Kenya’s High Level Diplomacy Review and Outlook
 |
| President Kenyatta and his Deputy in a plane's cockpit |
High level state visits
High level state visits can be analysed from the perspectives of outbound and incoming visits. A quick scan of the Presidency website indicates the President was on a foreign visit blitz last year. It is important to capture as many of the President’s outbound trips to back up this “blitz” claim. Kenyatta’s outbound high level diplomacy includes the following destinations and agendas: South Africa twice (Forum on China Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) summit; AU conference; Pan-African Parliament); Ethiopia five times (AU conferences and Tana High Level Forum on Security); Tanzania four times (EAC meetings, Burundi peace, swearing of President John Magufuli); France (Climate Change Conference (COP21)); Malta (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM)); Rwanda twice (Northern Corridor Integration Project (NICP)); India (India-Africa Forum Summit); US (United Nations General Assembly (UNGAS)); Japan (state visit); Italy (Milan Expo); Zambia (state visit); Jordan (Horn of Africa coordination meeting); South Sudan (IGAD meeting); Sudan (swearing in ceremony of President Omar al Bashir); Algeria (state visit); Namibia (inauguration of President Hage Geingob) and Uganda (reciprocal state visit).
Thus, the President visited at least 16 countries and made at least 23 trips. The trips would have been at least 25 to 18 countries save for the President’s abortive April 2015 trip to the US and the cancellation of travel to Abuja, Nigeria in June 2015. In the abortive US trip, the President’s flight was turned back midair due to failure for international space clearance. In the case of Nigeria, the President was set to attend the inauguration of Muhammad Buhari but the trip was cancelled at the last minute on grounds that his delegation had been overblown. Deputy President William Ruto travelled to Abuja instead. Incidentally, relations between Kenya and Nigeria were very tight under former president Goodluck Jonathan.
By contrast, Kenya did not fare well in terms of incoming presidential level visits in 2015. Here is the evidence: Tanzania’s President Jakaya Kikwete (pre-retirement and farewell state visit); Somalia’s Prime Minister Omar Abdirashid Sharmarke (Daadab refugee camp); Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi (reciprocation state visit); Liberia President Ellen Sirleaf Johnson (WTO and state visit); US President Barack Obama (Global Entrepreneurship Summit, reciprocal state visit); Head of Vatican City and Roman Catholic Pope Francis (state visit and religious); South Sudan President Salva Kiir (peace mediation) and presidents Yoweri Museveni and Paul Kagame (Northern Corridor Integration Project). As such, at least 9 heads of state and/or government visited Kenya in 2015, nearly half less Kenya’s outbound presidential visits.
If we consider outbound travel itineraries by other senior Kenyan government officials especially those made by Foreign Affairs Cabinet Secretary Amina Mohamed, high level visits would run into well tens of hundreds. Mohamed for instance travelled to India, Japan, South Africa, Belgium, Egypt, USA, Sweden, Israel, Mozambique, UK and Somalia. On the reverse side, foreign ministers visiting Kenya were: Wang Yi (China), Ali Karti (Sudan), Mohammad Javad Zarif (Iran), Paolo Gentilone (Italy), Philip Hammond (UK), John Kerry (USA), V.K. Singh (India). A good number of trips at the second-tier foreign ministerial level may fall through the cracks because of poor documentation on Ministry of Foreign Affairs online resources. Still, a quick online survey would indicate that a similar trend to the presidential-cum-state visit level; more of Kenya reaching out to other countries – through Mohamed – than her hosting of fellow foreign ministers.
President Kenyatta’s trips overseas have been analyzed from two perspectives essentially split into Jubilee versus Cord political camps. Critics think the trips – at least 23 in 2015 – are excessive and a blow to government budget. Enthusiasts and government officials think they are an important tool for Kenya’s foreign policy, especially with regards to economic diplomacy. The tenor of debate on outbound presidential visits reached a peak in December 2015, interestingly triggered in part by Kenyatta’s social media message on return from the Johannesburg Forum on China Africa Summit and Sixth Ministerial Conference hot on the heels of visits to Malta and France. The December criticism was but a build up on grumbling that had surfaced much earlier in the year. That debate on trips drew a pushback from the President’s spokesperson Manoah Esipisu as well as politicians allied to the Jubilee Coalition – including Deputy President William Ruto – invites the question: will the President moderate foreign travel in 2016?
