THE UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI.

BY: VANNESA KERUBO OSORO.

R140/24098/2019.
TOPIC: THE IMPACT OF MULTILATERAL DIPLOMACY
ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF KENYA.
1.0 INTRODUCTION.
Diplomacy is the conduct of international relations through professional
diplomats with regards to issues, treaties, war, trade, peace, economy and
security. Multilateral diplomacy is the practice of involving more than two nations
or parties in achieving diplomatic solutions to common problems around the
world. Development is the process of bringing about social change that allows
people to achieve their human potential.

The difference between diplomacy and multilateral diplomacy is that diplomacy

is a tool used to achieve the national interests of state actors and international
actors while multilateral diplomacy is mainly the practice that involves
negotiations and discussions which allow collective and cooperative actions
between states and non-state actors.

1.1 BACKGROUND.
Multilateral diplomacy was recognized to be a corner stone to the success and
future development of states as it would have ensured formulation and finding
solutions to global challenges that are transnational in nature. Some of the issues
include peace and security, international trade, climate change, human rights and
solving transnational crimes. Multilateral diplomacy has developed other areas of
the world and not just Africa, an example is USA and China.

The United States is known for its great connection with multilateralism and its
leadership in multilateral institutions like the World Bank and other regional
development banks for its flagging. Scott Morris 2015 1 highlights that multilateral
institutions have provided a range of instruments greater than those provided by
1Realizing the power of multilateralism in the US development policy . Scott Morris and Madeleine Gleave. 2015.
the US bilaterally, for multilateral institutions offer more in the way of equity,
investments, guarantees, insurance and knowledge products. The non grant
instruments led to the US development initiatives such as infrastructure
development and private sector development.

United States has developed widely due to their diplomatic relations with most
nations around the world managing its relationship with foreign governments,
international organizations and people of other countries. Multilateral institutions
provide the United States a political buffer in other countries, where direct
engagement with US officials is problematic. For example the US-Pakistan
relationship has experienced degrees of estrangement over the years mainly
because of a shifting domestic political environment and widespread anti-
Americanism in Pakistan2. In fact, public attitude survey suggests that nearly 90
percent of Pakistanis have an unfavorable view of the United States. Nonetheless,
Pakistan has compelling development needs and remains a geopolitically
important country for global security, counter terrorism and national security
issues. The USA cannot wish away Pakistan, for USA is one of the largest sources
of direct foreign investment in Pakistan and remains Pakistan’s largest export
market. The US government supports this relationship this relationship by funding
reverse trade delegations, business conferences, technical assistance and
business outreach3.

Scott Morris 20154 explains that multilateral channels afford the US more
opportunities to achieve positive development outcomes with its foreign
assistance dollars. In various initiatives that evaluate global aid agencies,
multilateral organizations have consistently outperformed. Anthony 2018 5 adds
that the US was instrumental in organizing much of the current systems which
includes a set of organizations from the economic focus of the World Bank group,
to the social development priorities of UN agencies, to purpose specific funds

2 Pew Research Global Attitudes Project. “Attitudes towards the US,” in Americas Global Image remains more
positive than China. Washington: Pew Research Center, 2013.
3 U.S. Relations with Pakistan. Bilateral Relations Fact Sheet. Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs. 2021.
4 Realizing the power of multilateralism in the US Development Policy, Scott Morris and Madeleine Gleave. 2015.
5 Advancing US leadership through multilateral participation. Anthony F. Pipa. 2018.
such as Global Fund for HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM), and the
Global Partnership of Education (GPE).

China has become a noticeable actor in the array of multinational institutions. Its
participation and its acceptance of the norms incorporated in those institutions.
Shen Wei 20086 explains that China great participation with the UN and its great
relationship with the G8, G13 and G20, which are nations that came into a
consensus and formed groups to build a new paradigm for international
cooperation, has shifted its global view and diplomacy from isolation to
multilateralism.

China has conformed to the trend of economic globalization by opening wider to

the outside world and promoting economic trade cooperation with other
countries on the basis of equity and mutual benefit, and it has led to the trade
development of China in today’s world. Foreign trade has become one of the
most dynamic and fastest growing sectors, placing China among the world’s
fastest growing country. Chinas foreign trade has strengthened national ties with
the rest of the world and effectively pushed forward the country’s modernization
prosperity and progress. China joined WTO in 2001 and Chinas trade service
entered a new stage of development and it quickened its integration into the
global economy while its foreign trade has further been invigorated. China has
grown into an open economy, participating greatly in the international division of
labor and competition, introducing advanced technology, equipment and
management methods. Utilization of foreign direct investment has greatly
Utilization of foreign direct investment has greatly promoted Chinas technological
progress and industrial upgrading and also improved management and market
competitiveness of enterprises7.

