Time is now for Kenya to re-boot its foreign policy to focus on bringing the money home

A teller counts money at a Kenyan bank. FILE PHOTO |

What you need to know:

  • Kenya has taken a conservative and even reticent foreign policy stance, playing it safe on some of the most important issues of the day.
  • Our politics might be noisy and boisterous, but few Kenyans have the stomach for violent political action.

  • Our desire for success has had a discernible impact on our collective behaviour on the international plane.

Kenya’s national interest today has substantially evolved from what it was in 1990. This is both the result of domestic changes that create new imperatives for survival as a nation, but also in the changes in the very nature of global politics. Our foreign policy has barely changed.

Historically, Kenya has taken a conservative and even reticent foreign policy stance, playing it safe on some of the most important issues of the day. Generally, we have mostly played it safe in the most important global issues, often deferring to the West’s official position. We have paid lip-service to our professed commitment to pan-Africanism. Only in our immediate neighbourhood have we taken a hard-nosed interest-driven approach to diplomacy.

At a glance, that is the logical thing to do for a lower middle-income country with few existential threats, relative stability, limited regional ambitions and modest military power. Despite internal ethnic divisions, Kenyan politics is light on ideology, and our political fights are really a banal struggle for resources.

Our politics might be noisy and boisterous, but few Kenyans have the stomach for violent political action. That is who we are.

WEALTH

But we are something else too. We are captives of ambition, entranced by the hope for wealth, and beholden to our little secular god – money – through who we believe that everything is possible.

Our desire for success has had a discernible impact on our collective behaviour on the international plane. We have migrated en masse to foreign lands where we believe we have a better chance at personal achievement and economic success. At the same time, we have consistently courted foreign wealth, whether this is in the form of aid or investment. Both instances mean that we see the outside world in terms of opportunity rather than threat.

Kenya’s conservative non-confrontational don’t-break-no-shells way of massaging the back of the world resonates with such a mild national personality. We are ok being “average” and have grown used to punching way below our weight in matters of foreign policy.

It is time we changed the game, and thankfully, we do not have to look far for inspiration.

BLACK NATIONS

Rwanda, a nation that only 25 years ago would justifiably fall into Trump’s unsavoury category of black nations. Today, a country with a land mass of about 26,000 kilometres square puts to shame the daunting foreign policy machines of regional hegemons such as Nigeria, Morocco and even South Africa. Rwanda’s land mass is 4 pc of Kenya’s.

Mauritius is the other compelling example. Mauritius is a tiny country which, with a land mass of 1,865 kilometres, is about 0.3 pc of Kenya’s landmass of roughly 580,000 square kilometres. That is smaller than Kiambu County. Its foreign policy game has been simple – promote the country as an investment destination. 

The two countries’ visibility has got little do with their natural resources. For example, Mauritius is known as a top global tourist destination, yet its coastline is 330 kilometres, which is about a third of Kenya’s 1, 420 kilometres, and whose beaches are as good. Rwanda has been extremely successful in positioning itself as a tourist destination, yet the entire country would fit into Amboseli national park with enough space to also fit in Burundi and Mauritius.

There is a simple logic that underlies the foreign policy game in either country – bring the money home. One part of the game is an efficient PR machinery, which is exactly the proper job description of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The other part is a severe investment promotion machine, whose job is less about pageantry, and more about getting investors to commit investments into the main sectors of its economies.

FOREIGN MISSIONS

The reality is that our domestic bureaucracy is nothing close to being as efficient as Rwanda’s or Mauritius, but it has the resources to outclass them. Perhaps the solution is calling it as it is. That means abandoning rhetorical pretences and focusing foreign missions to serve the most important economic sectors at home. It also means customising our missions according to the opportunities in the specific countries.

Of course there are major political issues to resolve in Kenya, but Rwanda and Mauritius hardly exist in political vacuums. The difference is that their investment promotion games overshadow domestic shenanigans. Kenya is today best-known abroad for its political drama. Google it!

That is not to say that our diplomats are not doing a sterling job abroad. The point is that the old model of having an ambassador and a few diplomatic attaches is to expect our diplomats to do the impossible against the fact of severe competition among states. Our diplomats could well remain suave, charming and as civilized as the queen, but they should be backed with crack units of technocrats in foreign missions and at home, whose clear mission is to make Kenya rich.

 Dr Kiprono Chesang is a public affairs consultant.