Kenya’s foreign policy under President William Ruto has been ambitious, but recent missteps highlight the need for a more structured and strategic approach.
For decades, Nairobi has viewed itself as an indispensable regional power, an attitude rooted in a sense of Kenyan exceptionalism.
However, setbacks such as Raila Odinga’s failed bid for the African Union Commission (AUC) chairmanship, the hosting of Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF) representatives in Nairobi, and the Haiti deployment suggest that this confidence must be matched with careful diplomatic execution.
While Kenya remains a key player in regional and global affairs, these setbacks offer valuable lessons on how Nairobi can refine its diplomatic engagements moving forward.
Kenya has a history of fronting candidates for top continental and global positions only to fall short, and the recent AUC race was no exception.
While Raila Odinga’s credentials were formidable, the race exposed the realities of domestic polarisation, regional power dynamics and the importance of strategic consensus-building.
One key lesson is that Kenya should consider nominating technocrats or individuals suited for ministerial-level positions rather than figures with a history of national politics.
Unlike heads of state or high-profile political figures, technocrats tend to be more acceptable across regional blocs, minimising opposition rooted in domestic politics. Future endorsements must be carefully planned, with diplomatic groundwork laid well in advance to secure the necessary regional backing before entering such contests.
The controversy surrounding Kenya’s engagement with Sudan’s RSF further complicates Kenya’s standing as a credible mediator in regional conflicts.
On one hand, Kenya has positioned itself as a peace broker in Sudan. On the other, its engagement with RSF representatives has raised concerns about impartiality.
The lesson here is clear: Diplomatic mediation must be consistent and devoid of actions that could be perceived as favouring one faction over another. Nairobi must develop a clear mediation framework that aligns with its peace-building credentials, ensuring that every engagement is transparent and widely supported by the AU and other stakeholders.
Kenya’s commitment to deploying police officers to Haiti was initially presented as a bold leadership move in international peacekeeping.
However, the backlash and legal hurdles exposed the pitfalls of taking on international commitments without thorough domestic and geopolitical risk assessments. Kenya must strengthen its foreign policy institutions to ensure that major international commitments undergo rigorous consultation involving key ministries, security agencies, and foreign policy experts.
A well-balanced foreign policy should prioritise strategic national interests while ensuring that commitments are feasible and aligned with Kenya’s long-term diplomatic objectives.
Foreign policy decisions are most effective when they are guided by structured decision-making models. In international relations, three key models shape foreign policy: Rational choice model, the organisational model, and the bureaucratic model. While the rational choice model emphasises individual decision-making, it has inherent limitations—no single leader, regardless of experience, can possess the monopoly of all foreign policy decisions.
The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, for example, could have been resolved more smoothly if the United States had incorporated broader diplomatic consultations instead of relying primarily on President John F. Kennedy’s judgment.
Similarly, Kenya must ensure that foreign policy decisions are not overly centred on the president but involve extensive institutional input to avoid miscalculations like those witnessed in the AUC race and the Haiti mission.
The organisational and bureaucratic models should be fully utilised to ensure Kenya’s foreign policy is not just reactive but proactively aligned with long-term diplomatic goals.
This means empowering institutions such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, embassies, and advisory panels to play a more central role in shaping and executing policy. Decisions should not be made hastily or without rigorous debate within established diplomatic and security frameworks.
To avoid future missteps, Kenya must institutionalise foreign policy decision-making through structured, consultative deliberations. This involves: Strengthening regional diplomacy through involving building deeper alliances within the AU and EAC to secure strategic backing before making major foreign policy moves.
Enhancing risk assessments through ensuring that every major diplomatic or security decision undergoes thorough geopolitical evaluation before public commitments are made.
Kenya’s foreign policy challenges are not insurmountable, but they require a recalibration of strategy. Through reinforcing structured decision-making processes and ensuring a coherent diplomatic approach, Kenya can regain its footing and solidify its role as a leading voice in African and global affairs.
The setbacks of today should serve as lessons that guide the country toward a more effective and pragmatic foreign policy in the future.
Reducing over-personalisation of diplomacy by moving away from an overreliance on individual political figures in favour of institutionally backed diplomatic engagements, and prioritising technocratic leadership in global bids through endorsing candidates for international positions based on diplomatic acceptability rather than domestic political stature.
Mikhail Nyamweya is a foreign policy analyst and holds an MSc in African Studies from the University of Oxford. Email: [email protected]
