EU-Africa Relations: Reframing Kenya’s Peace And Security Architecture
- 6 days ago
- 16 min read
Read the full journal, including this article, by downloading the PDF below.
Image credit: AI-generated illustration produced with OpenAI (DALL·E), 2026.
by Brig (Rtd) Dr Robert Kabage
Abstract
This paper examines Kenya’s peace and security architecture within the framework of EU–Africa relations, highlighting policy and governance priorities critical to advancing mutually beneficial outcomes. In a pluriversal world, EU–Africa relations are undergoing renewed scrutiny, particularly in the domains of peace and security. Historically shaped by colonial legacies, post-independence cooperation frameworks, and agreements such as Cotonou, the relationship is now rhetorically repositioned toward a more balanced and strategic partnership, as articulated in initiatives like the Joint Vision for 2030. Kenya is at the centre of this debate as an anchor state in the Greater Eastern Africa. Kenya plays a central role in regional stability, contributing to peace support operations in Somalia, South Sudan and DR Congo, while managing domestic security challenges, border threats, and institutional reforms. The study analyses the alignment of EU engagement including technical support, capacity building, and financial assistance with Kenya’s national security objectives and lived experiences. Drawing on government reports, EU programmeme documentation, and empirical insights from security personnel and local communities, the paper interrogates both opportunities and constraints presented by EU–Africa cooperation. Emphasis is placed on the operational impacts of EU-funded initiatives, the challenges posed by donor dependency, normative divergences, and Kenya’s strategic role in shaping a new international security architecture consistent with UN Charter principles. The paper concludes with evidence-based recommendations for enhancing Kenya’s agency, strengthening local ownership of peace initiatives, and fostering a partnership with the EU that advances Kenya’s leadership in Africa’s peace and security agenda, institutional resilience, and regional stability.
Keywords: Peace and security, EU–Africa relations, governance, UN Charter, security architecture, Kenya
1. Introduction
The evolving dynamics of European Union (EU)–Africa relations are increasingly shaped by strategic imperatives that intersect with peace, security, and governance across the continent. Within this context, Kenya emerges as a critical frontline state, serving both as a contributor to regional peace support operations and as a host for multilateral security governance mechanisms. Historically, EU–Africa relations have been influenced by colonial legacies, donor–recipient frameworks, and normative commitments embedded in instruments such as the Cotonou Agreement. While such frameworks have promoted development and structural cooperation, they have often reinforced asymmetrical power relations, limiting the extent to which African states exercise agency in defining security and governance priorities (Zajontz, 2022; Ogutu, 2025).
This paper critically examines Kenya’s peace and security architecture within the broader EU–Africa relations lens, interrogating the ways in which EU instruments and partnerships interact with Kenya’s national security priorities. These include contributions to United Nations (UN), African Union (AU) and regional peacekeeping operations, institutional capacity-building, governance frameworks addressing internal and regional security challenges, and the operational realities experienced by affected communities. By situating Kenya at the intersection of operational practice, policy governance, and interregional cooperation, the study foregrounds empirical realities that illuminate both opportunities and constraints in EU–Kenya peace and security engagements.
1.1. Objectives of the Study
The objectives of this study are fourfold:
a. To assess the operational and strategic impact of EU instruments, including the European Peace Facility (EPF) and the African Peace Facility (APF), on Kenya’s national and regional security architecture.
b. To analyse the governance and institutional dimensions of Kenya’s engagement with EU-supported initiatives, highlighting successes and challenges in aligning external support with national priorities.
c. To examine the lived experiences of frontline actors and affected communities, integrating their perspectives into the evaluation of peace and security interventions.
d. To generate evidence-based policy and governance recommendations that strengthen mutually beneficial EU–Africa outcomes, emphasising Kenya’s sovereignty, agency, and alignment with UN Charter principles.
