Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen.

Good Morning.

I am deeply honored to have been invited to speak to you today and share my thoughts on Political Diplomacy and Economic Diplomacy.

We have, in the last three years or so, been hearing quite a lot on what is called “economic diplomacy” as a way of delivering Zambia’s foreign policy and I would like to share my thoughts with you on the subject.

First of all, Foreign Policy or International Relations is a system of strategies by a country in its interaction with other states and therefore a vital component of its behavior with other countries. Foreign policy and diplomacy are different.  While foreign policy is the strategy and behavior by which states relate in order to advance their interests, diplomacy is the instrument used in its implementation.

There seems to be a misconception of the real meaning of economic diplomacy. Economic diplomacy is the means by which a state seeks to promote trade and attain foreign investment through its external relations with other states or non-state international institutions.

Political diplomacy on the other hand, involves the engagement of states in their quest to influence favorable political opinion by other states. It may involve conflict resolution or promotion of friendliness between states. So, economic diplomacy connects closely with political, public and other segments of diplomatic work. Economic diplomacy brings in new industries which bring in new technology and creates new jobs, increases the GDP and when done correctly, reduces the need for future borrowing.

On Wednesday, 22^nd October, 2014, the then Foreign Affairs Minister, Mr. Harry Kalaba, launched in Parliament, what he called the “Revised Foreign Policy Document” (RFPD).

In his Ministerial Statement to Parliament, Mr. Kalaba said it was government’s intention to make a major shift from what it viewed as Zambia’s previously political leaning diplomacy to economic diplomacy. When I heard about this, I took interest and studied the document to find out exactly what was in the details.

In 2019, I wrote a scholarly document on the RFPD in which I stated that there were some holes in that document and it was incomplete. To me, the reason for the switch was not fully convincing. They claimed that Zambia had concentrated on political diplomacy since independence and it was now time to shift to economic diplomacy. This was not quite correct when you look at the first 27 years as an independent nation.

It was rather odd to me that in the introduction page of the RFPD, the Minister implied that no economic diplomacy took place from 1964 to 1991 under the presidency of Dr. Kenneth Kaunda and that focus was on securing the country’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence. From 1991, however, it is mentioned that the administration of President Chiluba “adopted a much greater and liberalized economic orientation in the country’s external relations, which marked the beginning of the focus on economic diplomacy in Zambia”.

That is certainly not quite correct.

Experts in international relations tell us that traditional diplomacy approached foreign policy which pushed a political, rather than an economic agenda. President Kaunda’s foreign policy may therefore be described as such because the regional challenges arising from the liberation struggle at the time required it.

But, looking at the development that took place from the Transitional Development Plan of 1964 to 1968, and other development plans from then on until 1991, it is clear to me that Zambia’s foreign policy and diplomacy during Dr. Kaunda’s presidency was both political and economic.

Let me give a bit of background.

To understand the “shift” being referred to in the RFPD, it is important to look and assess Zambia’s foreign policy and diplomacy from 1964 to 1991. Let me very briefly do this.

During the 1964 to 1991 period of which it is said that Zambia focused on political diplomacy, the country had in less than thirteen years completed some of the largest projects than today with international partners. With the help of foreign cooperating partners, some projects were on board within five years.

We were building not rebuilding because, at Independence, this country had nothing except foreign mines whose revenue was being used to develop Salisbury, the Southern Rhodesian capital which was meant to be the Federal Capital of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Southern Rhodesia had everything.

If Zambia leaned on political diplomacy, how then did we manage to develop the Kariba North Bank and Kafue Hydro-electricity power stations. The biggest ever project at the time undertaken by the People’s Republic of China was the Tanzania- Zambia Railway line (TAZARA), We also had INDENI Oil Refinery, Tanzania-Zambia Mafuta (TAZAMA) oil pipeline. Itezhi Tezhi Dam and many others.

Nitrogen Chemicals of Zambia had Japanese participation through Kobe Steel, the European Union helped with Kafue Textiles of Zambia. Greece, through Doxidias Associates designed Kafue Estates which was built by the Zambia Engineering Construction Company (ZECCO), jointly owned with Yugoslavia. The Israelis were involved in the design and initial construction of the University of Zambia.