Chinas relation with third world countries led to the extensive growth of the
country both economically and politically. China fully supported the people of
Asia, Africa and Latin America in the struggle against imperialism, colonialism and
hegemony, with no political conditions but provided economic assistance. As a
result many of those countries entered into diplomatic relation with China and
6 Shen Wei, In the mood for multilateralism? Chinas evolving global world. 2008.
7 Chinas Foreign Trade. Embassy of the people’s republic of China in the Unites States of America. 2011.
the visits between leaders boosted steady relationship between them8. According
to Paul Hanle 20209 China has expanded its diplomatic and economic relations,
and launched new institutions like Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and
positioning itself a donor of much needed public goods through policies like the
vast amount of infrastructure through Belt and Road Initiative. China has a
significant new leverage over individual countries across the globe, and it is
demonstrating willingness to tie financial commitments to support multilateral
policy settings.

Africa was arbitrarily divided under colonial rule and the political boarders with
no affiliations made state building in Africa to be a difficult project. Even though
there are historical divisions in Africa, Africans developed a strong focus on unity
and integration of the continent of Africa and formed blocs in multilateral
organizations like the AU and the UN and other regional blocs like the EAC,
ECOWAS, COMESA and SADC. Most of the countries that developed from the
diplomatic triumph, states like Ghana, Egypt, Tanzania and Kenya and were
among them.

Ghana’s successful struggle with independence and its entry into the UN inspired
a wave of self determination and decolonization efforts. Ghana has involved itself
with other nations around the world, and it has shown cooperation by being a
member of various regional and international organizations like the UN, AU, WTO,
ECOWAS, Commonwealth, NEPAD (New Partnership for African Development)
and PANAFEST(Pan African Festival of Art and Culture). Through this organization
Ghana has grown politically, economically and culturally aligned with other
countries. Ghana has involved itself in multilateral trade negotiations through
Ghana’s inter institutional Committee (IIC). Alfred Tumbe 201810 explains that
trade has positively impacted the economic development of Ghana. The efforts
from the WTO and GATT (General Arrangement on Tariffs and Trade), who are set

8 The third wave of establishing diplomatic relations with other countries. Ministry of foreign affairs of China.
2014.
9 How the world is responding to a changing China. Paul Hanle, Lucas Tcheyan. 2020.
10 Alfred Tumbe Yennu. International Trade and Economic Growth in Ghana; Benefits, Constraints and Impacts.
2018.
to promote free trade among countries around the world have immensely
benefited Ghana through reduced trade barriers and free trade promotion.

Ghana has an interim Economic Partnership (EPA) with EU, which will provide
duty free and quota free access to Europe’s market. Ghana major trading markets
are China, India, Belgium, Netherlands, South Africa and USA which has made it
eligible for duty free access to their market under African Growth and
Opportunity Act (AGOA). Isaac Osei 200111 unfolds that through agriculture Ghana
can promote products like cocoa beans and cocoa products, fish and fish
products, cashews, tubers and tropical fruit which form part of her most dynamic
non-traditional export subsector. Through its wide participation with WTO
negotiations on agriculture and services are built in agenda thus creating
awareness on Ghana’s trade interest, economic solutions and development
objectives.

Through the support that Ghana gets from, Aids, organizations and the World
Bank, it has grown in various ways and it takes pride on their accomplishments.
Ghana has become a well governed state, which has resulted to prosecution and
conviction of human traffickers; it has rescued victims and finalized a national
plan of action. Ghanaians also take pride in their civil liberties, like the freedom of
press, speech, association and religion. There freedoms are enshrined in Ghana’s
constitution. Ghana has also gotten a lot of support from international
organizations for its development; USAID collaborates with development partners
to support Ghana’s efforts to achieve economic development goals. The United
Kingdom Agency for International Development (UKAID) is implementing a
business regulatory reform aimed at improving the trade environment and
Ghana’s doing business indicator ranking. The World Bank is also designing a
trade sector support program for Ghana. With Ghana hosting the African
Continental Free Trade Agreement (AFCFTA), most development partners are
looking at supporting the policy process and infrastructures to assist Ghana
operationalize this initiative12.

