Background to the Study
The objective of this study is to examine how information technology can enable diplomatic actors to enhance Kenya’s National Interest. Another key objective is what tangible opportunities are there for growth regionally and globally for the Kenyan ICT ecosystem. The hypothetical assumption is that these two objectives are mutually beneficial. Ndemo posits that historically, since Kenyan independence from the British in 1963, ICT was a second-tier ministry under transportation. The Kenyan government barred the use of computers, fax machines, and any other communication gadgets as policy under the Official Secrets Act.[1] Ndemo being an academic and policy maker instrumental in the comparative advantage Kenya enjoys in ICT within East Africa and indeed within Africa argues that had Kenya not invested in the ICT sector earlier on, for example, the TEAMS fiber cable which was a PPP partnership with UAE, we would not have reaped the benefits of economic development, financial inclusion and the mobile money revolution that became M-PESA now renown globally.[2] Indeed Ndemo, notes Kenya’s approach through strategic leadership in the ICT sector was liberal whereas its East African neighbor states pursued a conservative approach that hindered innovation and creativity.
Kenya’s strategic policy to invest domestically combined with the rapidly advancing information technology ecosystem on the global stage is a case study of how simultaneous forces of globalization and localization seem to be having an impact in how states interact with each other. An example of such a force is technology, more specifically information technology which has played a crucial role in the acceleration of globalization. Technology plays a key role in wealth creation, raising standards of living and real economic growth in any society. Science, technology, and the development of nations and society are all proportional to each other. For example, Kenya’s internet penetration rate of 39% compares very favorably with its neighbors Tanzania (4.4 %), Ethiopia (1.9 %), and Uganda (16.2 %) this has consequentially had an impact on its economic development and the spillover benefits into other sectors.[3] Economic growth and economic development are key foreign policy objectives diplomats are tasked with pursuing. The use of information technology as a strategic enabler or tool by diplomats to carry out their core functions of administrative work and delivery of foreign policy objectives in the 21st is certainly an area of study that is scarcely examined.
Developed countries are already taking preemptive actions to control the area around the global governance of information technology, as a result, they are consolidating their interests domestically and on the international stage. For example, ICANN[4] the global organization tasked with internet governance was founded in 1998 but only recently opened its first African engagement office in Kenya in 2016. Kenya is also one of two African countries that will host ICANN root server clusters, for which their purpose is to offer faster internet in Africa as a whole.[5][6] Kenya also reaffirmed its position on the African continent by being reelected for 4 years on the 48-member Council of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) based in Romania. The ITU is the United Nations special agency for Information Communication Technology (ICT). Kenya is also a global leader in the mobile money transfer industry which is a major stakeholder within the Kenyan ICT ecosystem.[7] These examples highlight the unique position Kenyan diplomats and bureaucrats are in to leverage their ICT capabilities to enhance its national interests. The need to stay ahead regionally and globally through innovation, laissez-faire regulation, and governance is crucial. The need for more research and policy-making to maintain Kenya’s comparative advantage is a gap this study seeks to examine.
However, an issue of concern is that the rate of advancements in information technology is increasingly challenging the authority states have over their territories, and in the process, various private sector stakeholders are challenging the once unquestioned authority of sovereign states. In this digital era of internet proliferation and social media platforms, the democratization of information has had an impact on the political, social, and economic spheres cutting across borders indiscriminately. Consequently, digital diplomacy and internet activities are increasingly being used by diplomats to counteract and project their state’s foreign policy positions to domestic and foreign audiences. In the context of international relations, power is the fundamental factor when examining states in the international system, more precisely the mastery and control over key resources and capabilities to influence international affairs. In this case, information technology is also increasingly being considered as a tool for exercising power.[8]
Foreign policy is implemented by various diplomatic actors which include foreign ministers, government secretaries, and ambassadors on diplomatic assignments in foreign countries, who are increasingly using every technological advantage available, to achieve their foreign policy objectives.[9] This approach is the traditional diplomatic model that can be used by diplomats in the implementation of foreign policy objectives. However, the impact of technology is now increasing phenomenally in the modern world and leveraging technology for military, economic or social gains is becoming the norm. This study explores from a different dimension the nexus of information technology and diplomacy using both the integrative model of diplomacy and the traditional diplomatic model.[10] The integrative model of diplomacy in the context of this study advocates for the inclusion of specialists in the field of technology, working with diplomats or as diplomats towards a common goal, the national interest of the state.
The Research Problem
States are likely to experience challenges in the pursuit of their national interests. The realist school of thought posits that states are the most important actors in an international system which is often an anarchic environment where resources are limited, and the selfish pursuit of national interest is key. These challenges may be national, regional or international. The lack of a clear definition of interests and the policies to be pursued by diplomatic actors within the state can create internal challenges. As a result, this can undermine the mid-term and long-term competitive advantage of Kenya on the international stage. Indeed, other internal operational challenges that tend to exist are having enough financial and human resources to support Kenya’s foreign policy goals and enhance the capacity of its diplomats to implement them. Lastly, competition and duplication of roles among MDAs may lead to uncoordinated diplomatic engagement by the Kenyan government.
In this context, diplomats historically have had the exclusive responsibility of collecting information or intelligence in support of their state’s national interests.[11] Their main responsibility is gathering information or intelligence on different issues of interest and communicating the same effectively back home. This information includes the economic status of host states, the host states alliances, the domestic political landscape of host states, judicial systems, and military assets among other issues.[12]
Thus, bearing in mind the roles our diplomats play in the pursuit of Kenya’s national interests, they now operate in a different environment, the digital age. The onset of the 21st century saw the proliferation of the use of information technology by billions of people across the world. This means billions of people are interconnected by sharing information, collecting information, and storing information. The rapid rate of innovation and ingenuity means that traditional diplomats need to adapt at the same pace or find that they may no longer have the information or intelligence required to pursue the interests of their states which is their primary role. The huge scope of information communication technology and innovations have increased access to the amount of information accessible by diplomats as they strategically align themselves to seize, analyze, and act upon them.[13] Indeed diplomats across the world are adapting to the changing landscape and making use of the advances in information technology to shape the narratives of the states they represent. For example, posting opinion pieces on social media platforms, managing and responding to issues via social media accounts, and appearing on online for debates, and discussions via podcasts or online versions of radio such as Twitter spaces to name a few. Diplomats are making use of information communication technologies to receive and mold information from a worldwide audience.[14]
The virtual platforms that now exist, are indeed useful in connecting people. Distance, time zones, and cost of communication have virtually been nullified thanks to advances in information technology. This timely access to information and flow of communication has shifted the nature of work diplomats do and taken an integrative approach.[15] However, the lack of integrative diplomacy in leveraging information technology in Kenya to achieve foreign policy objectives that promote and further national interest is a problem this research seeks to delve into. For example, as opposed to the traditional sources of intelligence diplomats rely on to carry out their statecraft such as HUMINT and TECHINT, a large amount of OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) that can be gathered from open sources to produce actionable intelligence is untapped. This is an area in which advanced information technology can greatly assist in collecting and analyzing information at a cheap cost and effective manner. This is where diplomats can rely on specialists under an integrative diplomatic model.
