Significance of John Kerry East Africa Visit

US Secretary of State John Kerry visited three countries in East Africa. The visit to Kenya and Djibouti was open in his itinerary but his visit to Somalia was surprising to say the least and according to FP's David Francis "too dangerous". It has been said that his visit to Kenya was to make preparations for President Obama's visit in July. For Kenya, a country that has suffered the brunt of terrorism in the past few years, Kerry's visit and that of President Obama, is a welcome sign of American support to Kenya's fight against Al Shabaab. Kerry's visit further highlight the strides Kenya has made in reshaping her foreign policy which, after the election of President Uhuru Kenyatta and his Deputy William Ruto was stained. Kenya's foreign affairs docket headed by Cabinet Secretary Amina Mohammed has been transformed remarkably. The country has been able to balance its international obligations well by luring new friends and even rediscovering old foes. An example was Kenya's welcoming of Iran Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in February where they discussed trade and investment between the two countries. 

John Kerry in Kenya

John Kerry while in Kenya met and discussed on various issues with top government officials, members of the opposition and civil societies. Of greater significance was the US pledge of $100 million to boost counter-terrorism in Kenya and a further $45 million to go to refugee aid. John Kerry also pledged support for deradicalization programs to prevent the youth from joining terror networks. US support for counter-terrorism will include intelligence sharing, law enforcement and border security. Although this support does not come without strings, it is a welcome addition to Kenya's fight against terrorism. Kerry's visit comes a month after the Garrisa university attacks that claimed 147 souls. 

Kerry's surprise visit to Somalia, a first for a US Secretary of State further buttress US efforts to combat violent extremism. It also showed according to Kerry "Washington's Commitment" to renewed ties between the two countries. Kerry met with Somali president Hassan Sheikh Mahmoud at the country's airport and later returned to Kenya. Key in their talks was insecurity caused by the Al Shabaab militant group. Kerry promised increased support of the AU mission to Somalia. 

Kerry in Somali - Picture courtesy of FP

Bradley Klapper reporting for Associated Press says Kerry's visit to Djibouti as one that highlights the importance of small nations in US policy. However, Djibouti remains a crucial state in the geopolitical setup of the Horn of Africa. The small country is base to US troops in Camp Lemmonier. With the ongoing Saudi airstrikes in Yemen aimed at Houthi rebels, it is expected that many Yemeni citizens will flee and take refuge in Somalia and Djibouti. Kerry will discuss the Yemen crisis together with his host President Omar Guelleh. 

Kerry while in Kenya also spoke on the Burundi situation which according to analysts is in the brink of a civil crisis. Pierre Nkurunziza, the Burundian president is seeking a third term contrary to the constitution and the Arusha reconciliation Accords. Protesters have since taken to the streets to oppose Nkurunziza's decision. Significantly, Kerry's East Africa visit illustrates US commitment to fighting terrorism in the region. For Kenya, the visit is another foreign policy triumph after a previous backlash and seemingly isolation.     

#US Foreign Policy: Similarities in President Obama and Bill Clinton Approaches

Every week we look at an article that is making waves in the world of international relations. This week we look at the US foreign policy. The latest issue of Foreign Policy Magazine looks at the decline of America's world influence. In what they term as 'declinism', the issue, drawing largely from Samuel Huntington's postulation of American tendency to fear decline, looks at how America's global influence in dwindling. Paul Kennedy's book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers which has given a historical account of the rise and fall of great civilizations has been used as reference to this seemingly American decline. Has America hit the Peak as FP discusses?

Reading Stephen Walt's opinion in the FP Magazine, he tries to explore the FP prospects of Madam Hillary Clinton if she wins the Democratic nomination and win the presidential elections in 2016. Walt asserts that "With her knock against Obama, Hillary Clinton was criticizing [during her interview with Atlantic] more than one former president's foreign policy." He goes on to explain the similarities in foreign policy between President Obama and President Clinton. It makes an interesting reading observing the distinct similarities of the two when it comes to formulation, approach and execution of FP goals. Walt cheekily calls it Obama's  (Bill)-Clintonesque approach. See article for further analysis.

