1. THE UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI
INSTITUTE OF DIPLOMACY AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
THE CHANGING NATURE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF KENYA’S FOREIGN
POLICY: SIGNIFICANCE OF THE “LOOK EAST” POLICY.
MONICA WAMBUI NGANGA
REGISTRATION NUMBER- R67/35957/2010
SUPERVISOR- PROF. MARIA NZOMO
Project Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Degree of Bachelors of Arts in
International Studies at the Institute of Diplomacy and International Studies.
SEPTEMBER 2014

2. ii
DECLARATION
This project is my original work, and has not been presented for award of degree in any other
university.
Signed………………………………… Date…………………………………...
MONICA WAMBUI NGANGA
REG. NO: R67/35957/2010
This project has been submitted for examination with my approval as university supervisor,
Signed…………………………. Date…………………………….
Prof. Maria Nzomo
Director, IDIS

3. iii
DEDICATION
To the Institute of Diplomacy and International Studies at the University of Nairobi, which has
inspired my knowledge and interest in international affairs.

4. iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Maria Nzomo for her
guidance and encouragement in the course of this study. It is a great honor to be under the
supervision of such a distinguished academic.
I would also like to thank my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Peter Ng’ang’a for their unrelenting support,
financially and spiritually during the course of my four years in college.
Lastly, I am greatly humbled by the support accorded to me by my fellow students and the people
in charge of typing and compiling this project, without whom it would have been impossible to
complete.

5. v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION .............................................................................................................................ii
DEDICATION................................................................................................................................iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ..............................................................................................................iv
ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................... viii
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................................ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................v
CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Background of the study........................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Statement of the research problem............................................................................................ 3
1.4 Objectives of the study.............................................................................................................. 3
1.5 Literature review....................................................................................................................... 4
1.5.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 4
1.5.2 Definition of foreign policy................................................................................................ 4
1.5.3 Determinants of foreign policy .......................................................................................... 4
1.5.4 External determinants of foreign policy............................................................................. 5
1.5.5 Internal determinants of foreign policy.............................................................................. 8
1.5.6 Perspectives and views on Kenya’s foreign policy.......................................................... 11
1.6 Gaps in literature..................................................................................................................... 12
1.7 Justification of the study......................................................................................................... 12
1.8 Theoretical framework for the study....................................................................................... 12
1.9 Hypotheses.............................................................................................................................. 14
1.10 Research methodology.......................................................................................................... 14
1.11 Research structure................................................................................................................. 14
CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................ 16
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF KENYA’S FOREIGN POLICY............................... 16
2.1 Country Profile........................................................................................................................ 16
2.2 Kenya’s historical interactions................................................................................................ 16
2.3 Domestic actors in Kenya’s post-independence foreign policy.............................................. 16
2.3.1 Issues that shaped Kenya’s foreign policy in the post-independence era. ....................... 17

6. vi
2.3.2 Territorial Integrity........................................................................................................... 17
2.3.3Policy of non-alignment.................................................................................................... 19
2.3.4 The need for economic development ............................................................................... 20
2.3.5 Need to promote good neighbourliness............................................................................ 21
2.4 The prevailing international environmentof the post-independence era................................. 22
2.4.1 The Cold War................................................................................................................... 22
2.4.2 The Non-Aligned Movement(NAM) ............................................................................... 23
2.4.3 The Pan-African Movement............................................................................................. 23
2.4.4 Regional Integration: The first East African Community................................................ 24
2.5 Regime change: President Moi’s administration 1978-1990.................................................. 24
2.5.1 Kenya’s diplomacy of conflict management.................................................................... 25
CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................... 28
POST-COLD WAR KENYAN FOREIGN POLICY.............................................................. 28
3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 28
3.2 Determinants of post-Cold War Kenyan foreign policy......................................................... 28
3.2.1 Foreign Aid ...................................................................................................................... 28
3.2.3Emerging economies......................................................................................................... 29
3.2.3 International terrorism...................................................................................................... 29
3.2.4 Regional integration......................................................................................................... 30
3.3 Kenya’s foreign policy in the 21st century: the Kibaki administration................................... 31
3.3.1 The expansion and deepening of the EAC integration..................................................... 31
3.4 Kenya’s military incursion into Somalia ................................................................................ 32
3.5 The “Look East” Policy .......................................................................................................... 33
3.6 Economic diplomacy............................................................................................................... 35
3.7 Kenya’s documented foreign policy ....................................................................................... 37
CHAPTER FOUR....................................................................................................................... 40
THE CHANGING NATURE OF KENYA’S FOREIGN POLICY: A NEOCLASSICAL . 40
REALISM PERSPECTIVE....................................................................................................... 40
4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 40
4.2 The concept of neoclassical realism........................................................................................ 40
4.3From “Silent” diplomacy to economic diplomacy................................................................... 42

7. vii
4.3.1 A neoclassical realism perspective................................................................................... 43
4.4 Political diplomacy under Moi................................................................................................ 43
4.5 Economic diplomacy............................................................................................................... 44
4.6 Consistency in Kenya’s foreign policy behavior towards East Africa ................................... 45
4.7 Emerging issues and actors in Kenya’s foreign policy........................................................... 46
4.7.1 International terrorism...................................................................................................... 46
4.7.2 Environmental diplomacy ................................................................................................ 47
4.7.3 Diaspora diplomacy.......................................................................................................... 47
CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................................................ 50
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 50
5.1 Summary................................................................................................................................. 50
5.2 Findings................................................................................................................................... 51
5.3 Conclusion and recommendations .......................................................................................... 52
Bibliography.................................................................................................................................. 53

8. viii
ABBREVIATIONS
ACP-EU African Caribbean and Pacific-European Union
BRICS Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa
CET Common External Tariff
Comesa Common Market for Eastern and Southern African States
DRC Democratic Republic of Congo
EAC East African Community
EACSO East African Common Services Organization
EALA East African Legislative Assembly
FDI Foreign Direct Investment
FOCAC Forum on China – Africa Cooperation
GWOT Global War on Terror
IDIS Institute of Diplomacy and International Studies
IEDs Improvised Explosive Devices
IGAD Intergovernmental Authority on Development
IMF International Monetary Fund
KANU Kenya African National Union
KDF Kenya Defence Forces
LAPSSET Lamu Port South Sudan Ethiopia Transport Corridor
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NRM National Resistance Movement
PFLP Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
PPS Presidential Press Service
RECs Regional Economic Communities
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
US United States

9. ix
ABSTRACT
Kenya’s foreign policy has undergone various changes and transformations since the country
gained independence. These changes have more often been associated with the change in
government and the leadership style of a particular head of state. This study seeks to examine and
analyze both the internal and systemic variables that may have contributed to the dynamics in
Kenya’s foreign policy.
This study seeks to examine and analyze the domestic and international constraints and
opportunities that have influenced the foreign policy choices of the state. Neoclassical realism is
used to try to create the nexus between a changing international order as well as a change in the
internal dynamics of Kenya as the key driving forces of Kenya’s foreign policy. This study also
examines the significance of the “Look East” policy in Kenya’s foreign policy.
The foreign policy options of states are determined by a multiplicity of factors. In Kenya, political
leadership, more specifically the head of state bears a strong hand in the implementation of the
country’s foreign policy. Kenya’s foreign policy is also largely driven by its position within the
East African region, as well as changing power distribution in the international system. These
findings make a contribution to the study of Kenya’s foreign policy, and more specifically to the
changing nature of the country’s foreign policy. The foreign policy of Kenya has changed from
time to time to accommodate new political dispensations, as well as to accommodate a dynamic
international system.

10. CHAPTER ONE
1.1 Introduction
Foreign policy as a unit of study in international relations is crucial to the understanding of states
behavior towards other states and actors in the international system. Today, it is even more prudent
to undertake the subject, owing to the increase in the number of states in the international system,
with divergent capabilities as well as the emergence of new actors, which all complicates the
discourse of foreign policy. Over the past few decades, the world has witnessed major changes in
regard to global politics, most notable of these being the shift from a bi-polar system to a largely
uni-polar system at the end of the cold war. The changes that have taken place in the international
arena have not only been far – reaching, but have also greatly influenced states behaviour in one
way or another.
In light of the dynamic changes in the global arena states have subsequently been forced to come
up with new strategies for survival in an anarchic system of states, and also adopt to new
challenges and threats occasioned by increasing globalization and interdependence among states.
Kenya’s foreign policy has been indicative of this dynamic international and domestic
environment, by adapting to new challenges and opportunities that have presented themselves. The
changing nature and implementation of Kenya’s foreign policy thus forms the basis for this study,
by examining the various phases that have defined the country’s foreign policy.
1.2 Background of the study
The concept of foreign policy involves goals, strategies, measures methods, guidelines, directives,
understandings, agreements and so on, by which governments conduct international relations with
each other and with international organizations and non-governmental actors.
This definition by Jackson and Sorensen1 encompasses the general nature of foreign policy as it
is applied to international relations. The broad definition gives insight in to the problems
encountered by scholars and policy makers in trying to have a single established definition of
foreign policy.
1 Jackson R. and Sorensen G., Introduction to International Relations:Theories and Approaches, Oxford,p.223

