Bioterrorism: – Threats and Possible Implications on National Security in Kenya

Bioterrorism: – Threats and Possible Implications on National Security in Kenya

Julius Kipkorir Mutai, Zedekiah Sidha, Mumo Nzau

National Defence University – Kenya

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.8090165

Received: 03 September 2024; Accepted: 11 September 2024; Published: 10 October 2024

ABSTRACT

Bioterrorism presents a substantial global threat to national security, with potentially catastrophic outcomes. The primary aim of this research was to evaluate Kenya’s preparedness to tackle bioterrorism. The study specifically sought to grasp the magnitude of bioterrorism as a threat to Kenya’s national security, assess the legal and policy framework addressing bioterrorism, and gauge Kenya’s readiness to confront such threats. Employing a mixed-methods approach, questionnaires were administered to various stakeholders, encompassing policymakers, security professionals, healthcare experts, and the general public. Furthermore, in-depth interviews and document analysis were conducted to gain comprehensive insights into the research objectives. The results unveil a nuanced understanding of bioterrorism as a multifaceted hazard to Kenya’s national security. While existing legal and policy structures demonstrate dedication, gaps in execution and enforcement impede their efficacy. Kenya’s preparedness levels fluctuate among stakeholders, with some expressing confidence in current measures, while others highlight deficiencies in technological capabilities and resource distribution. Notably, a significant proportion of respondents at 59 % are in agreement that global advancements in technology have heightened the risks and magnitude of bioterrorism. In summary, Kenya’s endeavors to combat bioterrorism encompass legislative, policy, and operational measures. Nevertheless, enhanced coordination, capacity-building, and resource allocation are imperative to effectively address identified shortcomings. The study underscores the significance of proactive measures and holistic strategies in fortifying national security resilience against bioterrorism threats. Drawing from the findings, the study proposes several recommendations including; Strengthening collaboration and coordination among relevant stakeholders; Investing in technological infrastructure and capacity-building endeavors to enhance surveillance and detection; Regular assessments and revisions of existing legal and policy frameworks are also advised to ensure their pertinence and efficacy in addressing evolving bioterrorism threats. Further research is warranted to explore the socio-economic ramifications of bioterrorism incidents in Kenya and devise strategies to mitigate their impact. Assessing public awareness and magnitude of bioterrorism risks to inform targeted communication and educational campaigns is indispensable. Additionally, studying international best practices and drawing lessons from other nations’ experiences in countering bioterrorism would be advantageous for policy and strategy development in Kenya.

Keywords: Bioterrorism, Kenya, National security, Biosecurity, Surveillance, Response.

INTRODUCTION

Terrorism in general, and more specifically, bioterrorism, has not only changed in its modus operandi, but has also increased in intensity and effect because of advances in the technologies available for use and the phenomenon of violent extremism. In the past, terrorism has been the result of political, social, economic, or religious ambitions, causing havoc and insecurity (Newman, 2018; Abozaid, 2020; Siegel, 2021). As technology and genetic engineering have become easier in the development of weapons, the issue of bioterrorism, which is the deliberate use of bacteria, viruses, or poisonous substances to cause harm, has become more real. The capacity to generate and distribute biological agents, as demonstrated by the possibility of using Bacillus anthracis in attacks, highlights the need for suitable detection as well as response approaches. Prominent biothreats; likewise, biosecurity assessments become critical and needed again, especially after the events, such as the Amerithrax in 2001 (Otieno et al., 2016; Chung, Baum & Nyquist, 2020). Nevertheless, the nature and scale of bioterrorism, as well as its global implications, remain ambiguous, necessitating further comprehensive investigation and effective improvements in national security frameworks.

Evolving Threats of Bioterrorism: Understanding the Risks and Implications

The thought of an outbreak of disease caused by the intentional release of pathogens or toxin (bioterrorism) in major cities seem alien years ago.  Stoeva, (2020) opines that the increased threat of terrorism heightens the risk posed by various microorganisms as biological weapons needs to be evaluated and the historical development and use of biological agents better understood. According to Olivera, (2020) progress made in biotechnology and biochemistry has simplified the development and production of such weapons. Newman, (2018) asserts that genetic engineering holds perhaps the most dangerous potential. Kim & Lee, (2021) avers that the ease of production and the broad availability of bio-terror agents and technical knowhow have led to a further spread of bioterrorism potential and an increased desire among developing countries to have them.

According to Stoeva, (2020), in a bio-terror attack, biological agents are intentionally released against a civilian population. This spread is motivated or justified by ideological objectives (political or religious) intending to cause panic, mass casualties and or economic loss. The biological agents can be used as they naturally occur or modified to improve mass dissemination (higher mortality as a result of resistance to currently available medicines and vaccines).

