Ambassador Tony Leon suggested recently that each South African embassy has an annual running cost of R10m-R15m, which is quite a hefty bill. A significant portion goes towards salaries and administrative costs. According to the Department of International Relations and Co-operation, running South Africa’s diplomatic missions from 2005 to 2010 cost just less than R10bn.

For a middle-income country whose economy is struggling to grow and which has deep-seated economic challenges, it is difficult to justify such expenses. If there is no demonstrable increase in investments, growth in export markets and an upturn in employment as an outcome of our diplomatic relations, we should question the wisdom of having such a large diplomatic presence.

Obviously SA needs to maintain political and economic relations and therefore needs diplomatic representation. But sound judgment on resource allocation should underpin decisions. There must be measurable value flowing from our diplomatic presence.

One of the vital questions the National Planning Commission asks in its critical examination of SA’s diplomatic presence is whether it is necessary to be in every country, or whether there should be prioritisation and rationalisation. The answer is simple: we should locate diplomatic missions on the basis of strategic calculation informed by our domestic priorities. This should be based on a clear determination of measurable (rather than vague and abstract) benefits for South African citizens. The government should therefore review its foreign policy through the lens of our looming economic crisis and cast diplomatic work in the mould of our national economic priorities.

Predictions of a brewing crisis are not hyperbole. Marikana and service delivery protests should give us a wake-up call. They should make us tread carefully and vigilantly watch government spending. In July, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) issued its Article IV Report on SA’s macroeconomic condition. These are annual reports generated on every IMF member country by IMF staff and are based on extensive bilateral discussions with governments. In the main, they assess the vitality of the country’s economy in the short to medium term. While cryptic in many ways, this year’s report carries some serious warnings about the political dangers of SA’s unemployment, declining growth and a host of other social challenges that will undermine inclusive growth.

In such an environment, one would expect SA to trim the fat in pet areas such as diplomatic missions. This is more so since diplomatic missions are being used as another vehicle for extending patronage, with more than 60% headed by politicians or people who are not career diplomats.

Serious countries tie their foreign policy objectives to domestic economic priorities. This is very important if governments are to justify the huge sums that are spent on diplomatic missions to taxpayers.

In presenting the "new vision of SA’s foreign policy" at the University of Pretoria last week, International Relations and Co-Operation Minister Nkoana Maite-Mashabane missed an opportunity to recast SA’s foreign policy in a more purposeful way. Her address to the academic and diplomatic community repeated much of what is known about SA’s varied, and often confusing, activities around the world. It remains unclear what SA’s foreign policy vision is in the light of our complex social and economic conditions.

Proper foreign policy prioritisation would certainly start with setting out clearly what it is that we aim to achieve. This will require revamping the underperforming cluster system in the government and creating a more functional structure whose aim is to generate focused foreign policy objectives.

Further, there should be structured engagement between the government and business aimed at bolstering the economic substance of SA’s foreign policy. This should go beyond the ad hoc business delegations that accompany President Jacob Zuma during state visits.

Finally, the government needs to undertake an assessment of the value each of our diplomatic missions abroad generates and explain this to the public. This should be followed by shutting down those missions that are cash drains with no demonstrable value. It is better to take hard decisions now than be forced to do so by a crisis in the future. Instead of bumbling along, our foreign policy must be clear, purposeful and smart.

This article appeared in the Business Day of September 21 2012