11. 2
William O. Chittick2 defines foreign policy as the goals or values which policy makers desire for
states, the plans of the policy makers to achieve the values and the specific actions, or inactions
undertaken by the policy makers to either implement or respond to specific events and processes.
Chittick’s definition of foreign policy brings in an important aspect of the study of foreign policy.
The inclusion of the terms “events” and “processes” indicates that foreign policy is dictated by
various factors in the environment that it operates within. These are the determinants of foreign
policy of which will form part of this study.
It cannot be said that there exists a single source of foreign policy decisions. In fact, most analysts
recognize that any explanation of foreign policy typically involves multiple factors.3 The
multiplicity of the determinant of foreign policy has given rise to debates on the theories
contending the factors that influence the foreign policy of states. These multiple factors are thus
grouped into two broad categories of explanations those dealing with factors outside the state and
those dealing with factors inside the state.4 These categories are generally termed as the internal
and external determinants of foreign policy.
Internal determinants of foreign policy are those factors that are internal to state. This means that
it is the characteristics of the domestic political system – citizens and groups within that system,
the government organizations and the individual leaders that serve as the source of the state’s
foreign policy.5 The external determinants on the other hand point to the international environment
as the explanation for a state’s foreign policy.6 The external factors include – how the international
system is organized, the characteristics of contemporary international relations, and the actions of
other states – all can lead the state to react in certain ways.7
In the analysis of Kenya’s foreign policy, both the two broad contending theories will be used for
this study. Owning to the fact that Kenya is a member of international institutions, the United
2 WilliamO.Chittick.,The Analysis of Foreign Policy Outputs,Columbus,Ohio, 1975,p.75,p.112
3Kaarbo Juliet, Jeffrey S. Lantis and Ryan K. Beasley., The analysis of foreign policy in Comparative perspective,
2012, Q Press, p.7
4 Ibid., p.7
5 Ibid., p.13
6 Ibid., p.7
7 ibid

12. 3
Nation, East African Community, the African Union, among others, is a premise that decisions
made by external actors to Kenya, do have influence on the country’s foreign policy. On the other
hand, looking at the internal dynamics of Kenya, it can be largely deduced that changes in political
governance over a period of time, has engendered different foreign policy themes for the state as
well.
1.3 Statement of the research problem
Kenya’s foreign policy has undergone various changes since independence. Much of the literature
on Kenya’s foreign policy has tended to associate these changes with change in government and
the leadership styles of the heads of state that have governed the country since independence. This
study will however seek to examine and analyze other variables, domestic and systemic that may
have influenced the changes that have occurred in the conduct of Kenya’s foreign policy. The
study is premised on the view that foreign policy is a product of both internal and external forces,
and a complex of interactions between the two.
By using both internal and system variables to analyze Kenya’s foreign policy, the study will fill
the gap in Kenya’s foreign policy literature created by the use of a monadic approach, of using
either systemic or domestic variables, but not a complex of the two. The study will also seek to
identify regular and identifiable patterns that have characterized Kenya’s foreign policy over the
years. This study aims to contribute to the foreign policy-making body of the country, by
highlighting the trajectory of Kenya’s foreign policy, which will in turn enable a general
understanding and an increased capability for prediction.
1.4 Objectives of the study
The general objective of the research is to examine the changing nature and implementation of
Kenya’s foreign policy.
The specific objectives of the research are:
1. To examine and analyze the trajectory of Kenya’s foreign policy with a view to identify its
regular and inconsistent patterns.
2. To examine and analyze the factors that have led to changes in Kenya’s foreign policy.
3. To examine and analyze the significance of the “Look East” policy in Kenya’s foreign policy.

13. 4
1.5 Literature review
1.5.1 Introduction
The literature to be reviewed in this study will include scholarly material, books and journals that
are relevant for this study. The literature will include a synthesis of existing literature on foreign
policy in general and foreign policy determinants and nature. Perspectives and views on Kenya’s
foreign policy by various scholars will also be subject to review in this section.
1.5.2 Definition of foreign policy
There is not a single established definition of foreign policy. Various scholars have however come
up with different descriptions of the term “foreign policy”. James Barber and Michael Smith8state
that, the term implies a stable set of attitudes towards the international environment; an implicit or
explicit plan about a country’s relationship with the outside world. They contend further that, those
who hold this view of foreign policy, as “high policy”, are concerned primarily with diplomacy
and the threat (and occasional use) of force as characteristic forms of foreign policy behavior, to
which a number of other areas of foreign relations are or may on occasion be subordinate.9
Dorothy Pickles10, on the other had defines foreign policy as a conscious image of what is or ought
to be the country’s place in the world, or some general guiding principles or attitudes determining
or influencing decisions on specific issues. For others still, the term implies rather a field of related
but distinct actions and issues, in which there neither is nor can be foreign policy in general; in
which policy is formulated in a disjointed fashion, largely in response to immediate pressures and
events, in a number of separate structures and issue areas.11 The latter definition of foreign policy
is perhaps indicative of the ‘ad hoc” manner in which Kenya’s foreign policy has been conducted;
as a response to immediate pressures, as opposed to shaping the environment in which her foreign
policy is directed towards.
1.5.3 Determinants of foreign policy
As stated earlier, any explanation of foreign policy involves multiple factors. However, different
scholars have come up with contending theories on the determinants of foreign policy. Whereas
8 Barber J. and Smith M., The Nature of Foreign Policy,a reader, Milton Keynes, 1974,p.14
9 Ibid.
10 Pickles D., “French Foreign Policy”,in The Foreign Policies of the Powers, ed. F.S.Northridge, London,1968, p.187
11 Vital D., The Makingof British Foreign Policy,London,1968,p.10

14. 5
some argue that foreign policy is primarily determined by factors internal to a state, others believe
that foreign policy is influenced by forces beyond the jurisdiction of the state.
Gideon Rose12 contends that the most common approach has been to assume that foreign policy
has its sources in domestic politics. This school of thought has been termed as Innenpolitik
theories,13 and it emphasizes the influence of domestic factors on foreign policy. These theories
argue that internal factors such as political and economic ideology, national character, partisan
politics, or socioeconomic structure determine how countries behave toward the world beyond
their borders.14 There however are many versions of the Innenpolitik approach, each favoring a
different specific domestic independent variable, but they all share a common assumption that
foreign policy is best explained as the product of a state’s internal dynamics.
According structural realism, domestic politics is not very important.15 For structural realists, the
systemic forces of the international power distribution drive a state’s foreign policy behaviour.16
Foreign policy, in this view, is primarily a function of the external environment. Kenneth Waltz,
the main proponent of structural realism states that, “The necessities of policy arise from the
unregulated competition of states.”17 The general implication of this theory for foreign policy is
that partisan behaviour, politics, is rare on foreign policy.18
1.5.4 External determinants of foreign policy
All states, regardless of their type of political system their history, or their culture, reside within
an international system that limits choices they make.19 The distribution of economic wealth and
military power in the international system, and the actions of other powerful actors such as
international organizations, multinational corporations, and powerful interest groups, often means
12 Gideon Rose., Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy, World Politics, Vol.51, No.I, October,
1998 p.146
13 Ibid., p.146
14Ibid.
15Souva Mark, “Foreign Policy Determinants: Comparing Realist and Domestic – Political Models of
Foreign Policy,” Conflict Management and Peace Science, No. 22, 2005, p.149
16 Ibid
17 Waltz Kenneth, Theory of International Politics, New York 1975, P.117
18 Op., Cit., p.151. Souva Mark
19 Juliet K, Jeffrey S. Lantis and Ryan K. Beasley, “The Analysis of Foreign Policy in Comparative
Perspective,” 2012, CQ Press, a division of SAGE

15. 6
that states cannot pursue their preferred option in foreign policy. In fact, for a long time, scholars
of international relations argued that states’ foreign policies were solely a product of the
international system – merely a reaction to external conditions and other actors.20
Arguably, anarchy and polarity are major factors that influence the foreign policy of any state.
Realists argue that anarchy is the characteristic of the international environment that males
international politics distinctly different from domestic politics. They (realists) contend that in
domestic political systems, political actors such as groups and individuals can cooperate, because
there are rules governing behaviour and a government to enforce those rules. The lack thereof of
an overarching political authority above the state in the international system, render’s a likelihood
of conflictual relations among units in the international system. Realists therefore prescribe
policies that maximize state interests in an effort to seek relative gains and preserve balances of
power.21 The driving force behind foreign policies then becomes the constant need to acquire and
safeguard one’s own security and power.
Liberal theories of international relations focus on the distribution of economic wealth as a primary
characteristic that affects state’s foreign policies. Liberalists contend that with the increase in
global trade and financial relationships, and the technological advances that have facilitated this
increase, states have become more interdependent.22 Neoliberal institutionalists further contend
that states cooperate because of expected mutual benefits, and they are likely to form multilateral
regimes to increase information certainty, lower transaction costs, and foster mutual gains.23
According to liberalism, cooperating with other states, and building international institution to
facilitate that cooperation allows states to further their goals of economic wealth. They further
argue that all states will be better off if they cooperate in a worldwide division of labour, with each
state specializing in what it is relatively better at producing. 24
20 Ibid., p.7
21 Joseph M. Grieco, “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal
Institutions,” International Organizations, No.42, pp.485-504, August 1998.
22 Robert O. Keohane and Joseph Nye, Power and Interdependence Boston, 1977
23Kenneth A. Oye, “Explaining Cooperation Under anarchy,” World Politics, No.38, pp.1-24, October, 1985.
24Moravcsik Andrew, “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,” International
organization, No.51, autumn, 1997.