Kim and Lee, (2021) postulate that when facing the possibility of a bioterrorism attack, it is crucial to identify the agent involved, not only to prevent panic among the population but also to control the morbidity and mortality associated with the spread of the agent. Olivera, (2020) opines that the emphasis on research on bioterrorism re-emerged from the challenges that arose as a result of the infamous Amerithrax mailing attacks in 2001. According to Otieno, et al (2016) a national bio-security survey was conducted covering on the relevant laboratory bio-safety categories, such as training laboratories, national diagnostic laboratories, veterinary diagnostic laboratories and research institutes on the bioterrorism and laboratory safety capacity in Africa. Chung, Baum & Nyquist, (2020) found that Kenyan laboratories facilities contain a lot of biological agents of biosecurity and bioterrorism concern that might impact on national security.

Siegel, (2021) postulates that detection and rapid investigation is the key to contain bioterrorism attacks. According to Olivera, (2020) the role of epidemiologist and national security experts is considered critical not only in determining the scope and magnitude of the attack but also in effective implementation of interventions. According to Abozaid, (2020) the concept of national security denotes approach to national and international security that gives primacy to national beings and their complex social and economic interactions. Olivera, (2020) reaffirms that bioterrorism is a form of terrorism where there is the release of biological agents. The exact magnitude of bioterrorism in the world today is still poorly understood, since violent extremist views can be exhibited along a range of issues, including politics, religion and gender relations. Tinnes, (2020) states that bioterrorism is the intentional release of bacteria, viruses, protozoa and other germs that can sicken or kill someone. For instance, Bacillus anthracis, bacteria that causes anthrax is one of the likely agents to be used in a biological attack.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Contemporary deterrence theory

This research uses contemporary deterrence theory as the theoretical framework to examine bioterrorism threats and Kenya’s national security. Deterrence theory is based on severity, certainty, and swiftness concepts that include significant assumptions in people’s behavior. These assumptions are important in formulating a sound strategy for tackling new bioterrorism challenges. Another important assumption that is believed in the context of deterrence theory is that of a rational actor who always tries to maximise his benefits. This means that prospective offenders must strike a balance between the benefits of committing a crime and the consequences of criminal activity. The principle of severity posits that the punishments for practicing bioterror must be formidable enough to dissuade those who engage in such acts. For Kenya, this entails putting in place tough legal sanctions and making sure that the said sanctions are appropriate to the extent of discouraging the would-be offenders. Also, the severity of penalties has to be communicated to the public in order to optimise the deterrent impact or effect (Wilner, 2010). By defining bioterrorism under the law and providing stiff punitive measures to anybody found deploying it, Kenya can increase its deterrence capability and reduce the chances of a malicious group opting for the vice.

The rationalist principle of certainty posits that people will refrain from engaging in criminal activities if they anticipate apprehending and punishment. This means that if the president can increase chances of detecting and prosecuting the criminals, then this will deter criminal activities. For Kenya, this means increasing surveillance capacity and improving intelligence collection and policing efficiency. Enhancing those areas entails effective coordination between security organizations and the adoption of enhanced technologies for surveillance and threat tracking (Wanda, 2022). Thus, if Kenya can raise the probability of detection, the terrorists’ will be discouraged from pushing the button.

Swiftness, therefore, is a concept that is in line with the efficiency in the proceedings of law enforcing and punishment of crimes after being committed. The idea here is that the faster the response and the quicker the penalties are inflicted, the better the prevention will be. To Kenya, this means the provision of efficient mechanisms through which bioterrorism acts can be effectively investigated and the perpetrators brought to book as soon as possible. The drawing of professional units and procedures that entitle bioterrorism as a quick track is crucial (Wilner, 2010). This means that any delay in the legal process can reverse the strategy’s gains because it reduces the deterrent effect that can be caused by swift action against bioterrorism threats.

Traditional definitions of deterrence theory have been in the framework of terrorism and conventional warfare, with such legendary thinkers as Sun Tzu and Machiavelli debating on strategies for making threats effective. This discourse has since evolved to include other modern-day dangers, such as bioterrorism. Thus, transferring the principles of deterrence theory to bioterrorism means applying them to the peculiarities of the use of bioagents as weapons (Wanda, 2022). Different from conventional warfare, in which the greatest force is used to wipe out the opponent, bioterrorism, on the other hand, uses microorganisms that can be spread and which are lethal, hence the need for a different kind of approach (Wilner, 2010).

Furthermore, it is important to note that classical concepts of deterrence in relation to a weapon of mass destruction, such as nuclear weapons, do not sufficiently take into account the peculiarities of bioterrorism. Nuclear deterrence targeted massive devastation, while bioterrorism causes harm in slow, gradual processes that are not easily preventable, calling for specific methods of deterring the same (Wilner, 2010; Kim & Lee, 2021). Bioweapons used to be easily available, and it is cheaper to produce them as compared to the traditional types of weapons; this has altered the deterrence, and a need for new kinds of strategies is felt. If Kenya unduly applied previous models of deterrence to bioterrorism, you get a much stronger model of deterrence.