1.2. Methodological Overview
The study adopts a mixed-methods approach, integrating secondary data from official reports, policy documents, and peer-reviewed literature with field-based insights from Kenya’s security engagements. By combining theoretical frameworks with empirical evidence from operational contexts such as ATMIS and UNMISS deployments, the research provides a comprehensive, country-specific lens for evaluating EU–Africa cooperation in peace and security. This approach ensures that the study is both academically rigorous and directly relevant to Kenya’s policy and governance priorities, producing findings that are empirically grounded, analytically robust and actionable.
2. Literature Review / Theoretical Framework
Research on EU–Africa peace and security cooperation consistently identifies two interrelated analytical dimensions. First, empirical studies evaluate the operational effectiveness of EU instruments in fostering peace, security, and institutional capacity across African states. Second, theoretical analyses interrogate the structural dynamics and normative frameworks underpinning interregional security partnerships, including issues of power asymmetry, institutional design, and African agency (Akinyi, 2018; Plank, 2022). Integrating these strands is essential for understanding how EU initiatives intersect with national security priorities, particularly in anchor states such as Kenya, and directly informs the operational, governance, community, and policy-focused objectives of this study.
2.1. EU Peace and Security Cooperation: Institutional and Operational Foundations
The European Union has progressively transformed its external action from a development-focused mandate into a strategic engagement encompassing peace support operations, conflict prevention, and institutional capacity-building initiatives. Core instruments—including the European Peace Facility (EPF), the Instrument for Stability and Peace (IcSP), and the African Peace Facility (APF)—support African-led peace architectures, particularly the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) (European External Action Service, 2021; Plank, 2022). APSA comprises institutional pillars such as the Peace and Security Council (PSC), the Continental Early Warning System (CEWS), and the African Standby Force (ASF). These pillars collectively operationalise continental conflict prevention and response while providing a framework for member states to coordinate national contributions.
EU engagement through these instruments is framed within Joint Vision 2030, emphasising African ownership, strategic reciprocity, and the integration of development, governance, and security priorities (European Union and African Union, 2022). Critical scholarship highlights persistent normative tensions and power asymmetries, as EU agenda-setting can influence policy adoption and operational priorities within African states (Akinyi, 2018), reinforcing the need for country-level analysis that balances operational effectiveness with governance alignment (Objective 2).
2.2. Kenya as an Anchor State in EU–Africa Security Cooperation
Kenya occupies a central position in EU–Africa peace and security frameworks. Operationally, Kenya contributes substantively to regional missions, with approximately 7,220 personnel deployed in the African Union Transition Mission in Somalia (ATMIS) as of December 2024 (African Union Peace and Security Department, 2024; United Nations Peacekeeping, 2025). The deployments directly reflect the operational impact of EU support and national contributions (Objective 1).
Beyond troop contributions, Kenya hosted institutional platforms for EU–Africa cooperation, including the tenth EU–APSA IV steering committee and sixth Early Response Mechanism (ERM) meetings in 2025, demonstrating Nairobi’s role as both a policy and operational hub for continental security governance. EU financial support to Kenya further demonstrates tangible engagement: in June 2024, the Council of the European Union allocated €20 million under the EPF to enhance the Kenya Defence Forces’ capacity in counterterrorism, border security, and institutional reform (Council of the European Union, 2024). This combination of funding, operational contribution, and institutional hosting underscores Kenya’s strategic agency and aligns with all four study objectives.
2.3. Theoretical Perspectives on Partnerships and Power Dynamics
Two complementary theoretical perspectives elucidate EU–Kenya cooperation:
a. Institutionalist Approaches – Structured frameworks such as APSA and Joint Vision 2030 generate predictable norms, institutional convergence, and cooperative behaviour by embedding African states within multi-level governance architectures (European Union and African Union, 2022; Plank, 2022). These frameworks facilitate Kenya’s integration into continental decision-making and operational planning, supporting both governance alignment (Objective 2) and strategic policy coherence (Objective 4).
b. Critical Realist Perspectives – Enduring power asymmetries and normative influence mean EU agenda-setting and conditionalities can constrain Kenya’s strategic autonomy (Akinyi, 2018). Kenya’s engagement represents a negotiated equilibrium in which operational gains from EU partnership are balanced against national ownership, local legitimacy, and institutional sovereignty, particularly in frontier security areas where EU support intersects with domestic counterterrorism and border management priorities. This framework underpins the integration of lived experiences into policy design (Objective 3) and informs actionable recommendations (Objective 4).