All outbound presidential visits are justifiable in equal measure as they are likely to be contested. For instance, although comparing US President Barack Obama’s foreign trips to Kenya’s Kenyatta is like comparing apples and oranges, it is noteworthy that the US President was criticised for making 20 foreign trips in 2014 and this might have played a role in his scaling back trips to just 11 in 2015. State House spokesman Manoah Esipisu has indeed shown evidence of the strategic economic and geopolitical accomplishments of three of Kenyatta’s December 2015 travels – Malta, France and South Africa/FOCAC. A valid argument has been made for the psychological value of face-to-face high level negotiations by Kenya’s foremost diplomat – the President – in certain international circumstances. In addition, Kenyatta would be inclined to go out on a charm offensive because his administration started off as a veritable pariah state on the back of the ICC charges – a phenomenon dubbed “choices have consequences” – and indeed his own deputy is not off-the-hook yet. Moreover a scan of some of the trips would indicate that they were essential summitry hardwired into international diplomatic practice such as the EAC, AU and NCIP conferences; the UNGAS (an almost absolute must); Africa-India (41 African presidents/prime ministers in attendance) and Africa-China summit (48 leaders in attendance). It is improbable that Kenyatta will stay out travel for some Addis Ababa and AU-related calendar events in 2016 but it is more likely that summitry of the kind where his presence is not a must will be dispensed with. However some of the Presidents trips could have been dispensed with. For instance the President’s attendance of the Tana High Level Forum in Ethiopia last April was not really crucial considering the event programme does not list him as a speaker. Also in the category of trips the President could have stayed out is the Paris Climate Change Conference because it is essentially a technical meeting in addition to the fact that Kenya hosts the main multilateral environmental agency, UNEP, where the President can undertake environmental diplomacy at a bargain.
A number of factors are likely to constrain the President to rein in foreign junkets. Because the spotlight on his outbound diplomacy has taken a decidedly domestic political turn, coupled with the fact that foreign affairs is likely to be a polarizing political issue ahead of the 2017 General Elections, it is probable that the president will shave off some of the strategic but non-essential visits. It is unlikely that a second-term seeking president will want to continue courting controversy and even the kind of mockery we saw in social media on account of frequent travel abroad in a pre-election year. In addition, there may be genuine concern for austerity and harmonization of the Presidents high level visits with budgetary allocations. Indeed resources for international travels are a domestic political matter to the extent that parliamentary approval of budgets and vetting of expenditure is a constitutional requirement – just think the “hustler jet” saga. The question is: which kinds of high level visits are likely to be placed on the chopping board?
Cutting back on outbound presidential visits will have to be a painful balancing act not least because the President will have to reconcile the domestic political risks against the normative discretion of foreign engagement as the province of the head of state. A review of the president’s travels indicates that the president has accepted or been invited for state visits on account of his 2015 trips to countries such as Sudan, South Sudan, Zambia and Malawi. Indeed there may be other already agreed visits lined in his diary for instance based on the President’s face-to-face encounters and relations with other heads of state forged at multilateral conclaves. Presidential elections are expected in at least 11 African countries and it can be expected that the President will attend inaugurations of presidents-elect in some of those countries – Uganda for instance. Furthermore, outbound visits by the foreign affairs CS are often reconnaissance trips clearing the way for eventual presidential visits. As such, the (at least 11) countries that Amina Mohamed visited in 2015 could be on Kenyatta’s state visit follow-up wish-list in 2016.
Whichever way one looks at it, it can be anticipated that Kenyatta’s state-to-state visits will not only lessen but perhaps be tightly aligned to outcomes-oriented prioritization of Kenya foreign policy interests. A way out would be for the President to appoint special envoys to make representations to countries expectant of his visit. It will be recalled that Cord co-principle logged quote a few miles in shuttle diplomacy in 2012 as a special envoy of former president Mwai Kibaki over the continuing ICC saga. Obviously, the key envoy to act on behalf of Kenyatta is the foreign affairs CS Mohamed and it can be expected that her globetrotting will spike in 2016 in similar fashion that US Secretary of State John Kerry or Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi represent presidents Obama and Xi Jinping respectively. Deputy President William Ruto is another potential special envoy but he can only be expected to act on behalf of the President in certain jurisdiction mainly because the ICC millstone still hangs over him.