METHODOLOGY

In the research, both qualitative and quantitative research data collection techniques were used in a bid to provide a cross sectional view of bioterrorism and its impact or potential benefit to national security in Kenya. Quantitative research in this study used descriptive statistics in analyzing the data collected, while qualitative research aimed at finding out more of the characters that could not be easily measured. These were mainly through questionnaires and interviews with KDF, KEMRI, Kenya Prison Services, MoFA & D, NPS, NCTC, NIS, MoI, Postal Cooperation of Kenya and MoH. For quantitative part of the analysis, target number of respondents was set as 150 to get diverse opinion and information from these organizations. In the qualitative component purposive sampling was employed and identified 20 participants according to their level of experience and engagements on bioterrorism.

The codes for ethical practice were compiled to the highest level of standard in the course of the research. Attribution of information was done to ensure the sources used were cited in order to meet the concept of Academic honesty. Before distributing questionnaires or/and conducting interviews all the respondents had given their consent and all their information remained private and confidential as recommended by Kothari (2011). Such measures were taken to observe professionalism in the research whilst respecting the participants.

FINDINGS

The Magnitude of Bioterrorism as Threat to National Security

Bioterrorism are known to have significant economic consequences, including loss of productivity, damage to infrastructure, and disruption of trade and tourism. Typical biological attacks can lead to widespread illness, loss of life, and disruption of essential services, thereby undermining public health and healthcare systems. The fear and uncertainty generated by biological attacks can erode social cohesion and trust in government institutions, potentially leading to unrest and instability. Given Kenya’s strategic location in East Africa, bioterrorism threats in the region may likely spillover and affect neighboring countries, exacerbating regional instability. In order to address these challenges, Kenya has prioritized building resilience against bioterrorism through various means, including capacity-building, international collaboration, and the development of response plans and protocols.

Figure 1: Magnitude of Bioterrorism as Threat to National Security

Source: Researcher, (2023)

The table captured in Figure 1 above visualizes the results of a survey on various aspects related to bioterrorism risks as perceived by respondents. The chart displays four categories, each represented by a colored area, with the percentage of respondents who expressed concern or uncertainty about each aspect. Global advancement heightened risks (Global risk) represented in blue, this section highlights that 50% of respondents believe that advancements on a global scale have heightened the risks associated with bioterrorism. Seriousness in Africa and Kenya (Africa & Kenya risk) shown in orange, indicates that 60% of respondents perceive bioterrorism as a serious threat specifically to Africa and Kenya. 21st Century Threat (Risk in 21st Century) the largest section, in gray, shows that 70% of respondents believe bioterrorism is a significant threat in the 21st century. Uncertainty in Bioterrorism research (Uncertainty): The yellow area shows that 40% of respondents are uncertain about the current state of research in bioterrorism, reflecting a lack of confidence or knowledge in this area.

Generally, the chart suggests a strong awareness and concern about the risks of bioterrorism among the respondents, particularly in the context of Kenya and Africa, with a significant portion acknowledging the threat in the current century and expressing uncertainty in related research.

The study found that Kenya lacks proper bio-defense preparedness and availability of information about emerging infectious diseases continues to be a problem. There is also need for the state to improve on its methods for information dissemination and the relationships between security, defence and health officials as well as clinicians especially in the rural communities. Another such method lightly mentioned is focusing on pathogen security, or securing and denying access to the materials necessary to develop biological weapons (deterrence by denial).

In exploring the correlation between global advancements and the escalating risks of bioterrorism, respondents presented diverse yet predominantly concurring viewpoints. A substantial majority underscored the pivotal role of advanced technology in amplifying the threats posed by bioterrorism. They highlighted how technological progress has facilitated the production and dissemination of biological agents, thereby increasing the potential for malicious exploitation by terrorist groups. This consensus among respondents underscores the critical need for heightened vigilance and proactive measures to address the evolving challenges posed by bioterrorism in an increasingly interconnected world.

One respondent articulated the impact of advanced technology, stating:

“Due to advanced technology, the level of details in the net to prepare and use pathogens for the purpose of bioterrorism is very high today.”

This observation underscores the significant impact of technological advancements, which have not only democratized access to knowledge and resources but also enabled the orchestration of bioterrorism threats with unprecedented sophistication. By leveraging advanced technological tools and readily available information, individuals or groups with malicious intent can manipulate biological agents and disseminate them with alarming ease and efficiency (Pandey, 2024). This heightened level of sophistication poses a grave challenge to national security agencies and underscores the pressing need for robust counterterrorism measures to address the evolving landscape of bioterrorism threats.

In delving into the persistent specter of bioterrorism across Africa, participants were prompted to assess its current relevance and impact, offering ratings that delineated their magnitudes of the threat it poses to national security within the region. These ratings were not isolated judgments but rather part of a broader inquiry aimed at understanding the nuanced perspectives and underlying concerns surrounding the bioterrorism phenomenon. Through this exploration, valuable insights into the current state of awareness, understanding, and scholarly engagement with bioterrorism in Kenya were sought.

