The Kenya Shifta War and Realism free essay sample

In this essay I am going to discuss the Kenyan war that has emerged in 1963 due to long-lasting grievances about bad treatment from British colonial isolation and ethnic Somali in Kenya irredentism drive to unite all other five Somali lands with Kenya into a greater Somalia. The issue of British colony had otherwise been much less to do with this war, the main reason to war was that of irredentism by Somalis. This conflict went on as Somalis resisted from being governed by a dark skinned government of the Prime Minister Jomo Kenyatta while at the same time seek unity. Somali seek independence at the expense of Kenya. Somalia wanted to be in power to rule a unified greater Somalia but Kenya couldn’t let their borders be destroyed due to ethnic driven irredentism by Somalis. The Somali independence threatened the national and political unity in Kenya. Thereafter the effects or results of these differing goals led to the Shifta war of 1963. We will write a custom essay sample on The Kenya Shifta War and Realism or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The main point of which I intend to further emphasize in this essay is the interlink of the Realism operating system that existed in the beginning to the end of this war. I will further in this essay outline how power and force was used to reach the ends of this war. The main point of this essay shows the understanding of realism aspects that are interlinked with this war or conflict. I shall further in this essay argue on how the theory of Realism and power pursuit by Somalis led to the outburst of this war called Shifta and how it brought about end to this conflict. At the heart of this war there is a high power drive or fight for power by both Kenya and Somalia and both states were highly motivated to use force of aggression to be the most powerful state. Somalis in Kenya had an idea of breaking the borders of Kenya and merge it with the other five states of Somalia to form a greater Somalia. This was based on the idea of the common ethnicity by Somalis as they were Muslims by religion and shared common language. The possibility of this idea to come to reality was never assured since the British colonialism in Kenya has separated different kinds of ethnic groups to avoid disputes that arise due to ethnicity, religion or any culture and it has been the effective system to control Kenyan state since the state of Kenya had more than eighty-seven ethnic groups at that time. So the idea of Somalia of grouping or break Kenyan borders to form a great Somalia was not to be effective because Muslims by their religion are not like Christians who can exist within other religions and be able to be Christians without affecting or be affected by other religions or cultures. Muslims do not associate themselves with other kinds of cultures or religions, they are sort of discriminatory towards other clans. As this drive of irredentism by Somalia has been proven not to be effective by Kenyans, Kenyans had to lookout for their beliefs and its political system as well. The only way Kenya protected itself from this Somalia legacy, it had to fight for its dependency as well. Kenya therefore declined Somalis proposal as this Somalia system threatened Kenya’s political and national unity. As Kenyans declined Somalis proposal the views of both states clashed and this clash led to the adaptation of realism instruments to resolve conflict and that is to inflict force of aggression to each other to maintain or gain power. This act of inflicting force or aggression to one another is the pillar or it is at the centre of the realist states. And the good way of inflicting force or aggression to one another is to gain something out of it. The only thing the realists seek to gain at any act is power. Somalia was the first to challenge Kenya to war with the main pursuit of power to rule the entire Kenya state. Kenya had to fight back the Somalis to maintain their power. As Kenya fought for its independence from Somalia they had to use force to deter Somalis from taking what’s rightfully theirs which is their land and closed borders. Somalis it seemed they couldn’t find or think of any better way they could have used to try and settle its proposed deal to Kenya. Going to war was the better option they thought of, this is because they are Muslims by religion and they thought going to war with Kenya was just. Now that’s the realists’ way of dealing with uncertainty. In my opinion, Realism was the ruling political system that existed in this conflict. Great Britain as the father of Kenya due to colonization had to intervene to try and bring about an end to this war between Kenya and Somalia. The question is, how was it going to do that? The answer to that question is otherwise simple. It starts with the reason why would Great Britain colonise Kenya, and that is because Kenya has an abundance of raw materials that Britain was exploiting. Somalia with their non-profit making legacy of irredentism was to be a bad effects to how Britain rules Kenya. Britain had to protect its source of profit by helping Kenya defeat Somalia. Britain then supplied Kenya with arms to fight back Somalia so that the war will come to an early end so that Britain will  continue with the exploitation of raw materials from Kenya. So literally speaking, Somalia was just an itch that Britain had to scratch off. Britain even took some of Kenyans and trained them for war so that they will fight Somalis effectively and strategically to lead to an early end of war. This act by Britain is influenced by the system of realism as it wasn’t interested in understanding the war causes it just used its power to get control of its interests. It only had to make sure that it’s still have access to Kenyan’s raw materials. If it let Somalis win, it was going to be hard for them to regain full access to Kenya if it changes to great Somalia as most of the Somalis were Muslims and believe in just war and they believed fighting for independence from colonialism was just. So as negotiation couldn’t go any further or any better, Britain motivated acts of realism in this war so that its economy doesn’t get too much affected. It is the belief of realists that negotiations take long to reach a favourable conclusion and leads to more damage as negotiations are underway. We see this very clearly in this Shifta war. Both states were not so much interested to talk but to forcedly and aggressively claim and take what they wanted (act by Somalia) and forcedly or aggressively protect or secure what they thought was rightfully theirs (act by Kenya). Somalis went to war first with Kenya because by nature they are known of being homogenous, Muslim by religion with a warrior culture of proven ability and history of martial prowess unlike Kenya. Kenya was not too much of a big deal to Somalia. Somalis knew they will win the war and some of Kenyans knew this as well, but then since them all or both are realists