Fortuitously the re-organization of government in November 2015 saw to two developments that can boost the special diplomatic envoy mechanism. First, former internal principle secretary Dr Monica Juma, an experienced diplomat, swapped places with Dr Karanja Kibicho in her appointment as foreign affairs principal secretary. Secondly, the department international of trade was moved from the foreign affairs to the trade industrialization docket led by CS Adan Mohammed. It can thus be expected that in 2016, we shall see Monica Juma and Adan Mohammed joining Amina Mohammed on the international circuit in their own right as well as representatives of the President. The key benefit in all this beyond deflecting the spotlight on Kenyatta’s jet-set ways is that the presidential envoys are likely to spend less as their delegations are often smaller and arrangement of their trips less of a protocol headache. In addition, the president can appoint other special envoys from without government proper as he did when he signalled former national assembly speaker Kenneth Marende as his envoy for the now successful mediation into the Central African Republic conflict. One of the messages such envoys would carry for Kenyatta is to explain to other heads of state the political and budgetary constraints that militate against his travel to their shores while championing the very interests the presidential personal touch would have achieved. Another alternative approach would be for Kenyatta, who known to be digital media-savvy, to use video conference with some of the digitally-inclined leaders.
Incoming visits
Focus on outbound presidential destinations should not distract attention from incoming ones. Inbound visits are beneficial on several fronts. Apart from initiation activity as seen for instance in Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi’s coming over as reciprocation of Kenyatta’s Italian trip, incoming visits are lighter on expenditure. While outbound trips have been identified as a drain on resources in flights and expenditure on intelligence, protocol and technical delegations, incoming visits are austere on all these costs. The exception in terms of protocol and security expenditure is with regards to particularly powerful dignitaries as the case was with President Barack Obama and Pope Francis’ visits. However, the cost-to-benefit analysis of hosting global leaders would indicate more gains than losses. For instance besides the string of economic deals signed during Obama’s visit – which doubled up as the Global Entrepreneurship Summit – the Kenyatta administration got a shot in the arm as it amounted to endorsement by the leader of a superpower and one who has Kenyan ancestry. Though Pope Francis’ visit may not have come with hefty economic goodies despite the obvious investment in security and protocol, the sheer soft power value may well offset the cost on Kenyan coffers.
As noted, at least 9 heads of state/government visited Kenya in 2015. This compares poorly to Kenyatta’s 16 outbound visits. Obviously incoming high level visits need not focus on heads of state to the exclusion of other visitors, high profile enough to be assessed as near-presidential. Some were: Ban Ki-Moon (UN Secretary General); Mukhisa Kituyi (UN Conference on Trade and Development Secretary General); Antonio Guterres (UHCR High Commissioner); Taleb Rifai (UN World Tourism Organization Secretary General); Sidiki Kaba (Assembly of State Parties of the Rome Statute, ICC President) and Neven Mimica (EU Commissioner for International Cooperation). However, much as these leaders of important multilateral organizations have a huge impact on Kenya’s foreign affairs, they cannot equate to leaders of sovereign states such that their visits cannot be assessed on a bilateral, state-to-state basis.
If the furore over external presidential trips is to be mitigated in 2016, one of the strategies would be for Kenya to attract more presidents and prime ministers. Fortuitously, Kenyatta will be vindicated in 2016 in that some of the expected high profile visits are a result of his 2015 trips abroad. For instance, it is expected that British Prime Minister David Cameron will be visiting sometime this year as a result of Kenyatta’s letter to in July and affirmed at a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of UNGAS in New York in September. This perhaps also explains the March 2015 visit by British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond. Though to a lesser extent, Cameron’s visit will have similar salutary effects as Obama’s visit.
Another vindication is that the sixth Tokyo International Conference on Africa’s Development (TICAD VI) is slated for July 2016 which perhaps explains Kenyatta’s Tokyo trip in March. All things remaining equal, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will be in attendance but perhaps more importantly in terms of incoming heads of state, it is expected that a good number of African leaders will be hosted here. Furthermore, a major United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) will be held the same July probably bringing a long a number of African heads of state. At the very least, Kenya can strategize to pull all stops and ensure a healthy attendance of the 54 African heads of states at both the TICAD and UNCTAD conferences which will be happening back to back. These and other events should convince us that Kenyatta will stay home much more this year than he did last year.
By Bob Wekesa, B.Ed (UoN), M.A (CUC), P.hD (CUC)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Steering Committee Member, Chinese in Africa, Africans in China Research Network.