Essentially, the advances in information and communication platforms mean that currently crucial information is shared rapidly and thus in need of rapid, precise analysis and evaluation in response. The challenge is adoption of modern ICT in Kenya and Africa at large, is subject to setbacks such as unreliable ICT infrastructures. Resources ranging from hardware to software on which IT runs are expensive to procure, protect, and maintain. Procuring annual licenses to renew software adds to the cost as well as the ever-present vulnerability to cyberattacks. Another important issue is the intellectual property rights of the technology being used. Cyber insecurity and cyber espionage, ineffective legislation and governance structures, tedious processes of establishing regulations and rules governing technological integration to diplomacy, ineffective and inefficient platforms to make critical decisions, and invading diplomat’s privacy are some of the problems this research will examine.
Lastly, there is also the challenge of Kenyan diplomats being able to identify and access the strategic ICT resources available to them within Kenya before looking beyond its borders. An area of concern in the private sector is that up to 70% of technology startups in Kenya are not earning enough to maintain business and living expenses for even minimally staffed businesses and only 3% have partnerships with government agencies.[16] Another issue with IT stakeholders, excluding established technological firms such as Safaricom for example, is the reliance on publicity and solicitation of investments locally and internationally without tangible outcomes or commercially and strategically viable products.[17] The value of the Kenyan ICT sector has consistently grown over the last 20 years and accounts for 7% of Kenya’s GDP. It is also considered a best prospect industry sector by international investors.[18][19] These figures indicate this sector as an important one in bolstering the other sectors like agriculture and tourism which have traditionally been the major contributors to Kenya’s GDP.
These issues emphasize the need for further research on how information technology as a tool can affect service delivery by diplomats and their mandate of securing the state’s economic interests.
Literature Review
Debates and Critiques within Science &Technology in International Relations
International Relations as a discipline in the Social Sciences has two conflicting perspectives on science and technology which influences how the integrations of science and technology in International Relations as a discipline have been received. It has informed the biases where science and technology have only been studied with a bias on the military particularly on the subject of nuclear warfare which was established as a discipline after the Second World War. The debates surrounding science and technology are based on two views which are an optimistic view (the story of hope) and a skeptical view (the tale of pessimism).
The optimistic view assumes that science and technology often lead to the development and improvement of human life. It further offers solutions to global challenges such as security, health, food and eliminates poverty. This Optimistic view considers science and technology as the sole drivers of efficiency in urban planning, reproduction, and economic empowerment[1]. Also, the proponents of this view regard the development of smart technology as a catalyst for wealth generation and thus decent lifestyles within “planetary boundaries”[2]. International entities such as the World Bank and the UN are seen to foster development and allow technological sharing towards fulfilling the development agenda for all. This is the guiding principle realization of UN Millennium Development Goals[3]. From this, therefore; the guiding philosophy behind science and technology is the high expectation for continuous improvement and progress for humanity. Critiques to this view argue that the optimist view assumes that there are unending opportunities and inevitable success in all technologies and scientific knowledge, but scientific knowledge is determined by powerful modern ideologies and historical experiences within different political and economic systems[4]
The pessimism debate argues that technology is neither innocent nor neutral. This debate sees individuals and collective life emerging through oppressive scientific and technological aspects. Technology is neither neutral nor static, it expresses inhuman ambitions[5].For instance the role of scientific and technological capabilities in the bombings during World War II and even during the Holocaust[6]. Also, science and technology are seen to have been implicated in colonial domination, racism, and exploitative suppression of what was known as the “White Mythology.” This perspective has been supported by more IR scholars hence showing why it has not been fully integrated into International relations. This school of thought informs scholars’ perspectives such as Henry D. Thoreau, Max Weber, and Martin Heidegger.[7] The pessimistic view proponents advocate for anti-nuclear proliferation because of the threat posed by nuclear weapons. Digital advancement is also seen as an opportunity to be used as an instrument of State oppression, censorship, and espionage which further erodes personal freedom and privacy[8]
Concept of National Interest
Many political theorists and philosophers maintain that nations are driven by self-interest which is normally referred to as ‘national interest’ or raison d’etat’.[9] Moral, religious, and other altruistic considerations may also be included as part of the national interest if they are considered as such by the nation. Discussions on national interest assume that the state is the supreme good.[10] This is not only the basis of the Hegelian theory of the modern totalitarian state but is also true of any narrowly conceived nationalistic ideas. From this understanding, the continued existence of the state as an independent entity becomes the overarching objective. The other possible explanation, which is more consistent with democratic theories, is that the state is a tool designed to meet the desires of its people.
Despite these different perspectives, it is generally accepted that states are the entities which define their interests and determine how they will achieve them[11]. This raises the question of who within the state defines the national interest and what should count when the national interest is being defined.[12]This has given rise to differences in opinion between those who believe that national interest can be arrived at objectively and rationally and those who see the definition of national interest as the struggle among various subjective views and preferences, a struggle in which the national interest is the political outcome.[13]
Despite the diversity in definitions, there have been attempts to define the national interest in more concrete terms using criteria such as military, economic, ideology, morality, and legality, to mention but a few. One such notable attempt has been by Donald Nuechterlein.
Donald Nuechterlein defines national interest as, “the perceived needs and desires of one sovereign state in relation to other sovereign states which comprise the external environment.”[14] According to him, national interests can be divided into four basic categories as follows; “defense interests” which are concerned with the safeguarding a nation-state, its type of governance, and its people from external attacks and control; “economic interests” which entail the economic advancement of a country in the external environment; “world order interests” which are concerned with the creation of a conducive international environment for the country to pursue its interests; and “ideological interests” which are concerned with the promotion of the country’s ideals beyond its borders.[15]
Furthermore, he identifies four levels of measuring the intensity of an interest as follows;[16] The first level is “survival issues” which are concerned with the very existence of a country. A country will commit all its resources as a matter of priority to protect its independence from external attacks and control, and if need be, go to war to safeguard it.[17] For an issue to be considered as survival, the threat to the country should be one that will lead to massive physical harm and must be credible and immediate.
The second level is “vital issues” where serious harm is likely to occur to a country if it does not take robust action to deal with threats from another state. These may include protection of national unity and stability; gaining mileage over adversaries; having resources to pursue its interests; and immunity from intimidation and freedom from subversion or sabotage by other states.[18]A vital issue can threaten the survival of a country but differs from a survival issue in that it affords the state sufficient time to resolve it. A state may forgo other interests and even go to war, to safeguard its vital interests, if it can do so without risking its existence.
