Navigating constraints and harnessing opportunities in cultural diplomacy: Advancing inter-state trust in Kenya–United States relations

Timothy Kitui Wanyonyi

doi:10.51867/ajernet.7.40

Authors

Timothy Kitui Wanyonyi Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51867/ajernet.7.40

Keywords:

Bilateral Relations, Cultural Diplomacy, Inter-State Trust, Kenya–United States Relations, People-to-People Diplomacy, Soft Power

Abstract

Cultural diplomacy is an increasingly important instrument of bilateral engagement, yet its trust-building effects depend on the political, institutional, financial, cultural, mobility and technological conditions within which cultural interaction occurs. This article examined the challenges and opportunities associated with using cultural diplomacy to strengthen inter-state trust and bilateral relations between Kenya and the United States. The study was guided principally by Soft Power Theory, complemented by liberal institutionalist and relational perspectives that explain how attraction, repeated interaction, reciprocity and durable institutional linkages can contribute to trust. A mixed-methods approach employing descriptive and evaluative research designs was used. The target population comprised diplomats and foreign-affairs officials, cultural practitioners, educational and exchange-programme participants, media and communication professionals, academic and institutional actors, and diaspora/community stakeholders in Kenya and the United States. Stratified random sampling supported the quantitative component, while purposive and snowball sampling were used to reach specialized and information-rich participants. The article draws on 359 completed survey responses, open-ended questionnaire narratives, key-informant and expert interviews, and four focus group discussions. Quantitative data were analyzed using frequencies, percentages and mean scores, while qualitative data were analyzed thematically and triangulated across data sources. Major constraints were inadequate funding, visa and mobility barriers, cultural misunderstandings and stereotypes, political and institutional inconsistency, weak programme sustainability and technological inequalities. Conversely, respondents identified strong opportunities in educational exchange, institutional collaboration, creative-industry engagement, digital diplomacy, diaspora and alumni networks, youth participation and media cooperation. Institutional collaboration and expanded exchange programmes each recorded a mean of 4.64, while social-media and media partnerships received unanimous strong endorsement (M = 5.00). The study concludes that cultural diplomacy contributes most effectively to bilateral trust when engagement is reciprocal, inclusive, adequately resourced, institutionalized and sustained beyond individual programmes. It recommends diversified financing, improved mobility support, stronger bilateral institutional coordination, systematic alumni engagement, expanded creative-industry diplomacy and investment in inclusive digital infrastructure.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Arsenault, A. (2009). Public diplomacy 2.0. In P. Seib (Ed.), Toward a new public diplomacy: Redirecting U.S. foreign policy (pp. 135-153). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230100855_7

Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21-71). Intercultural Press.

Bjola, C., & Holmes, M. (Eds.). (2015). Digital diplomacy: Theory and practice. Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315730844

Cowan, G., & Arsenault, A. (2008). Moving from monologue to dialogue to collaboration: The three layers of public diplomacy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 10-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311863

Cull, N. J. (2008). Public diplomacy: Taxonomies and histories. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 31-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311952

Cummings, M. C. (2003). Cultural diplomacy and the United States government: A survey. Center for Arts and Culture.

Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241-266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315306287002

Gilboa, E. (2008). Searching for a theory of public diplomacy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 55-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207312142

Goff, P. M. (2016). Cultural diplomacy. In C. M. Constantinou, P. Kerr, & P. Sharp (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of diplomacy. SAGE.

Ho, E. L. E., & McConnell, F. (2019). Conceptualizing "diaspora diplomacy": Territory and populations betwixt the domestic and foreign. Progress in Human Geography, 43(2), 235-255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132517740217

Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1977). Power and interdependence. Little, Brown.

Manor, I. (2019). The digitalization of public diplomacy. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04405-3

Manor, I., & Pamment, J. (2019). Towards prestige mobility? Diplomatic prestige and digital diplomacy. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 32(2), 93-131. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2019.1577801

Melissen, J. (Ed.). (2005). The new public diplomacy: Soft power in international relations. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230554931

Metzgar, E. T. (2016). Institutions of higher education as public diplomacy tools: China-based university programs for the 21st century. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(3), 223-241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315315604718

Moshtari, M., & Ghorbani, M. (2025). Challenges and strategies for academic diaspora engagement in the internationalisation of higher education institutions: Empirical evidence from a low- and middle-income country. Higher Education Quarterly, 79, Article e70004. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.70004

Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164887

Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. PublicAffairs.

Nye, J. S. (2008). Public diplomacy and soft power. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 94-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311699

Nye, J. S. (2011). The future of power. PublicAffairs.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.

https://doi.org/10.1145/358916.361990

Zaharna, R. S. (2010). Battles to bridges: U.S. strategic communication and public diplomacy after 9/11. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230277922