11 Isaac Osei, JITAP Cluster 2, “Strategies for multilateral Trade Negotiations and of Implementation aspects of the
WTO Agreements. 2001.
12 USAID From the American People: Country development cooperation strategy.
 Egypt has widely participated in diplomatic representation by playing an active
role in the UN and its specialized agencies as peace, security and development.
Egypt has strived to support the development of many African countries by
enhancing cooperation with them in many areas. Egypt has also been a diplomatic
voice for African countries like it has been presiding over discussions from critical
performance of cooperation between the governments of Sudan and South Sudan
to defeating the terror threats that confront Africa and beyond. Amira Abdel
201813 explains that Africa was a key focus on Egypt’s foreign policy when Egypt
supported national liberation movements and contributed to founding the
Organization of African Unity (OAU). Egypt helped these movements to get their
demands heard at the United Nations. It allowed many national liberation
movements from East, West and Southern Africa to open political offices in the
country, and use Cairo as a media headquarters to set up radio stations
broadcasting in African languages.

Egypt’s development policy is considered a key objective to attract foreign

investment and also obtain economic assistance and facilitate technological
transfers. Egypt encourages regional and international cooperation based on
peaceful coexistence, economy and political stability. Expanding trade with other
countries and within the region is a vital approach towards integration in the
international market. Over the years Egypt has signed various multilateral and
bilateral trade agreements that have given Egypt great potential to promote and
develop its export base. These agreements have given Egypt access to the world’s
largest markets and present an excellent opportunity for profitable investment
and growing trade. Egypt’s membership in Multilateral Trade Agreements
includes Agdir, COMESA, the Euro-Med Partnership and the Greater Arab Free
Trade Area (GAFTA)14.

According to Mykell 201015, Egypt has transformed itself economically from an

administered economy to a free market economy through the intervention of the
IMF and the World Bank. The economic freedom helped ensure the Egyptian
government pursues policy reforms to reduce public debt and upgrade
13 New departures in Egypt’s relations with sub-Saharan Africa. Amira Mohamed Abdel. 2018.
14 American Chamber of commerce in Egypt inc.
15 The impact of globalization in Egypt. Mykell Mathieu. 2010.
institutional performance. Egypt economy relies mainly on agriculture, media,
petroleum imports, natural gas and tourism. Tourism has been a principle
economic sector for Egypt for a longtime, because Egypt is favored with her
geographical location close to the European market and has abundant famous
historical monuments located all over the country. Foreign exchange earned from
the tourism sector is a significant source of income for Egypt. Egypt was
supported by the IMF and the World Bank under a structural adjustment program
and there was a significant improvement in the tourism sector in Egypt. (Kimio
Fujita 2000)16.

Kenya’s diplomatic relations goes back to the years before it acquired its
independence. Kenya formed close diplomatic relations with Britain and USA
bilaterally, but later it started to recognize that international organizations are
tools of multilateral diplomacy. Kenya begun to actively participate in operations
and functions of the international and regional organizations that it joined like the
UN, AU, COMESA, IGAD and the EAC.

According to Kithinji M. 201617Kenya’s active membership and participation in

international affairs has strengthened its diplomatic arguments, engagements and
entire foreign policy. Kenya’s foreign policy recognizes the importance of
cooperation regionally, internationally and through multilateral organizations and
is also directed in advancing and enhancing constructive multilateral associations
with other regions of the world. This is to ensure Kenya’s national interests are
assured to secure Kenya’s socio-economic concerns18

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM.

16 The study on tourism development projects in the Arab republic of Egypt. 2000. Kimio Fujita.
17 Kithinji M.M., Rotich J.P., (Eds). Kenya After 50: Reconfuguring historical, political and policy milestones. 2016.
18 Kenya’s foreign policy document 2014-2018.
The development of any country is important for it enables social change that
allows people to achieve their human potential. Development enables a rise in
the level and quality of life of the people, the creation and expansion of regional
income and employment. For people will use their potential to either become
traders, salaried employers or it builds the socio economic activities of human
beings. That means development makes people live above their poverty line.
When development is attained people are easily economically strong. But if there
is no development people will always live below the poverty line, where there will
be no allowed network therefore communication will be a barrier that will not
allow people to trade even locally. This underdevelopment makes people not be
able to provide for their families basic needs like food, shelter, clean water,
education and good health. And when people are not able to access the
necessities they need, they end up not surviving the difficult state. The lack of
even basic health services increases the high chances of any type of disease
attacking and killing the infected ones. There will also be very poor food security
hence people will starve and even die from starvation.

