Eswatini’s assumption of the chair of the African Union Peace and Security Council for March places the kingdom at the centre of continental diplomacy at a time when instability shapes security debates across Africa. For a small State with limited military and financial weight, Eswatini’s presence at the helm of one of the African Union’s most influential organs carries consequences that extend over and above ceremonial prestige. The chairmanship situates the country in deliberations where responses to armed conflict, unconstitutional changes of government terrorism and humanitarian crises are considered. That proximity to continental decision-making alters perception both abroad and at home.
In practical terms, the chair steers the agenda and presides over debates shaping the tone of discussions. While collective decision-making defines the council, the country holding the gavel guides the rhythm of engagement and frames urgent matters for consideration. The kingdom is also provided a front-row, if not a driver’s seat, to complex diplomatic negotiations among African States, with differing political systems, security concerns and regional priorities. The experience expands the diplomatic skill of local officials and embeds them in networks that often influence the direction of continental responses to crises.
Locally, the impact lies less in immediate economic return and more in institutional maturity. Diplomats and civil servants engage with counterparts from countries that possess long experience in mediation, peace support operations and post conflict reconstruction. This interaction transfers knowledge about consensus building, drafting communiqués and managing sensitive political discussions. Such contributes to professional depth within foreign affairs structures within the kingdom and at missions abroad. In the long-term, this inevitably broadens the kingdom’s capacity to participate effectively in processes under the African Union and within the Southern African Development Community.
Continental implications are equally weighty. Africa continues to confront armed conflict insurgency and unconstitutional transfers of power in several regions. When an African country chairs the Peace and Security Council, it amplifies perspectives from its region within continental forums. Eswatini gains an opportunity to frame debates in ways that align with collective African priorities, particularly in preventive diplomacy and post conflict recovery. This visibility reinforces the idea that smaller African States are active participants in shaping security discourse, as opposed to merely being than observers on the margins.
Globally, the symbolism of a small monarchy presiding over deliberations on peace and stability alters narratives about influence. In multilateral institutions, influence does not always correlate with size. The chairmanship positions the kingdom as a bridge between regions and between countries with divergent strategic interests. It enables the kingdom to articulate positions grounded in its own record of stability and regional engagement. That positioning can open doors for future candidatures in other African Union organs and international forums where reputation and visibility carry weight.
There are precedents that show how such roles can yield enduring dividends. Rwanda chaired the Peace and Security Council and used that period to advance discussions on peace support operations, drawing from its own national recovery experience. Its leadership phase elevated its diplomatic profile and reinforced its standing as a contributor to African peace missions.
The question, for kaNgwane becomes, becomes: How such capital is stewarded once March passes? Continental attention is often intense but brief. What endures is the network built and the credibility gained during deliberations. If the kingdom consolidates relationships formed during its tenure, it can draw upon them in trade discussions, development, cooperation and collective responses to climate and humanitarian pressures. The peace and security agenda interlocks with economic resilience, migration and governance. A chairmanship that broadens understanding of these linkages enriches policy at home, long after the term concludes.
Domestically, citizens may not immediately feel the effects of high-level continental diplomacy, though there is symbolic value in seeing their country guide conversations on peace across Africa. It nurtures a sense of continental belonging and affirms that Eswatini participates in shaping Africa’s future. For young professionals in foreign affairs, it more than indicates that continental engagement is attainable and consequential. While the role does not grant authority over outcomes in other countries, it situates the kingdom within normative debates that shape Africa’s political landscape.
On the continental stage, Eswatini’s leadership month contributes to a gradual redistribution of visibility among African states. Smaller countries rarely occupy central diplomatic positions. By doing so now, the kingdom expands the template for African engagement over and above the larger powers that often dominate headlines. This recalibrates perceptions within Africa itself where influence is frequently equated with economic or military scale.
Long after the gavel passes to another member State, the legacy will be measured in relationships sustained and credibility retained. Diplomacy is cumulative. Each period at the centre of continental deliberation adds to a country’s narrative. Eswatini’s chairmanship becomes part of its diplomatic history, shaping how partners perceive its reliability and competence. For a continent charting complex security challenges, even temporary stewardship of the Peace and Security Council situates the kingdom within Africa’s decision-making architecture in ways that resonate locally, continentally and globally.
May God lead His Majesty and Eswatini, in this new responsibility. Comments: bongwebagcinile@gmail.com/ 7927 8210
Eswatini’s assumption of the chair of the African Union Peace and Security Council for March places the kingdom at the centre of continental diplomacy at a time when instability shapes security debates across Africa.