March 7, 2011
Raila & Ahmadinejad Stress Expansion of Cooperation
Tehran : Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a meeting with Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Amolo Odinga stressed Iran’s policy for the further expansion of ties between the two, and said Tehran and Nairobi are eager to boost mutual cooperation in all fields. The two countries, specially under the current conditions of the global developments, seek growing expansion of all-out cooperation in the interest of the two nations and independent states,” Ahmadinejad said here in Tehran on Monday.
He also described the relations between the two countries as brotherly, and said, “Iran and Kenya are in the same front and the two nations’ cultures and views have tied them to each other.” Noting that Tehran and Nairobi enjoy abundant capabilities and potentials for promoting the level of their bilateral and regional cooperation, he reiterated, “Iran and Kenya should activate their potentials for cooperation in economic, political and cultural fields to take effective steps in consolidating their bilateral ties.” Iran has in the past few years shown increasing willingness to expand ties and cooperation with the Africa states and offered to transfer experience and technology to several African countries.
Since taking office in 2005, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has striven hard to maximize Tehran’s relations with the African continent. Ahmadinejad paid a visit to Kenya in early 2009, during which he said that the bilateral ties between Iran and Kenya are improving in various political, cultural and economic arenas, and that the two countries are willing to strengthen and deepen these relations in all the different sectors.
Meanwhile earlier President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Friday that a new Middle East is being created which would be free of the United States and Israel(Israel and Kenya is a long time allies and friends). Massive crowds of Iranians, waving flags and chanting “Death to America!” descended on Tehran’s Azadi Square (Freedom Square) to listen to the hard-liner and Holocaust denier who lashed out at the West and Israel in a speech marking the 32nd anniversary of the Islamic revolution.”We will soon see a new Middle East materialising without America and the Zionist regime and there will be no room for world arrogance (the West) in it,” Ahmadinejad told the cheering crowds who gathered despite the cold and cloudy weather.
|
|
February 3, 2011
Obama The Fair Weather Friend Destroys U.S Middle East Policy
America’s handling of the Egyptian crisis has severe repercussions for U.S. foreign policy around the Middle East and may convince some western-friendly Arab regimes that President Obama is a fair weather friend, according to Israel’s former national security adviser.“When they (other Arab states) estimate the situation and ask themselves should we continue to rely on America assistance, even during bad times, or maybe we should choose Iran because Iran might be more reliable then certain shifts might occur. I think this is a very dangerous process,” said retired Major General Giora Eiland.
Eiland advised Prime Minister Ariel Sharon during the Gaza disengagement and was responsible for much of the Israeli military operations during the second intifada. He spoke loudly about the fears, that Israeli leaders seem to be whispering lately, that the Obama administration’s bungling of the Iranian protests last year, the peace process, and the current situation inEgypt changes the ball game in the Middle East and has cost the United State precious political capital while leaving open the door for the Muslim Brotherhood to take over in Israel’s only two Arab allies. “If, in the end of the day, this is going to be the result in Jordan, Israel actually returns to the 60s, a time or situation when Israel was surrounded by enemies. This is, of course, very severe consequences.”
Israel has remained almost silent in recent days about the clashes in Egypt, while hoping that President Hosni Mubarak would hold on to power. Israeli President Simon Peres reminded the press during a meeting that democracy in Muslim countries isn’t always a good thing for Israel. With western encouragement, Gaza held free elections only to have Hamas win an overwhelming majority. The militant group, which is closely related to the Muslim Brotherhood, lists a key organizational goal as the destruction of Israel.Egypt was the first country to sign a peace treaty with the Jewish state and for 30-plus years much of Israel’s current defense and intelligence strategy has been built on the assumption that its southern neighbor will at the very least remain neutral in any crisis. Israel could take for granted the Egyptians would not interfere with security operations in Gaza or during a possible conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon. That may not remain the case, Eiland said.