The third level is “major issues” where the well-being of a country may be negatively affected by what is happening in the global scene and therefore requires remedial action to stop the situation from degenerating into serious threats. If a state is to prosper, its policies and relationships must be adjusted to address the situation and to change it to its greatest advantage or least disadvantage. Such strategic interests include those arising from the strengthening or weakening of adversaries and allies; shifting international alignments and patterns of influence; discovery of new resources and technologies; changes in the international state system and in regulatory regimes established under it; the emergence of new patterns of economic development and trade, as well as new doctrines and ideologies; and challenges to the status and treatment of its citizens and their property abroad.[19] It is in the interest of a country to maintain an international order and state system favoring its continued independence, its capacity to cooperate with other states in addressing matters of common concern, and its ability to effectively promote and defend the broad range of its national interests.
The last level is “peripheral issues” where the interests of individuals and companies operating abroad may be affected by what is happening in those countries. This includes changes in multilateral or bilateral agreements regulating trade, finance, travel, and other activities of companies or nationals abroad; foreign respect for national laws, institutions, and frontiers; the international operations of ships and aircraft; status of diplomats, military officers, and state property; communication between governments and peoples, or due deference to national sovereignty or dignity.[20]
Hans Morgenthau another scholar who has attempted to define national interests sees it in terms of power. He sees power as being important for the survival of a country and therefore avers that it is in the interest of all states to acquire power.[21] In this regard, he posits that any action or policy that advances a country’s power promotes its national interests while any action or policy that does not maximize its power is not in its national interests.
The national interests of a country can be permanent in character and can be categorized into major and minor interests.[22] Some interests must be defended at all costs, others can only be protected in certain situations while others, while important cannot be protected. It is therefore the role of foreign policy to decide the relative importance of each interest to guide its decisions and actions in the international arena. Securing the national interests of a nation is therefore critical in ensuring its independence, and territory, and promoting the welfare and tranquility of its people.
Technology and National Interest
A key point in this study is the significance of technology in the 21st century in the context of national interest. However, how significant is it? Economist Brad DeLong notes that the 140 years between 1870 to 2010 have been the most consequential years of all humanity’s centuries. If we compare the 140 years to the at least 300,000 years Homo sapiens have been around it represents 0.05 percent of that history. Delong posits that something incredible happened in that sliver of time that eluded our species for the other 99.95 percent of our history, technological advancements. We got the industrial research lab, the modern corporation, and then full globalization around 1870. The industrial research lab rationalized and routinized the discovery and development of technologies; the corporation rationalized and routinized the development and deployment of technologies; and globalization diffused them everywhere. As a consequence, the unprecedentedly rapid change in technology brought with it profound political instability and conflict. The most negatively impacted has been the global south who were denied much of the benefit of the world’s economic revolutions while suffering the bulk of the harm from the ensuing political and social revolutions.[23]
New scientific and technological advancements have indeed had a direct impact on the conduct of International Relations. The international system has seen a shift in power relations since the Industrial Revolution to date, with the focus shifting from hard power to soft power. The realist’s perspective of state-centric actors has been impacted by the onset of communications technology for instance, which has opened this space, even more, to include non-state actors in the international system. Globalization of technology has impacted information, trade and commerce, general interactions, and even the conduct of state business among others.
Science and technology have had a profound influence on the way states relate. Recent developments in the field have had the impact of radically transforming since the Westphalian conference. For centuries the state was at the epicentre of the international system. The state took pride in the territory among other elements as a source of power. However, this long-held belief by the state is at risk of being challenged in the contemporary international political dispensation under the influence of science and technological advancement. One seminal piece of research on this topic is a paper by Philip N. Howard and Muzammil M. Hussain, titled “The Role of Information and Communication Technologies in the Evolution of Global Politics.” In this paper, the authors argue that ICTs have facilitated the emergence of transnational networks and have allowed for the formation of new kinds of global governance structures.[24] For example, ITU, ICANN among others. They also discuss the ways in which ICTs have disrupted traditional power dynamics and have given rise to new forms of political activism. James N. Rosenau, in the book titled, Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity, discusses the ways in which information technology has contributed to the emergence of a more complex and fluid international system. He argues that ICTs have facilitated the formation of new transnational networks and have created new opportunities for global cooperation and conflict.[25] Thus states which are utilising these networks to their interests have an advantage.
Technology, as well as science have been defining the prevalent environment in international relations in each technological epoch. International relations have continued to be shaped by advances in technology as it has determined the power structure as witnessed during the Second World War and the Cold War Era. Nuclear weapons put an end to the Second World War. For a long time, scientific and technological advancements have traditionally had militaristic underpinnings and were influenced mainly from a state power perspective in the international system. Even though the military might be no longer the sole determinant in shaping the international order, it’s importance cannot be understated. Power politics are still a core factor in IR and superpowers pursue military might. States are still in pursuit of more sophisticated weaponry to either wad of security threats from other actors or to impose their might over the weaker states.
Technology and Diplomacy
Information technology has had a significant impact on the field of diplomacy and international relations. One of the key ways in which IT has changed diplomacy is by facilitating communication and information sharing between individuals and organizations. For example, the widespread use of email and other digital communication tools has made it easier for diplomats to communicate with each other and with their counterparts in other countries. Another way in which IT has impacted diplomacy is by enabling the development of new forms of international cooperation and coordination. For example, the use of online platforms and social media has made it easier for diplomats to collaborate on projects and initiatives and has facilitated the sharing of information and resources. In addition, IT has also played a role in facilitating public diplomacy and increasing transparency in the diplomatic process. For example, many governments and international organizations now use social media and other online platforms to engage directly with the public and provide information about their diplomatic efforts. This has helped to increase transparency and accountability in the diplomatic process and has allowed for greater public participation in international affairs.
Amitav Mallik in his book ‘The Role of Technology in International Affairs’ argues that foreign policy and diplomacy have always been key precursors of statecraft. The digital age in the 21st century demands that statecraft should leverage on the advances in technology to facilitate instant communication and revolution.[26] In the information age, intelligence services are no longer the only organizations with the resources and capabilities to collect, analyze, and transmit information. Private companies, think tanks, and other non-governmental organizations now have the ability to gather and analyse data and disseminate their findings to a wide audience. This has led to increased competition for intelligence services, as they must compete with these other organizations for access to information and for the attention of policymakers and decision-makers.
One of the main implications of the information age on intelligence is the increased importance of open-source intelligence (OSINT). In the past, intelligence agencies relied heavily on secret sources, such as spy networks, to gather information. However, with the rise of the internet and social media, a vast amount of information is now readily available from public sources. This has led to a shift towards OSINT, which involves collecting and analysing publicly available information from a variety of sources, including the internet, media, and social networks. Another implication of the information age is the increasing use of data analytics and machine learning in intelligence analysis. These technologies allow intelligence agencies to process and analyse vast amounts of data quickly and accurately, enabling them to identify patterns and trends that may not be visible to humans. However, there are still challenges for example the difficulty in verifying the accuracy of information, the threat of disinformation, and the ethical implications of collecting and analysing personal data. Intelligence organizations are having to adapt to these challenges in order to remain effective in the 21st century.
