As the Governor-General embarks on her journey through Africa this week, numerous questions surround the reasons for the trip and the benefits it might yield.

Foremost among the questions has been whether Ms Bryce should be assisting the Rudd Government to sell Australia's case for a non-permanent seat on the Security Council in 2013-14. Views on this matter vary widely, but the general convention that Governors- General should stay away from partisan political activity is a sound one and should have been respected in this case.

But the Governor-General's trip raises a much wider issue, one that goes to the very heart of the Rudd Government's foreign policy strategy – why Africa? The short answer, of course, is that Africa has 50 votes that will almost certainly be critical in deciding which country wins election to the Security Council position when the ballot for the position is held in 2012.

In the race to win the spot, Australia is starting a long way behind the field having begun its quest only in 2008. The other two contenders for the position – Finland and Luxembourg began their campaigns in 2002 and 2001 respectively and are believed to have already rounded-up considerable support.

To recover from this slow start, Australia will have to run a campaign that convinces African states that it can be an effective servant of their interests. Given the rich diversity of Africa this is no easy task and a single visit by the Governor General is unlikely to overcome the problem. Australia will have to try to respond to individual countries' expectations of its future Security Council role if it is to have any likelihood of success. To the extent that this might involve compromises of policy that the Australian public would find unacceptable, the government will need to be very careful.

But the underlying weakness of Australia's bid, so far as Africa is concerned, is that over the last two decades Australia has displayed only a very limited interest in the affairs of the continent. Take our diplomatic representation there as an indicator. As of the end of 2008 Australia had only seven resident diplomatic missions in Africa – in Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Mauritius, Nigeria, South Africa and Zimbabwe with a consulate in Libya. Finland by contrast has 46 accredited ambassadors and Luxembourg 40.

Australia was once far better represented in Africa, but in a cost cutting exercise it let things go. The great irony, given that it is a Labor Government now courting Security Council support, is that our reduced representation is largely the result of Labor Government decisions. Between 1985 and 1991, the Hawke Government closed missions in Ghana (since reopened by the Howard Government) Ethiopia, Algeria and Tanzania and did nothing to expand our presence.

Since then, during the 11 years of the Howard Government, Australia's key foreign policy interests were focused elsewhere than in Africa. These placed considerable demands on Australia's relatively small Foreign Service making the opening of new, or the reopening of former missions in Africa, an unjustifiable exercise. Historically though, there is a strong case that it is the Coalition that has been the protector of Australia's interests in Africa.

If Mr Rudd wishes to change this reality and try to convince African governments that they ought to support Australia's Security Council bid, he is going to have to develop a far more plausible Africa policy compared to that which currently exists. Sending the Governor- General on a nine-state tour of the continent will not cut it. Nor will having the odd minister visit selected capitals from time to time, although this might serve to give the Foreign Minister, Mr Smith, a useful role away from the Prime Minister's gaze.

After years of Africa falling off the international agenda, there may well be a good case for Australia to take this challenging continent far more seriously. Until the advent of the global financial crisis most African countries were showing encouraging signs of strong economic growth, and in some cases welcome political stability. In general, Africa's geostrategic importance is rising, not least in relation to the global quest for energy security. At the same time, 18 African states are linked to Australia through their membership of the Commonwealth.

If Africa is seriously on Mr Rudd's already ambitious foreign policy agenda, either he or the Foreign Minister ought to be making the case to the Australian public as to why this is in our national interests. So far both have failed conspicuously to do so, notwithstanding the Governor-General's visit.

He then needs to consider a more comprehensive policy approach to the region. This should include an assessment as to whether Australia should expand its diplomatic representation in Africa.

Here he needs to establish some discipline in his policy priorities. Since there is every reason to anticipate that the global financial crisis will impose even greater strain on the already stretched resources of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, things like the $13 million indulgence of appointing a resident ambassador to the Holy See is a serious misallocation of resources and ought to be terminated.

Among comparable countries, Canada has 30 missions in Africa. This is arguably more than Australia requires, or could afford, but provided they are adequately resourced and supported, several new posts in both the sub-Sahara and North Africa would be justified.

To date the Rudd Government's approach to Africa has lacked both a clear direction and serious conviction. Aside from any other interests we may have there, if the Government is hoping for serious support for its Security Council quest from the 50 votes that are up for grabs in the region, it will need to change tack. Failure to do so will almost certainly result in an embarrassing rebuff from countries on a continent that is arguably beginning to return to the mainstream of contemporary international relations after decades in the too hard, too poor and too remote basket.