December 31, 2010
Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbagbo refuses phone call from Barack Obama
Supporters of Ivory Coast's leader Laurent Gbagbo hold aloft an Ivory Coast national flag during a rally in Yopougon, Abidjan
Laurent Gbagbo, who is widely viewed by the west as having lost a recent election, is refusing to leave office despite attempts to persuade him from West African leaders and others in the broader international community.Lanny J Davis, a lawyer who used to work for Bill Clinton, has resigned from his job advising Mr Gbagbo, claiming that the president had stopped taking his calls, and refused one from the US president.
Mr Davis said he had repeatedly tried to set up a phone conversation between Mr Gbagbo and Mr Obama which would have given the Ivorian“options for a peaceful resolution, that would avoid further bloodshed and be in the best interests of his country”.”Unfortunately, the decision was made in Abidjan not to allow President Obama’s call to be put through to Mr Gbagbo, despite my repeated objections to that decision,” he wrote in his resignation letter, which was seen by CNN.
December 17, 2009
Copenhagen: To Hell With The Environment! -Western Impunity
So a bunch of self-centred leaders are meeting in the cooler climes of Copenhagen for the common good of humanity. Pardon me for the emphasis on self-centredness. It is no secret that leaders think in terms of their national interest, which, in the capitalist west, also means the interest of Big Business — Big Oil and Big Industry. Global interest or global justice has meaning only when these leaders feel these concepts are useful tools to promote their national interest goals.
The love of power and more power and greed for wealth and more wealth have prevented the developed world from taking corrective measures to avert the coming climate catastrophe.To hell with the environment! The developed world, which comprises the main climate culprits, carries on regardless. They probably feel if they adhere to a binding convention they will have to commit themselves to less emissions. This they can achieve only by finding energy-efficeint alternative technology or by slowing down the pace of their industrialization.
lords of impunity
Until they find this technology, the developed nations are unlikely to put brakes on industrialisation. This was why the United States during the eight-year George W. Bush era rubbished the Kyoto Protocol, which could have acted like a dam to hold back the coming avalanche. The Bush administration’s environment policy ensured the least possible disruption of Big Business.
The election of Barack Obama has not changed much though he was good at stirring hopes. His administration’s decision this week to name carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas — a gas that causes damage to the environment — was cosmetic and cannot be interpreted as evidence that the US is veering away from the Bush environment policies.
Obama the presidential candidate was far more environment friendly than Obama the president. During the campaign for the White House, Obama wooed young voters with words of a crusading climate activist. The energy section of the website Barackobama.com quotes him as saying, “For too long, politicians in Washington have been beholden to special interests, but no longer. Our new, responsible energy policy recognizes the relationship between energy, the environment, and our economy and leverages American ingenuity to put people back to work, fight global warming, increase our energy independence and keep us safe.”
In September, addressing a UN conference on environment, Obama said the “threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing. Our generation’s response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it — boldly, swiftly and together — we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.”
Hope-stirring words, no doubt. But words are no substitute for action that can bring results. Like Obama, many world leaders do not hesitate to acknowledge the danger, but they lack the political will to respond to the crisis. They drag their feet when they are asked to take concrete measures aimed not at stopping the coming disaster but at delaying it. “Let it happen; when it happens, let us decide how to deal with it.” This appears to be the stance many industrial nations have adopted, while exasperated scientists plead with them to take measures that would keep the average global temperature rise to a minimum 2 degree Celsius in the next decade. The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wants the emissions level to come down by 25 to 40 percent if we are to keep the temperature rise within the 2 degree threshold in the next five to ten years, but many developed countries have offered to meet only less that half the required percentage — 10 to 17 percent — and that too from the 1997 level and not from the current emissions level.
If there are any human beings living on Planet Earth in 100 years time, how Copenhagen will be remembered depends not on the decision of the world leaders at the do-or-die climate summit but on the implementation of the decisions. If no implementation, no survival.Given the self-centred behaviour of Western nations, it is doubtful that they would act in the common interest of humanity. Take, for instance, China. Apparently worried that any commitment to drastic emission cuts would retard its economic development, it broke ranks with sinking small states which had pinned much hope on the current summit.