1.3 OBJECTIVES.
1.3.1 Main Objective.
To analyze the impact of multilateral diplomacy on the development of Kenya.
1.3.2 Specific Objective.
1. To assess the activities of multilateral diplomacy in Kenya.

2. To assess the challenges that Kenya faces in multilateral diplomacy with other
countries.

1.3.3 Research Questions.

1. What is the impact of multilateral diplomacy activities on the development of
Kenya?

2. What are the challenges that Kenya faces multilateral diplomacy with other
countries?

1.4 LITERATURE REVIEW.

1.4.1 INTRODUCTION.
This section represents an account of literature of continuing debates and
narratives on the challenges of multilateral diplomacy. Also this section has a
summary of data from different analysts that have conducted their research in
the same field of study. The target, methods and findings of contrasting
researches are well specified and it has been split into units relating to the
research study for clear understanding. The challenges explained below include
legitimacy, decision making and negotiation, bureaucracy and representation.

1.4.2 LEGITIMACY.
Legitimate is conforming to the law and rules. Legitimacy is the right and
acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a regime. An institution is
legitimate when it is accepted as appropriate and worthy of being obeyed by
relevant audiences. Legitimacy is central for international organizations to make a
difference in world politics. While states have granted international organizations
more political authority in recent decades, in expectation that they can help solve
pressing problems and shape practices. International organizations long-term
capacity to deliver is conditioned on their legitimacy in the eyes of governments
and citizens. Legitimacy dynamics are also paramount in global governance for it
enables international organizations to make a difference in the world of politics
and also influences international organizations to remain relevant as the focal
arena for the different states. Newman et al 2006 points out that for there to be
an effective legitimacy everyone would need to be bound to the same laws. I
support that for legitimacy results from the inclusiveness of multilateral
institutions and the logical diversity of their members and it is through the
establishment of well established institutions like the World Trade Organization
(WTO) and United Nations (UN) that information about other state policies are
solidly established made effective for all and generates support for the affected
ones.

Inis L. Claude 1962 argued that for almost 40 years ago the United Nations
provided “collective legitimation” for state policies. Such legitimation is evident
with respect to oppressive acts by states by involving use of military force. Except
in situations of self-defense the UN-Charter declares unilateral military actions by
stats to be illegitimate. But in 2003 the United States and its allies invaded Iraq a
sovereign country without the authority of the UN Security Council. This resulted
to international resentment, death and injuries of a lot of people including the
military and the people of Iraq, destruction of property, failure to find weapons of
mass destruction and constrains in legitimation structure. Only the UN can
provide a globally based endorsement for action. In this view, actions such as
armed intervention against a state which would otherwise be subjected to
condemnation become legitimate when authorized by member of an organization
of states such as the WTO and UN. But the US selective use of multilateral
diplomacy alongside universal intervention has led to questioning of the system
as a whole. Tucker and Hendrickson 2005, talk about how different explanations
of American legitimacy being maintained such as how they feel obliged to all the
rules initially following the cold war when there was a struggle between USA and
USSR and also how every international law broken by America does not
automatically be noted as illegal.

The US considered itself a supreme nation and this supremacist ideology is a

contradiction to the open society and legitimacy principle for it makes it okay for
larger states to deviate the rules, laws and principals. The US action has called
into question the legitimacy of the system of multilateral diplomacy on several
occasions. Like when the US failed to recognize the democratically elected party
of Hamas in Palestine while appointing itself a mediator in peace negotiations
between the Palestine’s and Israel. The question was raised again on how fair and
legitimate the system of multilateral diplomacy can be. Finnemore 2009 points
out that this shakes the whole structure of multilateral diplomacy and forces
people to look for other ways to deal with their conflicts and questions. I concur
for multilateral institutions are held together by a set of ideas. The whole system
of multilateral cooperation rests in the pretext that everyone must work within
the system. But these black marks of lack of cooperation, supremacist ideology
and hypocrisy in the multilateral diplomacy system are what have made
recognition of a common ground for good and making concession on all sides’
impossible instead national interest have triumphed.
In a democratic era, the obvious answer would be “on the basis of domestic
procedures.” But there is no prospect of democracy on a global basis. The
diversity of values as well as interests in the world is immense. Relatively few
countries have a long history of democratic practices entailing the active
involvement in politics of even a substantial minority of the citizens. Soros 2004
points out that there are well functioning democratic institutions on one hand
and other countries with repressive regimes on the other hand. The simple task of
working together with other states that might have major disagreements with is a
challenge to many. Iran, Israel, Venezuela and the US are all members of the UN
and it is not too difficult to imagine the potential of a disagreement if they are
required to work together in way that is legitimate or is accepted to be legitimate
by others. The debates about globalization and democratic governance reflect a
disconnect between the normative basis for legitimacy in the contemporary world
and realities of multilateralism. Newman et al 2006 believes that the multilateral
system only remains legitimate in everyone’s eyes if everyone plays by the rules. I
disagree because multilateral organizations are not organized democratically,
with equal votes for each individual but on a static basis. For if democratic
practices alone could provide legitimacy for institutions that exercise coercion,
multilateral organizations would not be legitimate tools of governance.