16. 7
Interdependence also means states can be fairly constrained in their foreign policy. This is because
the fortunes of one state are connected to the fortunes of others, and when one state harms another,
it does so at its own peril. Going to war in an effort to gain power may make sense militarily, but
states in an independent world harm themselves by destroying potential trading partners and
markets in which to sell their goods. This explanation perhaps explains the diplomatic response by
the Kenyan government when a dispute arose over the ownership of the Migingo Island between
Kenya and Uganda in 200425. The problem begun when the government of Uganda posted armed
police and marines on the island, besides hosting its national flag on the island.
The dispute was exacerbated in early 2009, when Kenyans living on the island, of which 80% of
the inhabitants are Kenyans, were asked to purchase special permits by the Ugandan government,26
for fishing on the island. In May, 2009, Ugandan president, Yoweri Museveni, while addressing
students of the University of Dar essalam made a statement that, “whereas the island was in Kenya,
the waters surrounding it were in Uganda,”27 and that Luos, (a Kenyan community that forms the
majority of the Migingo Islands inhabitants) would not be allowed to fish in Ugandan territory.
This further escalated the conflict, but despite numerous calls to the Kibaki government to take
“hard” actions against Uganda, Kenya chose to cooperate in a joint physical demarcation of the
border, an initiative that was launched an 2nd June 2009.
The decision by the Kibaki government not to engage in a military confrontation with Uganda over
the Island can be attributed to the fact that Uganda, being a landlocked state depends on Kenya for
its cargo imports. This in turn makes Uganda a major trading and economic partner of Kenya.
Thus, the decision to use force to secure its interests (Kenya’s) would have proven equally
damaging for Kenya’s economy.
25 Migingo is a small rocky island located in Lake Victoria,with a rich stock of Nile Perch (A type of fish widely
traded in domestic and international markets),that is alleged to have generated the territorial disputebetween
Kenya and Uganda in 2004.
26Kisiangani Emmanuel, “Dispute Over Migingo Escalates,” Institute for Security Studies, August 17th, 2011
27 Ibid

17. 8
1.5.5 Internal determinants of foreign policy
Theories that focus on internal sources of foreign policy offer a rather different perspective and set
of expectations. In contrast to the externally based theories, those who point to sources internal to
the state expect differences across state’s foreign policies despite similar international
circumstances. For these analysts, the great diversity of political systems, cultures, and leaders are
the factors that point states in different direction even though they are facing the same external
forces.28 Mark Souva29 argues that the debate over the influence of domestic political factors on
international relations is important if we are to isolate the primary causal mechanisms for a given
class of events, if we are to identify the primary motivations of political leaders, and if we are to
accurately analyze crisis bargaining situations.30
Among the major internal determinants of foreign policy, as engendered by various scholars is the
public. The public may agree on an issue or may be deeply divided. For example, the public may
be for or against their state intervening militarily in another country. When Kenya deployed its
defense forces to Somalia, local media conducted an opinion poll, which was largely in favour of
the incursion. Does this thus suggest that the citizens of Kenya were instrumental in influencing
this foreign policy decision? Maybe not. Based on numerous findings in research, the conventional
wisdom is that the public simply does not influence foreign policy.31 In fact, it has been observed
that the average person tends to know little and care little about his or a country’s foreign affairs.
Although public opinion’s influence on foreign policy may be insignificant in some countries, in
highly democratized and highly civilized states such as the United States of America, it may bear
considerable significance. This can be attributed to the principle of codetermination32 as expressed
in the US constitution, which calls for the sharing of foreign policy formulation powers, between
the executive and the legislative branches of government.33 The principle of codetermination was
adopted by the architects of the United States government, who believed that for individual
liberties to be secured, governments that are truly democratic must not possess the monopoly of
28Kaarbo Juliet et al, “The Analysis of foreign Policy in Comparative Perspective,” Chapter I, p.13, CQ Press.
29Souva Mark, Op. Cit.p 149
30Ibid
31Kaarbo Juliet et al, Op. Cit.,p.14
32 Steven W. Hook, US Foreign Policy: The Paradox of World Power, Washington D.C., 2008, P.152
33 Ibid

18. 9
decisions making in matters of the domestic and external environment of the state. Krasner
accurately described this principle by stating that, “The central feature of American politics is the
fragmentation and dispersion of power and authority…”34
Core values and national identities are connected to society’s political culture – the values, norms
and traditions that are widely shared by its people and are relatively enduring over time.35 These
enduring cultural features may also set parameters for foreign policy.36 For example, a country
whose culture may value individualism, collectivism, pragmatism, or even moralism, and these
culturally based values may affect foreign policy.37 In Kenya, however, it is fairly difficult to assess
the impact of culture, due to the diversity in ethnic, linguistic, religious and even socio-economic
composition of the citizenry. Other social inadequacies, such as high levels of illiteracy and
poverty have diverted attention from “high politics,” which has been left to the political elite of
the country.
How a government is organized may also affects foreign policies. According to Kaarbo38 et al, the
two characteristics that are particularly important in government organization are democratization
and bureaucratization.39 The argument is that the foreign policy process is quite different for
democracies, because decision making authorities tend to be diffused across democratic
institutions, and thus more actors are involved. In contrast, they contend, to authoritarian
leadership, where leaders often make decisions by themselves. Liberal theorists argue that
democratic institutions are built on and create a political culture that is likely to emphasize the
value of peaceful resolution.40 That in a democracy, citizens learn that conflicts of interests can be
resolved non- violently, for example through elections, peaceful means of influence, or in the
courts.41
34 Krasner D. Stephen, Defending the National Interests: Raw Materials Investment’s and US Foreign Policy,
Princeton, 1978, pp.61-62
35Kaarbo Juliet et al, Op.cit, p.14
36 Alastair I. Johnson, “Thinking about strategic culture,” Journal of International Security, No.19, 1995, pp.32-64
37 Op. Cit., p.15
38 Ibid., p.16
39 Ibid
40 Ibid.p17
41 Ibid

19. 10
The above arguments have however been contested. Sabastian Rosato42 contends that the
differences between the making of foreign policy in democratic and authoritarian government may
be exaggerated. As noted earlier, citizens in a democracy are often not well informed, and their
influence over foreign policy is debatable. This is especially so in less progressive states, mainly
found in the third world category. Furthermore, foreign policy decisions, unlike most domestic
policy decisions, are often highly centralized at the top of the government’s hierarchy, as they
typically are. In Kenya, for example, the making of foreign policy is exclusive to the office of the
president and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.43
At the top of government sits a leader, or leaders, who have the authority to make foreign policy.
Ryan K. Beasley44 et al, note that characteristic of leaders are generally more important when they
have significant attitude in shaping policy and the situations is ambiguous, uncertain, or complex.45
Under these conditions, which occur frequently in foreign policy making a leader’s personality
and beliefs may shape what the states does.46 Margaret Herman,47 after studying the personality
characteristics of fifty four (54) heads of government, made claim that factors such as the leaders’
experience in foreign affairs, their political styles, their political socialization and their broader
views of the world should all be drawn into the analysis of foreign policy decisions.
Following the arguments above, one can also clearly observe that Kenya’s foreign policy has
undergone major changes, and those changes have been consistent with change of government. It
is however not necessarily true that these changes are indeed effected by the leaders of a particular
regime. Okoth P.G. notes that once confronted by external changes or availed with external
opportunities, the state responds through a set or sets of foreign policy decisions.48
42 Sabastian Rosato, “The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory,” American Political Science Review, No.97,
Nov. 2003 pp.595-602
43www.mfa.go.ke/linder.php
44 Ryan K. Beasley, Jeffrey S. Lantis and Kaarbo Juliet, p.18
45 Ibid. p 18
46 Jack S. Levy, “Political Psychology and Foreign Policy,” in Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology,eds.,David
Sears, Leone Huddy, and Robert Jervis, New York, 2003, pp.84 – 253
47 Herman Margaret, “Personality and Foreign Policy Decision Making A study of 54 Heads of Government,” in S.
Chan and D. Sylva (eds), Foreign Policy Decision Making, New York, 1984
48Okoth P.G., “Histography of Kenya’s Foreign Policy.” In African Review of Foreign Policy (March 1999) 1(1) p.65

20. 11
1.5.6 Perspectives and views on Kenya’s foreign policy
MakumiMwagiru,49 in addressing the changing realities of Kenya’s foreign policy, argues that
although Kenya’s foreign policy in the decade after independence was on continuity and
constancy, and developed a sound conceptual footing in the 1980s, this has later changed in recent
times to incoherence.50Mwagiru’s views seem to take note of the ad hocracy and arbitrary manner
in which Kenya’s foreign policy has been conducted by various regimes in the Kenyan
government.
John J. Okumu51 noted that Kenya’ relations with the outside world have been handled with a great
deal of caution, uncharacteristic of many African governments whose activities in the external
affairs had been aggressive on issues concerning decolonization, non-alignment and liberation of
African territories during the colonial regimes. It is this “low key” approach to international
relations that has recently seen Kenya being described as having traditionally “punched below its
weight” in terms of influencing regional geopolitics52. Okumu’s account of Kenya’s foreign policy
fails to explain recent developments in Kenya’s foreign policy, with the most contradictory of
the events having been the incursion into Somalia by the Kenya Defence Forces (KDF), and the
proactive steps towards regional integration taken up by the Kibaki government.
According to Samuel M. Makinda, Kenya’s external economic policy of attracting private capital
investments and dominance of the East African Market in Kenya’s export of manufactured goods
are really the independent variables that affect Kenya’s policy.53 Thus, according to Makinda,
Kenya’s foreign policy has since independence been driven by Kenya’s dependency of foreign
capital. This, he contends is the reason why Kenya was reluctant to take radical stances on
international affairs.
49Makumi Mwagiru., “The Elusive Quest: Conflict Diplomacy and Foreign Policy in Kenya,” in P.G Okoth (ed)
Conflict in post-colonial Africa, Nairobi, Jomo Kenyatta Foundation: 1999, p.1
50Njagi Karimi P., “Kenya’s Foreign Policy in a changing World: Themes For a and Prospects,” Thesis, 2008,
University of Nairobi Library
51 John Okumu, “Kenya’s Foreign Policy,” in Aluko, Olajide,ed, The Foreign Policies of African States,1977, Hodder
and Stoughton.
52McEvoy Claire, “Shifting priorities: Kenya’s changing approach to peacebuilding and peacemaking,” Norwegian
peacebuilding Restore Centre, May 2013 Report, p.1
53Makinda S.M., “From Quiet Diplomacy to cold War politics,” Third World Quarterly, 5(2) 1983, pg.145