Kenya just had to go to war just to utilise its power no matter how big or small. That is why then the Great Britain had to intervene by supplying Kenya with fire arms even with flying squad and train Kenyans on how to fight Somalis because it knew that Kenya had no ability to win the war against Somalis. Reasonably Britain doesn’t really care about Kenya as you might think, what it cares about are the raw materials it has exploited from Kenya that it stood to lose if Somalia win the war. As much power Somalis had, they were ready to utilize it as they attacked polling and police stations of Kenya and the rest. It is the idea of realists that states should seek power and a state having power must show the potential to use it towards other stated and that’s exactly what Somalis did and according to their realism system of dealing with grievances they had the potential of winning the war, sadly Britain couldn’t let that happen. Now as I have tried to make a clear understanding of realism that penetrates within this war through the proliferation of fire arms between states and no interest in negotiations I shall now outline how the power existed within this war. Within this conflict power exists the most as at the centre of realism, power is all that matters and realism is just all about power. Power is what defines the operating system of Realism and its readiness to be utilized whenever necessary was a command. (Off the topic; if for example Samsung Galaxy SIII was Realism, Android would be its power of operation). However, power in this conflict seems to have conditions. For example, if Somalia had this conflict with Ethiopia, the Great Britain was not going to intervene, why? Because it has no interest in doing so and there is nothing to gain in either loss or win of either states. Back to Kenyan Shifta war, Britain was more than interested to exert its power to assist Kenya in winning the Shifta war. This power that bares here is because Britain have wealth to take care of from Kenya and when Kenya wins the war, Britain still have full access to Kenyans raw materials. However, Somalis were ready to finish or win the war as they have started it. But Kenya became more powerful as Britain assisted them. Somali strength was dramatically decreasing as Kenya used high technological weapons that Somalis can’t afford. Also, Kenya even killed their cattles and camels that belonged to Somalis so the war became mean and strong for Somalis. All of a sudden Kenya was now the ruler in this war and it was indeed in a power trip. If I further explain the power trip that Kenya was recently enjoying towards to the end of Shifta war, the power that Kenya really had was the economic power that had a lot to do with the involvement of Britain so Britain had to support Kenya to defeat Somalis. Without raw materials that Kenya had, there would be no economic power it had hence British wasn’t going to support Kenya to win the war. So power within this conflict had conditions and without those conditions, Kenya was left powerless. Power that Kenya had then became the major solution to bring about this war to an end and the lack of or otherwise lessor power Somalis had was good news for Britain. Something else was going on in the emergence of Shifta war. Let alone Shifta war being caused mostly by the issue of irredentism, the other cause was that of bad treatments by British government to Kenya and Kenyan Somalis. For as much as Kenyan Somalis seek independence and wanted to unite Kenya with other five Somali lands, Somalia didn’t want anything to do with the British colony because of its aggression and stealing of wealth Somalis believed it was rightfully theirs. British colony was the other cause of this war. To prove how powerful Britain had been to this war, just think how it used Kenya to defeat Somalia. In my understanding the Shifta war was not between Kenya and Somalia but it was between the Great Britain and Somalia. Kenya was used as a means to the ends of Britain. Now this proves how powerful Britain is and its readiness to use its power, as it seek to win Kenya it used Kenya to get rid of Somalia and that was the end of war and more resource exploitation by Britain in Kenya whilst even Kenya didn’t feel good under British colony. Kenya had nothing or very less to do to challenge the British to war as powerful Britain is and its use of realism instruments to deter conflict. For as many interests Somalia had starting from religious, independence and ethnicity or clan grouping to name a few, if anyone threatens those interests, Somalis were ready to defend them, even if protecting those interests had a potential to lead to warfare Somalis were ready to take that risk. That is why it was pleasurable for Britain to intervene because they knew that with Somalia government in power things were going to change to worst for Britain in its raw materials exploitation. The fight of Somalia was the fight of power other than unity. Somali fought for more than just land, they fought for the clans’ right, freedom from British colony and power. It seeked power to rule all Somalia spheres and add Kenya to become a great Somalia. As they seek to increase their power they were prepared to fight for it aggressively and that’s what realists do. Towards the resolution of the Shifta war. The solution was just that of realism perspective, â€Å"Power†. If it wasn’t for the power that Britain had landed to Kenya, war wasn’t going to end anytime sooner because Somalia was still facing the great fight of the Great Britain. What would have made it worse is that it was going take long as Somalis fail to accept failure. So Britain realized this and thought strategically by using Kenya to put an end to this war. Despite Kenyan government offer for economic assistance to Somalia to improve pastures and install new water resources like boreholes, Somalis regarded these tenders as less desirable that the unity with Kenya. Despite Kenya becoming more powerful, Somalia just had a lot of losses due to war, cattles, population, running out attacking equipment, loss of outside support by other countries, clans turning against each other and the war just became meaningless. That was the power drainage by Kenya to Somalia. It was rather pointless fighting with Somalia anymore. Power that Kenya had brought about an end to this Shifta war. This proves the existence of realism operating system at the centre of the Shifta war. Shifta war showed so much aspects to understand realism and power on how it really works. Shifta war as started aggressively by inflicting force to one another, it had otherwise ended with war when Kenya became more powerful than Somalia hence realism ends gained. The Shifta war again showed us the conditions of power that penetrated between Kenya, Somalia and Britain as Britain chose to favour Kenya than Somalia to win the war. At the end Kenya remained Kenya and Somalia remained as Somalia. Going to war was absolutely a waste of resources for Somali.