One respondent emphasized the widespread potential for bioterrorism incidents, stating,

“Very many non-state actors with the capability to unleash it.”

This observation underscores the pressing necessity for robust security measures and strategic preparedness to effectively mitigate the heightened risks of bioterrorism across the African continent. It emphasizes the urgency for proactive steps to be taken in response to the escalating threat of bioterrorism, particularly within Africa’s unique socio-political and economic landscape. The term “robust security measures” signifies the implementation of comprehensive strategies spanning surveillance, intelligence gathering, border control, and emergency response protocols. Similarly, “strategic preparedness” underscores the importance of preemptive planning and readiness to address potential bioterrorism incidents before they manifest. Within Africa, where resources may be constrained and vulnerabilities are pronounced, the imperative for such measures is particularly acute. This observation underscores the critical need to not only acknowledge the threat but also actively engage in collaborative efforts among African nations, regional entities, and international partners to fortify security frameworks and bolster preparedness against bioterrorism. Furthermore, respondents voiced concerns about the overreliance of African nations on biotechnology from developed countries. This observation reflects the need for comprehensive strategies and investments to bolster the capacity of African nations to effectively detect, respond to, and mitigate bioterrorism threats in a timely manner.

Legal and Policy Frameworks in Fighting Bioterrorism

In recent years, Kenya has witnessed an increase in acts of terrorism, leading to advanced concerns about the possibility of the deployment of superior techniques, including bio-weapons. This is further aggravated by some measurably remarkable developments in genetic engineering and gene synthesis technologies, making it even easier to design and implement biological threats. To counter these new security threats, the following measures have been embarked on through the implementation of legislative measures and initiatives in Kenya that aim at transforming the nation to counter bioterrorism. Such actions include systematised organisational training for capacity development, the promotion of partnerships with international organisations, and other measures in the development of strong response plans and timely protocols. As previously stated, the legal and policy systems governing counterterrorism in Kenya demonstrate the country’s commitment to protecting national security and reducing threats from new breeds of terrorism and bioterrorism.

Kenya has other important legal instruments that it has signed under international law to enhance its bioterrorism preparedness. Let’s examine the following conventions in this context: In detail: The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), which aims to regulate chemical and biological weapons as well as toxin weapons; and the International Health Regulation (IHR), which focuses on improving international health security through vigilance and preparedness for public health events. In addition to the BWC, Kenya is also a party to the CWC, which addresses chemical weapons. The primary importance lies in the fact that these international treaties significantly contribute to Kenya’s legal frameworks, which policymakers and strategists use to combat bioterrorism. However, Chung et al. (2020) assert that the current Kenyan legislation primarily emphasises biosafety over biosecurity, focusing more on accidental contamination than on intentional aggression or bioterrorism. Other laws that support Kenya’s legal preparedness include the Treaty Making and Ratification Act and sectoral laws, which provide frameworks for biosecurity cooperation, regulation, and enforcement. Together, these pieces of legislation enhance Kenya’s ability to address the bioterrorism risk and protect its territory as the world becomes in today’s world.

Kenya’s strategies to address bioterrorism involve consultation regarding the legal and regulatory framework for establishing Strategic Trade Controls (STC) aligned with UN Security Council Resolution 1540. This includes safeguarding domestic producers from unfair trade practices and encouraging involvement from Public-Private Sector and Civil Society Organizations in international trade affairs (Chung et al., 2020). One may argue further that the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened awareness of biological terrorism in Kenya, echoing global concerns highlighted by the United Nations (2019). While the pandemic underscored the urgency of addressing biological threats, previous instances of deliberate biological agent use underscore the ongoing legal challenges faced by not just Kenya but also the international community.

Figure 2: Adequacy of The Top of Form Legal and Policy Frameworks in Fighting Bioterrorism

Source: Researcher, (2023)

Figure 2 illustrates survey responses regarding the effectiveness of various frameworks related to bioterrorism. The chart reflects a general recognition of the importance of legal, policy, and regulatory frameworks in combating bioterrorism, with varying levels of perceived effectiveness. The data suggests that while the legal framework is seen as the most robust, there is a need to strengthen policy and regulatory frameworks to enhance their effectiveness.

The blue bar represents the percentage of respondents who viewed the development of the legal framework as effective. Approximately 35% of respondents believe that the legal framework is well-developed and plays a crucial role in addressing bioterrorism. The orange bar shows that around 30% of respondents perceived the policy framework for bioterrorism as effective. This suggests a slightly lower level of confidence compared to the legal framework but still indicates a significant acknowledgment of its importance. The gray bar, representing around 25% of respondents, indicates their magnitude of the regulatory framework’s effectiveness. This aspect is viewed as the least effective among the three, suggesting room for improvement in the regulatory measures governing bioterrorism.

