African Diplomacy in an Era of “Messy Multilateralism”

The era of “messy multilateralism,” as Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, recently wrote in a Financial Times op Ed, has spawned new and more international forums, like the Major Economies Forum, Davos and Committee of the Parties. The more forums there are, the larger and more complex the portfolios of Foreign Service officers (FSOs) working in major cities like Geneva, Washington and New York become.

Mark Malloch Brown called attention to this problem in the Financial Times this month, highlighting how the British Foreign Office has suffered from the “growing complexity” of international affairs. Pointing to the unique “alliance-building” skills and insights of diplomats, he urged his country’s Treasury to increase the budget for international representation.

But for African diplomats, the problem can’t be solved by restructuring budget allocations between departments. In a recent trip to Geneva, I was struck listening to the workload of an African colleague of mine. He told me his job required him to follow international negotiations in all UN organizations in Geneva – and everything in Vienna and Rome, as well. In all, it meant being knowledgeable about close to 30 pressing international issues.

African FSOs are often outnumbered by delegations ten times their size. Attending meetings at the World Health Organization last week, I noticed just how African diplomats are being challenged by a lack of resources and staffing.  For the annual Executive Board meetings, Russia sent nearly 30 people from the capital to provide expert advice on issues ranging from TB to the harmful abuse of alcohol. Burundi was only able to send one. Niger sent another. And Somalia, not surprisingly, was a no show. In fact, the entire Africa Group, which consists of 46 African countries, had less than Russia’s single delegation.

And yet, my colleague’s work as a leader within the Africa Group – building consensus, creating alliances, negotiating on donor funding – has never been more in demand. Making his work even more important is the fact that messy multilateralism is making Africa’s vote and contributions more sought after as African nations represent the greatest number of votes in these forums. Africa’s vote in Copenhagen, for example, was heavily courted by both the OECD and the large emerging economies.

Africa does not have the choice of simply diverting more of the budget to Foreign Service. The growing number of topics and forums further exacerbates the divergence of Africa in global policy-making processes.

In order for Africa to be able to sustain leadership in these international negotiations, there should be innovative support programs tailored to the unique needs and resource constraints of African countries, including potentially a new school of African diplomacy at the African Union. The school could provide analytic research and training on trade and other complex international issues. It could help fill personnel gaps at Missions and Embassies by covering various hearings and negotiations, reporting back to the missions on relevant topics. And seasoned states people, retired African diplomats, could guide young diplomats on how to manage more effectively in a world of messy multilateralism. The school could augment and enhance the solution to the one Malloch Brown calls for (more money and for the foreign service) and ultimately might create a cadre of diplomats more adept at doing more with less ― something a skill all government officials would do well to learn.