The War of being: Kenya’s National Interest Executed through its Foreign Policy

What is being? What does it mean 'to be'? Take for instance the concept of the human being. What then does it mean to be human? According to Plato, the human being is a body possessing a mind, body and soul. In simpler terms. Plato perceives the human being as comprising of the rational, appetitive and spirited parts. In philosophical anthropology or anthropological philosophy, human nature dictates that all human action be premised on the preservation of the human being, or rather, the human life. That human action, or praxeology in Greek philosophy, serves to maintain human life; where life here means the essence and vitality that gives breath to human existence. From the food we eat for nutrition to the water we drink for hydration; all action should secure the human being. It is after all the human law of nature to preserve the human kind. From this illustration, it can be deduced that being, as will be comprehensively discussed herein, has a dual nature. There is the being of that which has consciousness and that which is unconscious; both of which make up the entirety of existence. Furthermore, there lies a salient, complex and symbiotic relationship between the two. In international relations, the main ontology is state behaviour. That within the anarchical international system, states relate with one another, through foreign policy, in order to maintain and/or pursue certain interests. The nature and characterization of these interests, for which there are various theoretical approaches, then determine how a state behaves. Much like food and water are integral for the survival of the human being so are these interests, to the survival of the state. Safe to say that foreign policy therefore, is determined by domestic policy. In so doing, foreign policy first begins with domestic decision-making then translated to foreign policy action. However, these relations do not occur within a vacuum. One of the major contributions foreign policy has had on international relations is the incorporation of human agency. That human beings, working individually or in a group, operationalize these relations. The problem therefore is that these individuals have shared attitudes but different ideas on what national interests are. Adam Smith, 'The Wealth of Nations.' (1776) once said that. 'It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest.' According to Smith, self-interested actions power the engines for which the world works today. That we can no longer appeal to self-love and humanity in order to get our basic and rightful needs. The same can equally be said about the relationship between the state and the individual/citizen. The key purpose of the state existing is for the betterment of its people. So, what happens when the political class pursues its own self-interests, disguising them as public interests and why? Fundamentally, what is the net effect of the competition between the being of the state and the being that is the people vis-a-vis national interest? It is for this reason that this research takes a keen interest in qualitatively understanding this phenomenon while using Kenya's foreign policy as a case study.