Levels of Kenya’s Strategic Preparedness in Combatting Bioterrorism

The National Biosafety Authority gave an assurance of its continuous regulation of transfer, handling and use of genetically modified organisms to ensure such activities do not have adverse effects on national health and the environment (UN, 2019). The war on biological threats cannot be won by the Office of Director of Public Prosecution (ODPP) alone; it requires a multi-agency approach. Sharing of relevant evidence and date is important in strengthening prosecution against stockpiling and movement of harmful weapons (UN, 2019), The UN, (2019) identified several challenges on the slow pace of implementation of BWC, among them being competing priorities, lack of resources, lack of institutional arrangement, lack of awareness particularly at the policy level, unclear communication channels, gaps in the national legal framework and Covid-19 pandemic that prevented some states from implementing planned activities.

Figure 3: Levels of Kenya’s Strategic Preparedness in Combatting Bioterrorism

Source: Researcher, (2023)

As per the findings Figure 3 above reveals significant concerns among respondents about Kenya’s strategy and measures for mitigating the impact of bioterrorism on national security. A notable 35.71% strongly agree that there is a lack of effective strategic planning and mitigation efforts, reflecting a widespread belief that Kenya’s preparations for bioterrorism are inadequate. Opinions were divided on whether Kenya has made substantial preparations for bioterrorism attacks. While 28.57% of respondents believed that significant steps have been taken, an equal percentage disagree, highlighting a lack of consensus on Kenya’s proactive measures against bioterrorism.

The data also show varied views on Kenya’s readiness to handle bioterrorism threats. For instance, 28.57% agree that Kenya is prepared at an early stage, while the same proportion disagree, indicating substantial uncertainty or disagreement about the country’s readiness to address bioterrorism from the outset. Regarding the existence of institutions and organizations dedicated to combating bioterrorism, a significant majority (35.71%) acknowledge their presence. This suggests that respondents recognize the role of specialized institutions or organizations within Kenya’s security framework.

Overall, the data reflect a mixed magnitude of Kenya’s preparedness for bioterrorism. While some respondents’ express confidence in the country’s readiness and the presence of dedicated institutions, others raise concerns about the lack of strategic measures and effective mitigation efforts. These findings highlight the need for a thorough evaluation and potential enhancement of Kenya’s preparedness and response capabilities for bioterrorism threats

Measures to Counter Bioterrorism

On the same note, it is important to point out that the respondents’ skepticism implies a lack of confidence in the existing strategies and approaches employed to address bioterrorism threats within Kenya. By suggesting that there may be a deficiency in robust strategies, the respondents were indirectly raising concerns about the adequacy of Kenya’s preparedness and response mechanisms to combat bioterrorism incidents effectively. This sentiment suggests that there may be gaps in Kenya’s ability to anticipate, prevent, and respond to bioterrorism events, potentially leaving the nation vulnerable to such threats.  This response underscores the importance of reassessing and strengthening Kenya’s strategies and measures for bioterrorism preparedness to ensure a more robust and effective response to such security challenges.

Another one indicated that:

“It has been left only to the security forces. Lack of intelligence sharing is also a problem because our people do not take it seriously like the way Ethiopia does.”

For us, the remark highlights concern about the predominant reliance on the security forces for addressing bioterrorism threats, coupled with challenges related to intelligence sharing and public engagement. By drawing a comparison with Ethiopia’s approach, the respondent underscores the importance of broader societal involvement and proactive reporting mechanisms in enhancing bioterrorism preparedness. Overall, the quotation reflects a need for comprehensive and collaborative efforts to bolster Kenya’s capacity to address bioterrorism risks effectively.

Another participant noted that

“Strongly agree because of the lack of the required expertise and equipment necessary.”

This quotation highlights the respondent’s apprehensions regarding the adequacy of expertise and equipment essential for countering bioterrorism in Kenya. The statement suggests a discrepancy between the existing resources and the requirements for effectively mitigating bioterrorism threats, indicating potential weaknesses in the nation’s preparedness. The emphasis on insufficient resources underscores concerns about the country’s ability to detect, prevent, and respond to bioterrorism incidents adequately. By drawing attention to these deficiencies, the respondent signals the need for greater investment in capabilities and infrastructure tailored to combatting bioterrorism, thus enhancing Kenya’s resilience against such security threats.

DISCUSSION

The study reveals significant skepticism among respondents regarding the effectiveness of Kenya’s current bioterrorism preparedness strategies. This skepticism implies a deficiency in robust strategies, suggesting that there may be gaps in Kenya’s ability to anticipate, prevent, and respond to bioterrorism events. The lack of confidence expressed by respondents indicates potential vulnerabilities within the nation’s security architecture. For instance, one respondent highlighted the predominant reliance on security forces and the issue of intelligence sharing: “It has been left only to the security forces. Lack of intelligence sharing is also a problem because our people do not take it seriously like the way Ethiopia does” (Biosecurity Survey in Kenya, 2019). This response underscores the importance of reassessing and strengthening Kenya’s strategies to ensure a more robust and effective response to bioterrorism threats (Abozaid, 2020).