1.4.3 BUREAUCRACY.
Bureaucracy is a system for controlling or managing a country, company or an
organization that is operated by a large number of officials employed to follow
rules carefully. Bureaucracy refers to civilian career official’s political appointees
as well as military officers. Bureaucrats are not only different in powers but also
different in ideals of what policies are to be implemented. International
bureaucracies conceptualize authority as the ability of one actor to use
institutional and long resources to induce differences from others. And as they
point out this ability it not only involves other actors to do what they want but
they can always tell right from wrong. However there has been too much
unwieldy bureaucracy who can be pronounced as inefficient, for there are too
many councils and committees which make agreements and decision making
slow.

The precedented congress of Vienna had multitude of parties represented on an

unheard of scale and the United Nations was the institutionalized successor. It
bureaucratically set up committees, sub-committees and groupings by
geographical and economic relations. Back in the days a few nobles would sit
around a table and discuss away the fate of nations they did not belong to and
because of the too much bureaucracy it was pronounced inefficient. One of the
most common accusations leveled at, multilateral bodies such as the UN would be
that of it being talk and no action on the bureaucracy being so vast with
permanent secretariats, assemblies, councils and committees, working groups
being involved, that in the case of an emergency decision making can be slow and
can fail to react in time foe a fast developing situation. Buzan 1918 believes that
The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea was a poorly received
party because the proceedings were too slow and caught up in bureaucracy. I
agree because there was vast differences of the participants in the positions and
policies, this created multitude of problems like the lack of proper representation
and negotiation and itself became a task of great difficulty.

The United States is much criticized for its universalist actions in the years and it
can partly be blamed on the perception of multilateral diplomacy being
insufficient and too wrapped up in bureaucracy to deal with many of today’s
problems. UN’s major role is the prevention of transnational conflict as it was
seen in the first half of the 21st century; yet multilateral approaches to conflict
resolution have failed to bring about a swift and lasting conclusion to many recent
conflicts. One of the biggest failures was seen in the Balkan conflict which started
in Croatia in 1991 and the conflict spilled over Bosnia in 1992. There were human
rights abused on all sided but Serbian security forces and Serbian irregulars took
the lead in horrific massacres, ethnic cleansing, torture, rapes and use of
concentration camps. UN peace keepers were brought in to quell the fighting and
were seen as ineffective. International peace efforts to stop the war failed and the
UN was humiliated and over 100,000 people died. The diagram below represents
the Balkan wars and the states involved during the conflicts.
Figure 1

Figure 1: Map of Yugoslavia. A federation of Serbs, Croats, Bosnia Muslims, Albanians and
Slovenia.

The war ended in 1995 after NATO bombed the Bosnia Serbs and Muslim Croat armies made gains on
the ground. Atiyas 1995 explains that there were two major attempts at peace negotiations led by the
EU in Balkans that failed before the US intervened successfully. The US enabled peace by dividing Bosnia
into two self-governing entities a Bosnia Serb republic and Muslim Croat federation lightly bound by a
central government. This Universalist approach has presented a great challenge to multilateral
diplomacy. I concur to the fact that ever since; United States foreign policy has seen more and more
successes in the Universalist approach at conflict resolution. Many in the US see it as a better alternative
to the cumbersome and time consuming bureaucracy multilateral approach to international relations.
This has led to questioning of the system for there has been too much unwieldy bureaucracy which can
be pronounced as inefficient.
Weiss 2003, is the opinion that amongst all the layers of bureaucracy, the UN is
fixed in shape and purpose. It was designed in a way that overwhelmingly favored
the major powers of the day and still reflects this even though times have
changed and various state actors have fallen on the international scene, yet they
will not give up their privileged positions. This has seen in the bid to convince US,
which is known as a sole super power of the world that is in everyone’s best
interest to work within the multilateral system to confront the multinational
challenges facing the world and not to forge ahead on a self-righteous Universalist
path. UN’s multilateral diplomacy however no longer seems to aim at sustaining
world peace as mandated in the charter but in combating US unilateralism in the
world today. Andrew 2012 explains that this presents a major challenge to the UN
as a multilateral forum of diplomacy as while its structure and functioning is seen
as being set and rigid. I agree for many of the problems facing it today like
preserving international peace while being never ending is ever changing in
complexity. The fundamental structure of the multilateral forum is resistant to
change and the bureaucratic make up means it will most probably stay this way
which will lead to a never ending stagnation in the system.