2.4. Lived Institutional Practice and Governance Implications
Empirical and field-based literature emphasises the importance of lived experiences in shaping policy outcomes. In Kenya, EU-funded border surveillance, training, and logistical support have enhanced situational awareness and operational efficiency. Field reports indicate that without parallel investment in community engagement, trust-building, and socio-economic inclusion, security interventions risk marginalising local populations, particularly in Garissa, Mandera, and Wajir counties (Human Rights Watch, 2023). These observations highlight the necessity of integrating technical support with governance frameworks that prioritise human security and institutional resilience. Community engagement mechanisms reinforce operational sustainability (Objective 1), ensure governance alignment (Objective 2), and validate policies through local knowledge integration (Objective 3), collectively supporting Kenya’s strategic positioning and policy coherence (Objective 4).
2.5. Gap in Literature: Country-Level, Empirically Grounded Analyses
While continental and regional analyses of EU–Africa peace and security cooperation are extensive, country-specific studies examining operational realities, governance challenges, and lived experiences in frontline states remain scarce. Existing studies frequently generalise across regions, obscuring the nuanced interaction between EU instruments and national priorities.
This paper addresses this gap by focusing on Kenya’s unique position, analysing both institutional frameworks and operational dynamics, and linking them explicitly to policy and governance priorities. By integrating empirical data, theoretical perspectives, and lived experiences, the study generates actionable insights across all four objectives: operational impact, governance alignment, community integration, and policy coherence. These considerations directly inform the methodology in Section 3, ensuring both academic rigor and policy relevance.
3. Methodology
This study employs a rigorous, multi-dimensional methodology designed to systematically examine Kenya’s peace and security architecture within the EU–Africa relations framework. Emphasis is placed on operational realities, governance structures, policy coherence, and lived experiences, ensuring both analytical depth and empirical specificity. The methodology explicitly aligns with the four study objectives, linking operational, governance, community, and policy dimensions to actionable recommendations.
3.1. Research Design
A qualitative single-country case study design is adopted, focusing on Kenya as an anchor state in AU, UN, and EU-supported peace and security initiatives. Kenya’s selection is informed by its strategic role in regional security, including deployments in the African Union Transition Mission in Somalia (ATMIS) and the African Union Support and Stabilization Mission in Somalia (AUSSOM), as well as its hosting of continental security coordination platforms. This design allows for a comprehensive, country-specific analysis of institutional dynamics, operational performance, and governance frameworks while capturing lived experiences from security personnel, policymakers, and local communities. The approach directly supports Objective 1 (operational contributions), Objective 2 (governance alignment), Objective 3 (lived experiences), and Objective 4 (policy and governance priorities).
3.2. Data Sources
Data triangulation ensures validity and reliability. Sources include:
a. Secondary official data: AU and Kenya government reports on APSA, KDF deployments, and operational performance.
b. EU programme documentation: European Peace Facility (EPF), Instrument for Stability and Peace (IcSP), and Joint Vision 2030 reports.
c. United Nations sources: UNMISS operational reports and troop contributions.
d. Peer-reviewed literature: Analyses of EU–Africa cooperation, African agency, and interregional security dynamics.
e. Field-based evidence: Grey literature and secondary reports documenting community experiences, local governance, and operational feedback from Garissa, Mandera, and Wajir counties.
Data spans the period 2020–2025, ensuring recency and relevance for current policy implications.