Keith Hamilton and Richard Langhorne in their book The Practice of Diplomacy: its Evolution, Theory, and Administration argue that the development of diplomacy has been closely intertwined with that of information, communication and technology.[27]
Joseph Nye in his thesis on the role of technology in promoting interdependence observed that technology has enhanced the capacity of various actors in the global political economy leveraging on physical and social technologies. He further argues that the global interdependence has blurred the traditional distinct between national and international space leading to internal issues of a country impacting the international policies. On the same Thomas Friedman argued that technology has really played a very crucial role in leveling the platform of managing issues across the globe by enabling anyone, anywhere have access to the same information, and have a say in how that information is received, connect to the outside world as one does businesses directly with each other without meeting physically thus can, for example, enable a diplomat in positively projecting a country’s foreign policies through foreign audiences.[28]
Nicholas W. the former chief information officer Foreign and Commonwealth Office – London argues that the adoption and frequent use of technology has weakened the traditional nation-state by allowing different state and non-state actors to act across national boundaries. In his study he demonstrates that technological knowledge in the contemporary world has become an important component for retaining diplomatic effectiveness and for meeting diplomatic challenges in the global arena. He interrogates the effect of technology and the structures it operates within diplomacy and the rapid change happening in the current world affairs.[29][30]
Kenya’s Information technology capacity, diplomatic actors, and the pursuit of national interest.
In East Africa in the period since the end of colonialism into the post-colonial era, Kenya has positioned itself as a dominant economic player in the region. This can also be said of the information technology sector where Kenya is the preferred source of skilled labour and plays host to numerous multinational and transnational companies in the same sector. However as is the nature of international politics, states compete to attract the limited resources available in the form of foreign direct investment and trade to drive their economic growth. Kenya has witnessed increasing competition from its neighbours some of whom have access to natural resources like minerals which they leverage to achieve their foreign policy objectives, especially in the area of economic development. In this context, Kenya’s diplomats seek to maintain its dominant position in the region by leveraging its information technology capacity to secure its national interests.
Traditional diplomatic actors and information technology actors through integrative diplomacy can work together. Digital diplomacy does not actually replace traditional face-to-face diplomacy. Traditional and digital diplomacy can co-exist and complement, rather than compete with, each other. Digital diplomacy and internet activities can greatly assist in projecting a state’s foreign policy positions to domestic and foreign audiences.[31]
Traditional diplomatic actors in line with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations[32] and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations[33] offer service delivery via embassy and consular work, especially to their constituents in the diaspora. This includes collection, storage, and sharing of information or intelligence, both classified and public information. Integrating information technology in the conduct of diplomacy is an emerging tool that has been embraced by developing countries such as Kenya. It is being observed that there are several tools through which technology has been infiltrated into diplomacy notably – Websites, Twitter, YouTube, WeChat, WhatsApp, and Facebook. [34]There is also a niche being created where sophisticated technology such as Big Data, Machine Learning, and Artificial Intelligence is being leveraged by diplomats to make their decision-making processes more precise and effective.
There are roles that traditional diplomatic actors and specialists in information technology can take in addressing survival, vital, major and peripheral national interest issues. There is a case for more collaboration between these different sets of actors in the 21st century where technology is a defining feature of relations between states. Information technology is influencing the skills and knowledge required by diplomats today to be able to deliver their nation’s interests. The efforts have shifted to focusing on concerns and communicating with a wider audience. Information technology has also changed the decision-making structure in embassies where a decentralized approach is being adopted. Thus, a low-level diplomat has the incentive and leverage to act on issues of concern before such issues become complicated to handle. This can happen due to the ease of access to crucial information in almost real-time and the tools available to enable them to analyze and make decisions.
However, the MFA faces huge challenges when we consider first, they handle sensitive classified information and secondly, the bureaucratic politics model or government bargaining model of foreign policy decision-making could mean they face stiff opposition from other government agencies in implementing their policies.[35] Thus, securing information from cyber-attacks and having access to credible data from other MDAs in as an issue of concern. It is also important to note that when states collaborate in the area of technology in general, either with other states or non-state actors they cannot separate themselves from their national science and technology policy agendas but do so in pursuit of their interests.[36]
The Kenyan Information Technology Ecosystem.
The Kenyan information technology ecosystem is characterized by the unique and diverse actors it is made up of. Each of these actors from the government (MDAs), corporate sector, SMEs, Startups, Academia, International bilateral development agencies, IGOs, and specialized agencies are pursuing their interests rather than working as an amalgamated unit. Examining the academic, regulatory, and policy gaps to enable Kenya to leverage its information technology capacity will be key in consolidating the efforts of different stakeholders and harnessing it into a single strategic goal. The conceptualization, planning, and implementation of the strategy will hypothetically maintain and increase Kenya’s comparative advantage in the ICT sector. Adoption of an integrative model of diplomacy, as opposed to the traditional diplomatic model, can be the strategic alternative used by diplomats in the implementation of Kenya’s ICT foreign policy objectives.
Technology and National Interest: Experiences from other regions in the world
America, China, and Israel are clear-cut examples of the strategic use of technology to pursue selfish national interests. These states view science and technology as instruments of foreign policy or sources of technical information for the management of ongoing international regimes based on treaties. This is perhaps the most straightforward use of science and technology in foreign affairs as an instrument to be employed for a clearly defined objective as a tool of foreign policy in a bilateral relationship or in an established international regime.[37][38] They have leveraged technology to maximize economic growth as a broader alternative in their national security strategies apart from military strength. What is also similar is that they use technology as a tool of pursuing the national economic interests using government and even private sector stakeholders to achieve their goals.
NSO Group the notorious maker of spyware Pegasus, can literally hack any mobile or digital device across the globe. For nearly a decade, the Israeli firm had been selling its surveillance software on a subscription basis to law enforcement and intelligence agencies around the world. NSO’s product Pegasus seems to solve one of the biggest problems facing law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the 21st century: that hostile states, criminals and terrorists now have better technology for encrypting their communications.[39] This means investigators and counterintelligence agencies must decrypt them. Despite human and civil rights issues being raised, states from different ideological stand points recognise the need for the software and its use in securing national interests by gathering crucial intelligence. The software which has been successfully used to track and neutralise terrorist cells, drug cartels, international paedophilia rings, but has also been used against human rights activists, opposition politicians and journalists. It is the duality of its use that makes it a controversial technology. However, the Israeli government in conjunction with its judicial system and Ministry of Defence protects and classifies the technology company as a national security asset for their nation. This underlines their real politick approach to the issue choosing security over privacy. NSO Group and similar companies have been made to be a central component Israel’s National security strategy to advance the country’s interest around the world entangling them with the country’s diplomatic dealings with other states.[40] A similar stance seems to be adopted by the USA although not publicly while China does not seem to care about the issue of privacy as a right as it pursues and promotes digital surveillance .