Copenhagen, the purpose of which is to adopt a comprehensive convention that will replace the Kyoto protocol, is likely to suffer the same fate that befell Rio and Kyoto, though everyone attending the summit acknowledges that they have gathered in the Danish capital for a defining moment.Well, we witnessed a similar urgency when the United Nations held its first climate summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 against the backdrop of capitalism’s victory over pseudo-communism in the 40-year Cold War. This summit adopted a couple of conventions on climate change and the 300-page Agenda 21 which sought to achieve sustainable development in the 21st century. Five years later, when they met in the Japanese city of Kyoto, the inadequacy of Rio in making the convention binding and the impotency of the nations in putting the measures into practice were obvious.
So they came up with the Kyoto Protocol and hailed it as the only international instrument to tackle global warming. But major polluters such as the United States showed little interest in adhering to emissions levels prescribed by the protocol, which is set to expire in 2012.We are skating on thin ice which may crack at anytime and swallow us. Time is also not on our side. We must act now. We must be guided by values that uphold social justice and not by the lure of filthy lucre or the greed that makes us to amass wealth at the cost of death, destruction and destitution to the billions who inherit this planet, If we fail this time, we are doomed; and trying to find a solution when the catastrophe finally hits us will be too little too late.
By A.I
October 24, 2009
Obama: Kenya Is Not Ghana….Britain’s Colonial Legacy Has Undermined Its Moral Authority
A success story undone by corruption
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Accompanying the fanfare of President Obama’s visit to Ghana in July was a chorus of well-founded praise for that country’s functioning democracy. The U.S. president pointed to his host country as a shining example, while warning other nations on the continent that “Africa doesn’t need strongmen, it needs strong institutions.” Political pundits and the media reinforced Obama’s message, holding up Ghana as Africa’s success story.
Not so long ago, Ghana shared the limelight with Kenya, the country of Obama’s paternal past. But the vote-tampering and widespread ethnic violence that marred the 2007 Kenyan elections left observers shaking their heads, wondering how the idyll of East Africa could have gone so wrong, so quickly. A well-functioning, multiparty government buoyed by an impressive 6 percent annual growth rate had made for a potent combination in the post-colonial dream world.
The blurring of fantasy and reality, however, was laid bare in the smoldering rubble of election violence that left some 1,500 Kenyans dead and at least 300,000 internally displaced. Journalist Michela Wrong provides a very important and illuminating account of Kenya’s present-day political and economic morass. On one level, “It’s Our Turn to Eat” reads like a John le Carré novel as it traces the cloak-and-dagger maneuverings of Kenya’s political bosses, and the heroic but futile attempts of John Githongo — the government’s internal, anti-corruption watchdog, and the protagonist of Wrong’s account — to stymie them.
On a deeper and much richer level, the book is an analysis of how and why Kenya descended into political violence more than a year and a half ago. For Wrong, the insidious bedfellows of corruption and tribalism inhabit nearly every sphere of Kenyan existence. At the upper echelons of government, members of parliament connived to defraud the country of some $750 million through the notorious Anglo-Leasing scheme; at the lower levels of society, the ordinary Kenyan doles out on average 16 bribes a month to government agents simply to get by.
These factors, as Wrong points out, have been present in Kenya since the inauguration of the country’s first independent government in 1963, despite the rather rosy and misplaced image that characterized the nation, at least in the Western media, for decades. First, under the leadership of Jomo Kenyatta, the Kikuyu, Kenya’s ethnic majority, benefited disproportionately from the state’s spoils. Kenyatta surrounded himself with a coterie of loyal ethnic supporters who systematically excluded non-Kikuyu from participating in their quest for power and ill-gotten wealth.
Subsequently, when Daniel T. arap Moi took power in 1978, the new president continued with the tribally based corruption. Only this time, Moi, who came from the ethnic-minority Kalenjin of western Kenya, redirected the flow of wealth and power to his tribal base of supporters. For the Kalenjin and other closely related tribes, it was their turn to eat.