1.4.4 DECISION MAKING AND NEGOTIATION.

Decision making is the process of making choices by identifying a decision,
gathering information and assessing alternative resolutions. On the other hand
negotiation is a dialogue between two or more people or parties intended to
reach a beneficial outcome over one or more issues where a conflict exists with
respect to at least one of these issues. The goal of decision making and
negotiation is to work together to achieve the best decision that the parties are
capable of in the circumstances in which they find themselves. The key is to dig
deep for the best available information about each sides concern and willingness
to declare appropriate transparency. Zarman and Barman 1982 suggest that
negotiation is a method of combining values to form an agreed solution. I agree
for when they are pointed out clearly and there is common ground for an
agreement there will be room for great decisions. Decision making does
determine a course of action with major positive consequences.

Multilateral diplomacy is an instrument for cooperation, transparency and

consensus, while pointing out the importance of international institutions. This is
where the interactions take place and the issues are set on the table and they are
discussed for a common ground and solution. Where there is a group of people
certain methods and techniques are used to come to agreed outcomes, these
techniques are used because in the opinion of the participants this would be the
fairest way to reach a decision. Hedrick and Holloman 1972 suggest that one
method of reaching a decision is that of majority voting which is neutral and
decisions can be made fairly quickly. I disagree for voting is nothing near the
accurate measure of the collective opinion for the majority vote violates minority
rights in multilateralism. An example is during the Third United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) held between 1974-1978. The UN’s
norm of simple majority voting was not desirable as it did not lead to a lasting
legal regime that also led to a set of separate treaties. These threw up challenges
to the negotiators for the negotiation did not feel like they were part of the
process that would be legitimate and stand the chance for success. It is evident
that with no interest in an area casting votes with those that have invested much
in the subject in the case on UNCLOS iii, the powerful minorities will always end
up eliminated who in turn ignore decisions reached without their involvement.

Consensus is a general agreement about something. Today a number of decisions

are reached via consensus such as the UN Disarmament Commission and
meetings of the executive board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It is
often a way of searching for widely acceptable solutions. Berridge 2005 defines
consensus as the attempt to achieve the agreement of all participants in a
multilateral conference without the need for a vote and its inevitable divisiveness.
I support that consensus enables unamity in multilateral diplomacy, for it helps
move things where there is no outright opposition when moving forward and
there is a general feel of fairness and further discussions is not needed.
Consensus has been chosen many at times over the majority vote but the process
has a number of limitations and this produces another challenge to multilateral
diplomacy. Consensus is often exceptionally difficult to reach in multilateral forum
in that agreements are blocked until personal demands are satisfied , which often
drags the process of decision making longer than it should last .

Buzan 1981 believes the substitution of voting for simple consensus procedures
runs a risk of talks with no end which go on and on and maybe result to no
decision at all. I agree for the move away from majority voting to active consensus
weakens the power held by smaller nations who have tended to vote in blocks so
as to increase their voice. Smaller countries are underestimated even if they have
been losing out in terms of size and resources, they have been seen as vulnerable
as frontline states to impacts of climate change and also their limited capacity in
terms of diplomatic representation and lack of expertise in negotiations. This has
led to being degraded by the bigger states as they actively participate in
international organizations and more often leave out smaller states. This has led
to the inactive participation of smaller states especially from Europe, Caribbean
region and Pacific States from not engaging in multilateral diplomatic decisions
for the fear of being left out, being looked down upon and lack of voice
developing the diplomatic world. The powerful minorities in turn ignore decisions
reached without their consent.