The USA has set up the office of science and technology policy whose mission is to maximise the benefits of science and technology to advance health, prosperity, security, environmental quality, and justice for all Americans. The Biden administration has tasked the office with the goal of ensuring that the USA is the world leader in the technologies and industries of the future that will be critical for its economic prosperity and national security. It also recognises China as a threat in this context. Niche technologies such as artificial intelligence and synthetic biology, have been identified as areas that will give the USA a competitive advantage in the future.[41]
China on the other hand is locked in a strategic technology competition with the United States. China knows its power to influence the international economic, trade and security landscape rests with advancing its technological prowess. Scientific and technological innovation is the main battlefield of the international strategic game, as declared by Chinese President Xi Jinping.[42] China is also forging strategic partnerships through its private sector technology companies like Huawei, to strengthen the technological capabilities of nations across the globe they an alliance with. In Africa, for example in Kenya, Huawei was a key technology partner for Safaricom M-PESA, when the M-PESA servers were transferred from Europe back to Kenya. China already provides more financing for information and communications technology than all multilateral agencies and leading democracies combined. [43] Partly due to pressure from a National Security and Cybersecurity perspective, Safaricom Kenya PLC’s multivendor strategy has pitted Huawei China, Finnish rival Nokia, and rival US technology companies all bidding for their 5G rollout tenders. This is a signal that USA, China and other major players in the field of technology are ever vigilante looking for opportunities for their companies abroad. Indeed, diplomacy is key when seeking for such opportunities. It is their diplomats in the host countries who are at the frontline to ensure the investments are secured in the interest of their home country. With Safaricom Kenya and M-PESA Africa expanding into markets beyond our borders; Ethiopia, Tanzania, South Africa, Afghanistan, Lesotho, DRC, Ghana, Mozambique and Egypt, our diplomats will be crucial in defending and securing those interests even if they may be considered peripheral in the larger scheme of things.
Key partnerships and engagement by Kenya with the regional and global community in ICT.
- Kenya hosts the African Telecommunications Union (ATU), a regional body that seeks to promoted development of ICTs in Africa in order to achieve universal access, and inter-country connectivity.
- Kenya is host to the African Advanced Level Telecommunications Institute (AFRALTI), a regional intergovernmental human capacity-building institution. The AFRALTI is one of the designated ITU Centers of Excellence.
- Kenya is an active member and the current chair of the East African Communications Organization (EACO), a regional body for ICT regulators and operators.
- Kenya is host to the African Regional Engagement Office for the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
- Kenya is currently served by four international submarine optical fiber cables that connect the country to international information superhighway. These cables also link the neighboring land-locked countries within the Eastern and Central Africa to high-speed international connectivity.
Theoretical Framework
Realism
This study will utilize realism to analyze how Kenya can secure its national interests through use of soft and hard power. The realist theory would be utilized to explain how and to what extent Kenya can utilize hard power to secure its national interests. Soft power can also be viewed as a form of power and one way of getting desired outcomes. In this context utilizing the capabilities and resources information technology provides Kenya whether in government or the private sector can also be viewed as an opportunity to secure its interests like military strength.
The realist theory traces its origins to the works of Thucydides, Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, E.H. Carr, and Hans Morgenthau.[45] Realists maintain that there are laws that regulate individual and state behavior. States are driven by self-interest and are likely to pursue their interests to the disadvantage of others despite the existence of laws regulating humans and relations among nations. States are considered the main players in an international system which is anarchical in nature, as there is no world government to enforce the rule of law and punish those who do wrong. In this regard, it is difficult to have one authority at the international level as no nation would be willing to surrender their independence to another body or government. In such a situation, there are opportunities for Kenya seize the strategic advantage even in those areas that may seem mundane and less significance such as information technology.
Realists see global politics as characterized by the struggle for power with each nation focused on ensuring its own interests.[46] They therefore posit that competition to acquire power as a means of securing national interests is the main driver of world politics, and in that regard, most states crave military power. This study examines another alternative which is also important, economic strength through leveraging technology.
Major realist scholars have touched on a variety of themes on technology, diplomacy and national interest and how they interconnect. Morgenthau defines political realism as “the recognition of the facts of life, namely, the imperfections of human nature and the absolute limitations of human knowledge.” According to him, political realism is characterized by a focus on the national interest, a belief in the inherent conflict between nations, and a recognition of the role of power in international relations.[47] On the role of technology in international relations, Morgenthau argues that technological advancements can significantly shape the balance of power between states and affect the conduct of foreign policy. In his book Scientific Man vs. Power Politics, Morgenthau discusses the impact of scientific and technological progress on international relations, arguing that it can both enhance and undermine the power of states.[48] Waltz argues that the fundamental driving force in international relations is the distribution of power among states. According to Waltz, states seek to maximize their power in order to protect their national interests and ensure their survival in an anarchic international system. Technology and diplomacy are important tools that states can use to pursue their interests and increase their power.[49] Mearsheimer another renown realist scholar has applied his theory of offensive realism to a wide range of issues related to technology, diplomacy, and national interest. In his influential book, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, Mearsheimer argues that states will always be motivated to acquire advanced military technologies in order to increase their power and security relative to other states. He also argues that states will use diplomacy as a means of advancing their interests, but that ultimately, power politics will determine the outcome of international relations.[50] Mearsheimer has also written extensively on the role of technology in shaping international politics, including the impact of nuclear weapons on the balance of power and the potential for emerging technologies such as cyberwarfare to disrupt international relations.[51] In his view, the acquisition and use of advanced technologies by states will always be driven by considerations of national interest and the desire to gain a competitive advantage over other states. Gilpin partly supports this point of view and argues that the spread of new technologies can create both opportunities and challenges for nations. He discusses the role of economic factors in shaping international relations and the ways in which technological innovation can affect the distribution of power among nations. Gilpin posits that through the strategic development and utilization, technology can be a key factor in determining the outcome of international conflicts.[52] For example, he notes that the United States has often used its technological superiority to achieve its foreign policy objectives.[53]
Social Constructivism
This theory argues that science and technological artifacts are developed and are culturally constructed, interpreted and are shaped by social processes.[1] This theory opens up a black box of technology and reveals multiple social forces that shape and influence science and technology.[2] The strength of this theory is seen as its ability to apply the method to gathering knowledge on societies’ relations with science and technology[3]. However, the main critique of this theory is that it views societies as composed of groups that are seen as a pluralist view. This standpoint fails to consider the aspect of power symmetry between groups and how this affects science and technology[4].Furthermore, “Social Constructivism Theory is attached to an ontology of separateness between humans and non-humans, which privileges human agency in social and technology interactions”[5][6]
According to Wendt, states and other actors in international relations do not have fixed identities or interests, but rather, their identities and interests are shaped by the way they interact with one another. This means that technology, diplomacy, and national interest are all shaped by the social and cultural context in which they take place. He argues that the concept of anarchy in international relations is not a given, but rather, it is a social construct that is shaped by the way states interact with one another. He suggests that the way states perceive and respond to anarchy has important implications for the use of technology and diplomacy in international relations.[7] In addition Wendt also notes the importance of understanding the social and cultural context in which international relations takes place. He argues that this is particularly relevant for understanding the role of technology and diplomacy in shaping national interest.[8] Onuf on the other hand suggests that these concepts, technology, diplomacy, and national interest, are not fixed or objective, but rather are constructed and shaped by the interactions and communications between individuals and groups. For example, the development and use of technology is not simply a matter of objective scientific progress but is also influenced by the cultural and political context in which it occurs. Similarly, the concept of diplomacy is not fixed or universal, but is shaped by the cultural and historical contexts in which it takes place and by the power relations between different actors.[9]