Zambia Airways in 1967 had the participation of Ireland and later Italy through Alitalia. The Canadians helped us at Zambia Railways. Economic diplomacy helped us in manpower development.

One of the things also mentioned in the RFPD was that the shift would enhance regional cooperation. This was already in place through the transition from the Frontline States to the formation of the Southern African Development Coordination Conference in April 1980, which was later known as the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

In recognition of the importance of enhancing transport and communication problems in the regional community, for example, a K23 million Lusaka-Harare highway reconstruction agreement was signed at the Summit held in Maputo in 1981. If I am not mistaken, I think the United States government was financed that project.

Zambia’s involvement in the liberation war of Southern Africa must not blind us to the achievements of economic diplomacy during the time.

Economic diplomacy and political diplomacy are like the proverbial cellphone and SIM-card combination. You cannot make a phone call without the other. There is an umbilical cord between political diplomacy and economic diplomacy. That was why Lt. General Ronnie Shikapwasha, who was then Member of Parliament for Keembe Constituency and previously served as Foreign Affairs Minister, asked Mr. Kalaba in Parliament, how divorcing political diplomacy from other areas could be possible.

I would also ask: What are you going to do if your government faces a political problem that needs a political solution and your diplomats are all economists or businessmen and women? Let’s not hide from the fact that our relations with our neighbor Zimbabwe are rather icy at the moment. They need a political diplomacy solution and not economic diplomacy and if you have a diplomat who only understands business and economics, then you have a problem. The shift to economic diplomacy must not mean completely replacing political diplomacy.

Let me give you two examples of how political diplomacy opens doors for economic diplomacy.

I wrote an article published last year entitled: “DR Congo needs help now.” The DRC is supposed to be the richest country in Africa and one of the richest in the world and because of seemingly unending conflicts, it finds itself as an attraction for international plunderers. I call it “The King Leopold Curse”

Some estimates put the value of the country’s untapped mineral resources at a staggering US$24 trillion. Imagine the kind of development that would take place and how huge economic cooperation between the DRC and Zambia would be.

At a time when Zambia is working on boosting economic cooperation with DR Congo, it is important that we help to bring about political stability in that country for future expansion of economic and political ties. Zambia’s foreign policy must not only think of Lubumbashi alone for business. A peaceful and prosperous Congo will open up geographically with new roads, railway lines and air service links to various towns and cities, old and new.

A visionary foreign policy should with political diplomacy assist DR Congo to stabilize and strengthen its governance systems. A stable and peaceful DRC will bring about immense benefits for Zambia. That is the broader and strategic approach to economic diplomacy.

The second example is that of our relations with the People’s Republic of China. Two weeks ago in the Times of Zambia, I wrote an article entitled: “A visionary foreign policy avails much” which brings to light how political diplomacy translated to economic diplomacy our two countries enjoy today.

Many Zambians are not aware of our country’s role in having  China’s rights restored as a member of the United Nations. Zambia took a politically moral stand and chose the correct side of history. We politically stood with China and not Taiwan.

This is evidenced nearly 60 years later, by the success in which economic diplomacy has continued to benefit our country. China has been key to some of, if not the biggest and costliest projects undertaken in Zambia. That is foreign policy with a vision. Economic diplomacy must have vision but it just doesn’t appear in the air. The foundation is political diplomacy.

So, how then should we handle economic diplomacy?

Economic diplomacy must attract investors that will engage in local manufacturing of goods and also add value for export. There are vast opportunities for investment in agriculture, tourism and other sectors and what the Foreign Affairs Ministry together with other relevant ministries need to do, is draw up a marketing plan that will prioritize investment areas.

That plan will detail countries which would be targeted based on key industries in those countries. For example, the Netherlands and Great Britain are very advanced in waste management and recycling.

The danger of uncontrolled economic diplomacy is that a country can go overboard on external borrowing from states that are willing to do so and also be lured by investors like those involved in trading and not manufacturing. Let’s not be a dumping ground.

An economy that is open to unrestricted imports and foreign investment purely for trading purposes will not create jobs or produce for export. Zambia does not need any more shopping malls stacked with foreign goods. That is not economic diplomacy.