3.3. Analytical Approach
Thematic content analysis, tailored to Kenya’s context, was conducted across four interrelated dimensions, explicitly linked to the study objectives:
a. Operational Effectiveness (Objective 1): Assessed EU instrument contributions to troop readiness, logistics, training, and intelligence, analysing multi-year trends and sustainability.
b. Governance and Institutional Alignment (Objective 2): Evaluated integration of EU-supported initiatives with Kenya’s National Security Policy, Ministry of Defence frameworks, and APSA/continental standards.
c. Lived Experiences (Objective 3): Explored the perspectives of security personnel and communities in conflict vulnerable regions in Kenya, focusing on operational challenges, human security outcomes, and local legitimacy.
d. Policy Coherence and Strategic Alignment (Objective 4): Examined EU–Kenya policy integration with UN Charter principles, AU frameworks, and broader continental strategies, identifying gaps and opportunities for mutually beneficial outcomes.
3.4. Justification of Methodology
This methodology is optimal for generating policy-relevant insights while maintaining empirical rigor. The case study approach captures Kenya-specific realities and enables contextualised recommendations. Triangulation across secondary, operational, and field-based data ensures reliability, robustness, and credibility. Integrating institutionalist and critical realist perspectives allows the study to account for both normative and power dynamics shaping EU–Kenya cooperation, addressing the tension between operational gains and national sovereignty.
3.5. Limitations and Mitigation
Constraints include limited access to classified operational data and potential biases in secondary reporting. These limitations are mitigated through cross-validation with multiple sources, inclusion of field-level evidence, and triangulation across institutional and community perspectives. While these constraints may marginally affect granularity in operational detail, they do not compromise the study’s capacity to generate actionable policy recommendations.
3.6. Contribution to Findings and Recommendations
By systematically integrating operational, governance, lived experience, and policy dimensions, this methodology underpins Sections 4.0 (Findings) and 5.0 (Recommendations). It ensures that empirical evidence, analytical rigor, and contextual relevance are fully aligned with the study’s four objectives, providing a robust foundation for Kenya-centred, innovative, and actionable insights in EU–Africa peace and security cooperation.
4. Findings / Analysis
Kenya’s peace and security architecture occupies a critical position within regional, continental, and interregional frameworks. As an anchor state in the region, Kenya simultaneously contributes to AU, UN and EU-supported missions, manages domestic security challenges, and hosts EU-funded security initiatives. While EU engagement has augmented operational capacity and governance mechanisms, several Kenya-specific gaps compromise the sustainability, effectiveness, and contextual alignment of these interventions. These gaps span operational dependence, governance fragmentation, community integration deficits, and multilateral strategic misalignment, each of which has measurable and verifiable impacts on Kenya’s national security priorities (African Union Peace and Security Department, 2024; United Nations Peacekeeping, 2025).
4.1. Operational Dependence and Sustainability Deficit
Kenya’s operational capacity in regional peace support missions remains heavily dependent on EU funding, training, and logistical support. As of December 2024, Kenya contributed approximately 7,220 personnel to ATMIS in Somalia (22% of the total AU contingent) (African Union Peace and Security Department, 2024). While the European Peace Facility (EPF) allocated €20 million in June 2024 to support counterterrorism, border security, and institutional reform (Council of the European Union, 2024), field reports indicate that national capabilities for force mobility, intelligence collection, and rapid deployment are not fully self-sustaining. Operational units report that without EU-provided logistics, such as airlift capacity and advanced surveillance equipment, the tempo and effectiveness of missions decline markedly, particularly in remote or high-risk operational theatres. This reflects a sustainability deficit: Kenya’s current operational contributions risk regression should EU funding diminish, demonstrating a gap in national ownership, long-term planning, and strategic autonomy (African Union Peace and Security Department, 2024).
4.2. Governance Fragmentation and Coordination Inconsistency
Institutional coordination between Kenyan authorities and EU-supported initiatives remains fragmented. Multiple ministries—including Defence, Interior, Foreign Affairs, and the National Treasury—interact with overlapping EU programmes without a centralised policy coordination mechanism (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kenya, 2026). For example, EU training programmes for APSA compliance are often scheduled independently of Kenya Defence Forces’ deployment cycles, resulting in suboptimal utilisation of resources and reporting inconsistencies. Mid-level officers report that differing monitoring and evaluation requirements between EU instruments and national frameworks lead to duplication of effort and occasional misalignment in operational priorities (African Union Peace and Security Department, 2025). These coordination inconsistencies indicate a governance gap: while technical and financial support exists, the lack of institutionalised channels for alignment undermines efficiency, strategic coherence, and accountability.