21. 12
1.6 Gaps in literature
The literature reviewed in this chapter has taken into account the determinants of foreign policy,
both external and internal. The literature has however not addressed the relationship between the
determinants of foreign policy and the actual behaviour of states. Moreover, the literature implies
that foreign policies of states are influence by either external or internal pressures, as opposed to a
combination of the two variables, thereby giving an inconclusive explanation for state behavior,
which is marked by a complex of relations between external and internal factors. This study will
attempt to fill this gap by examining Kenya’s foreign policy within a neoclassical realist theory,
to establish the nexus between determinants of foreign policy and actual state behavior in the
international system.
1.7 Justification of the study
This study will account for the changing nature of Kenya’s foreign policy, thereby generating
greater understanding of Kenya’s behavior in the international system. By using neoclassical
realism as the analytical tool for this study, the research will create room for debate on the
theoretical underpinnings of Kenya’s foreign policy for both the students and scholars of Kenyan
foreign policy. This study will also indicate the trajectory of Kenya’s foreign policy, of which may
be of great importance for the policy making body, as well as the foreign policy-making process
in the country.
1.8 Theoretical framework for the study
Theory development in foreign policy analysis has proven to be problematic. Kenneth Waltz54
rules the subject of theory development in foreign policy as out of bounds due to its complexity.
Theories, he argues, must deal with the coherent logic of “autonomous realms”.55 Thus, because
foreign policy is driven by both internal and external factors, it does not constitute such an
autonomous realm, and therefore, we should not strive for a truly theoretical explanation of it.56
Waltz therefore notes that, instead, we must rest content with mere “analyses” or “accounts”,
which include whatever factors, appear relevant to a particular case.57
54 Waltz Kenneth, Theory of International Politics, Reading 1979, pp.71-72
55 Ibid
56 Ibid
57 Waltz N. Kenneth,“International Politics is Not foreign Policy,” Journal of Security Studies, No.6, 1996, pp.54-55

22. 13
The analysis of Kenya’s foreign policy will adopt a dyadic approach, whereby both internal and
external factors shall be taken into account. Thus, this study will use the neoclassical theoretical
perspective to explain Kenya’s foreign policy. Gideon Rose58 explains that neoclassical realism
explicitly incorporates both external and internal variables, updating and systematizing certain
insights drawn from classical realist thought.59 He further notes that the adherents of neoclassical
realism argue that the scope and ambition of a country’s foreign policy is driven first and foremost
by its place in the international system, and specifically by its relative material power capabilities.
Neoclassical realist argue further, however, that the impact of such power capabilities on foreign
policy is indirect and complex, because systemic pressure must be translated through intervening
variables at the unit level.60
Neoclassical realists argue that relative material power establishes the basic parameters of a
country’s foreign policy;’ they note, in Thucydide’s formula, that “the strong do what they can and
the weak suffer what they must”.61Neoclassical realists however point out that there is no
immediate or perfect transmission belt linking material capabilities to foreign policy behavior.
They contend that foreign policy choices are made by actual political leaders and elites, and so it
is their perception of relative power that matters, not simply relative quantities of physical
resources or forces in being.62
The introduction of intervening variables by neoclassical realists apart from further creating a
network of variables that greatly increases the complexities of the determinants of foreign policy,
also points out to the fact that foreign policy cannot be explained using specific variables as is
expected by both structural or systemic theories and Innenpolitik theories. As such, this theory best
suits the analyses of Kenya’s foreign policy, which has been changing to accommodate the
58 Rose Gideon., “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy,” Review Article, World Politics, Vol. 51,
Issue 1 October 1998, p.144
59 Ibid
60 Ibid
61 Robert B. Strassler, ed., The Landmark Thucydides:A comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War, 1996, pp.5-
89
62 Op., cit.,Rose G.

23. 14
changing nature of the international system, as well as internal dynamics, that have determined the
foreign policy choices of the country.
1.9 Hypotheses
Based on the objectives of the study the following hypotheses are proposed:
1. Kenya’s foreign policy has been characterized by continuity and change.
2. Foreign policy in Kenya has been influenced by both internal and systemic factors.
3. The “Look East” policy does not signify a shift in Kenya’s foreign policy.
1.10 Researchmethodology
The research project will involve the use of secondary data as the main source of data. The
secondary data will be sourced from various academic materials, including books relevant for the
study, electronic and print journals from academic writers, various internet sources, including
blogs that are relevant to the study and newspapers. The research is mainly qualitative in approach,
whereby data collected will be interpreted and analyzed in form of narratives. The study will also
be descriptive and explanatory, giving detailed accounts of Kenya’s foreign policy since
independence. Due to limitations in time and scope of the research, the use of primary data will be
limited, if at all available.
1.11 Researchstructure
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
The introduction contains the background of the study, the objectives of the research, the literature
review, and the hypotheses, justification of the study and the research structure.
CHAPTER TWO: HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS OF KENYA’S FOREIGN POLICY
In this chapter, the study will examine the post-independence foreign policy of Kenya, the actors,
issues and external environment that shaped the country’s foreign policy orientation. Chapter two
also examines regime change from the independence government to the Moi government.

24. 15
CHAPTER THREE: KENYA’S POST-COLD WAR FOREIGN POLICY
Chapter three will examine and analyze Kenya’s foreign policy in the post-Cold era, taking note
of a changing international dispensation as well as a change in the domestic governance of the
country. This chapter highlights the determinants of post-Cold War Kenyan foreign policy, amidst
new opportunities and threats in the international system.
CHAPTER FOUR: THE CHANGING NATURE OF KENYA’S FOREIGN POLICY: A
NEOCLASSICAL REALISM PERSPECTIVE
Chapter four will examine and analyze the overall changing nature of Kenya’s foreign policy using
neoclassical realism as a basis for analysis. This chapter also highlights the emerging issues in
Kenya’s foreign policy orientation.
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter summarizes the whole research process. It provides key findings of the study, and
gives recommendations for future works.

25. 16
CHAPTER TWO
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF KENYA’S FOREIGN POLICY
2.1 Country Profile
Kenya is a republic. It gained independence on December 12th 1963 and became a republic in 12th
December, 1964. Kenya was formerly a British colony and independence was gained after a long
liberation struggle against British rule. Kenya occupies a land mass of about 589,367 sqkm, and
is classified as allow income country, with a huge disparity between the rich and the poor63. As
of 2012, the population in Kenya was estimated to be around 43, 013, and 34 with a GDP per
capita of about 1,800 USD64. Kenya is also considered to be the regional economic power relative
to other states in the region.
2.2 Kenya’s historical interactions
Foreign policy is a preserve of sovereign states. Thus Kenya’s foreign relations can best be traced
only after the state had acquired the principle of sovereignty. Of importance to note however, is
that even before the attainment of independence, the communities that resided within the region
exercised some form of international relations with other groups, such as the Arabs who traded
with the local groups in search of ivory and trade. This can however not be termed as international
relations per se, due to the lack of the Montevideo Convention requirements for statehood, of 1933.
Foreign relations in Kenya were however shaped during the colonial rule, where institutions and
infrastructure were put in place that extended to neighboring territories of Uganda and the then
Tanganyika, and settler activity that saw the transfer of raw materials from the colony to England.
2.3 Domestic actors in Kenya’s post-independence foreign policy
At independence, there existed two political parties the Kenya African National Union (KANU)
and the Kenya African Democratic Union (KADU).65 These political parties served as channels
through which Kenyan demands were made to the colonial government, at the height for the
struggle of independence. KANU was later to become the principal political party, headed by
Jomo Kenyatta, a figure that had gained heroic status in the struggle for independence in Kenya.
66.www.africareview.com/country-profiles<accessed on 12th November,2013>
64 Ibid
65Jona Rono, “Kenyan Foreign Policy,” in Stephen Wright ed., African Foreign Policies, Colorado, 1999, p.100

26. 17
When Kenya gained internal self-government in 1963, Kenyatta became the first prime minister
of Kenya and the first president, after the full attainment of independence in 1964.
Post-independence Kenya’s foreign policy was to be found in the KANU manifesto of 1961 and
1963 and also sessional paper no. 10. According to the KANU manifesto, Kenya’s foreign policy
included; the need to economic development, the need to be non-aligned and the need to promote
good neighborliness.66 To date, these policies still form part of Kenya’s foreign policy and are
regarded as the basic principles that Kenya is oriented towards in her foreign policy.
2.3.1 Issues that shaped Kenya’s foreign policy in the post-independence era.
2.3.2 Territorial Integrity
John J. Okumu67 argued that the threat of secession in the coast and northeastern provinces alerted
Kenya to the primary need to consolidate her boundaries. Kenya’s need to protect her territorial
integrity against the threat of Somali secessionists in the then Northern Frontier District was the
result of Kenyan Somalis determination to reunite themselves with the Somali republic.68 The
secessionist movement, commonly known as the “shifta war” was started by the Kenyan – Somalis
who regarded themselves as a different race, and were calling for recognition of their right to self
– determination and unity with the Somali Republic.
Between 1941 and 1946, all Somali inhabited territories were joined together under a single British
Military Administration following the defeat of Italy by the Allied powers in the Second World
War.69 Lewis argues that this and the placing of Italian and British Somaliland’s under United
Nations trusteeship for 10 years in 1950: “should be considered as the most potent factor in the
stimulation of new Somali political aspirations.”70 A further incentive was given for Somali
66http://masenosdoss.files.wordpress.com, Kenya’s Foreign Policy<accessed 12th November 2013>
67Okumu John, ”Some Thoughts on Kenya’s Foreign Policy,” The African Review, Vol.3, Issue no.2, 1973, pp.263-
290
68 Op., cit. p.5
69 Lewis I. M., A Pastoral Democracy: A Study of Pastoralism and Politics among the Northern Somali of the Horn
of Africa, London, 1961, p.270
70 Ibid