Repositioning for economic diplomacy means Zambia’s strategy for deployment of foreign service staff must be realigned and therefore, political appointments must be drastically reduced in order to have diplomats with the necessary competences.

Earlier this year, I wrote two articles for my weekly column in the Times of Zambia. One is entitled, “Searching for a new top diplomat”, which was on the competencies of the person to replace the former Minister of Foreign Affairs. The other is, “Foreign service is not a place to go and chill”. In the second one, I said:

“Zambia’s interests in international cooperation, trade and investment, peace and security initiatives, protection of human rights and helping to provide humanitarian needs and of course, promoting our tourism and culture, including interests of Zambians in the diaspora, are best served by our diplomats with the skills and knowledge of performing in these areas.

Every appointee must be fully conversant with the politics, history, social, cultural and economic positions of the country where they serve and must be trained in negotiating skills and intelligence gathering”.

I went on:

“There is a misconception in this country by people who think being sent abroad as a diplomat is not only an elevation in status but an opportunity to live in a foreign land, sit back and enjoy the comfort of air-conditioned offices, a nice house, chauffeur-driven car, attend all kinds of State functions and perhaps, once in a while, have tea and cookies with a Head of State or send some goodies home to relatives and friends. In any country where this is the case, you end up with a foreign service that becomes a depository of diplomats serving for the wrong reasons.”

One of the reasons why this is happening is that, in the last 30 years, the significance, importance and qualifications of those going into foreign service lost meaning. The criteria used for appointments became diluted because appointing authorities used it as a reward for certain individuals and not on their ability to deliver Zambia’s foreign policy. It became acceptable.

Since then, people think that anybody can be an Ambassador or High Commissioner, First, Second or Third Secretary. Over the years, I witnessed a decline in our influence on global affairs as a result of sending unprepared people at Head of Mission level to represent us.”

Diplomacy has advanced since the end of the Cold War and Zambia needs to keep in stride with global changes as well as its own realignment or adjustments in its foreign policy and diplomats need to be properly equipped for effective service.

Those in foreign service must learn to discern the times to change diplomatic strategy when necessary.

When we go to a stadium to watch a football game, we do not go to watch defensive football or offensive football, but just football. As the game goes on, the coach may call for his team to switch to attacking-mode or defensive-mode depending on the situation. It is the same in diplomacy.

Zambia is currently and correctly in the attack-mode for trade and investment but must always be aware of the other sectors of diplomacy that may help get better results and guard the economic wins. For example, economic diplomacy will result in warmer political ties while political diplomacy may be the doorway to increased economic activity between two countries. All this means diplomats must have the ability to operate in both halves of the football pitch.

There is something else important in the diplomacy game. As in the game of football, some players perform best on the left wing, some as right back or as attacking midfielders or goalkeepers and yet they are all football players. That is how it is in diplomacy, especially at Head of Mission level. Some will be more effective in certain countries or regions of the world including international institutions.

For example, the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council deals mostly with conflicts and the top diplomat there must have a full grip on global affairs. That is why Zambia was very effective at the UN in the past. The UN is not a place for a marine biologist.

Understanding all of the above should then give us a better idea on the competencies of the people to serve as Ambassadors, High Commissioners, First, Second or Third Secretary. Trade Attachés and other staff must also be selected based on their skills, not because of being party cadres.

So, with this understanding, I would now like to suggest just two steps which the Zambian government must consider. to revitalize Zambia’s foreign service,

First, the failures of the past must be carefully studied to reveal weaknesses. Zambia’s repositioning itself for economic diplomacy means its strategy for deployment must be realigned and therefore, political appointments must be drastically reduced in order to have diplomats with the necessary experience and knowledge.

There is always pressure on the appointing authority from members of a ruling party to make political appointments and in some cases, friends and relatives, or those with connections. Yes, there should be appointments reserved for that but the majority must be on merit and that means there must be regulations that set a limit on the number of political appointments.

Many countries in the world face the problem of too many political appointments, some with no clue about diplomacy but for various reasons, such as election campaign contributions, find themselves as diplomats. Even the United States faces this challenge.