Another challenge facing decision making and negotiation is the issue of

implementation. Implementation is the execution of a decision or a plan and
putting it into effect. Barston 2014 points out that certain decisions reached
through consensus are left unfulfilled. I agree for decision making and
implementation of said decisions has its own strengths and weaknesses as some
will suit other parties better than the others. Democratic societies hold
transparency and accountability as some of the highest held values in the system.
But complications arise when the negotiation and the bargaining are conducted
behind closed doors. An example is when the US, China and Russia did not sign up
for the International Criminal Court (ICC), the US also refused to sign onto the Law
of the Sea Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol, that were operationalized to fight global
warming and reduce green house gases emissions with agreed individual targets.
These decisions were implemented when all nations were present but most
nations like the US backed out from most of them for reasons that have not been
directly explained. The pacific Island countries like Vanuatu, Samoa and Tuvalu
which are small states were instrumental in the leadership of drafting the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) and the Kyoto
Protocol. They established the agendas and procedures of the regime but there
decisions were not implemented ideally as should be and they were not
supported by every state. The US agreed to fight global warming in other ways for
what would be the point of coming together to make such agreements. The
demand for transparency and accountability amongst all states has created a
unique set of pressures and concerns for negotiators in multilateral setting.

1.4.5 REPRESENTATION.
Representation is the action of speaking or acting on behalf of someone or a
state. Representation is key in engagement for it allows minorities to feel
validated and allows everyone to express their opinions comfortably. This creates
an environment where ideas are diverse, perspectives are varied and everyone
feels valued. Ever since the emergence of multilateral diplomacy since the 19 th
century, there is a huge increase in organizations such as the G20 summit, the EU
and this development of various conference type groups means that all members
must represent one message. Representation has been used by international
organizations to bring international agents together and this has enabled the
management of political influence amongst its principals. States or delegates
elected to regional seats represents their states at a fair national level. An
example is every country has an ambassador that represents their country in a
different country. The representation of countries in organizations has grown
because of the geographical balance formulae of various bodies in the
international system. As shown in the diagram below where ambassadors,
diplomats, representatives of different states were present in the UN summit to
discuss on diplomatic issues.

Figure 2
Representation of ambassadors in UN general assembly meeting.

Although relationships between countries have generally improved there are a

variety who are becoming involved in multilateral diplomacy. In terms of the
system set up for multilateral diplomacy to operate within, how the current
diplomatic system is engaging with groups both inside and outside the system has
been a challenge. These are groups ranging from Non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), transnational corporations (TNCs) and also intergovernmental
organizations (IGOs). Thakur 2007, points out that these groups have become
progressively more assertive in demanding a voice at the top of a decision table,
by trying to participate in global governance although on many occasions they
have helped solve problems and improve lives. I disagree for the involvement of
NGOs, TNCs and IGOs in the system of multilateral diplomacy can be a great
challenge. For the diversity among actors has created opportunities for new
systems and new partnerships to form for old ones to be strengthened and
transformed. However the non-state actors and other groups like NGOs are
largely absent from contemporary conversations which are needed for increased
legal codification and global governance. These organizations need to keep
themselves out of biasness of state actors and multilateral systems and keep a
fairly neutral ground. They need to maintain their individuality and remain
independent in their decisions and work. By differentiating themselves from and
criticizing certain international institutions like the G8 summits or the WTO, they
gain more influence and sharpen their profile NGOs and TNCs represent the
communities at large and their involvement with international organizations will
not effectively be advantageous because of their many differences in decision
making processes thus creating another challenge to bureaucrats.

Another challenge presented by multilateral diplomatic forums is that by allowing

universal attendance such as the UN, members are allowed a say in each others
affairs whether they have an interest or not. An example is the US and its stance
towards China and its relation to human rights. China is very sensitive to the
outside world perception of it, yet US constantly draws attention to its human
rights violation. These are the violations in terms of the west liberal views, but not
in the eyes of China’s government. Americans say that China does not respect the
personal freedoms of its people and it galvanizes the public by shadow boxing
with the ‘globalists’ who dare suggest that governments everywhere should be
bound by the same standards. Mc Grath 2019 points out that the Chinese
government’s stands out for the reach and influence of its anti-rights efforts. The
result for the human rights cause is a powerful centralized state, a circle of like
minded rulers, a void of leadership among countries that might have stood for
human rights and a disappointing collection of democracies willing to strangle the
system of rights that they are supposed to uphold. I agree because this situation
puts a diplomat or a representative of the country in quite a difficult situation
where they may feel obliged to intervene in the country’s internal affairs. This
meddling in country’s international affairs can in some ways be legitimized in the
current multilateral system which some countries are against because of their
diversity with democrats.
I concur that representation enables engagement of the different countries. The
question is what is being actually being represented and is it a true impression of
the membership as a whole or is it fixed on representing the interests of the
powerful members. For there are a number of different countries with different
cultural values and they will not have the same view of point as some other
countries. This has created a major challenge to the unity and cooperation of the
countries and it has also strangled the system of multilateral diplomacy.