27. 18
unification, when Ernst Bevin, the British Labour Party foreign secretary, proposed the idea of a
“Greater Somalia.”71
Bevin’s argument was that, “British Somaliland, Italian Somaliland and the adjacent part of
Ethiopia … should be lumped together as a trust territory, so that the nomads should lead their
fugal existence with the least possible hindrance”.72 These sentiments further influenced the
determination of the Somali people to continue pastoral practices, regardless of official state
policies and boundaries, and it has been argued that this has been the focal point of Somali
nationalism since then. This sentiment was forcefully expressed in the ‘shifta war’, which began
during Kenya’s negotiation for its own independence.
The Kenyatta government was however greatly opposed to the secessionist claim, and
subsequently invoked the doctrine of Uti Possidenti Iuris, which is based on the assumption that
each state had fixed and safe boundaries which are not subject to any external violation. Kenya
also inscribed the organization of African unity charter, article 3, which stipulated that: “member
states solemnly affirm and declare their respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each
state for its unalienable right to independence.”73 They argued that boundaries acquired at
independence are to remain unchanged. It was assumed that allowing changes of boundaries of
states or a state through conflict or otherwise no matter how legitimate would lead to similar
demands among other contested boundaries in Africa.
It is due to the aforementioned events that territorial integrity became a key orientation of Kenya’s
foreign policy in the post-independence era, and as Adar Korwa G.74argues, an integral part of
Kenya’s foreign policy towards Somalia.
71Reisman Michael, “Somali self-Determination in the Horn: Legal Implications for Social and Political Engineering,”
in I.M. Lewis (ed), Nationalism and Self-Determination in the Horn of Africa, London, 1983, p.153
72 Ibid
73 O.A.U Charter, Article 3 (3)
74Korwa G. Adar, Kenyan Foreign Policy Behaviour towards Somalia,1963-1983, London, 1993, pp.47-8

28. 19
2.3.3Policy of non-alignment
The concept of non-alignment can be described as the capacity of a country’s leadership to judge
every international issue based on its merits.75 This policy gained foot in Africa and other
developing nations at the height of the Cold War, with the aim of preventing the power struggle
between the United States and the Soviet Union from entangling these states. It was a strategy of
self-preservation by developing states within an uncertain bipolar international system.
In adopting a policy of non-alignment as the basis of her international policy, Kenya like the rest
of the developing states hoped to avoid entanglement in the Cold War. The policy of nonalignment
sought to enable the developing states, Kenya included to be actors in the international system
without losing their identity. 76 Scholars of Kenya’s foreign policy however note that although the
country made claims to nonalignment, Kenya was largely inclined towards the West and
Capitalism.
Ambivalence in Kenya’s policy of non-alignment was engendered by domestic political rifts
between two factions in the Jomo Kenyatta government. The radicals, led by Jaramogi Oginga
Odinga favoured a quick Africanization of the economy, which involved giving back of the huge
tracts of land left behind by the white settlers to landless Africans, that shops left behind by
Europeans and Asians be given to Africans to run, and that Kenya’s foreign policy would be led
by ideals and not by political expediency.77 The other faction, referred to as the moderates or
conservatives led by Tom Mboya and Jomo Kenyatta believed that the move to total africanizaiton
spelt doom for the Kenyan economy.
It is argued that the Mboya group feared that if Kenya was to make such a radical move it would
lose out on the foreign capital provided by the West, mainly the United Kingdom, if it were
perceived to be aligning itself to the East. It is further noted that the Kenyatta government was
keen not to vex its imperial development partners,78 a condition which perpetuated Kenya’s
relations with the West. The perceived dependence on foreign capital from the West by the
75Wekesa G. F., “Kenya’s Policy of Non-alignment,” University of Nairobi Main Library, 1973, p.2.
76http://masenosdoss.files.wordpress.com “Kenya’s Foreign Policy”
77http://theforeignpolicyanalyst.wordpress.com/tag/kenya-foreign-policy <accessed 25th February,2014>
78 Ibid

29. 20
Kenyatta government is what led to Samuel Makinda’s conclusion that Kenya’s foreign policy was
determined by this dependency relationship. As such, although Kenya made claims to non-
alignment, it was widely perceived that Kenya was aligned to the West.
2.3.4 The need for economic development
Another issue facing the state in the post-independence era was the need for economic
development. After independence, many countries inherited the former colonial systems, and
Kenya was no different. In fact, Charles Hornsby notes that the command and control system that
the British created to maintain order was propagated into the independent state almost
unchanged.79
Colin Leys describes the post-independence economic system in Kenya as “being a planned
transition from a monopolistic colonial economy to a neo-colonial economy which would not
merely preserve the major existing metropolitan interests, but which would adapt Kenya both to
the new form of international capitalism which developed in the post war world, and to the political
realities of nationalism and the demands of the African petty – bourgeois leadership.”80 As such
Leys implied that the Kenyan was keen to maintain the relationship it had with its colonial masters,
as well as adopt the colonialists system of capitalism, which was enforced by the new leadership.
Kenya’s economy was so dependent on British capital, that had Kenya taken a path that was
uncomfortable with the foreign elites, they would be staring at economic ruin.
The perceived fear of loss of foreign capital by the Kenyan political elite in the Jomo Kenyatta
government is what is attributed to the reluctance in taking radical stances in foreign policy by the
state. Many scholars therefore, believe that this was the reason why Kenya adopted a “wait and
see” policy on many important international issues. This was thus the beginning of the era of
‘Quiet Diplomacy’ as described by John Okumu.
At independence, Kenya’s economy by African standards though dependent, was a fairly
developing economy.81 This factor can be attributed to the higher settler activity in Kenya relative
79 Charles Hornsby, Kenya: A History Since Independence, London,2012,pp.137-13
80 Colin Leys,” Underdevelopment in Kenya: The Political Economy of Neo-Colonialism,” London, 1964-1971.
81 Op., cit., Kenya’s foreign Policy/Relations

30. 21
to other countries in sub-Saharan Africa, with the exception of Southern African states. Kenya
had sizeable manufactured goods for export particularly to the East African states, and thus, for
purposes of economic development, regional commerce became a major factor in Kenya’s foreign
policy.
Kenya’s special economic position in East Africa prompted the state to seek preservation of the
regional economic structures together with all the benefits that had been accrued before
independence. Institutions such as the East African Common Services Organization (EACSO),
and the East African Post Telecommunications, formed in the pre-independence period had their
headquarters in Kenya, thus making Nairobi the center for economic and communication activities
in post second world war British East Africa.82 The independence government was keen to
preserve this status quo, adopting a capitalist economic system, so as to attract foreign investors
and capital into the country. The inflow of capital into Kenya at the expense of her neighbours,
who had adopted closed economic policies, enabled Kenya to develop ahead of her neighbours.
2.3.5 Needto promote good neighbourliness
Geo-political factors have also played an important role in shaping Kenya’s foreign policy within
the East African region. This is due to the fact that Kenya is a littoral state of the Indian Ocean
and thus influences relations with its landlocked neighbours, Uganda and Rwanda being the major
dependents on the Kenyan port of Mombasa. The concept of good neighbourlinees has remained
a central pillar of Kenya’s foreign policy that has been instrumental in its dealings in the region.
The realizations that Kenya’s economic development and welfare is intimately intertwined to its
neighbours saw the country take a moderate and neutral approach in policies involving its
neighbours. John Howell, in analyzing Kenya’s foreign policy in the post-independence era notes
that Kenya presented various faces to the international community.83 Howell contends that whereas
Kenya’s foreign policy in global terms was radical in nature and characterized by a strong sense
of morality and idealism, in East African affairs, Kenya’s policy was governed by rather more
82 Ibid,.p.8
83 Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol.6, No.1, May 1968, “ An Analysis of Kenyan Foreign Policy,”pp.19-48
<accessed from www.jstor.org/discover/10.23o7/158675-26th February,2014>

31. 22
conservative and legitimist thinking. This, he noted was more so where any radical departure from
the status quo was contemplated.84
The passive approach to foreign policy within the region by the first Kenyan government, led to
the state being cast off as a reluctant regional hegemon and an unwilling regional power by various
actors and analysts of foreign policy.85
2.4 The prevailing international environment of the post-independence era.
2.4.1 The Cold War
Kenya gained independence at the height of the Cold War. The Cold War was a period of
confrontation that took place between 1945 and 1990, between the US and its allies mainly the
Western countries, and the Eastern bloc spearheaded by the USSR. The Cold War increased
tensions within the international community because of the actions of the two super powers; they
pursued political and ideological goals some of which were ever more opposing with the objectives
of the other. The Soviet believed that America was an imperial power and therefore committed in
spreading capitalist ideology with the intention of dominating the rest of the world, while on the
other hand, the USA saw the Soviet as an ideologically motivated and “antagonistically”
expansionist evil empire committed to the spread of communism.86 Both super powers therefore
advocated that their system of belief was the only way forward for a better world.
The Cold War period coincided with the era of decolonization in Africa, and the emergence of
new states attracted the attention of the super powers, which in turn provided economic and
military support into the continent in a bid to acquire more spheres of influence. Kenya was
therefore thrust into the super power rivalry, with both camps providing developmental assistance
to the state, and Kenya having to play a delicate balancing act by adopting a capitalist system while
at the same time engaging the Eastern block for developmental projects.87
84 Ibid
85 Seminar Report, “Kenya’s Foreign Policy and Geostrategic Interests:Reconsidering the Somalia Intervention and
Kenya’s Role in Regional Geopolitics,” Conference held by the Institute for Security Studies,10th May, 2012, Nairobi.
86 Painter,D.S., The Oxford Companion to United States History,< accessed 14th September from
http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?>
87 Kenyan Foreign Policy:An Introduction <accessed on 13th September from
http://theforeignpolicyanalyst.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/kenyan-foreign-policy-an-introduction>