4.3. Community Integration Deficit and Contextual Disconnect
Despite operational and governance improvements, local populations in conflict vulnerable regions in Kenya experience uneven benefits from EU-supported interventions. In Garissa, Mandera, and Wajir, EU-assisted early warning and conflict monitoring systems have enhanced threat detection, yet civil-military engagement remains sporadic (The Star, 2025; UNDP Kenya, 2025). Community representatives report that security planning is often top-down, with limited consultation on socio-economic needs, conflict triggers, or local priorities. This community integration deficit reduces the legitimacy and sustainability of interventions, contributing to occasional tensions between deployed forces and local populations. Empirical field assessments indicate that only 40-50% of stabilisation projects in these vulnerable regions directly incorporate local input, leaving substantial gaps in trust-building, human security, and operational effectiveness (Human Rights Watch, 2023).
4.4. Strategic Misalignment Across Multilateral Security Mandates
Kenya’s engagement with EU instruments exists within a complex multilateral security environment that includes AU, UN, and national mandates. Strategic misalignment arises when EU normative frameworks—focused on human rights monitoring, anti-corruption compliance, and procedural accountability—intersect with Kenya’s operational imperatives for rapid counterterrorism responses, border stabilisation, and critical infrastructure protection. For example, EU reporting timelines for programme deliverables often conflict with urgent operational demands in high-risk regions, creating tension between compliance and effectiveness (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kenya, 2026). Additionally, emerging actors such as China influence logistical support, technology transfers, and infrastructure projects, introducing another layer of complexity (Zajontz, 2022). These multilateral misalignments illustrate the challenge of reconciling external normative priorities with Kenya-centred operational realities while maintaining adherence to the UN Charter, AU protocols, and national security law (United Nations Security Council Resolution 2687, 2023).
4.5. Synthesis of Findings
The empirical evidence demonstrates that EU–Kenya peace and security cooperation delivers measurable benefits in operational capacity, institutional development, and normative alignment. However, Kenya-specific gaps—including operational dependence, fragmented governance coordination, limited integration of local lived experiences, and strategic misalignment across multilateral frameworks—persist. These gaps compromise long-term sustainability, reduce operational effectiveness, and limit the full realisation of Kenya’s strategic agency in regional and continental security architectures (Human Rights Watch, 2023; African Union Peace and Security Department, 2024; United Nations Peacekeeping, 2025). Addressing these gaps requires a holistic, Kenya-centred approach that strengthens operational autonomy, institutional coherence, community integration, and multilateral alignment, forming the foundation for the actionable recommendations in Section 5.
5. Policy and Governance Recommendations
The four gaps identified in Section 4—operational dependence, governance fragmentation, community integration deficits, and multilateral misalignment—require interventions that are empirically grounded, operationally feasible, and institutionally anchored in Kenya’s national security framework. Addressing these gaps holistically ensures that Kenya’s peace and security architecture is both sustainable and strategically aligned with regional, continental, and international mandates.
5.1. Establishment of a National Peace Operations Fund
Kenya’s operational capacity in regional peace support missions can be significantly strengthened through the establishment of a National Peace Operations Fund, consolidating domestic resources, donor contributions, and regional cost-sharing mechanisms for AU, UN, and bilateral missions. This fund would provide predictable financing for operational deployments, training programmes, and logistical support, reducing dependence on ad-hoc external funding. Structured contributions from the national budget, supplemented by multilateral partnerships, would ensure continuity of operations in ATMIS, AUSSOM and other regional commitments, thereby enhancing long-term strategic autonomy and operational readiness.
