On August 18, 2025, the government of Burkina Faso declared the Resident Coordinator of the United Nations System, Ms. Carol Flore-SMERECZNIAK, persona non grata. The reason: a report on ‘Children and Armed Conflict in Burkina Faso’ addressed to the Security Council, which the Burkinabe authorities deemed partial, non-collaborative, and insulting.
After Barbara Manzi (on December 23, 2022, Barbara Manzi, the UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator in Burkina Faso, was declared persona non grata by the country’s government) as well as Guillaume Ngefa-Atondoko Andali (on February 5, 2023, Guillaume Ngefa-Atondoko Andali, the director of the human rights division of MINUSMA was declared ‘persona non grata’ in Mali, with the obligation to leave the national territory within 48 hours) and the seven UN agency officials in Ethiopia who, on September 30, 2021, were declared persona non grata with the obligation to leave the national territory within 72 hours), this event clearly illustrates the consequences of a deficit in strategic communication.
Having worked in similar contexts, this situation invites me to analyze, from the point of view of strategic communication, how an action, probably carried out with the intention of serving a legitimate mandate, could produce a diametrically opposite result: the breakdown of dialogue and the weakening of cooperation. Above all, by decoding this event, we can extract essential lessons on the art and necessity of communication conceived as a lever for transformation and not as a simple reporting tool.
Communication, strategy: What are we talking about?
To understand where the mechanism broke down, it is imperative to agree on the fundamental concepts. Too often, communication is reduced to the transmission of information and strategy to a technical plan. This is a dangerously reductive vision.
Strategic communication is an integrated process that shapes the decision itself by constantly asking: ‘How will this action be perceived by the other? What narrative will it fuel? Does it serve our long-term transformation goal?’
Communication is, fundamentally, the question of the other. As the French sociologist Dominique Wolton emphasizes, communicating is not simply broadcasting a message, but ‘negotiating and cohabiting.’ It is a political process by nature, because it is about managing differences, overcoming the ‘incommunication’ inherent in any human relationship, and building common ground to live together. Communication does not aim for unanimity, but for peaceful coexistence. By forgetting that the interlocutor (here, a sovereign State fighting for its survival) is a subject with its own history, its own dignity, and its own anxieties, one transforms potential dialogue into a monologue that can only generate friction.
Strategy, for its part, is what transforms. It is not limited to an action plan. It is the answer to two existential questions: ‘Who do I serve?’ and ‘What is the change I am trying to achieve?’. Strategy is the act of choosing what we do today to improve tomorrow. It is forward-looking. Without a clear answer to these questions, an action, however well-intentioned, becomes a simple tactic, a soulless operation that risks creating more problems than it solves.
Therefore, strategic communication becomes the art of anticipating and managing the consequences of our actions and words. We are far from the public relations to embellish an already-made decision. Strategic communication is an integrated process that shapes the decision itself by constantly asking: ‘How will this action be perceived by the other? What narrative will it fuel? Does it serve our long-term transformation goal?’. It is in the light of this definition that the current situation of the United Nations in Burkina Faso must be analyzed.
When the strategic deficit leads to crisis
The sanction imposed on the Resident Coordinator, far from being the result of chance or a spontaneous decision, turns out to be the consequence of a series of facts that the Burkinabe government considers to be strategic failures. The government’s communiqué proves to be a textbook case of the blind spots of a technical and procedural approach, out of step with the political and human reality on the ground. Which ones?
Strategic communication would have required sharing methodologies and evidence upstream, or at least recognizing the limits of the information collected, in order to build shared credibility. Without this, the report is no longer a tool for dialogue, but a weapon in an information war.
First deficit: The breakdown of the principle of cohabitation. The government is outraged at having been ‘neither associated with its elaboration, nor informed of the conclusions.’ This simple sentence reveals a deficit of collaboration. The UN team would have perceived its state partner not as a co-actor of change, but as an object of study. By doing so, it would have broken the political principle of communication. It would have stopped ‘negotiating’ reality to impose a unilateral version of it. In a context of reconquest or affirmation of sovereignty, where nations like Burkina Faso are fighting against what they perceive as vestiges of neo-colonialism and ‘the making of a failed state’ analyzed by the Congolese philosopher Jean-Pierre Mbelu, such an approach is perceived not as a blunder but as a symbolic aggression.
Second deficit: The confusion between the tool and the objective. The strategy answers ‘who do I serve?’. In theory, the United Nations serves both the ideals of its Charter and the people of the host country, in partnership with its government. However, the method denounced by the Burkinabe authorities seems to have created an opposition between these loyalties. The report, by being perceived as an external accusation, ceased to serve the objective of positive transformation. Instead of strengthening child protection capacities, it generated a crisis of confidence that weakens cooperation. The tool (the report) supplanted the objective (improving the fate of children in collaboration with the State).
