If the country was colonized, is it being influenced by the former colonizer? If yes, how?

If not, how did it

manage to get out of her former colonizer’s grip?

Kenya's Relationship with its Former Colonizer

Kenya's relationship with its former colonizer, the United Kingdom, is complex and multifaceted. It has
been marked by both cooperation and conflict, and it continues to evolve today.

Colonial Period

The United Kingdom colonized Kenya from 1895 to 1963 (Lonsdale, 1995). During this time, the British
imposed their rule on the Kenyan people, extracting resources and labor for their own benefit. The
British also introduced their own culture and language, which had a significant impact on Kenyan society.

Independence and Early Years

Kenya gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1963. However, the British influence remained
strong in Kenya's economy and politics (Manning, 2000). The British government continued to provide
aid to Kenya, and British businesses maintained a significant presence in the country.

Post-Cold War Era

In the post-Cold War era, Kenya's relationship with the United Kingdom became more complex. The
British government became more critical of Kenya's human rights record and its governance (Westad,
2005). However, the two countries continued to cooperate on a number of issues, including trade,
development, and security.

Recent Developments

In recent years, Kenya's relationship with the United Kingdom has been strained by a number of issues,
including the British government's decision to withdraw aid to Kenya and the Kenyan government's
crackdown on corruption (Bayart, 1996). However, the two countries continue to maintain diplomatic
relations and cooperate on a number of issues.
Future Prospects

The future of Kenya's relationship with the United Kingdom is uncertain. It is likely that the relationship
will continue to be characterized by both cooperation and conflict. The two countries will need to find
ways to work together to address their shared challenges, such as economic development, security, and
climate change. Additionally, Kenya will need to continue to assert its independence and sovereignty
while also engaging constructively with the United Kingdom and other international partners (de Sardan,
2008).

Key Factors Influencing the Relationship

A number of factors have influenced Kenya's relationship with the United Kingdom, including:

The legacy of colonialism (Lonsdale, 1995)

The UK's continued economic and political interests in Kenya (Manning, 2000)

Kenya's human rights record and governance (Westad, 2005)

The UK's aid policy (de Sardan, 2008)

Kenya's relationship with other countries

Overall, Kenya's relationship with the United Kingdom is a complex and evolving one. It is a relationship
that is likely to continue to be shaped by the historical legacy of colonialism, as well as by the ongoing
political, economic, and social challenges faced by both countries

An Analysis on the African ‘Monroe Doctrine’ Failure in the 21st Century

This article provides a timely and thought-provoking analysis of the failure of the African "Monroe
Doctrine" in the 21st century. The author argues that this doctrine, which is based on the principle of
non-interference in the internal affairs of African states, has become increasingly ineffective in recent
years. This is due in part to the rise of new powers such as China and Russia, who have been increasingly
active in Africa. Additionally, the African Union (AU) has been unable to effectively enforce the doctrine,
due to a lack of resources and political will.

The author identifies several key factors that have contributed to the failure of the African "Monroe
Doctrine". These include the following:
The rise of new powers such as China and Russia, who have been increasingly active in Africa

The inability of the African Union (AU) to effectively enforce the doctrine

The lack of resources and political will among African states to support the doctrine

The increasing fragility of African states, which has made them more vulnerable to external interference

The author concludes that the African "Monroe Doctrine" is no longer relevant in the 21st century.
African states need to develop new approaches to protecting their sovereignty and security. These
approaches should focus on building stronger institutions, promoting good governance, and fostering
regional cooperation.

Strengths of the article

The article provides a clear and concise overview of the African "Monroe Doctrine".

The article identifies a number of key factors that have contributed to the failure of the doctrine.

The article provides a number of recommendations for how African states can protect their sovereignty
and security.

Weaknesses of the article

The article does not provide a detailed discussion of the historical context of the African "Monroe
Doctrine".

The article does not discuss the potential implications of the failure of the doctrine for African states.

The article does not provide a clear agenda for how African states can develop new approaches to
protecting their sovereignty and security.

Overall, this is a well-written and informative article that provides a valuable contribution to the
discussion of the African "Monroe Doctrine".

Additional comments

The author's use of the term "African ‘Monroe Doctrine’" is somewhat misleading. The Monroe Doctrine
was a unilateral declaration issued by the United States in 1823, in which it warned European powers not
to interfere in the affairs of the Americas. There is no equivalent declaration or policy that has been
adopted by the African Union or any individual African state. Therefore, it is more accurate to refer to
the principle of non-interference in Africa as the "African principle of non-interference".
The author's discussion of the rise of new powers such as China and Russia in Africa is timely and
relevant. These powers have been increasingly active in Africa in recent years, providing both economic
and military assistance. This has led to concerns about the potential for neocolonialism and the
exploitation of African resources.

The author's discussion of the inability of the African Union (AU) to effectively enforce the principle of
non-interference is also important. The AU has been criticized for its lack of resources and political will,
which has made it difficult to intervene in conflicts and promote good governance.

The author's recommendations for how African states can protect their sovereignty and security are
worth considering. African states need to develop stronger institutions, promote good governance, and
foster regional cooperation. These are all important steps in building a more stable and prosperous
Africa