Actor-Network theory
It was developed in the 1990s to compensate for the shortcomings highlighted by social constructivism theory. The Actor-network theory is defined by Baron and Gomez[10] as “a sociological approach, which focuses on description and analysis of associations between natural, human and technological entities.” It brings in the aspects of interactions between humans and non-human agents and how they generate information and communication networks and systems[11] and how these dynamic relational aspects are useful in the study of change and the unintended outcomes of science and technological projects.[12] Actor Network Theory is a way of understanding how social, technological, and other kinds of networks are constituted and how they operate. It emphasizes the importance of non-human actors in the shaping of social and cultural phenomena and sees humans and non-humans as equally important in the construction of social reality. According to Actor Network Theory, the relationships and interactions between actors (which can be human or non-human) are what give rise to social structures and systems. Actors are seen as having agency, or the ability to act and make decisions, and they can be linked together in networks through various forms of exchange and interaction. In the context of technology, Actor Network Theory can be used to understand how technology shapes and is shaped by social and cultural processes. It can also be applied to the study of diplomacy and national interest, as it can help to reveal the various actors and networks that are involved in international relations and the ways in which they interact and influence one another.[13] [14]
Functionalism
Functionalism is a theory of international relations that originated in the early 20th century. It is based on the idea that international institutions and organizations can help to promote cooperation and coordination among countries by providing a forum for negotiation and conflict resolution. In this sense, functionalism sees international organizations as a means of achieving national interests. In the context of information technology, functionalism theory suggests that the development and use of information technology can facilitate cooperation and coordination among countries by enabling the sharing of information and expertise. For example, Mitrany argued that the development of new technologies, such as transportation and communication systems, can help to facilitate the exchange of information and ideas among different countries, which can in turn help to reduce misunderstandings and build trust. In addition to technology, Mitrany also emphasized the importance of national interest in shaping international relations. According to his theory, countries are more likely to cooperate with one another when they perceive that their national interests are aligned, and that cooperation on functional tasks can help to promote mutual interests and reduce conflict. The process of cooperation can indeed be hastened by advanced technology.[15] Deutsch argues that international organizations and institutions play a vital role in the functioning of the international system and the maintenance of international order. He posits that these organizations and institutions perform important functions, such as facilitating communication and cooperation among states, regulating the behavior of states, and promoting the peaceful resolution of disputes. In terms of technology, he argues that technological innovations can lead to changes in the way that societies function and interact with one another. For example, the development of new communication technologies, such as the mobile phone and internet, have had a significant impact on international relations and diplomacy by allowing countries to communicate and negotiate with one another more quickly and efficiently. In the context of functionalism and national interest, states and other actors in the international system pursue their own self-interest in order to achieve specific goals or functions. In this way, information technology can help countries to achieve their national interests through international cooperation. Functionalism theory in international relations highlights the role of international institutions and information technology in promoting cooperation and coordination among countries, which can ultimately serve the national interests of participating states.[16][17]
Liberalism
Liberalism is a theoretical perspective in international relations that emphasizes the role of individual freedom, democracy and the market economy in shaping international politics. In the context of information technology, liberalism would suggest that widespread use of information technology has facilitated the spread of individual freedom and democracy, by allowing individuals to communicate and exchange information more easily and freely. Additionally, the use of information technology has also facilitated the growth of the global market economy, by allowing businesses to operate more efficiently across national borders.
In, Perpetual Peace, Kant outlines his vision for a world order based on the principles of republican government and cosmopolitan law. He argues that peace is not merely the absence of war, but rather a state of affairs in which individuals are able to live together in harmony and mutual respect. To achieve this, he proposes several measures, including the establishment of international institutions and the adoption of a cosmopolitan perspective that recognizes the inherent value of all people. Kant recognizes the importance of national interest in shaping foreign policy. He argues that states should pursue their own interests, but they should do so in a way that is consistent with the principles of justice and respect for the rights of others. In Kantian context technology can have the potential to bring people closer together and facilitate cooperation, but also the use of technology can be a means of domination or coercion.[18] Locke’s political theory of natural rights which include the right to life, liberty, and property, and the importance of the social contract, are what he views as the basis for the legitimacy of government. According to this theory, individuals come together to form a government in order to better protect their natural rights and to provide for the common good. In return, they agree to give up some of their individual freedom in order to be governed. In the context of technology, the use of science and technology could be guided by the same principle of the, common good, which Locke saw as the overall well-being and prosperity of society. Thus, the pursuit of knowledge and the application of technology should be directed towards the benefit of all members of society, rather than just the interests of a few individuals or groups.[19]
Overall, liberalism would argue that the widespread use of information technology has had a positive impact on international relations by promoting individual freedom, democracy and the market economy. In terms of national interest, liberalism would argue that the use of information technology can promote national interest by supporting individual freedom and democracy, and by fostering economic growth and prosperity.
Marxism
Marxism is a theoretical perspective in international relations that is based on the ideas of Karl Marx, who argued that international relations are primarily driven by economic interest and class conflict. According to Marxist theory, the dominant class in a society controls the means of production and uses its economic and political power to exploit the working class and advance its own interests. In the context of information technology, Marxism would suggest that the widespread use of information technology has facilitated the concentration of economic and political power in the hands of a small group of elites, who use this power to advance their own interests at the expense of the working class.
Marx in his seminal book, Capital, discusses the role of technology in the production process and how it can be used to increase productivity and profits. In the context of this study, Gramsci’s a Marxist theorist, concept of cultural hegemony, which refers to the dominance of a group or ideology over others in a society is applicable to how the bourgeoisie is maintaining its power of over the proletariat using technology. In Gramsci’s view, the ruling class uses its control over the means of cultural production, such as the media, education, and arts, to maintain its power and influence. This control is similar to the one being wielded by the few capitalist businessmen which technological companies that wield influence worldwide for example, Amazon, Microsoft, Google to name a few. This cultural dominance can be maintained through the development of a “hegemonic ideology,” which is a set of shared beliefs, values, and norms that are accepted as natural and common sense by many people in a society.[20] Miliband who is also a key Marxist theorist examines the role of technology and diplomacy in shaping national interests. In his book, The State in Capitalist Society, he argues that the capitalist state serves the interests of the capitalist class, and that technology and diplomacy are key instruments that the state uses to further those interests.[21] Cox has developed a theory of Marxism that emphasizes the role of technology, diplomacy, and national interest in shaping the dynamics of global political economy. He argues that the global political economy is shaped by the way in which different societies organize production, and that this is in turn influenced by the technological capabilities and social relations of production that prevail in each society. He also contends that the international system is shaped by the actions of states and other international actors, and that their interests and goals are shaped by their domestic social forces and the ways in which they are embedded in the global system.[22] Thus, Marxists would argue that national interest is ultimately the interests of the ruling class, and that information technology is often used to further these interests.
