Denmark announced this week the closure of its embassies in Mali and Burkina Faso as part of its new Africa strategy. The main reason cited by Denmark country officials reflects the series of military coups that have occurred in recent years in both Mali and Burkina Faso territories. Despite this, Denmark emphasized through a foreign ministry press statement its plans to open new embassies in Senegal, Tunisia, and Rwanda, and to bolster diplomatic staff in Egypt, Kenya, South Africa, Nigeria, and Ghana, as part of the same strategy. Until now, there haven’t been any official responses from Mali or Burkina Faso regarding Denmark’s decision.
Denmark authorities have said that those military coups have “severely limited the scope for action in the Sahel region.” Both Mali and Burkina Faso have experienced two military coups each in the last four years. While Mali is facing a huge economic crisis and political instability, Burkina Faso is grappling with significant security issues due to ongoing attacks by Islamist armed groups, including Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara.
This political insecurity in both countries contributed to the deterioration of the diplomatic relations of Mali and Burkina Faso with the European nations. However, more than just a diplomatic tactic, the decision to close the embassies reflects a bigger game of influence. Since the military coups of 2020 and 2022 respectively, Mali and Burkina Faso have turned to Russia and its Wagner mercenary group for support.
Such a decision was not well perceived by European nations, which contributed to the worsening of relations recently, especially between Mali and other European countries. For instance, earlier this month, the Malian military junta asked the Swedish ambassador to leave the country after a Swedish minister criticized Mali’s support for Russia.
Particularly in Denmark, the government reacted by bringing a new strategy set to deal with this problem. “We have a clear interest in the African countries looking towards us in Europe as they chart the course for their future,” the Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said. “We must demonstrate that we offer an attractive alternative to the increasing Chinese and Russian influence on the continent,” Rasmussen completed. However, a contraction may rely on the idea that in order to demonstrate that, Denmark needs to expand its diplomatic presence in the region, and not remove it.
Cited as a country’s reorganization of priorities, Rasmussen described the action of closing certain embassies and opening others as a reflection of Denmark and the European Union’s aim to be Africa’s “preferred partner.” This, consequently, plays along with the game of influence in international relations, as many countries in Africa face the dilemma of whether to “orient itself more towards the East or the West.”
It is important to highlight that closing embassies can often transmit a political statement, serving as a strong diplomatic signal. In Denmark’s case, this decision can be a way to protest the actions of the host countries, which could lead to negotiations or changes in behavior. However, at the same that it creates certain pressure, it can also deteriorate even more the relationship of Denmark with these countries, generating the opposite desired outcome.
The complexity of this issue is driven by the idea that once diplomatic relations are ceased, there is a suspension of diplomatic communication channels, which can make it harder to solve disputes or coordinate on international issues. As a consequence, the chance of Mali or Burkina Faso seeking Denmark for support instead of Russia could become less probable than ever, which would distance both African countries even more from the European Union. This possible outcome goes exactly in the opposite direction that European countries have stated to prefer.
Before deciding to fully close both embassies, Denmark could have opted for some different alternatives. For instance, it could have tried to enhance diplomatic engagement in the region as a final attempt to improve the overall situation. This alternative could look like intensifying efforts to mediate conversations between the conflicting parties, promoting dialogue, and giving support for democratic elections to happen in both countries. If successful, it could potentially reduce tensions within the countries and help promote a certain level of stability, which would significantly facilitate further Denmark’s diplomatic engagement in the region.
Another possible alternative would be opting to still maintain smaller consular offices instead of full embassy closures. In this way, Denmark could still reorganize its priorities, moving some of its diplomatic efforts out of Mali and Burkina Faso and putting them into more promising countries nearby, but keeping still some sort of diplomatic presence in both countries. By keeping a diplomatic communication channel, Denmark would make sure that Mali and Burkina Faso have still the opportunity to look to them for support.
One thing that is important to highlight is that the security of the diplomatic staff needs to be a priority at all times. If Denmark’s concern is based on security issues, it could better justify the closure of embassies. Even though, increasing security staff could be considered as an alternative preferred to the full removal of diplomatic presence, especially considering that many other countries still have embassies in both Mali and Burkina Faso despite the instability of the region.
In general, as tensions are expected to increase, the responses from both countries may be a key point to understanding better the implications of Denmark’s diplomatic decision for the future of the region. The closure can either provide the pressure necessary for Mali and Burkina Faso to possibly rethink their position and incentivize a change of behavior or it can distance both African countries even more from seeking support from European nations. In any way, the decision will affect negatively Mali and Burkina Faso’s relationship with Denmark. In the long term, to improve the overall situation and to open space for promoting peaceful resolutions to conflicts, Denmark will need to rethink its decision and make a way for diplomatic communication channels to exist.