President William Ruto’s recent state visit to the United States has ignited a significant debate about the alignment of Kenya’s national interests and the policies pursued by its leadership. This discourse reflects the broader concerns of how national interests are defined, projected, and safeguarded. At the heart of this discussion lies the expectation that government actions should inherently prioritize the well-being of its citizens while upholding the nation’s sovereignty and values.
National interests can be categorized into core and secondary priorities. Core interests are fundamental, encompassing the sovereignty, security, and survival of the state, along with the preservation of the nation’s identity and values. Secondary interests, while not as critical, still play a significant role in the country’s socio-economic and political landscape. These include economic growth, cultural heritage, and the overall quality of life.
The projection and defense of these interests rely heavily on the state’s capacity to manage various driving forces of human history: political economy, geography, resources, education, independence of thought, and national pride. The ability to secure these interests is a measure of a nation’s strength and stability.
Leaders are entrusted with the responsibility to safeguard and advance these national interests. This delegation of trust is conditional, as citizens reserve the right to hold their leaders accountable. Ruto’s U.S. visit brought to the forefront questions about whose interests were being represented and whether the trip served the national interest or specific, perhaps foreign, agendas.
The expectation is that leaders should act as stewards of the nation’s well-being and not as agents of internal or external threats. Historical examples, such as John Quincy Adams’ emphasis on national image in 1823, underscore the importance of maintaining a country’s reputation as a critical aspect of its national interest. However, there are instances where leaders, due to ignorance or ulterior motives, fail to recognize or address threats to the national image, thereby compromising national interests.
Ignorance among leadership can perpetuate poverty and create artificial scarcity, a tool often used to wield power. This process of scarcity creation involves strategic decisions about who has access to resources and who is denied. Such practices lead to resource monopolization, distinguishing strong countries from weaker ones based on their ability to control and allocate resources effectively.
Kenya, unfortunately, has been a victim of this scarcity creation. The resultant socio-economic disparities undermine national unity and stability, making it crucial for leaders to adopt policies that genuinely address these issues. This requires preparation and a holistic approach, encompassing intellectual, material, and physical readiness to combat these challenges.
For Kenya to thrive and safeguard its national interests, it is imperative that its leaders prioritize the well-being of the nation over personal or external interests. This involves a commitment to transparency, accountability, and a genuine effort to address the socio-economic challenges facing the country.
Ruto’s visit to the United States should serve as a reminder of the critical need for Kenyan leaders to align their actions with the nation’s core interests. By doing so, they can ensure the country’s sovereignty, security, and prosperity, fostering a sense of national pride and unity.
In conclusion, the debate sparked by President Ruto’s U.S. visit highlights the ongoing struggle to balance national interests with leadership actions. It is a call to Kenyan leaders to remain vigilant and committed to the nation’s true interests, ensuring that every policy and action taken aligns with the broader goals of national well-being and sovereignty.