Theoretical Approaches in science and technology
The theories of Science and Technology can be studied from two perspectives, which answer the following questions; Does technology shape society or does society influence our technological choices? The first perspective argues that science and technology shape societies fall under the technology determinism while the second view society shapes science and technology fall under the social shaping of technology and is associated with social constructivism and actor-network theory.
Technology shaping societies theories
Technological determinism
The proponents of this theory argue that technology shapes societies which are informed by different aspects which can be soft or hard. Andrew sees this theory to be based on two theses which are;
- It assumes that the pattern of technology is fixed and that it moves along one direction in all societies
- With the above then all social organizations and societies must adapt to the progress of each stage of technology which is “Imperative” requirements of technology[23]
Therefore, technology becomes an external force acting on its own from a metaphysical beyond.
Societies shaping technology
This approach emerged in the 1980s and different theories developed from this perspective which was constructivism and actor-network theory. Constructivism was developed by scholars such as Trevor Pinch and Wiebe Bijker while actor-network theory was developed by Bruno Latour and Michel Callon.[24] The social shaping of science and technology argues that technology is seen as a reflection of society and not as an external force. Secondly, science and technology does not follow its own pace but is shaped by social factors. Thirdly science and technology are open to negotiation and change and finally, it argues that technological artifacts are changed by the users[25].[26]
[1] Sasvari, P, The Effects of Technology and Innovation on Society (Bahria University Journal of Information and Communication Technology, 5(1) 2012)
[2] Prell, C. Rethinking the Social Construction of Technology through” Following the Actors” ( A Reappraisal of Technology Frames. Sociological Research 14(2) 2009)
[3] Ibid
[4] Klein, H.K., & Kleinman, D.L The social construction of technology: Structural consideration (Science and technology & Human Values 27(1) 28-52 2002)
[5] Baron, L.F., & Gomez, R, The Associations between Technologies and Societies: The Utility of Actor-Network Theory (Science, Technology Societies, 21 (2), 129-148 2016)
[6] https://brettideas.wordpress.com/2017/06/08/scot-vs-ant-a-comparison-of-theories
[7] Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy Is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425
[8] Wendt, A. (1995). Constructing International Politics. International Security, 20(1), 71–81.
[9] Onuf, Nicholas. “Constructivism: A User’s Manual.” In International Relations in a Constructed World, edited by Vendulka Kubalkova, Nicholas Onuf, and Paul Kowert, 58-78. London: M.E. Sharpe, 1998.
[10]Ibid Baron &Gomez (2016)
[11] https://brettideas.wordpress.com/2017/06/08/scot-vs-ant-a-comparison-of-theories/
[12] Greenhalgh, T., &Stones, R. Theorizing big IT programs in healthcare: strong structuration theory meets actor-network theory (Social Science &Medicine, 70(9),1285-1294, 2010)
[13] Latour, B. (1991). Technology is society made durable. In J. Law (Ed.), “A Sociology of monsters: essays on power, technology, and domination”, London: Routledge, pp. 103-131
[14] Callon, M., & Law, J. (1995). Agency and the hybrid collective. South Atlantic Quarterly, 94(2), 481-507.
[15] Mitrany, D., & National Peace Council (Great Britain. (1946). A working peace system: an argument for the functional development of international organization. National Peace Council.
[16] Deutsch, K., Nationalism and social communication: An inquiry into the foundations of nationalism. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1953)
[17] Deutsch, K. (1964). The nervous system of international politics. In E. J. Hobsbawm (Ed.), “Industry and empire: An economic history of Britain since 1750” New York: Pantheon Books, pp. 438-456
[18] Kant, I. (2018). Perpetual Peace. Franklin Classics.
[19] Barker, E., Hopkins, G., Locke, J., Hume, D., & Rousseau, J.-J. (2013). Social contract: essays by Locke, Hume, and Rousseau. Oxford University Press.
[20] Gramsci, A. (2011). Prison notebooks. Volume 1. Columbia University Press.
[21] Miliband, R. (2009). The state in capitalist society. Merlin Press ; [Black Point, N.S.
[22] Cox, R. (1987) Production, power, and world order: Social forces in the making of history. Columbia University Press.
[23] Feenberg,. A (2002). Transformation Technology: A Critical Theory Revisited. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press
[24] http://www.sfu.ca/cprost/docs/CPROST%20report%2005-01%20Salazar.pdf
[25] Bijker, W.E, Understanding technological culture through a constructive view of science, technology and society. In C.Mitcham (Ed), (Visions of STS: Counterpoints in Science, Technology and Society Studies Albany State University of New York Press 2001 pp 19-34)
[26] http://www.sfu.ca/cprost/docs/CPROST%20report%2005-01%20Salazar.pdf
[1] Kurzweil, R. The Singularity is Near: When humans transcend biology (New York: Vikings 2006)
[2] Byrne, J. and Glover, L Ellul and the weather (Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society(2005)
[3] United Nation, Statistics and Indicators for the post-2015 development agenda (New York: UN Publishing 2013)
[4] Adas, M. Machines as the measure of men: Science, technology and ideologies of western dominance (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press 1989)
[5] Feenberg, Questioning Technology (East Sussex: Psychology press 1999)
[6] Thad, Allan, M, Modernity, the Holocaust and machines without history in A.C. Hughes, M. Thad Allan, and G.Hecht (Eds) Technology and power Essy in honor of: Thomas Parke Hughes and Agatha Chipley Hughes (Cambridge: MA MIT 2001)
[7] Berman, M. All that is solid melts into air: The experience of modernity (London: Verso 1983)
[8] Deibert, R. J,.Palfrey, J., Rohozinski, Zittrain, J. (Eds.) Access Controlled: The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 2010)
[9] Frankel, Joseph, The Making of Foreign Policy; An Analysis of Decision-Making, (London: Oxford University Press, 1963), pp 54-55
[10] Ibid, pp 55
[11] Papp, Daniel S, Contemporary International Relations: Frameworks for Understanding 5th edition, (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997), pp 43
[12] Ibid, pp 44
[13] Couloumbis, Theodore A and Wolfe, James H, Introduction to International Relations; Power and Justice, 4th edition, (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1990), pp 97
[14] Nuechterlein, Donald E., National Interests and Foreign Policy: A Conceptual Framework for Analysis and Decision-Making, British Journal of International Studies, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Oct., 1976) pp. 246-266
[15] Ibid, pp 246-266
[16] Ibid, pp 246-266
[17] Op.cit, Freeman, Chas. W, jr. pp 9-10
[18] Op.cit, Freeman, Chas. W, jr. pp 9-10
[19] Op.cit, Freeman, Chas. W, jr., pp 10-11
[20] Ibid, pp 11-12.
