depends on predictable borders, fair rules, and accessible markets.

As a woman of faith, I cannot reflect on sovereignty without this; when sovereignty is exercised without regard for the greater good of humanity, it breeds fear and division. When it is exercised under God’s wisdom, it becomes a tool for shared prosperity and peace. The question, therefore, is not whether nations should protect their sovereignty; they must. If the need arises, I will always defend Uganda’s sovereignty as I represent her in trade deliberations. The deeper issue is whether sovereignty is being stewarded in a way that honors both God and humanity.

Reference

Brahm, Eric. “Sovereignty.” Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: September 2004 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/sovereignty>.