The over-reliance on security forces to address bioterrorism threats was a recurring concern among respondents. This approach, coupled with inadequate intelligence sharing and public engagement, poses a significant challenge. The comparison with Ethiopia suggests that Kenya could benefit from a more integrated approach, involving not just security forces but also public health authorities, intelligence agencies, and the general public. Such an approach would enhance proactive reporting mechanisms and foster broader societal involvement in bioterrorism preparedness (Ali, 2020). The need for a comprehensive strategy is crucial, as highlighted by one respondent: “Strongly agree because of the lack of the required expertise and equipment necessary” (Adan, 2020). This sentiment points to the inadequacy of current resources and expertise, further emphasizing the necessity for a holistic approach to counter bioterrorism effectively.

Concerns about the adequacy of expertise and equipment necessary to counter bioterrorism were prominent among respondents. The statement “Strongly agree because of the lack of the required expertise and equipment necessary” reflects the apprehensions regarding the existing resources in Kenya (Adan, 2020). This highlights a significant discrepancy between the available resources and what is needed to mitigate bioterrorism threats effectively. The emphasis on insufficient resources suggests potential weaknesses in Kenya’s preparedness and underscores the need for greater investment in capabilities and infrastructure tailored to combatting bioterrorism (Bognoe, 2019). Enhancing expertise and acquiring the necessary equipment are critical steps towards improving the country’s ability to detect, prevent, and respond to bioterrorism incidents adequately.

The study highlights challenges related to intelligence sharing and public engagement, which are crucial components of effective bioterrorism preparedness. The lack of coordination among various stakeholders, including the public, security forces, and intelligence agencies, hinders Kenya’s ability to respond effectively to bioterrorism incidents. Botha (2013) emphasizes the importance of a coordinated approach in counterterrorism efforts, which is equally applicable to bioterrorism. Enhanced intelligence sharing and active public participation are essential to building a robust defense against bioterrorism. The comparison with Ethiopia’s proactive reporting mechanisms further underscores the need for Kenya to adopt similar strategies to improve intelligence sharing and public engagement.

The findings of this study align with Barston’s (2006) argument that national security management requires a multifaceted approach that integrates various sectors and stakeholders. In the context of bioterrorism, this means fostering collaboration between public health authorities, security forces, intelligence agencies, and the general public to build a more resilient defense against such threats. A multifaceted approach would address the gaps identified in the study, such as the lack of expertise, equipment, and coordinated efforts among stakeholders. By integrating various sectors and encouraging collaboration, Kenya can enhance its bioterrorism preparedness and response capabilities (Barston, 2006).

Regional cooperation plays a vital role in enhancing national security, especially in the face of transnational threats like bioterrorism. Baguma (2017) highlights the importance of regional collaboration in countering such threats. Kenya could benefit from increased cooperation with neighboring countries to share intelligence, resources, and best practices. This collaborative effort would strengthen the region’s overall resilience to bioterrorism threats and enhance Kenya’s capacity to respond effectively. The study suggests that fostering regional partnerships and engaging in joint initiatives could significantly improve bioterrorism preparedness in Kenya (Baguma, 2017).

In summary, the study reveals significant concerns about Kenya’s current strategies and preparedness to counter bioterrorism threats. The predominant reliance on security forces, coupled with challenges related to intelligence sharing and public engagement, underscores the need for a more comprehensive and collaborative approach. Addressing deficiencies in expertise and equipment, fostering coordination among stakeholders, and enhancing regional cooperation are critical steps towards strengthening Kenya’s bioterrorism preparedness. By adopting a multifaceted approach and engaging various sectors and stakeholders, Kenya can build a more robust and effective defense against bioterrorism threats

CONCLUSION

The study’s findings highlight critical concerns regarding Kenya’s preparedness to counter bioterrorism threats. The respondents’ skepticism about existing strategies reflects a lack of confidence in the current approaches employed to address these threats. This skepticism suggests potential gaps in Kenya’s ability to anticipate, prevent, and respond to bioterrorism events, underscoring the need for a reassessment and strengthening of the nation’s bioterrorism preparedness strategies. The predominant reliance on security forces, coupled with inadequate intelligence sharing and public engagement, further complicates the effectiveness of bioterrorism countermeasures. By comparing Kenya’s approach to that of Ethiopia, respondents highlighted the necessity of broader societal involvement and proactive reporting mechanisms.

The study also revealed significant concerns about the adequacy of expertise and equipment necessary to counter bioterrorism in Kenya. The apparent discrepancy between available resources and the requirements for effective mitigation points to potential weaknesses in the nation’s preparedness. Addressing these deficiencies requires substantial investment in capabilities and infrastructure tailored to combating bioterrorism, thus enhancing Kenya’s resilience against such threats.