It was Githongo — a Western-educated, physically imposing and exceedingly shrewd man — who was to herald the literal and symbolic end to this vicious cycle of corruption and ethnic favoritism. When Mwai Kibaki, a Kikuyu, took presidential power in 2002, he declared his election a mandate for reform and appointed the young Githongo, also a Kikuyu, to root out the old bogies that had undermined Kenya’s progress. It wasn’t long, though, before Githongo’s starry eyes cleared, only to find his revered mentor, Kibaki, knee-deep in the corruption game, with a supporting cast of legislators aiding and abetting theft from the state’s coffers.
With much drama, Githongo eventually fled Kenya, taking with him piles of documents and secretly taped conversations. He landed on the London doorstep of Wrong, an old acquaintance. Given this personal connection, Wrong is notably self-aware of her position as both author and partial subject of her own book. Indeed, her personal involvement scarcely compromises her excellent analysis of Kenya’s twin evils; rather, she deftly points to the fact that corruption and tribalism are not endemic just to Africa, but inhabit the contemporary, worldwide landscape, and that complicity reaches to all corners of the globe as well.
If the old-boy system is not an African artifact, and if undemocratic processes have no boundaries — many a Kenyan will snicker at the mention of a hanging chad — how then does Wrong make sense of the localized events in Kenya? By “probing the roots of a dysfunctional African nation” and its British colonial legacy, as well as Kenya’s more recent entanglements with the likes of the World Bank and Britain’s Department for International Development, Wrong takes a decidedly Paul Wolfowitz-like stand. That is, political systems are at the heart of the problem and must be reformed if there is any hope for the alleviation of poverty — and not just in Kenya.
It’s difficult to argue against Wrong on this point, though the roots and solutions to Kenya’s problems are far more embedded in the country’s past than she suggests. Colonial Kenya — with its white tribe of settlers and administrators, economic monopolies and perpetuation of African tribalism, and a governor who ruled with highly centralized powers and a posse of loyal underlings to support him — bears an uncanny resemblance to the country today. Moreover, while Wrong praises Britain’s former highest-ranking ambassador to Kenya, High Commissioner Edward Clay, and his anti-corruption stance, she fails to mention that, while Clay was making his strongest denunciations of corruption, the full impact of Britain’s colonial violence and coverups was finally being disclosed in Kenya.
Britain’s colonial legacy has undermined its moral authority and continues to influence processes in Kenya, no matter how complicit Africans have been in perpetuating corruption and tribalism. The historical phenomenon of colonialism and its long-term impact vary across the continent, making the trajectory of a former settler colony such as Kenya distinct from that of Ghana, and many other African nations, for that matter. If strongmen are to be eliminated and institutions reformed — as both Obama and Wrong urge — then the historical differences among various African countries, and the ways in which these differences inform and shape present-day governing structures and cultures, must be thoroughly understood.
Caroline Elkins is a professor of history at Harvard University and the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of “Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag in Kenya.”
December 18, 2008
Traditional Political Organisation of the Kikuyu People
Kikuyu political structure
The political organisation of the Kikuyu people was closely interwoven with the family and the riika. A young man after initiation through circumcision automatically entered into the National council of junior warriors(njama ya anake a mumo). After 82 moons or 12 rain seasons after the circumcision ceremony the junior warrior was promoted to theCouncil of senior warriors (Njama ya ita).Together this two councils would be called upon to protect the tribe in case of external aggression. The council of senior warriors was in addition an important decision making organ. The two councils were served by men of 20 – 40 years.Upon marriage a man was initiated into a council called kiama kĩa kamatimo.This was the first grade eldership and it denoted elders who were also warriors. At this stage the man plays the role of observers of senior elders. They are required to assist in proceedings by carrying out menial tasks like skinning animals, being messengers, carrying ceremonial articles or light fires among other tasks.
