|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Mbabane, Eswatini, 1 July 2025 – International negotiations—from climate change to biodiversity—are complex, highly choreographed affairs. Yet many journalists covering them don’t really know how these processes work. That lack of understanding risks undermining African positions, fuelling division, and weakening the continent’s negotiating power.
This was the sobering message delivered today at the media training session for African journalists and communicators on multilateral environmental agreements (MEA), which offered an unvarnished look at how negotiations work—and how reporting needs to change to better support African interests.
“Our problem isn’t the negotiators, it’s the way we as journalists report them,” said Dr. Oduetse Oldman Koboto, the MEA Coordinator of the Sustainable Environment and Blue Economy Directorate of the African Union Commission (AUC) Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Blue Economy, and Sustainable Environment said bluntly.
The Role of Opening Statements
At high-level international meetings, many journalists are dazzled by the pageantry—flashing cameras, presidential speeches, and diplomatic pomp. But experienced negotiators know those opening statements are not empty ceremonial words.
“These are not just political slogans,” the trainer explained. “They provide the direction for negotiations.”
If, for example, the US President pledges support for funding certain climate initiatives while calling for “open-minded” negotiations, seasoned observers know the final deal will focus narrowly on those areas—and anything outside that scope is effectively off the table.
Similarly, when major powers like Russia, China, Germany, or Canada signal positions in their leaders’ speeches, they rarely budge afterward.
“We know that by now,” the trainer added. “If they appear receptive, it will only be for areas they already named in their own statements.”
For African negotiators—and the journalists who cover them—reading those signals accurately is critical.
How Negotiations Work
The session went beyond broad strategy to explain in detail the technical structure of negotiations, including:
Plenary sessions: Opening and closing formal meetings where countries make statements of position.
Working groups: Where countries and regions declare their positions on agenda items. Importantly, no real negotiation happens here. Countries simply state their views, which are collected into a “negotiation text,” often hundreds of pages long.
Contact groups: This is where the real negotiations take place—line-by-line bargaining on the text.
“You must know what stage you’re reporting on,” Dr Koboto urged. “You cannot waste time reporting working group disputes as if they’re real negotiations. Nothing is being negotiated there yet.”
Avoiding “Negotiation Sabotage”
Beyond the formal process, the training highlighted an uncomfortable truth: Africa often sabotages itself in negotiations.
The speaker gave the example of a biodiversity (CBD) negotiation about recognizing people of African descent in Latin America and the Caribbean. African negotiators had agreed on a common position supporting the proposal—while carefully specifying it was for Afro-descendants in those regions only, to avoid unintended precedents about land rights in Africa itself.
Yet one lawyer, sent by an African country but who hadn’t attended the continental coordination meeting, stood up in the negotiations and opposed the measure outright. That single intervention created confusion and became a wedge for other parties to divide the African group.
The result? He was quietly sent home.
“This is what happens when our negotiators don’t know the common position, or don’t respect it,” the trainer said. “And this is what journalists often misreport as Africa being ‘oppressive’ or ‘divided’—when in fact we’re trying to hold our line.”
Journalism as a Weapon
Dr Koboto warned that journalism itself is routinely weaponized in international negotiations.
During tense moments, rival negotiators might literally wave African newspapers in front of the world, quoting headlines about corruption, mismanagement, or internal division.
“These stories don’t come from intelligence reports—they come from our own media,” he said. “Our opponents will say: ‘Look, even your own journalists admit you can’t manage your affairs—why should we trust you with funds or responsibilities?’”
The solution? African journalists need to develop a shared strategic direction—even while maintaining editorial independence.
“If I pick up a paper from Zimbabwe, Eswatini, Chad—it doesn’t have to say exactly the same thing. But the direction should be the same,” he said. “Then we’ll have much more power on the world stage.”
Building Better Journalist–Negotiator Relationships
The training also emphasized the need for better collaboration between African journalists and negotiators.
Too often, negotiators avoid talking to journalists out of fear of being misquoted, while journalists, under pressure to deliver daily stories, hunt for sensational or divisive angles.
Instead, the speaker proposed creating daily briefing platforms at international meetings where accredited African journalists could get accurate updates directly from negotiators—ensuring informed, responsible coverage.
“If you show you know what you’re talking about—about plenary, working group, contact group stages—they’ll take you seriously,” the trainer said. “You’ll get the real information you need.”