1.4.6 SUMMARY.
In this section we have discussed the challenges facing multilateral diplomacy. We
have seen how the dialectical problem of the nation’s interests versus the
international systems interests has presented a unique challenge not only to
multilateral diplomacy but to the system as a whole. The challenges such as
decision making and multilateral negotiation, bureaucracy, representation and
legitimacy have caused a negative impact to the system which has negatively
affected the unity and cooperation of countries in enabling global governance.
Major world problems should be discussed focusing on common grounds and
working to ensure that states and the people in it are not exposed to any sought
of suffering and when multilateral diplomacy in practice fails to overcome these
challenges the world will not function as it should.

1.5 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK.

This study was led by the normative theory of multilateralism which focuses on
the power of norms to guide a state behavior suggesting that governments
choose multilateralism because it is widely considered to be an appropriate way
to engage. The global norms support a policy for multilateral interactions with
other states and at a systematic state there can be shared expectations of
multilateralism. The normative theory basis of multilateralism is also in the
context of humanitarian intervention. The legitimacy of a country’s policy
depends on the multilateral approach and multilateral norms reflect the collective
identities of the countries involved. It starts with the context of liberal people
engaged in the common in the common realization of rights, freedoms and the
life chances of their citizens while seeking to preserve self-government and
sovereignty. That is why multilateralism is accepted for conducting foreign policy
which is seen as legitimate and normatively dominant to the present world
development democracies. The theory’s context identifies the domestic norms
and values of the people and the shared norms have found a solid support for
multilateralism which has led to the world’s order.

1.6 METHODOLOGY.
1.6.1 Introduction.
This section analyzes the research methods that were used in the study of
collecting and analyzing data that is relevant to the research. It comprises of the
research design, study area, data collection, ethical consideration, scope and
limitation.

1.6.2 Research design.

The study is about the impact of multilateral diplomacy on the development of
Kenya. The research used a case study design because Africa is a big continent
with several countries. This study therefore used Kenya to determine the effect of
multilateral diplomacy on the development of Kenya as a whole. The study has
used secondary data collection methods and it utilized relevant books, journal
articles, the internet and scholarly empirical findings from other related studies.
The data collected is mainly based on specific objectives because of the secondary
data collection method. The data analysis is based on the literature framework
analysis and specified chapters. The framework analysis having pre-determined
interests which encompass the objective of study. The specified chapters are in
form of chapter one, chapter two, chapter three, chapter four and chapter five.
1.6.3 Study area.
Kenya is a country in the Eastern part of Africa. Kenya is the world’s 48 th largest
country by total area with a square of 580,367km. Kenya has a population of
more than 47.6 million people in the 2019 census being the 29 th most populous
country. Kenya’s major capital city is Nairobi with other major cities and urban
centers like Mombasa which is a major tourist attraction because of the Indian
Ocean, Kisumu which is next to the Lake Victoria which is a major source of fish in
the country, Nakuru and Eldoret which are upcoming towns. Kenya is not a
landlocked country because of the presence of the Indian Ocean. Kenya is
bordered by different countries like, south Sudan from the north, Somalia from
the east, Tanzania from the south, to the west Lake Victoria and Uganda and
Kenya maintains good neighborliness with its neighboring countries and even
formed the East African Community (EAC). Kenya has two official languages
English and Kiswahili and a total of 69 languages spoken by the different language
groups in Kenya.

In terms of leadership, Kenya is a presidential representative democratic republic

in which elected officials represent the people and the president is the head of
the state and government and of a multiparty system. The current Kenyan
President is Uhuru Kenyatta. He is assisted by a deputy president currently
William Ruto. In administrative divisions Kenya is then divided into 47 semi-
autonomous counties that are headed by governors who are assisted by deputy
governors, MCAs and Women representatives. In terms of security, the Kenya
Defense forces are armed forces of the republic of Kenya. The National Defense
Forces is composed of the Kenya army, Kenya Navy and Kenya Air Force. The
president of Kenya is the commander in chief of armed forces.