When a man had a son old enough to be circumcised or a daughter old enough to be married ,he was elevated into another council called the council of peace(kiama kĩa mataathi). On entering this council the man was now a man of peace and no longer of the warrior class. He assumed the duty of peace maker in the community.When a man had had practically all his children circumcised, and his wife (or wives) had passed child-bearing age he reached the last and most honoured status. A council known askiama kĩa maturanguru (religious and sacrificial council).After paying an ewe which was slaughtered and offered in sacrifice to Ngai (God) the man was invested with powers to lead a sacrificial ceremony at the sacred tree (Mũgumũ mũtĩ wa Igongona). The elders of this grade assumed the role of ‘holy men’. They were high priests. All religious and ethical ceremonies were in their hands. In the Agĩkũyũ society the religious,governance and law functions were closely intertwined. With various councils being called upon to perform one of this functions. From the literature I’ve seen it is not quite clear whether women also had councils and what functions these councils served. The initiation ceremony seems to have been organized by a council comprised of both men and women.
Parallel to the said councils the family unit formed a council known as ndundu ya mũcie of which the father was the head. The father as the head of the household then represented the family in the next council called kiama kĩa itora (village council) comprising of all the family heads in the village. This was headed by the senior elder. A wider council called kiama kĩa rũgongo (district council) was formed comprising of all the elders from the district. This was presided over by a committee (kiama kĩa ndundu), composed of all the senior elders in the district. Among the senior elders, the most advanced in age was elected as the head and judge (mũthamaki or mũciiri) of the ndundu. The district councils then came together to form the national council. Among the judges, one was elected to head the meetings.
* by Gikuyu Architecture
October 10, 2008
Regional Decentralization(Majimbo) the way to go!
Right now Kenya needs three things 1.Constituency boundary review. 2.Provincial boundary review. 3.Regional Decentralization
- Reverted back to central Region -Kasarani, Westlands & Dagoretti
July 25, 2008
In the News (Baltimore Sun interviews Joe Wachira & friends)
Over grilled goat meat and Amstel Light, the men banter in a rapid-fire blend of Swahili and English. It’s hot, humid and loud on the gravel patio of this Northeast Baltimore bar, where the tables are covered with thatched umbrellas and Kenyan-style Lingala tunes pulse from a nearby TV.Friday nights at Charlie Brown’s are typically reserved for partying. But on this recent night, it’s all about politics, as conversation centers on Kenya’s most famous son – Barack Obama.
It doesn’t matter that Obama was neither born nor raised in Kenya (his father, also named Barack, was from a small village in Kenya’s Nyanza province). And whether he wins the race for the presidency is somewhat irrelevant. Among this circle of friends, Obama’s nomination alone is cause for celebration, reflection and intense debate.”In Kenyan culture, they consider Barack their son,” said Mike Mugo, a 34-year-old nurse from Baltimore who grew up in Nairobi. “You are a son of Kenya, no matter where you live. And because of that, Kenyans feel immense pride.”But if he is president, how does it help Kenya?” William Gachiri interjected, playing the self-described devil’s advocate.
The exchange reflects a mix of pride, hope and trepidation about Obama’s run for president. The pride is easy to articulate – Obama shares their lineage and appears to care deeply about the east African nation. An Obama presidency could boost Kenya’s reputation in the U.S. and the world, they hope.They also acknowledge that their dreams for an Obama presidency might be too lofty. Surely, Obama alone can’t end ethnic tensions in Kenya, improve diplomatic relations between the U.S. and the world, and run the most powerful nation, they say.
Joe Wachira (left), Jackson Nganga and Mike Mugo
In January, Kenya’s flawed presidential election resulted in ethnic violence between Luos and ethnic Kikuyus, the nation’s most populous ethnic group (which includes President Mwai Kibaki). Obama’s father was a Luo.While many in Kenya reject tribalism, tensions remain, even among Kenyans in the United States, said Mugo, who grew up in Nairobi and moved to Baltimore for college 12 years ago.”It’s very subtle; you see it in the places people choose to hang out,” he said. “I, personally, hate the tribal sentiment, but it is there.”Mugo and the others – all Kikuyu – said Obama’s ethnic ancestry doesn’t matter to them, nor to most Kenyans.At the pool table, Steve Maina of Parkville said he wished Obama spoke out more forcefully against the ethnic strife several months ago.