Under President Donald Trump, 45% of the Ambassadors were political appointees – big financial donors. President Bill Clinton had the least number of political appointees, 28%. There have been recommendations that a legislated figure of 10% would be ideal. Zambia must set a reasonable limit in order to have professionals in foreign service.

Secondly, Zambia must develop a carrier diplomacy and one way to do that is by beginning to infuse young people with the potential.

There are many who have studied International Relations at universities who can become a reservoir for future career diplomats at various levels. Others may excel faster when assigned to various desks at Ministry of Foreign Affairs or on short-term attachment to missions abroad, perhaps specializing on certain regions of the world.

As I head towards the end of this presentation, I would like to comment on President Hakainde Hichilema’s recent visit to China and the foreign policy criticism he has been receiving since he assumed office.

Within weeks of assuming office, the President was accused of engaging western countries and ignoring those in the East, like China.

The recently concluded visit to China was the President’s second in just less than a year and I think critics need to be fair to this President and give him credit for his achievements after engaging other countries, particular those that had been ignored by the previous regime.

So much was said by his opponents on why he had not visited China after he came to office and was accused of being a puppet of the West for traveling to the United States and Europe. In April 2023, a Zambian academician and economist was quoted in a headline story of a local tabloid demanding that “HH should visit China”. For them, that was the only region where economic diplomacy was possible and that is one of the reasons our country ended up with such a mountain of debt.

Now that he is back from China, I have not heard his critics applauding him for what he has achieved from that visit. Even after the success of the debt relief negotiations, their spin doctors went into attack-mode, needless to mention the mess they had created. After all these successes and now with the MOUs signed in China, they have suddenly gone quiet and one doesn’t have to wonder why.

I still find it rather shocking to hear statements accusing the President of being a puppet of the West and, honestly, it shows lack of understanding of what foreign policy and diplomacy entails.

Some critics who have served in various positions at Foreign Affairs seem to be deliberately trying to score political points in their attacks on the President. Writing in my column on March 23, 2023, I explained as follows:

“President Hichilema is rekindling engagements with countries in the West thereby broadening the economic and political playing field in which Zambia had been confined to the left wing. This is not puppetry but a positive and pragmatic approach to international relations.

Visits to Zambia by members of United States President Biden’s cabinet must be seen as a realignment, a balancing act of diplomatic relations with both Eastern and Western powers. 

African leaders as a whole, must have proactive foreign policies which protect the continent’s resources and people. There is an expansion of foreign footprints all over Africa and that by itself is not a bad thing when the benefits are mutual, but “mutual” must not mean Africa bowing down to the dictates of the powerful and then call it economic diplomacy. That is slavery.

Global business and the international economic system has been rather hostile to Africa and this has been allowed through weak foreign policies by leaders who fear reprisals. Economic diplomacy must never create dependency but help you to stand on your own and not go back again, running around the world with a begging bowl.

Zambia’s foreign policy and diplomacy is not perfect at the moment and still needs some work and should never be compromised. It must be managed and delivered by people who understand international relations and practice it with integrity. We do not want people with selfish intentions which result in decisions that alter longstanding foreign policy positions in order to win personal favors from foreign countries. Zambia’s foreign policy should never be for sale or exchanged for greedy purposes.

Economic diplomacy calls for morality in foreign policy. Choices have to be made. If there was no sense of morality Zambia would have established diplomatic relations with apartheid South Africa, Rhodesia, South West Africa and the Portuguese in Angola and Mozambique. The liberation war would have been ignored and abandoned because of the benefits of economic diplomacy.

I conclude with this.

I have never believed in a country’s foreign policy borne out of fear of economic reprisal from either friend or foe, weak or strong. Zambia and Africa as a whole, must take solid proactive diplomatic and foreign policy positions that advance the lives of their people.

Conduct diplomacy, from a position of strength. Whether it’s political, economic, cultural, educational, etc. In the Bible, Esau sold his birthright to his brother Jacob because he was negotiating from a point of weakness. He was hungry. It is time for African leaders to take a decisive position and refuse this blatant exploitation of Africa’s wealth. Question is: Do we still have such leaders?

…End