negotiated himself. The issue of how ambassadors were selected and their actual responsibilities was relegated to the background, but they were a feature of the empire. xxxiv The administrative ambiguities aforementioned were re-echoed with regard to the internal organization of the Empire. Some of the borders were highly porous so that one was not certain when entering or leaving the jurisdiction of the empire. Even areas under the empire did not have a uniform pattern of administration. It depended on how an area in question came to be under the empire. Some areas had belonged to subdued tribes, others were varieties of client kingdoms, yet others were provinces under senatorial authority as opposed to the imperial control. Lack of records seems to suggest the lack of development of diplomatic relationship with any other entity. Rome did not use diplomacy to maintain supremacy; rather it adopted methods of maintaining long distance legal and commercial business principally within the empire. However a system of legal principles, the code of Justinian became the foundation of diplomatic law. In the same token, Rome was very clear on the legality of warfare as there were procedures to denote war and peace. Indeed this aspect provided a legal distinction between just and unjust war or brigandage. The only institution that developed in Rome which had some function in international relations was the college of Fetiales. This college had a number of roles some of which included; according appropriate responses in cases of apparent threats, for instance, it could inform the adversary on issues under contestation and demand certain actions within a specified timeframe. When the time given elapsed and war was imminent, certain formulae had to be cited along the enemy’s border all in an attempt to prevent the escalation of hostilities. Indeed the onset of peace was marked by the sacrifice of a pig in what was an oathing ceremony sworn at the time and woe unto him who was the first to break it, for a curse would befall him. None of the twenty members of the college was bestowed any rights or duties in the formulation and implementation of policy. xxxv This was evidence of how Rome handled diplomacy in what can be described as a mixed approach. While on one hand great efforts were put to prevent war, war did occur especially during the conquests that saw the expansion of the empire. The legal connotations of diplomacy may be seen to have been the hallmark of Roman Empire diplomacy. 2.3 The Byzantine Empire
K a m p a l a , Hon Haji, Hon Wetangula( defense Concurrence Uganda State &foreign ministers) and Maj Gen (rtd) House Mulinge, ambassador to Somalia briefed President Museveni on the same 6
The study examined and analyzed the conduct of military diplomacy occasioned by KDF’s entry into Somalia. Various levels were identified through which military diplomacy was conducted namely, at the local or national level, at the sub-regional level, at the regional level and at the international level. At the national level, military diplomacy addressed the national constituency through various institutions. The use of the cabinet and parliament to approve the deployment of KDF into Somalia, was a demonstration of military diplomacy. From the study, it was indicated that the Ministry of State for Defence engaged the aforementioned two institutions having followed the laid down procedures to secure the stipulated constitutional mandate to allow KDF operations in Somalia. It was also evident that, inter-ministerial consultations took place between the lead ministries of government in addressing the challenges from KDF’s engagement in Somalia. cxx Once the national constituency was informed and a consensus built on the need for the operation, diplomatic efforts were directed to the sub-region. From the study, it is evident that Shuttle Diplomacy was spearheaded by key personnel in the ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defence. The ministers in these two ministries, coupled with the military leadership represented by the Chief of Defence Forces, made several trips to the capitals within East Africa and the sub-region covering IGAD countries and to the AU Headquarters to brief the respective heads of states and government and AU officials, on Kenya’s action in response to the threats emanating from Somalia. From the outset, it was important that the conduct of military diplomacy was anchored within the practice of international law and practice for it to attract the requisite support and legitimacy regionally and internationally. To this end therefore military diplomacy through the ambit of the ministry of foreign affairs, invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter that authorizes the use of force by a state for self defence before informing the UNSC. The invocation of Article 51 was a clear demonstration of the threat to Kenya’s national interests and by extension, the threat to the very survival of the state. The conduct of military diplomacy within East Africa and the greater sub-region and eventually to the regional level was also in line with recognition of the UN’s Chapter V111 on regional security arrangements and more specifically Article 52 in a bid to ensure the attainment of international peace and security as per the dictates of the UNSC. From the study the role of IGAD and the AU is clear.