 

Tanzania’s Foreign Policy: Need for Assertive Regional Approach

President Obama has been advancing American foreign policy this week.  First at the lawns of Rose Garden where he provided America’s withdrawal timetable from Afghanistan and at West Point where he spoke to the newest graduates of US Army. The catch-phrase of his speech was “America Must Always Lead”. President Obama affirmed that United States is a global leader and a nation that “must always lead on the world stage.” Some critics have labeled his speech as vacuous while others described it empty. America has always projected its foreign policy on a world stage. Its key foreign policy pillars include democracy, human rights, good governance, and world security. 

I followed Tanzania’s Foreign Minister Bernard Membe’s budget speech where he gave his ministry’s budget estimates, revenue and expenditure for the year 2013-2014. I picked up a number of foreign policy articulations from his speech. Tanzania has always played a significant role in world affairs. Historically, Tanzania has been the center for liberation struggle in Africa. Southern African countries such as Zimbabwe, South Africa, Mozambique, Angola and Namibia credit Tanzania for their liberation. Of late Tanzania has been embroiled in a diplomatic spat with Rwanda and at the time of writing this, British envoy to Tanzania is been accused of being complicit to the acquisition of Independent Power Tanzania Limited (IPTL) which is controversial. Foreign Minister Bernard Membe has also been hosting his Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davatoglu. These are all FP projections from Tanzania.

Bernard Membe’s budget speech in parliament outlined Tanzania’s stand on a number of world issues. He outlined Tanzania’s position on ongoing conflicts such as those in Syria, Central African Republic and Mali. As much as Tanzania is trying to project its foreign policy at the continental and world stage, it is imperative that regional FP should rank highest. Foreign policy has been defined as the strategic positioning of a state towards other states with national interests as the focal point. A well outlined foreign policy is fundamental in foreign engagements. Going by Membe’s speech in parliament, Tanzania seems to be somehow, neglecting regional policy. The excuse could be there is an East African Affairs Ministry which is tasked to deal with regional matters. This notwithstanding, the Foreign Affairs Ministry is the nerve of foreign policy articulation in any state. The speech did not exclusively address the diplomatic spat with Rwanda either. I was also expecting the speech to also touch on the threat of terrorism in neighboring Kenya and Tanzania’s seemingly isolation by the Coalition of the Willing (CoW) states of Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda. The Al Shabaab terror in Kenya could cross boarder and wreak havoc in Tanzania. Membe was however very articulate in economic diplomacy, where he contextualized it in terms of health, agriculture, livestock and fishing, industries and infrastructure and transport. He also buttressed the need of having dual citizenship in Tanzania.

Tanzania is geopolitically well positioned to be a focal point in the region. It should be more assertive in regional FP and just like the US have a say in many regional matters and lead at the regional stage.

The Future of American Diplomacy

Via the Diplomat

Is not doubling down on its great-power past, but in response to the "rise of the rest" is something more inclusive. Globalization has been changing U.S. foreign policy since the beginning of the American Republic. From our first diplomatic post in Tangier, Morocco founded in 1777, to the more than 285 diplomatic facilities around the world today operated by the U.S. Department of State, the business of diplomacy has evolved over time.

While it is obvious that thriving markets and global security go hand in hand, along with America’s central role in both arenas, often our diplomacy and institutions do not reflect this reality. In other words, the channels of influence that America could once rely on—large, multinational consortia of first-world powers—are waning in power. If one thing is clear to ambassadors around the world, it’s that U.S. diplomacy needs a jumpstart into the 21st century.

The key for American diplomacy is not doubling down on its great-power past, but harnessing the future on the ground. The enthusiasm and entrepreneurial spirit that became infectious in the “Arab Spring” countries will remain the norm. Young people are tapping into the culture of innovation, even amidst the political difficulties and a lack of access to money and resources. In turn, effective, pragmatic partnerships based on shared objectives—economic growth, stability and more—will be the engine for increased security and prosperity. This is the future of diplomacy, not just at the U.S. State Department—but worldwide.