“Being a presidential candidate in the most powerful country in the world, he needed to do something more to condemn the killing,” said Maina, who is half Kikuyu, half Masai and has lived in Baltimore for 13 years.Gachiri is the first of the four to say he fears Obama’s race will be his chief barrier to the White House.”Race is a huge factor here,” he said, the other men nodding in agreement. “It’s a part of the American social fabric. Just look at Hurricane Katrina.” “Remember what happened to Harold Ford?” chimed in Muchiri Kiiru, a teacher from Cockeysville, referring to the black Tennessee congressman who lost his bid for Senate in 2006 amid allegations of racially tinged ads. “We know about how complicated the South is.”Mugo agreed, saying he feared that Obama will be unable to shake the “black candidate” label, hurting his chances with white voters. Still, Mugo is hopeful.”I believe there is a majority of Americans who are willing to do the right thing, black and white,” he said.Mugo is the constant optimist among his friends and family. His parents, who live in Kenya, have few expectations of an Obama presidency.
“Over the years, they have been disappointed by so much, even by the local politicians next door,” he said. “Why would they expect anything of someone 10,000 miles away?”Nevertheless, like many Kenyans, they see are Obama as an extension of themselves, Mugo said.”If he can do it,” Mugo said, “that means that little boy in the village can aspire to the greatest dream of allIn neighborhoods straddling Baltimore’s northeast border with Baltimore County, Mugo has found a small but tightly knit community of Kenyans of various ethnic groups. About 4,700 Kenyans called Maryland home in 2006, according to the Migration Police Institute. Mugo and others say jokingly that nearly all of them hang out at the patio of Charlie Brown’s.
They come for NyamaChoma, which translates to “grilled meat” in Swahili, a hugely popular Kenyan specialty served in heaping piles on styrofoam plates. The smoky scent of goat ribs wafts between the crowded tables of the dimly lit back patio. Meanwhile, in the front room of the bar – popular with a diverse bunch of native Baltimoreans and Kenyans alike – hip-hop music thumps through speakers.
In a conversation that touched on Kenya’s economic and social problems and the complexities of race in America, the group expressed worries that Obama has a rough campaign ahead and that even if he wins the presidency, his administration might be unable to fulfill their expectations.
Gachiri dryly wonders aloud if too many Kenyans in America support Obama simply because of his lineage.
His three other friends scoff and chide him with laughter. Mugo shakes his head – no way.
“My support for Obama has nothing to do with him being black or Kenyan,” Mugo said. “When I heard his speech at the Democratic National Convention, I started standing. I started cheering. Anybody, black, white, green or yellow, who spoke like this, I would have to identify with them. He appeals to a sense of decency.”
Days after watching Obama’s break-out speech in 2004, Mugo purchased his book, Dreams FromMy Father. He was impressed with Obama’s accomplishments and how candidly he described being raised by a white mother from Kansas, longing to know his father in Kenya and ultimately finding his racial identity.
Obama also expressed deep affection for Kenya, said Joe Wachira, a high school teacher from Middle River. Wachira remembers a photo that appeared in the Kenyan newspaper, The Standard, showing a young Obama on the first of three visits to the country.”He was helping his grandmother carry things, hanging out in the market, just doing the things that we do,” said Wachira intensely. “He blended fairly easy in this Third World country, and that meant a lot to Kenyans.”
And even though Kenyans affectionately call Obama “point 5″ as in 0.5, to connote being half-Kenyan, they consider him every bit one of them, Wachira and others said.Back home, Obama is considered such a hero that some people expect the impossible from him, Wachira said.”They think Kenya has a rich friend in the U.S.,” said Mugo. “For so many years, all we hear about Africa is negative things. Any person who goes and becomes famous and important and is contributing in this nature, they are proud.”
The presumptive Democratic Party nominee receives rock-star treatment in Kenya, where a popular beer called Senator is known simply as “Obama.” His popularity permeates a nation fractured along ethnic lines.