Moreover, the study emphasizes the importance of a multifaceted approach that integrates various sectors and stakeholders. Effective bioterrorism preparedness necessitates collaboration between public health authorities, security forces, intelligence agencies, and the general public. Regional cooperation and collaboration are also crucial in enhancing national security, especially in the face of transnational threats like bioterrorism. By fostering regional partnerships and engaging in joint initiatives, Kenya can significantly improve its bioterrorism preparedness and response capabilities. To sum up, addressing the gaps identified in this study is imperative for strengthening Kenya’s bioterrorism preparedness. By adopting a comprehensive and collaborative approach, investing in expertise and equipment, and enhancing coordination among stakeholders, Kenya can build a more robust defense against bioterrorism threats. This multifaceted strategy will not only improve the nation’s ability to counter bioterrorism but also contribute to the overall security and resilience of the region.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the data sourced, the study recommends the need toTop of Form review and update existing legislation on counterterrorism laws and regulations to identify gaps and inconsistencies related to bioterrorism preparedness and response. The study also recommends the need to enhance countries inter agency coordination aimed at establishing clear lines of communication and coordination mechanisms among government agencies responsible for bioterrorism preparedness and response, including law enforcement, public health, intelligence, and emergency management entities. Furthermore, the study recommends an in-depth analysis of Kenya’s legal and policy frameworks related to bioterrorism preparedness and response aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of existing legislation, regulations, and interagency coordination mechanisms in addressing bioterrorism threats. Last but certainly not least, the study calls for investigation on the preparedness of Kenya’s healthcare system to respond to bioterrorism incidents. There is need to assess the capacity of healthcare facilities, public health agencies, and emergency responders to detect, diagnose, and manage bioterrorism-related illnesses.