32. 23
2.4.2 The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)
The Non-Aligned Movement was formed during the Cold War as an organization of states that did
not seek to formally align themselves with either the United States or the Soviet Union, but sought
to remain independent or neutral. The organization was formed with the main objective of creating
an independent path in world politics that would not result in member states becoming pawns in
the struggles between the major powers.88 The newly independents states of the developing world,
Kenya included became members of the organization, which provided a platform for interacting
with the great powers through a policy of non-alignment without involving themselves in the Great
Power conflicts.
2.4.3 The Pan-African Movement
The Pan-African Movement was initially an anti-slavery and anti-colonial movement among black
people of Africa and the Diaspora in the late nineteenth century.89 Pan-Africanism however
became entrenched in the African continent with the Sixth Pan-African Congress held in
Manchester by W.E. Dubois in 1945 that saw the attendance of future African leaders such as
Kwame Nkrumah and Jomo Kenyatta of Ghana and Kenya respectively.
The new Pan-African leaders became instrumental in the formation of the Organization of African
Unity on the 25th May of 1963, an African intergovernmental organization that sought among other
things the unity of the African and solidarity of African countries, to eradicate all forms of
colonialism in Africa, to defend the territorial integrity, independence and sovereignty of the newly
independent African states, to adhere to the principle of non-alignment, call for decolonization of
African states that were still under colonial rule and to promote international cooperation, having
due regard to the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Kenya being newly independent and therefore lacking in an established foreign policy was
confronted by a myriad of international pressures and obligations, which demanded a certain
reaction from the state. The Jomo Kenyatta-led regime adopted the policies made by multilateral
88 NAM-CNS, < accesses 14th September 2014 from cns.miis.edu/inventory/pdf s/nam.pdf>
89 Alistair,B.E., “What is Pan-Africanismand howhas it Been Developed?” <Retrieved from
http://africanhistory.about.com/od/politicalhistory/a/What-Is-Pan-Africanism.htm>

33. 24
decision-making bodies such as the NAM, the OAU and the UN, which provided the broad
guidelines that formed Kenya’s foreign policy orientation.
2.4.4 Regional Integration: The first East African Community
Even before the three territories of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania had gained independence, there
had been attempts by the British colonial administration to form an East African federation. These
attempts at a federation failed. Economic cooperation among the territories was however fairly
well coordinated. Therefore, as soon as the three territories had attained full independence and
internal self-rule, the leaders of the three states called for economic cooperation in East Africa.
The Treaty for East African Cooperation which established the First East African Community was
then signed on 6th June, 1967 and came into effect according to its own article 91 on 1stDecember,
1967.90The first East African Community however collapsed ten years after its inception, with the
belief that the demise of the EAC was more of a political decision than an economic development.
The main economic consideration in the demise of the EAC emanated from the belief that Kenya
with her more established industrial base was exporting more to her two partners than they were
able to export to Kenya. This development made the two partners resent the fact that they were
providing mere markets for Kenya’s industrial products.91 So, in 1977, the first EAC finally
collapsed.
2.5 Regime change: President Moi’s administration 1978-1990
The first president Jomo Kenyatta died while still in office in 1978, and was succeeded by his Vice
president, Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi. When the second government came into power, the global
arena was still entangled in the super power rivalry of the Cold War. Much of the attention of the
international community was therefore directed towards the relationship between the US and the
USSR, and little attention was paid to the internal political development of African states. It is
argued that this lack of interest in the African continent during this period created room for
dictatorial regimes that came up in various parts of the continent. Furthermore, due to the ongoing
90 Domini di Delupis,I., The East African Community and Common Market, Stockholm. 1970,pp.51-53
91 Ibid.,p.99

34. 25
rivalry between the great powers, foreign aid, economic and military continued to flow into the
continent unchecked, in a bid to win allegiance to either of the two camps.
The rise of dictatorial regimes in the continent saw the emergence of civil wars in various parts of
the continent, with efforts by rebel groups to oust the sitting heads of states. The super powers
economic and military support to various governments and rebel groups further exacerbated the
civil wars that had engulfed the continent.92 Upon coming into power, President Moi’s
administration came into a regional environment that was characterized by civil war. The Great
Lakes Region was among the regions engulfed in civil war, which was taking place in Kenya’s
immediate neighbor, Uganda, including Rwanda, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of Congo
(DRC)93.
2.5.1 Kenya’s diplomacy of conflict management
Although president Moi continued to pursue the foreign policy options of the Kenyatta regime,
including furthering economic, diplomatic and military ties with the West, one clear theme that
characterized foreign policy under Moi was his involvement in conflict resolution and
management as a central feature of Kenya’s foreign policy.94Makumi Mwagiru notes that Kenya’s
diplomacy of conflict management began sprouting in the early post-independence years, although
it was fully developed and was defined in the early 1980s.95
One of the major regional foreign policy initiatives undertaken by president Moi upon coming to
power was the mediation in the Uganda conflict between General Tito Okello and Yoweri
Museveni in 1985. 96 This conflict had arisen from the contested elections in 1980 that returned
President Milton Obote to power, whose first government had been overthrown by the dictatorship
92 Wayne C. M., and Piotrowski,H., Africa in the World Since1945: A history of International Relations,London,
2005,p.277.
93KhadiagalaG.M., Mediation efforts in Africa’s Great Lakes Region, p.47 <Retrieved 15th September from
www.hdcentre.org/.../>
94Karimi N. P., Kenya’s Foreign Policy in a Changing World: Themes, Fora and Perspectives, University of Nairobi
Main Library, Thesis, 2008, p.47.
95Makumi Mwagiru,” The Swing of the Pendulum: Kenya’s Diplomacy of Conflict Management in Regional
Perspective,” Paper presented at the IGAD Conference on Prospects and Challenges of Peace and Security in the
Region, Nairobi.
96Gilbert M. Khadiagala,” Mediation Efforts in Africa’s Great Lakes Region, p.48<.retrieved from
www.hdcentre.org<accessed on 28th Feb., 2014>

35. 26
of Idi Amin in 1971.97During Obote’s second tenure, guerrilla movements challenged the
government, notably Yoweri Museveni’s the National Resistance Movement (NRM). Major
General Tito Okello overthrew Obtoe in July 1985.98
The stalemate that ensued between the Tito government and Museveni NRM was broken by the
mediation of President Daniel Arap Moi. In reconciling Okello and Museveni, Moi invoked
Uganda’s importance to the stability of East Africa, and Kenya’s strategic interests in a peaceful
solution.99Moi’s mediation culminated in the Nairobi Peace Agreement signed on December 17th
1985, comprising power sharing and cease-fire provisions.100 It is however, noted that although
Kenya’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs played a role in organizing some of the negotiation sessions,
the Nairobi talks largely bore Moi’s presidential imprints.101
Although the Nairobi Peace Agreement collapsed, president Moi persisted with diplomacy of
conflict management as the key theme of Kenya’s foreign policy, albeit under different
approaches, as opposed to his “personal intervention”. President Moi deferred mediation roles to
the ministry of Foreign Affairs and to special envoys, as was demonstrated by Kenya’s mediation
of the conflicts in Sudan and Somalia, under the auspices of the Inter-governmental Authority on
Development (IGAD). The mediation and diplomacy of conflict management of the Moi regime
has however been viewed as a strategy used by the President to ameliorate the country’s image in
the international arena, as well as a way for Moi to defend his government against international
and domestic criticism.
It is through these efforts to boost Kenya’s image internationally that the Kenya began
participating in military peace keeping missions and negotiations of peace agreements under
institutional frameworks such as the Commonwealth, the OAU and the United Nations.
97 Ibid
98 Ibid
99 Ibid
100 Ibid., P.48
101 Ibid

36. 27
Having examined and analyzed the data in this chapter, Kenya’s post-independence foreign policy
is seen to adapt to the systemic and domestic demands as they presented themselves. This ad hoc
manner that Kenya’s foreign policy was implemented can be attributed to the country’s relative
material capabilities vis –a-vis its position within the East African region as well as the
international space. Being newly independent, the country lacked sufficient resources to pursue its
national interests independent of other actors in the international arena, namely international
organizations/institutions, thereby aligning its national interests to the universally accepted norms
created by these international actors.
Regionally, the state is seen to be aware of its special economic position relative to other states in
the region, thereby exercising caution in its dealings within East Africa. This pragmatic approach
to her neighbours indicates the country’s ambition to maintain the status quo as the regional
economic power, and the keen interest of the Kenyan government to secure her national interests
through peaceful resolution of conflicts among her neighbours. What is apparent however, is that
the different heads of states that governed the state in the Cold War era had different perceptions
of what was the main goal and objective of the state. While the Jomo Kenyatta regime saw
economic development through commerce and trade as the immediate and more important pursuit,
the Moi administration sought peace and stability for the state through mediation efforts in
conflicts in the region.
The next chapter will examine and analyze Kenya’s post-Cold War foreign policy, in the wake of
a changing international order and emerging threats and opportunities. The chapter will seek to
examine the extent to which new emerging realities effected change in Kenya’s foreign policy.