5.2. Strengthening Governance Coordination and Policy Coherence
Fragmented institutional coordination between Kenyan authorities and EU-supported initiatives can be mitigated by creating a centralised National Security Coordination Unit. This unit would harmonise programme planning, training schedules, and reporting requirements across ministries and agencies, streamlining interactions with EU instruments. By consolidating monitoring and evaluation frameworks, aligning operational priorities, and facilitating joint decision-making, the unit would ensure coherence, efficiency, and accountability across all security governance initiatives. The approach integrates institutional capacity-building with practical policy oversight to reduce redundancy and maximise the impact of external support.
5.3. Enhancing Community Integration and Localised Security Engagement
To address deficits in community integration, Kenya should institutionalise participatory mechanisms that embed local input in operational planning and security governance. Structured consultations, conflict-sensitivity training for deployed personnel, and collaborative design of stabilisation initiatives would improve civil-military engagement, increase local legitimacy, and strengthen human security outcomes. Targeted programmes in conflict vulnerable regions in Kenya, like Garissa, Mandera, and Wajir, would incorporate socio-economic priorities, early-warning feedback, and conflict-resolution practices, ensuring that interventions reflect both operational realities and the lived experiences of affected communities.
5.4. Development of a Kenya-Centred Multilateral Security Alignment Framework
Kenya’s engagement with multilateral partners, including the AU, UN, and EU, requires a comprehensive alignment framework to reconcile operational mandates, reporting timelines, and normative priorities. By mapping points of convergence and divergence across all actors, the framework would identify potential conflicts, streamline operational coordination, and establish contingency protocols to maintain mission effectiveness under competing requirements. This Kenya-centred approach ensures that external normative objectives complement national security imperatives, enhancing strategic agency while maintaining compliance with AU, EU, UN, and national legal frameworks.
6. Conclusion
This study has critically examined how Kenya’s peace and security architecture interacts with EU–Africa relations in peace and security, addressing the central research question of how policy and governance priorities can strengthen mutually beneficial outcomes. Kenya emerges as an anchor state in regional and continental security, contributing decisively to AU, UN, and regional missions while navigating complex dynamics of external support, domestic institutional capacities, and community realities. The findings underscore operational strengths, such as Kenya’s logistical and troop contributions, alongside persistent challenges, including external funding dependence, fragmented institutional coordination, and limited integration of local community perspectives in policymaking.
The policy recommendations directly respond to these findings: enhancing operational capacity through national financing and regional coordination, institutionalising governance alignment via formal Kenya–EU consultation platforms, integrating lived experiences of frontline communities into planning, and advancing a coherent, sustainable EU–Kenya partnership framework. Each measure provides a clear, actionable pathway that is both contextually grounded in Kenya’s lived realities and strategically aligned with broader AU, EU, and UN peace and security frameworks.
Collectively, these recommendations reinforce Kenya’s capacity to exercise strategic agency, strengthen institutional coherence, and embed community perspectives in peace and security operations. By combining empirical evidence, robust governance structures, and participatory approaches, Kenya can consolidate a balanced, sustainable, and mutually beneficial role within EU–Africa peace and security cooperation while contributing to a reformed, inclusive international peace and security architecture.
7. Future Research Directions
This section identifies research areas that directly extend the findings and recommendations of this study, highlighting opportunities to deepen understanding of Kenya’s role in EU–Africa peace and security cooperation.
7.1. Operational Sustainability of Kenya’s Peace Contributions
Future research should examine the long-term viability of Kenya’s engagement in AU, UN, and EU-supported missions, including national financing, regional cost-sharing mechanisms, and logistical capacity. Studies could leverage past deployment data—such as Kenya’s 7,220 personnel in ATMIS (African Union Peace and Security Department, 2024) to model sustainability under varying funding and operational scenarios. Predictive tools, including conflict and deployment modelling, could optimise resource allocation and operational planning, building directly on Section 4.1 findings and recommendations in 5.1 regarding operational autonomy.
