Multilateral diplomacy is complex and multidimensional.
Any discussion on multilateralism can thus not be exhaustive. Such an attempt would be folly and impossible.
This, therefore, renders an examination of a focused part of multilateralism sensible; in this case, one regarding the relationship between Malawi’s foreign policy and international governmental organisations (IGOs).
In undertaking this discussion, the IGOs to be considered will be the United Nations (UN) and its agencies, the African Union, Southern African Development Community (Sadc), the Commonwealth and the European Union (EU).
While Malawi is a member of the first four and not the fifth one, it nevertheless enjoys a robust relationship with the latter both at bilateral level and by virtue of being a member of the other IGOs.
Malawi’s foreign policy conduct regarding IGOs is both because these organisations are external and international in nature but also because they are constituted of nation states. However, it is further (also) most importantly because of what the country gains from such relationships.
Foreign policy is arguably, nothing but clear intent and process of ensuring national interests through relations with external actors in the international system.
Conduct of Malawi’s foreign policy with IGOs
One would want to understand Malawi’s foreign policy conduct with these IGOs in several ways.
Firstly, Malawi has permanent representation to these IGOs, called Permanent Representatives (PR). These serve either as dedicated envoys, for example the PR to the UN in New York, or those who are sent abroad as country envoys but also double as PRs to IGOs, such as the ambassador to Ethiopia who is PR to African Union; ambassador to Kenya, who is PR to UNEP or ambassador to Brussels, who is PR to World Trade Organisation (WTO).
Secondly, Malawi allows these IGOs to open resident representative offices (RROs), akin to a country’s diplomatic mission, with the attendant diplomatic privileges; for example, the status of the UNDP Representative, who also doubles as the UN Resident Coordinator, is at the level of an ambassador.
Thirdly, by allowing them to set up RROs, the IGOs undertake projects and programmes led by foreign nationals, the latter an elitist group as well.
Fourthly, Malawi participates in summit meetings, conferences and other initiatives under the rubric of the IGOs, such as the United Nations General Assembly (Unga), AU Summit, the Commonwealth Heads of State and Government Summit (Chosg); agency or sectoral meetings of the UN, AU and Sadc.
Finally, but not least, Malawi bids, lobbies and sends its citizens to occupy various positions in these IGOs. Cases in particular include late president Bingu Mutharika holding the AU chairmanship; the government sending a senior official at the Office of the President and Cabinet to serve as the head of the civilian component of the Sadc’s military programme; the government lobbying for one of the legal academics to be a member of the UN panel on human rights.
The types of relationships with IGOs
It is possible to identify two distinct ways in which the multilateral relations can be perceived between Malawi and the IGOs under study.
One concerns the UN and its agencies as well as the EU; the other is about the AU, Sadc and the Commonwealth.
Firstly, the relationship with the UN and EU is one of donor-recipient and paternalistic. The UN and EU provides goods and services that augment and reflects Malawi’s developing nation status. The relationship being paternalistic, not only because of the earlier assertion but because the UN and more so the EU, are IGOs intimately associated with the powerful, influential and rich states of the world.
In the international system a pecking order, despite claims of sovereignty, is a living reality. The type of relationship is also very much result of the scope and extent of the presence of these IGOs in Malawi, in terms of their RROs, amount of resources spent and type of activities undertaken. In essence, these speak to the fact that presence, activity and activism are crucial elements for multilateral diplomacy. Indeed, for international relations.
Secondly, the relationship with the AU, Sadc and the Commonwealth can best be described as being grounded in traditional multilateralism – summitry and conferences. The three aforementioned IGOs by their nature, do not have RROs.
The AU has a structure that is akin to an RRO, even though it is a regional office; the Southern African Regional Office (Saro). This means that the relationship is conducted mainly with the secretariats of these IGOs, which could render a credence of remoteness. It could also imply a mostly political rather than merely technical relationship. Inasmuch as these IGOs are also involved in provision of goods and services to Malawi, the relationship assumes most prominence in times of official gatherings at the level of heads of state, government, ministers and officials.
The future of Malawi-IGOs relations
Finally, it is quite hard to envisage a tectonic change in the relations between Malawi and the aforementioned IGOs, primarily a cessation of relations. However, this is not to rule out any possibility of the ‘unimaginable’ happening; one definitely recalls the recent ‘Brexit’ and Gambia’s pulling out of the Commonwealth. But in general, one would expect the relationship to continue at its present trajectory, in the most liveable future because of several reasons.
Firstly, these IGOs are likely to continue existing. The state membership in general would not come to a point where they will think of de-creating the bodies. Rumblings of disconnect and dissatisfaction will no doubt exist. But they will be diplomatic unaccompanied by any action.
Secondly the IGOs will continue to be donors in the context of Malawi’s projected state as a developing country. Even if Malawi was to move to a middle income status, the IGOs will still find a niche to operate.
Thirdly, and lastly, the IGOs provide a modicum and forum for the government to exercise some influence beyond its borders, and participate and make contributions to regionally, continental and globally critical issues.
Leave a Reply