37. 28
CHAPTER THREE
POST-COLD WAR KENYAN FOREIGN POLICY
3.1 Introduction
The end of the Cold War in 1991 saw a restructuring of the international system, where the fall of
the Soviet Union ensured that the US was the only remaining super power in the international
system. The global geopolitical contest between capitalists and communists was over, and the
world’s focus shifted from the politics of the Cold War, to market-oriented economies, free trade,
democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. As the world’s attention was removed from the
super power rivalry of the Cold War, more attention was paid to Africa, awaking to a chaotic scene
of authoritarianism and dictatorships in the continent. The post-Cold War change in global political
priorities presented a different form of interaction between the West and developing states. Donor
support in form of foreign aid was no longer a strategy to gain allies. It became a strategy to
instigate democratic change in autocratic and authoritarian regimes in Africa.
3.2 Determinants of post-Cold War Kenyan foreign policy
3.2.1 Foreign Aid
The post-1992 period saw the country’s major aid providers rapidly reduce their support for the
authoritarian leadership of the then President Moi, demanding an end to corruption and proper
fiscal management of the economy. They also demanded that the political system be liberalized
through the institution of legal and constitutional changes that allowed for the pluralization of
democratic practice and the observance of new norms of human and environmental rights. Under
pressure to fulfill these demands, President Moi orchestrated amendments legalizing the formation
of opposition parties and opening up the political space.102
In Kenya aid was conditioned following instructions from the donors, Kenya was dependent on
aid thus making it possible for the donors to dictate the government’s actions. It was also used to
manipulate what legislation the government was to enact. Kenya’s participation in international
affairs was however shadowed by internal clamor for democracy and multiparty politics. In the
last decade of Moi’s 24-year rule therefore, Kenya was more reactive and ad hoc. The projection,
102 S. Brown, ‘Authoritarian leaders and multiparty elections in Africa:How foreign donors help to keep Kenya’s
Daniel arap Moi in power’, Third World Quarterly, Vol.22, No.5, 2001,pp. 725-739.

38. 29
planning, conduct and implementation of Kenya’s foreign policy was purely defensive, reactive
and informed the singular objective Moi’s succession.103 As the global scene unfolded, Kenya
sought to remain relevant and to leverage its position as an important regional player in the East
African region.
3.2.3Emerging economies
It was in the first decade of the 21st Century that certain states of the developing world became
more assertive in countering the tendencies towards unilateralism, great power negligence, and
their own marginalization, while at the same time enjoying spurts in economic growth and
development.104 Since the intensification of globalization after the Cold War; economic
globalization, the globalization of the ideas of democracy and human rights, and technological
globalization, the opportunity has been created for a number of large developing states to join the
main stream of the mainly Northern-dominated global economy105.
The relaxation of economic barriers and the liberalization of economies world over during the
1990s ushered in a period of phenomenal growth for countries such as Brazil, China, India, South
Africa, and Mexico. This economic phenomenon expanded the scope of political and economic
engagements for lesser developed states, shifting focus away from overreliance on the traditional
development partners of the West. Kenya was once again faced by an increasingly dynamic
international system and sought to cease the opportunity that had presented itself to leverage its
position as a geographically strategic state for business.
3.2.3 International terrorism
Although it is widely believed that international terrorism in Kenya emerged at the advent of the
21st century, studies have shown that incidents of international terrorism in Kenya began as early
as 1976.106 It is believed that the first transnational terrorist incident in Kenya was the 28 January
103 Kenya foreign policy and international relations-Kenya and the world,<Retrieved 14th September 2014 from
http://softkenya.com/world/>
104E.C.Moore, Governing Parties and Southern Internationalism:A Neoclassical realistapproach to the foreign
policies of South Africa and Brazil,1999-2010,TheLondon School of Economics and Political Science,p.18
105 Ibid.,p.18
106Mogire, E., and Agade, K. M., Counter-terrorism in Kenya, Journal of Contemporary African Studies, Vol.29, No.4,
pp.473-491.

39. 30
1976 plot by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Baader-Meinhof
group to shoot down an El Al passenger plane during a scheduled stop-over in Nairobi.107This plot
was ultimately thwarted after successful intelligence sharing between Israel and Kenya. The next
incident of transnational terrorism occurred four years later, in 1980, when the PLFP attacked the
Norfolk Hotel in Nairobi that killed 15 people.108
The above incidents were however treated as isolated incidents, and not much attention was paid
to the attacks by both the government of Kenya and the international community. It was the 1998
bombing of the American embassy in Nairobi that made both the US and Kenya aware of the
threats posed by foreign terrorists. This incident, which killed over 200 people, including twelve
Americans and injured thousands, prompted Kenya to begin, albeit slowly, a more concerted
counterterrorism strategy.109 In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the US,
Kenya became a major partner in the Global War on Terror.
3.2.4 Regional integration
With the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, Kenya’s foreign policy began to center on East
Africa. Although the general aim was to maintain peaceful co-existence with other nations while
ensuring regionalism, Kenya sought integration and co-operation as a way to advance its own
prosperity within the framework of international co-operation and multilateralism.110 Regional
integration therefore became a major component of Kenya’s foreign policy, and was pursued
through various regional initiatives, such as the EAC, Common Market for Eastern and Southern
African States (Comesa), African Caribbean and Pacific-European Union (ACP-EU), IGAD and
Indian Ocean Rim-Association for Regional Cooperation.111
107 Ibid.,p.474
108Aronso, L. S., Kenya and the Global War on Terror: Neglecting History and Geopolitics in Approaches to
Counterterrorism, African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies:ajcjs, Vol.7, No. 1&2, pp.26-27.
109 Krause,V., &Oteyo, E., Terrorismand the Kenyan Public,Studies in Conflict Terrorism, Vol.28 (2), pp.9112.
110Wanyama,L., The Economic Diplomacy of Kenya’s Regional Interests, Occassional Paper No.137,South African
Foreign Policy and African Drivers Programme,February, 2013,p. 5.
111 Kenya, Ministry for Information and Communication, Kenya Year Book 2010: A New Dawn for Kenya, Nairobi,
p.679.

40. 31
This position therefore reflects the realization that Kenya’s development is tied to that of its
regional neighbours, as well as that of the global economic system.
3.3 Kenya’s foreign policy in the 21st century: the Kibaki administration
In December 27th 2002, general elections were held in Kenya that saw the ouster of the 24-year
rule of the Moi regime, and ushered in a coalition government led by President Mwai Kibaki. The
Kibaki government came into power against a backdrop of new threats and challenges as well as
opportunities present in the international system. Globalization had presented new markets and
trade partners for the country, while at the same time presenting the threat of terrorism and other
transnational crimes. Domestically, the new government came into a rapidly declining economy
with failing institutions, resulting from thriving corruption and mismanagement of state apparatus
by the Moi regime. On occupying office, the new government therefore made it a priority to
revitalize the economy by pursuing a proactive foreign policy of regional integration as well as a
“Look East” policy aimed at improving the economic condition of the country.
3.3.1 The expansion and deepening of the EAC integration
Upon coming into power in 2002, President Kibaki inherited the integration process that had begun
in his predecessor’s government within the EAC. In fact, Kibaki has been described as a unifying
figure and a force to reckon with in East Africa’s revived integration process. Kenya’s
involvement with the EAC became more vigorous, owing to Kibaki’s enthusiasm with the EAC,
of which he saw an opportunity for increased intra-regional trade, which was key to his
developmental agenda.
President Kibaki, during his tenure as the chair of the EAC in 2012, was vocal on the need to
further strengthen the EAC, noting that, “A strong and prosperous EAC is the pillar to the stability
of our region.”112 He further emphasized that the EAC members should play their role in
strengthening and expanding the EAC. During the second meeting of the first session of the East
Africa Legislative Assembly (EALA), Kibaki demonstrated his enthusiasm with regional
integration in East Africa, by stating that”
112 Business Daily, “East Africa: Tough Call for Kibaki after he inherits EAC Mantle in Last Year at State House,” by
George Omondi, 9th Jan., 2012.

41. 32
“I am also looking forward to the future expansion of the EAC. We welcome the interest of Sudan,
South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia and Somalia in joining the EAC. We
should facilitate their membership.”113
Not only did President Kibaki champion the cause for a larger EAC, but he was also instrumental
in advocating for infrastructural development within the region, noting that, “It is a fact that
infrastructure is an enabler for growth and that is why a larger portion of resources will be invested
in this sector.” 114Kibaki’s view of infrastructure as a key gateway to development in the region
saw him inaugurate massive infrastructural projects such as the Lamu Port South Sudan Ethiopia
Transport corridor (LAPSSET) in March 2012 that was jointly overseen by President Salvar Kiir
of South Sudan and the former Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi.
The Kibaki administration pursed a proactive policy of regional integration within the East African
region, shifting focus from the previously Western – oriented policy pursed by the previous
regimes. However, Kenya’s proactive policy towards the region was not a completely new
phenomenon that came with the Kibaki administration, but rather a continuation of a process that
was already in place when the coalition government took reigns.
3.4 Kenya’s military incursion into Somalia
Kenya’s traditional low-risk, non-interventionist approach to peacebuilding and peacemaking,
which is grounded in the principle of “good neighbourliness” and respect for national sovereignt y,
shifted dramatically in October 2011 with its unprecedented military operation into Somalia.115 In
the follow-up to the Somalia incursion, Kenya had been facing an imminent threat from
international terrorism, following its joining of the GWOT, since the 1998 bombing of the
American embassy in Nairobi.
113 Presidential Press Service, “ President Mwai Kibaki Roots for Regional Peace” 17th August,2007
<http://www.hiiraan.com/newa2_rss/2007/Aug >
114Gashegu Muramira,” East Africa: Kenyan President Backs Larger EAC,” The New Times, September 5th, 2012 <
allafrica.com>
115Op.cit., Shiftingpriorities:Kenya’s changingapproach to peacebuildingand peacemaking

