Embassies Talking to Themselves

Al-Mubir Mahmoud
Hard work alone does not make successful diplomacy. The direction in which that effort is invested is just as important as the effort itself.
Anyone observing the activities of a number of our diplomatic missions abroad would struggle to distinguish between what constitutes consular work and what constitutes diplomacy. This is because much of their energy is consumed within the Sudanese community itself—meetings with expatriates, national celebrations, social gatherings, and seminars in which Sudanese speak to other Sudanese about Sudan—while the host country’s society remains largely outside their sphere of engagement.
A state does not rent buildings in foreign capitals, raise its flag above them, and spend public money merely to explain Sudan’s position to Sudanese citizens abroad. It does so to explain Sudan to the world, defend its national interests, and open new doors in politics, economics, culture and knowledge.
Serving the diaspora is undoubtedly a core responsibility, but it represents only one aspect of an embassy’s role. The heart of diplomacy beats outside the expatriate community, where perceptions of nations are formed, alliances are built, and relationships are cultivated that later translate into political influence and policy decisions.
The value of an embassy should therefore be measured by the number of non-Sudanese who have come to know Sudan because of its ambassador, not by the number of Sudanese who know the ambassador. That is the essential difference between a mission practising diplomacy and one functioning merely as a social club beyond the nation’s borders.
Diplomacy in the twenty-first century operates in a world vastly different from the one for which many of our institutions were originally designed.
Foreign policy today intersects with economics, media, universities, technology, migration, human rights and environmental policy. Its direction is increasingly shaped not only by governments but also by think tanks, news organisations, multinational corporations, public figures and civil society organisations.
The centres of influence have expanded far beyond traditional diplomatic channels, requiring ambassadors to build broad networks throughout the societies in which they serve, reaching into all of these spheres.
Ukraine has provided a particularly instructive example. Alongside its military campaign, it successfully fought parallel battles within foreign parliaments, think tanks, media organisations and universities, transforming its national narrative into a powerful force influencing international decision-making.
Sudanese diplomacy, by contrast, remains to a considerable extent confined to traditional diplomatic channels at a time when influence has migrated to entirely different arenas.
This should not, however, be interpreted as a criticism of Sudan’s diplomatic corps itself.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs includes many highly capable career diplomats whose expertise has been built over decades and who possess a sophisticated understanding of today’s interconnected institutional landscape.
Yet individual competence, no matter how exceptional, cannot compensate for the absence of a coherent institutional vision.
The Ministry itself has paid the price for many years of political patronage and appointments based on personal favour rather than merit. Such practices have weakened professional standards and undermined the integrity of the diplomatic service.
Furthermore, many missions operate without a clearly articulated national narrative. Developing such a narrative is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs alone; rather, it should emerge from coordinated efforts involving the country’s political, military, economic, media and cultural institutions.
The absence of any meaningful performance evaluation system compounds this structural weakness. There are no clear indicators measuring what an embassy has achieved in attracting investment, opening new markets, building strategic partnerships or improving Sudan’s international image. Nor are there regular assessments that lead to accountability or reward based upon measurable outcomes.
Perhaps even more concerning is the changing nature of conflict itself.
Modern hybrid warfare combines military operations with economic sanctions, media campaigns, legal pressure, cyberattacks, the mobilisation of international organisations, lobbying efforts, and the shaping of public opinion.
In such an environment, a human rights report, an academic study, or a media campaign may achieve what an entire military force cannot.
The embassy has therefore evolved beyond its traditional representational role. It has become an integral component of national security and a forward line in defending the country’s strategic interests.
Every vacuum left by a diplomatic mission in the spheres of media, academia or policy research will inevitably be filled by Sudan’s adversaries, who will promote their own narratives, cultivate their own networks and strengthen their own influence. We then find ourselves occupied with denying misconceptions that have already taken root rather than preventing them from emerging in the first place.
This leaves several urgent questions that policymakers must confront.
What exactly do we expect from our embassies today?
Are their methods of operation suited to the nature of the challenges confronting the Sudanese state—political pressure, economic crises, media campaigns and coordinated external networks working continuously to shape perceptions of Sudan and influence its interests?
Should ambassadors continue to be assessed according to the number of ceremonial visits and official receptions they attend, or should their performance instead be judged by the political influence they cultivate, the economic partnerships they secure, the academic engagement they promote and the media impact they generate?
Perhaps the time has come for Sudan to develop a modern and strategic vision for its external engagement.
It is time for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to introduce precise performance indicators for every diplomatic mission, requiring each ambassador to prepare an annual strategic map identifying the centres of political, economic, academic and media influence within the host country, together with a structured plan for engaging them and periodic reports measuring tangible results.
Diplomacy is one of the most powerful instruments available to the modern state.
If Sudan wishes to strengthen its position during the present conflict while laying the foundations for a stable peace once the war ends, it can only do so through a diplomatic service that thinks and acts with the mindset of the twenty-first century—not with that of a bygone era.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=15316