The United Nations’ decision to expand and shift more of its operations to Nairobi is no small matter. For Kenya, it feels like a stamp of approval on the country’s rising global profile. Over the past decade, Kenya has positioned itself as a stable, strategic, and vocal player in regional affairs. Nairobi already hosts UNEP and UN-Habitat, making it the only UN headquarters in the Global South. So, this new move looks both natural and well-deserved.
In recent years, Kenya has shown that its foreign policy is not just about rhetoric but results. Serving as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council (2021–2022), Nairobi made sure African security issues were on the table. Its leadership in peacekeeping, from Haiti to the Horn of Africa, has further cemented its reputation as a trusted mediator. From Nairobi, Africa speaks—and increasingly, the world pays attention.
But here’s the tough question: what does this shift actually mean for Kenya? Will it bring real power and decision-making to Africa, or will Nairobi simply serve as a logistical base for decisions made elsewhere? Symbolism is good, but without substance, it risks being hollow.
Kenya also has to look inward. For over a year, the country has been under socio-economic strain—rising living costs, protests, and reports of shrinking civic space. Hosting a larger UN footprint isn’t just about prestige; it comes with costs. Can Kenya, in its current state, shoulder the economic, political, and logistical demands that come with this international relocation?
More UN staff and missions in Nairobi will definitely reshape the city. There’ll be increased demand for housing, services, and infrastructure. Some businesses will gain, but urban affordability could worsen, deepening inequality. At the end of the day, ordinary Kenyans must ask: will they share in the benefits, or will they carry the costs of global diplomacy?
There’s also a bigger picture to consider. Many see the UN and other multilaterals as tools of a modern-day imperialism—dictating policies and setting targets often shaped in the West. That critique isn’t without truth. But moving more operations to Nairobi could also be an attempt to “decolonise” these institutions—not just in words but in location, access, and perspective.
This is where Kenya has a chance. The country must ensure it is not just a host, but an influencer. That requires building strong institutions, supporting policy think tanks, grooming global civil servants, and pushing for real negotiating power. Influence won’t come automatically with offices—it has to be earned and institutionalised.
The UN, on its part, must also walk the talk. Relocation to the Global South only makes sense if it comes with shared leadership and genuine inclusion of African voices in shaping global agendas. Anything less risks being another symbolic gesture.
In the end, both Kenya and the UN deserve recognition. Kenya for its consistent diplomacy, and the UN for at least taking a step toward inclusivity. But beyond the praise, tough questions remain. Hosting global power doesn’t mean owning it. The real test is whether this move brings Kenya closer to influence—or merely closer to its shadow.