42. 33
In November 2002, another terrorist attack occurred, when many of the al-Qa’ida affiliates that
were involved in the 1998 bombing, bombed an Israeli-owned hotel in Mombasa, and shot a
Surface to Air Missile at a commercial airplane taking off from the airport in Mombasa.116 Several
other attacks continued to take place in the country, although at a smaller scale, by use of hand
grenades and Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). These attacks mainly took place in the far-
flung border regions of Kenya’s North Eastern Province, which borders Ethiopia and Somalia. The
Somalia incursion came at the heels of the kidnapping of four foreign nationals and one Kenyan
in Mombasa, widely suspected to have been carried out by the Somali, Al-Qa’ida-affiliated
insurgents, al-Shabab.
Although the incursion generated the debate as to whether Kenya was militarizing her foreign
policy towards her neighbours, the Kibaki government asserted that the military incursion was
aimed at defending the country’s national interests. This was in reference to the tourism industry,
which is a major foreign exchange earner for the government.
3.5 The “Look East” Policy
President Kibaki, unlike his predecessor, was not known to make foreign diplomatic travels to
other states. However, barely three years into his presidency, President Mwai Kibaki made a high
profile visit to China, in August 2005, where he met with China’s President Hu Jintao, the Chinese
Prime Minister Wen Jiaba and other top Chinese officials. The visit was the first in eleven years
by a Kenyan President to China.117Kibaki was in his tenure to make two more official visits to
China, with a reciprocal visit to Kenya by the Chinese President. The presidential exchanges
between the two states was deemed to signify a major shift in Kenya’s foreign policy. The outcome
of the visits signaled a change in focus of Kenya’s foreign policy, from seeking a place in
international politics to championing economic relations with China, and by extension Japan and
India.118
116 Op., cit,Kenya and the Global War on Terror
117WanjohiKabukuru,” Kenya: Look East my Son,”
<http://www.thefreelibrary.com/kenya%3A+look+east+my+son%3B+kenyas+is+the+latest+african+country+to+fal
l...a0148614/09>
118 Ibid

43. 34
Since the replacement of the Moi regime, in 2002, it took China and India only three years for their
imports to Kenya to overtake those form the United Kingdom, formerly the main source of Kenyan
imports. According to Mr. Gerrishon Ikiara, 119 it was as a result of prudent decision-making that
the Kenyan government opened up the country to the Far East, to include Asian states, as well as
Eastern European countries. According to Mr. Ikiara, Kenya was as a result able to access
countries that provided better deals, as compared to previous deals offered by the United Kingdom.
The six year “Look East” policy saw the Chinese overtake the British as the leading foreign direct
investor in Kenya, as well as leading in the transformation of Kenya’s infrastructural landscape.
The policy saw China control a majority of an estimated 70% of infrastructure projects, which
included road construction, airports, water systems, power generation, housing and hospitals
construction among others.120
Brazil, Libya and Tehran were among states that gained ground in the Kenyan energy sector, with
Libya in 2007 gaining exclusive rights in the Kenyan oil market, granted by an MoU signed in
Libya with the former Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi when President Kibaki visited
the country.121 The oil sector in Kenya had previously been in the clutches of Western oil
conglomerates.
The “Look East” policy was however not only as a result of the Kibaki administration’s pursuit of
an open economic policy, but a protest towards the increased meddling by the West, more
specifically the US and the UK in the internal running of the government.
The “Look East Policy” took full effect when Western diplomats posted to Nairobi, notably the
former British high commissioner Edward Clay and then the outgoing US ambassador, William
Bellamy, persistently justified their states belligerent policies towards Kenya in public speeches in
119 Mr. Gerrishon Ikiara is a senior lecturer at the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Nairobi
120Kabukuru, W., Kenya: “Want Growth? Look East”, New African, 18th December,
2011,<http://africanbusinessmagazine.com/feature/counrtyfiles/kenya-want-growth-look-east>
121 Ibid

44. 35
which they “scolded” Kenyans on corruption, good governance and human rights; this in complete
disregard of the Vienna Convention which lays down guidelines on diplomatic etiquette.122
Diplomatic relations with the West were further strained when the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) and the World Bank failed to cancel Kenya’s external debt, as was the case with several
African states. Kenya’s displeasure with this occurrence was expressed by the then Minister for
Foreign Affairs, Raphael Tuju in a statement as follows:
“I am not able to understand this policy that is actively encouraging Kenya to be delinquent with
respect to our international obligations before we can be rewarded. The agenda of debt
cancellation is going to define our engagement with our multilateral partners.”123 Subsequently,
Kenya failed to include donor support in the 2006 national budget.
Throughout his ten year rule, President Kabiki’s administration continued to show preferential
treatment to the Far Eastern, as well as the BRICS states, while maintaining at the least, a lukewarm
relationship with the European Union and its allies. In what has come to be considered as Kenya’s
first ever elucidation of her foreign policy, State House Nairobi, through the Presidential Press
service (PPS) outlined Kibaki’s global outlook as follows; “President Kibaki’s diplomatic policy
has been guided by Kenya’s present view of changing geo-political dynamics. This entails an
understanding of the West and East confluence on world affairs in an ever changing
environment.124
3.6 Economic diplomacy
When President Kibaki came into power in 2002, Kenya’s foreign policy implementation took a
different direction, away from the regime protectionism exercised by his predecessor to economic
diplomacy. According to Tom Amolo, the former Kenyan High Commissioner to South Africa, a
process of greater democratization helped shift the priorities of foreign engagement towards
economic diplomacy, which became an important instrument in pursuing growth; hence its
122 Ibid
123 Op.,cit, Wanjohi Kabukuru, “Kenya: Look East my Son”
124Wanjohi Kabukuru, “Forgetting the “Big Man Syndrome,” New African, 2nd October2012
<http://www.newafricanmagazine.com/features/politics/forgetting-the-big-man-syndrome accessed 7th April 2014>

45. 36
description by government officials as a principle pillar on which the country’s foreign policy is
grounded in pursuit of its development objective of becoming a middle income and industrialized
economy by 2030.125
During the 16th Biennial conference of Ambassadors and High Commissioners in Msambweni
District in the coastal region of Kenya, President Kibaki in his address to the envoys stated that;
“under the new constitution, for example, functions such as international trade have been placed
side by side with the foreign policy function. This means you will have to give more prominence
to foreign trade promotion.126 President Kibaki emphasized that with the new constitution in place,
the country’s foreign policy framework must be designed to be in tandem with the emerging
realities.127
In referring to “emerging realities,” Kibaki was implying the shift form political diplomacy,
considered to be the traditional sense of diplomacy, to the changes that occurred after the Cold
War, that saw globalization increase interconnectedness and interdependence among states, such
that economics lost their national character and became global. As such, Kibaki was keen to
emphasize that Kenya’s foreign policy must reflect these changes in the global arena.
During his rule, Kibaki’s recurrent theme in Kenya’s foreign policy was economic development
for the country. Kibaki sought to use foreign policy to meet Kenya’s industrialization needs, as
envisioned in the country’s development blueprint, vision 2030. This saw the Kibaki government
engage regional economic blocks such as the EAC and IGAD in various developmental projects,
as well as engaging other nations besides the traditional western development partners in the
country’s development agenda.
Wanyama Leonard explains that the main reason why the Kibaki government chose to conduct
foreign policy through economic diplomacy was the search for increased capital flows into the
125Amolo Tom,” Some Thoughts on Economic Diplomacy and its Impact on Economic Relations,” 27th May,
2009<http://www.titiic.co.za/HE%20Tom%20Amolo%20-%20ECONOMIC%20DIPLOMACY.pdf. >
126AddressbyPresidentMwaiKibakitoKenyanEnvoys,1stAugust,2011<www.statehousekenya.go.ke/news/august2011/
2011010101.htm>
127 Ibid

46. 37
country and the region, given Kenya’s commitment to integration initiatives – through exploring
alternative sources of development assistance and by promoting itself as a favourable destination
for foreign direct investment (FDI), tourism and conferencing.128
Other reasons that may have influenced this choice of policy implementation include that, Kenya
saw it necessary to support its investments within the region and beyond, motivated by a need to
expand access to established markets worldwide.129 As such, economic diplomacy was therefore
an avenue through which to promote impartial rules of international trade while strengthening
regional economic communities (RECs), more so EAC and COMESA, to serve as competitive
springboards to emerging and global markets.130
3.7 Kenya’s documented foreign policy
Kenya did not have a documented and written foreign policy, until 2009. As such, there had been
an enduring debate in the country about whether it is necessary for the country to have its foreign
policy stated in a specific written document, or whether it can still have a functional foreign policy
in the absence of such a document. Makumi Mwagiru131 notes that the documentation of Kenya’s
foreign policy is a significant development, in that, it will reduce or remove the problem of an ad
hoc foreign policy of ‘wait and see” that had characterized Kenya’s foreign policy since
independence. Mwagiru further notes that the crafting of a document on the foreign policy of any
country encourages the development of a clear vision and a specific mission for foreign policy.132
Hitherto, Kenya’s international engagements were guided by the pursuit of national interests,
predicated on the quest for national security and economic prosperity.133Therefore, the written
foreign policy was necessitated by the absence of a single document containing broad guidelines
on how to conduct diplomatic engagements. According to the foreign policy framework, the
guiding principle for Kenya’s foreign policy is a vision of “a peaceful and prosperous Kenya
128Wanyama Leonard,” The Economic Diplomacy of Kenya’s Regional Interests,” Occasional Paper No.137, South
African Foreign Policy and African Drivers Program, Feb., 2013.
129 Ibid, p.7
130 Ibid
131Mwagiru M., ” Issues,Problems,and Prospects in Managingthe Diplomatic Services in Small States”the Fletcher
Forum of World Affairs,Vol.3, No. 1, Winter 2006,p.196
132 Ibid.
133 Republic of Kenya, Foreign Policy Framework, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,July,2009,p.2