March 2, 2007
The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism
On a visit early this year to Africa , President Bush deplored the genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s, defended his refusal to send U.S. troops to Darfur and decried the ethnic slaughter in Kenya.Following a contested election, the Kikuyu, the dominant tribe in Kenya, have been subjected to merciless assault. People are separating from one another and butchering one another along lines of blood and soil.According to a compelling lead article in the new Foreign Affairs, “Us and Them: The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism,” we may be witnessing in the Third World a re-enactment of the ethnic wars that tore Europe to pieces in the 20th century.”Ethnonationalism,” writes history professor Jerry Z. Muller of Catholic University, “has played a more profound role in modern history than is commonly understood, and the processes that led to the dominance of the ethnonational state and the separation of ethnic groups in Europe are likely to recur elsewhere.”Western Man has mis-taught himself his own history.
“A familiar and influential narrative of 20th-century European history argues that nationalism twice led to war, in 1914 and then again in 1939. Thereafter, the story goes, Europeans concluded that nationalism was a danger and gradually abandoned it. In the postwar decades, Western Europeans enmeshed themselves in a web of transnational institutions, culminating in the European Union.”Muller contends that this is a myth, that peace came to the Old Continent only after the triumph of ethnonationalism, after the peoples of Europe had sorted themselves out and each achieved its own home.
At the beginning of the 20th century, there were three multi-ethnic empires in Europe: the Ottoman, Russian and Austro-Hungarian. The ethnonationalist Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913 tore at the first.World War I was ignited by Serbs seeking to rip Bosnia away from Austria-Hungary. After four years of slaughter, the Serbs succeeded, and ethnonationalism triumphed in Europe.Out of the dead Ottoman Empire came the ethnonationalist state of Turkey and an ethnic transfer of populations between Ankara and Athens. Armenians were massacred and expelled from Turkey.
Out of the Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires came Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. In the latter three nations, however, a majority ethnic group ruled minorities that wished either their own national home, or to join lost kinsmen.
In Poland, there were Ukrainians, Germans, Lithuanians and Jews. In Czechoslovkia, half the population was German, Slovak, Hungarian, Polish, Ruthenian or Jewish. In Yugoslavia were Slovenes, Croats, Bosnians, Serbs, Macedonians, Montenegrins and Albanians.The Second World War came out of Hitler’s attempt to unite all Germans in one ethnonational home—thus the Anschluss with Austria, the demand for return of the Sudeten Deutsch, and the pressure on Poland to return the Germans’ lost city of Danzig, and for Lithuania to give back German Memel and the Memelland it seized in 1923.World War II advanced the process in the most horrible of ways.The Jews of Europe, with no national home, perished, or fled to create one, in Israel.The Germans of the Baltic states, Prussia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Balkans and their own eastern provinces, almost to Berlin, were expelled in the most brutal act of ethnic cleansing in history—13 million to 15 million Germans, of whom 2 million perished in the exodus.At the end of World War II, Europe’s nations were more ethnically homogenous than they had ever been, at a horrendous cost in blood.
After 45 years of Cold War, the remaining multi-ethnic states—the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia—broke up into more than two dozen nation-states, all rooted in ethnonationlism.As Muller argues, ethnonationalism may be a precondition of liberal democracy. Only after all the tribes of Europe had their own ethnically homogenous nation-states did peace and comity come. And what happened in Europe in the 20th century may be a precursor of what is to come in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Asia.
In China, Uighurs, Mongolians and Tibetans all resist assimilation. Tatarstan may be the next problem for Russia. In the Balkans, it is Kosovo. Serbs there and in Bosnia may emulate the Albanians and secede.Many, writes Muller, “find ethnonationalism discomfiting both intellectually and morally. Social scientists go to great lengths to demonstrate that this is a product not of nature but of culture. …”But none of this will make ethnonationalism go away.”Indeed, we see it bubbling up from the Basque country of Spain, to Belgium, Bolivia, Baghdad and Beirut. Perhaps the wisest counsel for Kenya may be to get out of the way of this elemental force. Rather than seek to halt the inexorable, we should seek to accommodate it and ameliorate its sometimes awful consequences.