REFERENCES

1. Abozaid, A. (2020). Colonialism, Neo-Colonialism, and Anti-Terrorism Law in the Arab    World: by Fatima Alzubairi, London, Cambridge University Press, p. 19.
2. Adan, H. (2020). “Bio-security Preparedness Capacity in Response to Medical Disasters at Garissa Level Five Hospital in Garissa County, Kenya.” Nazarene University, Kenya, pp. 2-3.
3. Ali, R, (2020). “Emerging Health Security Threats and Impact of Bioterrorism on the U.S. National Security.” Global Political Review, Vol. 1, pp. 15-23.
4. Baguma, M. (2017). “Assessing the Contribution of Military in Peace Building in Africa: Case Study of Rwanda.” University of Nairobi, (2017), pp. 8-11.
5. Barston, R. (2006). “Modern Diplomacy.” Publisher, Pearson Longman.
6. Bognoe, C. (2019). Understanding the Role of Gender in Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism and Radicalization That Lead to Terrorism, Good Practices for Law Enforcement. Organization  for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Austria, p. 6.
7. Botha, A. (2013). Assessing the vulnerability of Kenyan youth to radicalization and extremism. Institute for security        studies paper 245, p. 13.
8. Braden, A. (2000). Environmental Security. Concept and implementation. Vol. No 1, p. 5.
9. Bronfenbrenner, U. & Ceci, S. (1994). Magnitude-nurture conceptualized in developmental perspective: A bio-ecological model. Psychological Review, 101, pp. 568-570.
10. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental Ecology through Space and Time: A Future Perspective, in Moen, P., Elder, G.H., Luscher, K. (eds.): Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of national development, Washington DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 619-647.
11. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1998). Foreword. In A. R. Pence (Ed.), Ecological research with children and families: From concepts to methodology, New York: Teachers College Press, (1988), p. 9.
12. Carus, W. (2017). “A Short History of Biological Warfare: From Pre-history to the 21st Century.” Government Printing Office, United States of America, pp. 9-16.
13. Chung, S. Baum, C. & Nyquist, C (2020). Disaster Preparedness Advisory Council, Council on Environmental     Health, Committee on Infectious Disease. Pediatrics, p. 149.
14. Crenshaw, M. (1980). Why Violence Spreads: The Contagion of International Terrorism. International Studies Quarterly, pp. 11-13.
15. Gilbert, L. (2011). A Short History of Bioterrorism. Center for Infectious Disease and Microbiology, Public Health. Center for Infectious Disease and Microbiology, pp. 23-24.
16. González-Candelas, F. (2017). Handbook of Forensic Genetics: Biodiversity and Heredity in Civil and Criminal Investigation. World Scientific; pp. 550-553.
17. Gupta, M., & Kumar, N. (2022). Growing Threat of Bioterrorism in India: Conflict, Consequences and Challenges. In Nontraditional Security Concerns in India: Issues and Challenges (pp. 35-51). Singapore: Springer Singapore.
18. Kenya Laboratory Bio-risk Management Curriculum, (2019).
19. Keshavamurthy, R; Thumbi, S. & Charles, L. (2021). “Digital Bio-surveillance for Zoonotic Disease Detection in Kenya.” Pathogens. Center for Epidemiological Modeling and Analysis, Institute of Tropical and Infectious Diseases, University of Nairobi.
20. Kharaishvili, N., Hudson, T. M. L., Kannan, J. K., Ettenger, V., & Mirje, S. (2020). Global health security risk assessment in the Biological Threat Reduction Program. Health security, 18(3), 177-185.
21. Kim, Y. & Lee, E. (2021). Factors Influencing Preparedness for Bioterrorism among Koreans. International Journal of the Environment. Public Health, Research Institute of Nursing Science, College of Nursing, Kyungpook National University, Korea, pp. 9-11.
22. Koch, L. & Maiguy, A. (2021). Natural Outbreaks and Bioterrorism: How to Deal with the Two Sides of the Same Coin? Department of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, French Armed Forces Biomedical Research Institute, Bretigny sur Orge, pp. 2-4.
23. Koehler, D. (2019). “Violence and Terrorism from the Far-Right: Policy Options to Counter an Elusive Threat.” ICCT Policy Brief, pp. 1-3.
24. Linkous, B., Burnette, R. N., & Dittrich, S. (2021). Biodefense Promotes Biosecurity Through Threat Reduction Programs and Global Health Security. In Applied Biosecurity: Global Health, Biodefense, and Developing Technologies (pp. 51-71). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
25. Mannes, A. (2008). Testing the Snake Head Strategy: Does Killing or Capturing its Leaders Reduce a Terrorist Group’s Activity? 9 J. International Policy Solutions Journal, p. 4.
26. Matei, F. & Hahhaday, C. (2022). The Routledge Handbooks of Civil-Military Relations. Tylor and Francis, p. 2.
27. McGwire, M. (2012). The Mediterranean and Soviet Naval Interest. International Journal, autumn, p. 9.
28. Mukeka, J & Ogutu, J. (2019). Nationa-wildlife conflicts and their correlates in Narok County, Kenya. Kenya Wildlife Service, Nairobi, Kenya. Global Ecology and Conservation Journal, pp. 1-5.
29. Newman, T. (2018). “Bioterrorism: Should we be worried?” Medical News Journal, pp. 3-7.
30. Okello, M. (2014). Threats to biodiversity and their implications in protected and adjacent dispersal areas of Kenya. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, pp. 54-61.
31. Olivera, M. (2020). “Bio-warfare, Bioterrorism and Bio-crime: A Historical Overview on Microbial Harmful Applications.” U.S National Library of Medicine, National Institute of Health, pp. 3-5.
32. Otieno, E; Slotved, H; Osoro, E; Olsen, K, Rugutt, M & Wanjohi, C. (2016). A Biosecurity Survey in Kenya, November 2014 to February 2015. Health Security Journal, PubMed, pp. 17-21.
33. Pandey, N. (2024). Globalization’s Impact on Biowarfare: Analyzing Emerging Threats and Addressing International Security Challenges. Available at SSRN 4689550.
34. Ravenhill, J. (2017). The Construction of Pacific Rim Regionalism. Cambridge, pp. 3-7.
35. Schmid, A & Forest, J. (2021). Counter-terrorism Studies: A Glimpse at the Current State of Research. Perspectives on Research, Washington DC, United States, pp. 17-23.
36. Siegel, A. (2021). Youth Radicalization: Interventions and Challenges for Prevention, Tel Aviv University, Israel, p. 23.
37. Silke, A. (2013). “Terrorists, Victims and Society: Psychological Perspectives on Terrorism and its Consequences.” England, John Wiley and Sons, p. 23.
38. Stoeva, P. (2020). “Dimensions of Health Security: A Conceptual Analysis.” Public Health Security, p. 98.
39. Tin, D., Sabeti, P., & Ciottone, G. R. (2022). Bioterrorism: an analysis of biological agents used in terrorist events. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 54, 117-121.
40. Tinnes, J. (2020). Bibliography: Defining and Conceptualizing Terrorism. Perspectives on terrorism, 14(6), 204-236.
41. United Nations (2019). The African regional high-level conference on counter terrorism and the prevention of violent extremism conducive to terrorism, Nairobi, Kenya.
42. Wakhungu, J. & Njiruh, N. (2015). Potential of Bio-/Agro-Terrorism in Kenya. University of Embu, p. 9.
43. Waldman, P. (2001). Revenge without Rules: On the Renaissance of an Archaic Motif of Violence. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 24, pp. 435-450.
44. Yadav, P. K. (2022). Evolving dimension of security: bioterrorism. Unity Journal, 3(01), 266-277.
45. Zagare, F. & Kilgour, M. (2016). Perfect deterrence. Cambridge Studies in International Relations, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 78.
46. Zhenmin, L. (2020). Recovering better: An overview of the compilation of the High-level Advisory Board on Economic and Social Affairs. The United Nations Office at Geneva and other International Organizations in Switzerland, pp. 7-13.