By Wabusimba Amiri
When the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Regional Affairs), Hon. John Mulimba, announced that Uganda would downsize its diplomatic missions abroad from 38 to about 15, following a directive by President Yoweri Museveni, the revelation was met with mixed emotions.
On one hand, the announcement appears to stem from legitimate fiscal concerns and questions about the effectiveness of our foreign representations.
On the other hand, the implications of such a move particularly at a time when Uganda is grappling with high unemployment rates, regional instability, and a growing diaspora could weaken the country’s diplomatic, economic, and consular reach.
The justification offered by Hon. Mulimba is clear: Uganda’s foreign affairs budget is overstretched, with a shortfall of UGX 238 billion. Missions abroad suffer from underfunding, inadequate infrastructure, and poor staffing—issues that have persisted despite multiple budgetary appeals.
This has affected service delivery, including critical consular services in countries like the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and India, where Ugandan migrant workers form sizeable communities.
The government’s rationale rests on a cost-benefit analysis. Missions will be assessed for their return on investment, meaning that only those deemed strategically or economically valuable will remain.
This echoes what countries like Denmark and Norway have done in past years, prioritizing value and regional efficiency over quantity in foreign representation.
However, this reactive financial reasoning must be weighed against a long-term diplomatic vision.
Foreign missions are not just buildings; they are symbols of a nation’s presence, sovereignty, and global engagement.
Reducing missions may project an image of retreat and diminished global interest. In the competitive realm of international diplomacy, visibility equals influence.
Countries like Kenya, Rwanda, and Ghana are expanding their diplomatic footprints to enhance trade, regional integration, and cultural exchange.
Uganda’s retrenchment risks being seen as inward-looking and reactive, not globally ambitious.
Some of the recent diplomatic mishaps involving Ugandan missions, like Canada, Nigeria among other, can been as examples of why government is reducing missions.
However, these incidents are not systemic failures of diplomacy but rather symptoms of a broken appointment model.
When Foreign Service roles are allocated to political cadres, loyalists, or retired officials without the requisite training and discipline, misconduct and inefficiency become predictable outcomes.
These are not reasons to shrink our diplomatic footprint; they are clear indicators that Uganda must reform the criteria used in assigning such critical roles.
Government should instead focus on professionalizing its foreign officers ranks, promoting career diplomats, and selecting candidates based on merit and international competence.
Countries like South Korea, Ethiopia, and Germany have adopted merit-based systems where diplomats rise through rigorous training, examinations, and field experience not political affiliation.
Uganda must follow this path if it is to safeguard its national reputation and global interests.
The move to slash missions also threatens to sever vital ties with Uganda’s ever-growing diaspora.
With over 200,000 Ugandans working in the Gulf region alone, scaling back missions reduces the country’s capacity to handle emergencies, repatriations, legal representation, and human trafficking cases.
This is not a theoretical risk but a daily reality for migrant workers whose lives depend on diplomatic responsiveness.
As Hon. Lamwaka rightly noted in Parliament, the inability to protect nationals abroad not only erodes trust in government but tarnishes Uganda’s global image.
Uganda is a fully recognized sovereign state, unlike Taiwan, which maintains only 14 formal embassies due to its unique geopolitical status.
Our full recognition in the international community should be leveraged to project strength and expand partnerships, not to retreat.
Embassies serve more than diplomatic functions; they are platforms for economic diplomacy.
They attract foreign direct investment, support business matchmaking, promote tourism, and facilitate exports.
Uganda stands to lose considerable ground if it shuts down missions in countries like India, Turkey, or France emerging markets with growing influence and deepening ties to Africa.
Countries like Vietnam have invested heavily in diplomatic outreach, with over 90 missions worldwide.
That aggressive engagement has paid off, helping Vietnam become one of Southeast Asia’s top manufacturing economies.
Uganda must realize that diplomatic presence is not an expense but a strategic investment with measurable returns.
This decision also raises concern at a time when the country is grappling with youth unemployment that exceeds 13 percent, according to the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (2023).
Uganda has a vibrant and highly educated youth population, including international relations graduates and multilingual professionals eager to serve.
Yet the Foreign Service has remained largely inaccessible, dominated by cadres and political appointees.
Downsizing missions further reduces opportunities for these qualified young people to join and contribute to national service.
Reforming the Foreign Service to absorb and empower young professionals is more productive than curtailing it.
Uganda should consider strategic restructuring rather than wholesale reduction.
A regional embassy model, where one well-equipped mission covers multiple neighboring countries, could offer greater efficiency without compromising presence.
Furthermore, the government could explore public-private partnerships to support trade and investment desks within embassies.
Cost-sharing models exist, especially for economic diplomacy functions, which reduce the fiscal burden on the state while enhancing value.
If Uganda’s leadership is truly committed to cutting unnecessary expenditure, there are more appropriate areas to begin with than foreign missions.
The bloated size of Parliament, the ever-expanding number of ministries, the long list of presidential advisors, the regular creation of new administrative districts, and the lavish spending on convoys and protocol ceremonies all represent low-hanging fruit in expenditure rationalization.
To treat foreign missions an essential engine of global engagement as a wasteful luxury is not only short-sighted but dangerous to Uganda’s international credibility.
It is akin to treating a chronic illness with Panadol Extra: politically palatable, but ultimately ineffective.
Uganda’s foreign policy must reflect the complexity of today’s interconnected world.
It is not a luxury; it is a strategic investment in national prosperity, security, and international relevance. Parliament, the Ministry of Finance, and the Presidency must reconsider the direction this policy is taking and instead commit to building a leaner, smarter, and more professional diplomatic corps.
Only then can Uganda project its influence, protect its citizens abroad, and unlock the full economic and strategic potential that diplomacy offers in the 21st century.
Wabusimba Amiri is a communication specialist, Diplomatic & political Analyst, International Relations Scholar, Journalist, and Human Right activist. Tel: +56775103895 email: Wabusimbaa@gmail.com
Have An Advert Or Article You Want Us To Publish? Whatsapp: +256786288379 or email binocularugnews@gmail.com