[21] Morgenthau, Hans J, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 6th edition (New Delhi: Kalyani Publishers, 2001), pp5
[22] Thompson, Kenneth W and Macridis, Roy C, The Comparative Study of Foreign Policy in Macridis Roy ed, Foreign Policy in World Politics, 3rd edition (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1967), pp 2
[23] J. Bradford DeLong. (2022). Slouching Towards Utopia. Basic Books.
[24] Howard, P. N., & Hussain, M. M. (2011). The Role of Digital Media. Journal of Democracy, 22(3), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2011.0041
[25] Rosenau, J. N. (2018). Turbulence in World Politics A Theory of Change and Continuity. Princeton University Press.
[26] Mallik, A. (2006). Role of Technology in International Affairs. New Delhi: Pentagon Press: Institute of Defense Studies and analyses
[27] Hamilton, K. A., and Langhorne, R., (1995). The Practice of Diplomacy: Its Evolution, Theory, and Administration. London: Routledge.
[28] Nye, J. S. Jr. (2011). The future of Power. New York: Public Affairs
[29] Westcott, N. (2008). Digital Diplomacy: The impact of internet on International Relations, Oxford Internet Institute, research Report
[30]http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/11295/108975/RAMLANIS%20NOV%202019.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=1
[31] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311886.2017.1297175
[32] https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf accessed on 14/12/2022
[33] https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_2_1963.pdf accessed on 14/12/2022
[34]http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/11295/108975/RAMLANIS%20NOV%202019.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=1
[35] Allison, Graham T., and Zelikow, P. (1999) Essence of decision: explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: Longman, pp. 255–313, p. 300.
[36]https://www.nacosti.go.ke/wpcontent/uploads/2021/Docs/Draft%20Science%2C%20Technology%20and%20Innovation%20%28STI%29%20Policy%202020-2030.pdf
[37] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11024-015-9286-1?code=b1bf1bad-41bc-48d8-b65b-c3c16fda5ecb&error=cookies_not_supported
[38] Weiss, C., (2015). How Do Science and Technology Affect International Affairs? Minerva. 53. pp 411–430
[39] http://www.kashmirtimes.com/newsdet.aspx?q=113781
[40] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/28/magazine/nso-group-israel-spyware.html accessed on 09/12/2022
[41] https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2021/01/15/a-letter-to-dr-eric-s-lander-the-presidents-science-advisor-and-director-of-the-office-of-science-and-technology-policy/ accessed on 10/12/2022
[42] https://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahwince-smith/2022/06/29/building-a-new-technology-diplomacy-for-the-21st-century/?sh=6018ecb0312b accessed on 10/12/2022
[43] https://techonomy.com/tech-diplomacy-an-urgent-imperative-as-china-strengthens/ accessed on 11/12/2022
[44] Institute for Security Studies, ISS, (2018), Made In Africa Manufacturing and the fourth industrial revolution. Jumia. (2018). KENYA Mobile White Paper 2018.
[45] Jill Steans et al, An Introduction to International Relations Theory: Perspectives and Themes, 3rd edition, (London, Pearson Education Limited, 2010), pp 53-57
[46] Ibid, pp 53-57
[47] Morgenthau, H. J., Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1948)
[48] Eldridge, S., & Morgenthau, H. J. (1947). Scientific Man vs. Power Politics. American Sociological Review, 12(2), 236. https://doi.org/10.2307/2086992
[49] Waltz, K., Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979)
[50] Mearsheimer, J. J., (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York: W. W. Norton.
[51] Mearsheimer, J. J. (1990) Why We Will Soon Miss the Cold War. Atlantic Monthly, 266(3) pp. 35-50
[52] Gilpin, R., The Political Economy of International Relations (Princeton University Press,1987)
[53] Gilpin, R., & Gilpin, J. M. Global political economy: Understanding the International Economic Order (Princeton University Press, 2006)
[1] Ndemo, E.B., (2015). Political Entrepreneurialism: Reflections of a Civil Servant on the Role of Political Institutions in Technology Innovation and Diffusion in Kenya. Stability: International Journal of Security and Development, 4(1), p.Art. 15. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/sta.fd
[2] Ndemo, E.B., (2015). Political Entrepreneurialism: Reflections of a Civil Servant on the Role of Political Institutions in Technology Innovation and Diffusion in Kenya. Stability: International Journal of Security and Development, 4(1), p.Art. 15. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/sta.fd
[3] https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Global_Internet_Report_2014_0.pdf accesed on 21/12/2022
[4] Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN is an internationally. Organized, non-profit corporation tasked with keeping the internet secure, stable and interopable. It promotes competition and develops policy on the internet’s unique identifiers.
[5] https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/icann-launches-african-engagement-office-in-nairobi-26-5-2016-en accessed on 07/12/2022
[6] https://africa.businessinsider.com/local/markets/icann-to-install-two-root-server-clusters-in-kenya-and-one-other-african-country/nxhs1yn accessed on 07/12/2022
[7] https://african.business/2021/07/technology-information/kenya-and-ghana-lead-world-in-mobile-money/ accessed on 10/12/2022
[8] Role of Technology in International Affairs, Amitav Mallik, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, Pentagon Press New Delhi 2016 pg 12
[9] Ibid pg 13
[10] Hocking, Brian, Jan Melissen, Shaun Riordan, and Paul Sharp. 2012. Futures for diplomacy integrative diplomacy in the 21st century.
[11] Lindstrom, G., (2012) Diplomats and Diplomacy for the 21st Century Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
[12] Rana K.S. (2010) Inside Diplomacy New Delhi, Manas Publications
[13] Afman, E. R. and M. Maurel.(2010). Diplomatic relations and trade reorientation in transition countries. In van Bergeijk, P. A. and S. Brakman (eds). The Gravity model in international trade: Advances and applications Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[14] Lindstrom, G., (2012) Diplomats and Diplomacy for the 21st Century Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
[15] Rana K.S. (2011) Bilateral Diplomacy, Geneva, Diplo-handbooks.
[16] https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Digital-Entrepreneurship-in-Kenya-2014.pdf accessed on 11/12/2022
[17] https://kenyabusinessguide.org/2018/11/08/ict-sector-brief-decoding-the-silicon-savannah/ accessed on 11/12/2022
[18] https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/kenya-information-communications-and-technologyict#:~:text=The%20country’s%20ICT%20sector%20is,GDP%20through%20IT%2Denabled%20services. accessed on 10/12/2022
[19] https://ict.go.ke/ict-growth-expands-economy-in-kenya/ accessed on 10/12/2022