On The Ground 

While terms such as “Economic Statecraft,” “Global Engagement,” and “Strategic Partnerships” have come into fashion in Washington, the tangible impact of these buzzwords is difficult to measure. Ironically, some of the most challenging places for U.S. foreign policy represent some of the greatest opportunities for these new approaches in 21-century statecraft.

The key is to create and empower stable business conditions in unstable places through private-sector leadership. The intersection of public and private sectors has now blurred the lines in diplomacy. Today, our diplomats are beginning to understand that public-private partnerships can get the most out of available resources, technology, knowledge, and networks. In fact, these partnerships might be the most effective foreign policy tool America has at its disposal today.

Take Israel and Palestine, where U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is pushing towards a final diplomatic peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Last year, I visited the Palestinian Territories to support an event called “Celebration of Innovation,” a locally organized business development and investor pitch competition. Essentially the State Department’s own prototype of Shark Tank, fifteen young Palestinian entrepreneurs were selected from hundreds of applicants to compete for the chance to present their ideas to an international audience. The two winners, Alaa—a twenty-four year old from the Gaza Strip who had never left his home before winning the chance to pitch his business—and Aya, the first Palestinian woman to own and raise sheep from Nabulus, are representative of a global change. If one thing became clear, it was that the next generation doesn’t want charity; they want a chance. 

Working with the best and brightest that this troubled region had to offer, their ingenuity—especially limited money and shaky security—is impressive. While observing the number of Palestinian businessmen and entrepreneurs that had succeeded throughout the Arab world, despite the odds, a Palestinian professor commented to me that, “Diamonds are created under pressure, therefore it is only natural that Palestinians entrepreneurs are like diamonds within this region.”

Alaa beamed with pride as he presented his business idea of creating miniature furniture for densely packed living conditions, like those in cramped New York studios, that he invented to deal with the overcrowded apartment in Gaza that his family lived in. Aya, short and covered in a traditional head-scarf, electrified the crowd with her energy as she pitched her idea of raising organic sheep to be locally sourced, given restrictions faced in the West Bank of imports from neighboring countries. In a packed room that was being broadcast live on television, both of these young entrepreneurs won grants to further develop their businesses.The amount of these micro-investments were negligible when balanced against the international aid and development budgets that the U.S. lends to their homeland. But the impact of empowering these young leaders—and the jobs they create—will be felt long beyond the legacy of the political leaders that today dictate the terms of the ongoing peace process. Cities like Richmond and Chicago have seen a link between creating jobs and lowering crime; Gaza and Nabulus are no different.

Changing Global Dynamics

The international system, which until the 1990s saw power disproportionally concentrated in North America and Europe, has since witnessed a dramatic change in distribution to other players—mostly in Asia and South America. To understand why 20th-century diplomacy needs an upgrade, it’s worth a look at the recent changes on the global stage.

Brazil, once a poster-child for income inequality, has enjoyed its economic renaissance following a prolonged lull. Indonesia, although still manacled by corruption, has evolved from an insular military dictatorship into a politically stable democracy with a promising economy. India has gone from an aid-dependent regional power to a hotbed of entrepreneurship, with its economy more than doubling in size between 2002 and 2008.

In that same period, Turkey’s economy has more than tripled, accompanied by a strong sense of identity and a brash self-confidence. Last, but certainly not least, is the dramatic rise of China, which in 1990 had a gross domestic product per capita less than India’s, but is today almost four times as wealthy. Yet with each of these economic successes comes development challenges, as played out recently in the streets of Brazil and Turkey through protest movements, not to mention the ongoing tumult playing out throughout the Arab world.

This so-called “rise of the rest” presents the United States with a decision. On the one hand, it could incorporate these new players into established systems of global governance, more accurately reflecting the distribution of international power and strengthen international cooperative mechanisms. On the other hand, if the West were to continue to resist or deny these new global players a place at the high table, there is a strong likelihood that the entire global system – which the West created and carefully nurtured over the past half century for its benefit, and that of others – may be jeopardized.