7.2. Effectiveness of Governance Coordination Mechanisms
Research should evaluate the practical impact of formal Kenya–EU consultation platforms and institutional alignment processes on policy coherence, strategic decision-making, and accountability. Comparative analysis with other frontline states, such as Ethiopia or Mali, could provide lessons for refining governance structures. This directly extends to Section 4.2 findings and Section 5.2 recommendations on institutional integration and coordination.
7.3. Integration of Community Lived Experiences in Security Policy
Field-based studies could assess how systematically incorporating local perspectives on conflict vulnerable regions of Garissa, Mandera, and Wajir affects operational success, social legitimacy, and inclusive governance. Participatory monitoring systems, digital reporting platforms, and structured civil-military consultation could strengthen evidence-informed policy, directly linked to Section 4.3 findings and Section 5.3 recommendations on integrating lived experiences.
References
African Union Peace and Security Department. 2024. ATMIS and AU Peacekeeping Operational Overview. Addis Ababa: African Union.
African Union Peace and Security Department. 2025. Institutional Coordination and Monitoring of APSA Implementation in Kenya. Addis Ababa: African Union.
Akinyi, J. 2018. Normative Influence and African Agency in EU–Africa Security Cooperation. Nairobi: University of Nairobi Press.
Council of the European Union. 2024. European Peace Facility: €20 million support for Kenya Defence Forces. Brussels: Council of the European Union.
European External Action Service. 2021. EU Engagement in African Peace and Security: Instruments and Operational Frameworks. Brussels: EEAS.
European Union and African Union. 2022. Joint Vision 2030: Strategic Framework for EU–AU Peace and Security Cooperation. Brussels/Addis Ababa: European Union and African Union.
Human Rights Watch. 2023. World Report 2023: Kenya. [Online] Available at: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023/country-chapters/kenya [accessed: 27 July 2026].
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kenya. 2026. Coordination of EU-Funded Peace and Security Initiatives in Kenya. Nairobi: Government of Kenya.
Ogutu, M. 2025. EU–Africa Security Partnerships: Country-Level Dynamics in Kenya. Nairobi: Strathmore University Press.
Plank, R. 2022. Institutionalist and Critical Realist Approaches to EU–Africa Peace Cooperation. Berlin: Springer.
The Star. 2025. Community Perceptions of Security Interventions in Northern Kenya. [Online] Available at: https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2025/07/05/community-engagement-security-northern-kenya/ [accessed: 27 July 2026].
UNDP Kenya. 2025. Early Warning and Conflict Monitoring Systems in Frontier Counties. [Online] Available at: https://www.ke.undp.org/content/kenya/en/home/library/democratic_governance.html
[accessed: 27 July 2026].
United Nations Peacekeeping. 2025. UNMISS Operational Data and Troop Contributions. [Online] Available at: https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/mission/unmiss [accessed: 27 July 2026].
United Nations Security Council. 2023. Resolution 2687 (2023) on ATMIS/Somalia. [Online] Available at: https://undocs.org/S/RES/2687(2023) [accessed: 27 July 2026].
Zajontz, T. 2022. Emerging Powers and Security Governance in Africa: Implications for EU Partnerships. Berlin: Springer.
This report has been published by the Inclusive Society Institute
The Inclusive Society Institute (ISI) is an autonomous and independent institution that functions independently from any other entity. It is founded for the purpose of supporting and further deepening multi-party democracy. The ISI’s work is motivated by its desire to achieve non-racialism, non-sexism, social justice and cohesion, economic development and equality in South Africa, through a value system that embodies the social and national democratic principles associated with a developmental state. It recognises that a well-functioning democracy requires well-functioning political formations that are suitably equipped and capacitated. It further acknowledges that South Africa is inextricably linked to the ever transforming and interdependent global world, which necessitates international and multilateral cooperation. As such, the ISI also seeks to achieve its ideals at a global level through cooperation with like-minded parties and organs of civil society who share its basic values. In South Africa, ISI’s ideological positioning is aligned with that of the current ruling party and others in broader society with similar ideals.
Email: info@inclusivesociety.org.za
Phone: +27 (0) 21 201 1589
Comments