ABSTRACT
The sovereign Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the
Republic of Kenya are
two independent states geographically located in the Horn of Africa;
they share a common
border, similar challenges and arguably common opportunities. The two
states have had
diplomatic relations for close to six decades. This study was guided by
three objectives; to
examine the factors that determine foreign and policy interests of the
two countries, to analyse
responses of Kenya and Ethiopia to the changing global environment, to
examine the similarities
and differences of the foreign policy and diplomatic styles of the two
countries.
From the study it emerged that if security and conflict challenges from
the region are
factored in foreign policy of the two states towards each other, then they
will be responsive. It
also emerged that If the foreign and policy responses of Kenya and
Ethiopia are not responsive to
the global environment, then change will be of no essence. Moreover the
research findings noted
that foreign and diplomatic policies of Kenya and Ethiopia are similar
but the implementation
methods are different.
The study used the actor model theory, Allison’s models of foreign
policy decision
making are based on three levels of foreign policy analysis. Allison
argues that, these models are
useful in decision making by states. Allison argues that, in foreign
policy, states decisions are
made by considering three main models namely, rational actor approach,
organizational process
and bureaucratic politics model. The rational actor approach contends
that, governments are
unified and rational entities, seeking to achieve well defined foreign
policy goals in the
international system.
The Rational Actor approach presumes that, individual actors have
complete freedom of
action to achieve goals that they have articulated through a careful
process of rational analysis
involving full and objective study of all pertinent information and
alternatives. At the same time,
it presumes that this central actor is so fully in control of the apparatus
of government that a
decision once made is as good as implemented. The rational actor model
ignores the fact that the
individual, say the president is surrounded by a bureaucratic from which
he has to obtain
information and discuss policy alternatives. Such a structure may
influence decisions since it the
same structure which is providing the information and alternative from
which the rational leader
is to make his choice from.