Third deficit: The inability to anticipate narrative consequences. This is the core of the failure of strategic communication. The communiqué denounces a ‘narrative style indiscriminately citing terrorists and defense and security institutions.’ For a national army that loses men every day, being put on the same narrative level as the groups that kill them can be perceived as an affront. It is a semantic choice with serious political consequences. Strategically, it would have been necessary to anticipate that this choice of words would be interpreted as a delegitimization of the State and a denial of the sacrifice of its soldiers.
Moreover, the absence of ‘investigation reports’ or ‘court rulings’ in the annex transformed the document into a ‘compilation of unfounded claims’ in the eyes of the government. Strategic communication would have required sharing methodologies and evidence upstream, or at least recognizing the limits of the information collected, in order to build shared credibility. Without this, the report is no longer a tool for dialogue, but a weapon in an information war.
In short, the UN country team probably followed a technical mandate to the letter, but by minimizing the political and strategic framework of its application. It confused the production of a document with the production of change. The result is there: an interlocutor deemed ‘not credible’ and essential cooperation weakened.
Some suggestions for effective strategic communication in a crisis context
This event must serve as a basis for rethinking the UN’s communication approach in complex security, military, and humanitarian contexts. To be effective and legitimate, this approach must be based on renewed foundations, moving from a logic of transmission to a culture of relationships.
The role of a Resident Coordinator is not just to coordinate agencies, but to be the main ‘translator’ between the global UN system and the national reality. This translation role is all the more effective and relevant as the coordination office is supported by a strategic communication expert. This translation requires a deep listening capacity to understand the ‘red lines,’ national pride, historical traumas, and local political dynamics.
Basis 1: From consultation to co-construction. ‘Consulting’ national partners is good, but it didn’t happen as they say in Burkina Faso. It is, in fact, necessary to co-construct with them the diagnosis and the solutions. This is also how the United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework is shaped, which formalizes the working frameworks between the United Nations and the host country. In the case of the report on children, this would have meant setting up a truly mixed investigation and drafting team from day one, combining UN expertise and the competent structures of the State. Such an approach is slower and more complex, but it guarantees national ownership, data credibility, and the sustainability of the actions that result from it. This is the direct application of the principle of ‘cohesion’ dear to the UN Charter.
Basis 2: Systemic anticipation of narratives. Before any major publication or declaration, the coordination office must institutionalize a ‘narrative impact analysis.’ This consists of asking a series of critical questions:
What dominant narrative will our action strengthen or contradict in this country?
How will our words be interpreted by the government, the opposition, the population, the armed groups?
Does our communication strengthen the legitimacy of the partner State or does it unintentionally weaken it?
Is our action perceived as a support for national sovereignty or as interference?
This discipline of anticipation makes it possible to move from reactive communication (managing the crisis after the communiqué) to proactive communication that shapes an environment of trust.
Basis 3: The diplomacy of language and evidence. In an environment of distrust or suspicion, precision is a form of respect. Terminologies must be negotiated and clarified. The distinction between legitimate defense forces and terrorist groups must never be ambiguous. Similarly, the information collection methodology must be transparent. The approach must be: ‘Here are the allegations we have received, here is how we verified them, here are the limits of our information. Let’s work together to establish the truth and remedy it.’ This posture of humility and rigor is the only antidote to the poison of suspicion.
Basis 4: A culture of listening and cultural translation. The role of a Resident Coordinator is not just to coordinate agencies, but to be the main ‘translator’ between the global UN system and the national reality. This translation role is all the more effective and relevant as the coordination office is supported by a strategic communication expert. This translation requires a deep listening capacity to understand the ‘red lines,’ national pride, historical traumas, and local political dynamics. It is this knowledge, which is not found in any manual, that allows the universal mandates of the UN to be translated into locally relevant and acceptable actions.
An Imperative for Reinvention
Sometimes, one gets the impression that certain events are blows, while later one realizes that they were actually nudges. From this perspective, we can ‘make the best of a bad situation,’ by considering this situation as a necessary lesson.
The art of anticipating consequences is also a condition for the survival of the relevance and legitimacy of multilateralism in the 21st century.
A lesson that reminds us that in contexts of fragility, conflict, and transition, communication is the strategic function par excellence. It is the vessel that carries trust, without which no humanitarian, development, security, or peace action can succeed.
For the United Nations, it is about transforming an organizational culture sometimes focused on processes and reports into a culture of political impact and mutually beneficial human relationships. It is about proving, through action and words, that the Organization is a partner engaged in a common struggle for dignity, peace, and sovereignty. The art of anticipating consequences is also a condition for the survival of the relevance and legitimacy of multilateralism in the 21st century. »
By Esimba Ifonge
